Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple changes words in order to change the debate

37signals.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 143 posts

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#31

Post by awakeasleep »

guelo wrote: post #17
zacharydanger wrote: post #8

Jobs begs the question: Are the users actually the system integrators? What does that even mean anyway?

Exactly. And what does fragmented and integrated mean in the context of a consumer? I've heard fragmented as far as developers go but consumers just get a device and normally keep it for at least 2 years. How is fragmentation hurting them and what integration is it that they're doing?

One way this 'fragmentation' can hurt users is by removing some developer's incentive to build on the platform.

I believe that is what the Tweetdeck quote was about, anyway.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#32

Post by silvestrov »

guelo wrote: post #26
danilocampos wrote: post #14

It's easy to look at this cynically but it's not unreasonable to change the conversation. Google's exploitation of "open" has been disingenuous at best. When you try to square their high ideals against reality, you end up in an uncomfortable spot. The fact is, Android's openness does not make it to the end user . Its openness is exploited for the benefit of the carriers to load branded crapware onto the device, disab…

The openness reaches the consumer via competition. There will be many Android offerings from many manufacturers with a thousand different configurations and offered by all the carriers. HTC vs Motorola vs Samsung vs LG, Tmobile vs ATT vs Sprint vs Verizon, all trying to outdo each other. The winner is the consumer, even the Apple consumer because the competition will keep Jobs raving mad and working hard.

Lookup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly

There are very few carriers in the US and they all have the same motivation for locking the phones. The number of phone models don't matter.

Heck, why is there so little competition between ISPs and carriers in the US? Cheap 100 Mbit internet connection, anyone?

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#33

Post by larsu »

danilocampos wrote: post #14

It's easy to look at this cynically but it's not unreasonable to change the conversation. Google's exploitation of "open" has been disingenuous at best. When you try to square their high ideals against reality, you end up in an uncomfortable spot. The fact is, Android's openness does not make it to the end user . Its openness is exploited for the benefit of the carriers to load branded crapware onto the device, disab…

The amount of crippling done by the carriers is not Android's fault nor is it in any way advantaged by Android being open. The same crapware has been on Symbian and other (closed) mobile operating systems for a long time.

Apple is the only manufacturer that was able to convince carriers to sell their phones without any of that garbage. I don't know what is stopping HTC/Motorala/Samsung from trying to enforce similar conditions for its Android-based devices. I guess the carriers simply have too much control over what gets into the market and refuse to sell anything that they aren't allowed to tamper with.

However, I agree with you that the Android brand will suffer very badly from this.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#34

Post by irons »

guelo wrote: post #26
danilocampos wrote: post #14

It's easy to look at this cynically but it's not unreasonable to change the conversation. Google's exploitation of "open" has been disingenuous at best. When you try to square their high ideals against reality, you end up in an uncomfortable spot. The fact is, Android's openness does not make it to the end user . Its openness is exploited for the benefit of the carriers to load branded crapware onto the device, disab…

The openness reaches the consumer via competition. There will be many Android offerings from many manufacturers with a thousand different configurations and offered by all the carriers. HTC vs Motorola vs Samsung vs LG, Tmobile vs ATT vs Sprint vs Verizon, all trying to outdo each other. The winner is the consumer, even the Apple consumer because the competition will keep Jobs raving mad and working hard.

If you want to make the claim that the carriers are likely to duke it out and deliver any net value to the end-user, you're going to have to make a much stronger case than handwaving about competition. We're already talking about wireless carriers, so the subject of market failure shouldn't be alien to your frame of reference.

The only material improvement I see in the last five years is the market power that Apple has managed to steal from them, which it's put to mostly-good use.

Until Google is willing to start throwing its weight around with the user experience, Android represents no net gain to my thinking. But Google can't even enforce minimal backward compatibility or timely updates to its hardware partners, and is now running actively in reverse, painting a smiley-face on the carriers' opening up their own balkanized app stores. How does that serve Android developers or users?

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#35

Post by noilly »

napierzaza wrote: post #10

Debating 101: Frame the argument. Both sides of any argument do this. Google by calling it "open" which means more than it really does. Apple doesn't debate it's not open, it just debates that the results aren't any good because of the confusion of choices. "Open" is supposed to be a good thing, Apple doesn't believe it is. But the fact is that Apple is crying about it, they're explaining why they made the decisions…

Exactly. An old, old technique. Do people still study rhetoric in school, grumble grumble?

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#36

Post by burgerbrain »

SlyShy wrote: post #9
burgerbrain wrote: post #3

Oldest trick in the book. It's good to see the tech industry catch up with what politicians discovered centuries ago.

Why would be it good to see an industry take cues from the least honest profession?

I wrote that with sarcasm dripping from my words, but I suppose it didn't translate.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#37

Post by endtime »

napierzaza wrote: post #10

Debating 101: Frame the argument. Both sides of any argument do this. Google by calling it "open" which means more than it really does. Apple doesn't debate it's not open, it just debates that the results aren't any good because of the confusion of choices. "Open" is supposed to be a good thing, Apple doesn't believe it is. But the fact is that Apple is crying about it, they're explaining why they made the decisions…

>That's why people are "Pro Life" not anti-abortion.

That's a pretty touchy example. Honestly, I've always thought that "pro-choice" was stretching the truth more than "pro-life".

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#38

Post by rufo »

sjs382 wrote: post #18
danilocampos wrote: post #14

It's easy to look at this cynically but it's not unreasonable to change the conversation. Google's exploitation of "open" has been disingenuous at best. When you try to square their high ideals against reality, you end up in an uncomfortable spot. The fact is, Android's openness does not make it to the end user . Its openness is exploited for the benefit of the carriers to load branded crapware onto the device, disab…

"The fact is, Android's openness does not make it to the end user." Android's openness has made it to those who want the openness. The fact that my phone OS is open is the thing I care about. (I'm running SkyRaider 3.3 on my HTC Incredible on Verizon.)

That's great for now, but phone manufacturers seem to be trying to close down holes as fast as they can - see the Droid X and G2.

(Not that people won't figure out ways around them, but if Android were truly open to users you wouldn't need exploits to get around limitations...)

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#39

Post by mike-cardwell »

danilocampos wrote: post #14

It's easy to look at this cynically but it's not unreasonable to change the conversation. Google's exploitation of "open" has been disingenuous at best. When you try to square their high ideals against reality, you end up in an uncomfortable spot. The fact is, Android's openness does not make it to the end user . Its openness is exploited for the benefit of the carriers to load branded crapware onto the device, disab…

I keep hearing about the "branded crapware" that comes with lots of Android phones. I've had a G1 since they first came out, it didn't have anything like that on it, and I haven't upgraded yet. I know this does happen though, but I'm not sure to what extent? What proportion of new Android phones have this? 90%? 5%?

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#40

Post by guelo »

irons wrote: post #34
guelo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The openness reaches the consumer via competition. There will be many Android offerings from many manufacturers with a thousand different configurations and offered by all the carriers. HTC vs Motorola vs Samsung vs LG, Tmobile vs ATT vs Sprint vs Verizon, all trying to outdo each other. The winner is the consumer, even the Apple consumer because the competition will keep Jobs raving mad and working hard.

If you want to make the claim that the carriers are likely to duke it out and deliver any net value to the end-user, you're going to have to make a much stronger case than handwaving about competition. We're already talking about wireless carriers, so the subject of market failure shouldn't be alien to your frame of reference. The only material improvement I see in the last five years is the market power that Apple h…

Don't you think Apple "managed to steal" the AT&T deal because of AT&T's competition with Verizon?
Post reply on HN