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

81–90 of 143 posts

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#81

Post by evgen »

guelo wrote: post #57
irons wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 witho…

So your argument is that the only company capable of creating competition is Apple. Strange.

Not true. Google could have done the same thing with the remaining carriers when it first introduced Android. The iPhone was dominating to the extent that it was actually shifting subscriber numbers, if Google had really wanted to pull off the same trick as Apple it could have done so. It simply lacked the balls necessary to complete the task and now it is probably too late.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#82

Post by danilocampos »

zmmmmm wrote: post #78
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…

> If you're an end user, the net gain of that openness is zero, and at times it's even a loss I have about 15 home screen widgets, an alternative dialer, alternative browser and a bunch of other programs that would never be allowed on iOS that beg to differ.

I mean, to each his own – but having three steering wheels in my car wouldn't be sufficient incentive to drive something that blasted "SPRINT!" at me every time I opened the door.

Pick the platform you like, by all means, but what you mentioned is more about design decisions than true "openness."

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#83

Post by stcredzero »

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 goal seems to be to get a customer for life, and they do a pretty good job at accomplishing just that.

Apple's bread and butter is the end-to-end UX. Android is the carrier's attempt to get their own enhanced UX arsenal so they can answer Apple. They won't win that way. In the WWII pacific theater, the Japanese started out with more manuverable planes. The US answered not by playing Japan's game, but countering with their own strategy. (Planes with better armor and enhanced performance and more of them.)

Android won't win by playing Apple's game. It will definitely lose if it plays the carrier's game. Android needs to leverage its openness advantage in a way that is understandable to the customer. Perhaps this will be a replay of Apple vs. Wintel?

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#84

Post by chc »

endtime wrote: post #37
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".

It certainly wouldn't be accurate to call most people on that side of the debate "pro-abortion." A lot of them don't like abortion for various reasons, but believe it's the woman's choice. I agree that "pro-choice" is loaded, but it's less euphemistic than "pro-life," which really does just mean "anti-abortion."

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#85

Post by snotrockets »

awakeasleep wrote: post #31
guelo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except it wasn't a real quote. @iaindodsworth (TweetDeck's CEO) wrote today it wasn't: http://twitter.com/#!/iaindodsworth/statuses/27813412620

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#86

Post by xenophanes »

ugh wrote: post #13

Framing is powerful and fascinating game every spokesperson worth its money plays. Steve Jobs talked a lot about fragmentation and brushed openness aside. Why then did Andy Rubin not talk about fragmentation but emphasize openness? Because he is not stupid, that’s why. That’s what makes many of those public fights very frustrating to watch. In a perfect world humans wouldn’t get distracted by frames. They would be ab…

It's not really relevant to your point, but I happen to be a nuclear power advocate who thinks it's safe, clean, and efficient.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#87

Post by lzw »

zmmmmm wrote: post #78
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…

> If you're an end user, the net gain of that openness is zero, and at times it's even a loss I have about 15 home screen widgets, an alternative dialer, alternative browser and a bunch of other programs that would never be allowed on iOS that beg to differ.

For the masses, who buy everything thru the appstore, Apple controls the experience.

But this does not make iOS "closed". You can get whatever widgets you want built using web technologies, and they run like apps.

And if you're a developer, you can put whatever programs you want on your device.

Since all the open advocates should be advocating open source as well, why complain about iOS? IF you want to put open source software on your device, you can just compile it. Apple gives you the development tools for free (the core of which is itself open source) and charges $99 for handling the certificates an authentication for apps.

But you can put any app you want on your iPhone if you're a developer.

IF you're a consumer, you're not capable of compiling apps for your android phone either anyway.

(For some values of "developer" here I'm including enthusiasts who may not really be able to program but are find with compiling code.)

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#88

Post by [deleted] »

dman wrote: post #46
nodata wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#89

Post by sovande »

dman wrote: post #46
nodata wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Linux on the desktop is dead. Didn't you get the memo? http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/10/18/1312214/Desktop-Lin... And it's dead exactly because of fragmentation. I don't think Android will fare any better.

Re: Apple changes words in order to change the debate

#90

Post by GHFigs »

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?

The fragmentation problem for users is that they must be conscious of the deviations of the particular handset/carrier/version/store fragment they are buying in to or potentially suffer the consequences of their ignorance.

That is, the Android phone you buy may be a very different experience than the Android phone I buy, and that creates a lot of opportunity for dissatisfaction internal to the platform which simply would not be there with a strong first-party stance on how things ought to be done.

Post reply on HN