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

41–50 of 143 posts

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#41

Post by iampims »

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…

One fact I'll give to Google about being open, is the applications marketplace. You can install any app you fancy. The Appstore is a different story.

But so far, I haven't found any compelling reason to give up on the integrated, user-friendly, clean experience possible provided by Apple.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#42

Post by danilocampos »

matwood wrote: post #27
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…

You make a lot of great points. If we are to believe the rumors that Apple offered the first iPhone to VZW, but refused to let VZW screw it up it adds to your point about the carriers being the real problem. I have to wonder if that is still a sticking point and one of the reasons that VZW has yet to get the iPhone. Apple is no less ruthless with its control, but it exercises it for a different purpose: To deliver th…

> Apples end goal is also to make money. What Apple has figured out though is that by making great products that for the most part work, people will buy and buy and buy

Definitely true. My preference for Apple comes from exactly this fact. They take the long view for making money. Making money by making things people love is something that's a fine deal for me – everyone gets a great value. Apple turns down many short term opportunities to goose their revenues because they refuse to ship something they can't be proud of.

Carriers take the short term view, at the expense of their product and their users. This is so frustrating to me.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#43

Post by vaporstun »

iampims wrote: post #41
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…

One fact I'll give to Google about being open, is the applications marketplace. You can install any app you fancy. The Appstore is a different story. But so far, I haven't found any compelling reason to give up on the integrated, user-friendly, clean experience possible provided by Apple.

True that you can install any app you want with Android, but on many devices, the Android Market is simply not available. It depends on the device and whether or not they've gotten the blessing from Google. So yes, they are open in that you can sideload apps, but the failure to have the Market on all of their devices is another side effect of this fragmentation. At least with Apple, you know there will be an Appstore on which you can get apps on every device they sell.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#45

Post by thwarted »

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…

Apple is no less ruthless with its control, but it exercises it for a different purpose: To deliver the most integrated, user-friendly, clean experience possible.

One doesn't require "ruthless control" to "deliver the most integrated, user-friendly, clean experience possible". Apple could relax its control a little and let people who want to use their hardware for other purposes, and void the warranty, do so easily. This wouldn't take away at all from the experience that Apple wants to provide out of the box.

Apple uses ruthless control to control its branding.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#46

Post by dman »

nodata wrote: post #23
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'm not sure Android can ever be truly open. As far as I know (please correct me if I am wrong) the firmware that Motorola or HTC (or whoever) ships works around bugs that the vanilla Android does not address (e.g. the Motorola Droid camera). So even if I bypass the carrier and install vanilla Android myself, I might not get a fully functional phone. So I install the firmware directly from the manufacturer, and here…

How is this different than the linux kernel for regular PC's. Theres hardware shortcomings in abundance that are worked around. If the process was truly open, a reputable tree would emerge with said workarounds. The mobile market is nowhere near as fragmented as the PC + peripherals market and yet open software works pretty reliably on the PC.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#47

Post by irons »

guelo wrote: post #40
irons wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

My point is that the "competitive market" you'd applauding was designed by the carriers with the specific goal of preventing anyone from ever doing what Apple did.

That Apple was able to do it was marvelous, but it was also stupendously unlikely: a combination of the willingness to enter an unpromising market, the ability to pull it off, and the timing to convince a weakened Cingular to let them produce a phone without undue interference. It had never happened before, and Android doesn't make it more likely to happen again -- quite the opposite, really.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#50

Post by adbge »

andreyf wrote: post #24
sjs382 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.)

Even ignoring that 99.9% of users don't know the meaning of "open source", I'll believe Android is truly open in the FSF sense I care about when RMS uses one. Until then, I have trouble as seeing it as much more than rhetoric. Sure, you can compile and put your own OS on your phone, but I don't know of anyone who's actually done it (and nodata points out in an uncle to this post that you can't actually do it on some…

> I'll believe Android is truly open in the FSF sense I care about when RMS uses one.

I don't think you appreciate how restrictive that is. The only example of open hardware is the Yeelong, since that's what Stallman uses. The only open source distro is gNewsense, etc.

Post reply on HN