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

Demoted

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 110 posts

Re: Demoted

#51

Post by Alterlife »

jarin wrote: post #46
51Cards wrote: post #25

"Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen." So by extension Google's applications are more cross platform, and Apple's aren't?

In theory this is restrictive and bad, but when every platform you want to use is Apple's it's a different story. When Apple stops making what I consider to be the best computers, the best phones, the best tablets, and the best way to monetize my coding skills, then I'll probably be just as upset as all of the "openness" advocates.

I think the argument goes more like: When somebody else starts making better phones, computers, blah blah... You, and many other users will be so far locked in, you won't be able to switch.

Remember Microsoft?

Re: Demoted

#52

Post by alanfalcon »

napierzaza wrote: post #18

"That’s what we’ll remember about today’s keynote ten years from now." Classic Gruber. I really hope that no one that I know ever mentions a WWDC presentation from a decade before.

Many of the Mac sites have been running retrospectives on past Stevenotes leading up to this one. I ended up re-watching a number of them, and in particular a Q&A session Steve did when he returned to Apple (when Gil was still CEO, and the Clone Saga was ongoing) was extremely interesting. He basically blasted the Newton's usability and described the problems the iPhone solves, and that was just about 5% of the total talk.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEXae1j6EY

Re: Demoted

#53

Post by esrauch »

cageface wrote: post #13
jerrya wrote: post #5

Apple’s is about native apps you run on devices. Apple is as committed to native apps — on the desktop, tablet, and handheld — as it has ever been. Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen. I don't see this conclusion following from his premise. Perhaps there was more in the keynote that he didn't include. Or maybe I am unimaginative and think installing native apps on all of the devices I us…

I don't think this follows either. Google provides many native apps on Android. The real difference is that cloud-based computing is natural for Google but a fundamental shift for Apple.

Except that Android app sales don't pay out to Google, they pay out to Verizon whereas iPhone app sales pay out to Apple.

Google does support a ton of native apps (GMail, Calendar, Places, Goggles, Latitude, Maps, etc) but their strategy going forward seems to try to push these things from apps into the browser, spending a ton of time supporting the mobile browser version of all of these things (except for Goggles).

Re: Demoted

#54

Post by marshray »

meric wrote: post #41
Tiomaidh wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Google wins, hardware will be secondary, and Apple--that thrives on selling hardware--will decline. And it's possible that that will happen...it's also possible that it won't. Apple isn't destined to lose anything. It's just that they have the potential to lose much more than Google does--even if everyone uses Apple hardware, Google can still serve ads to a certain extent.

If Google wins , Apple can still sell commoditized hardware to a certain extent.

No, Apple has never been able to sell commoditized hardware.

Re: Demoted

#55

Post by lurker14 »

thought_alarm wrote: post #34
ChrisLTD wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. A lot of Apple's big announcements today were about features that create lock-in. Your music is tied to a $25 iTunes subscriptions; your reading list, email, calendar, to do list, and office documents are tied to iCloud; they even want your text messaging tied to your iOS devices. Then there's all those apps you bought on the Mac and iOS App Stores that you'll never be able to transfer to another system. If…

> A lot of Apple's big announcements today were > about features that create lock-in. Nonsense. It's only lock-in in that the user is locked into a feature that's really great and useful. In other words, no lock-in at all. Their music and their content hasn't gone anywhere. Their contacts and calendar events are easily shared and exported via standard formats. They only thing they lose by leaving is the great softwar…

10 years after release, iPhoto still cannot export a complete set of user-created photo metadata. 10 years and counting.

Re: Demoted

#56

Post by guptaneil »

gfodor wrote: post #16
ChrisLTD wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. A lot of Apple's big announcements today were about features that create lock-in. Your music is tied to a $25 iTunes subscriptions; your reading list, email, calendar, to do list, and office documents are tied to iCloud; they even want your text messaging tied to your iOS devices. Then there's all those apps you bought on the Mac and iOS App Stores that you'll never be able to transfer to another system. If…

This is a striking point. Up until now, switching costs off of the iPhone were basically a matter of dealing with AT&T. Once the iCloud tentacles are in deep enough it will be nearly impossible to say goodbye to all the licensed content that I only can access through Apple devices.

How does iCloud make it harder to move away from iOS? All of my apps are already locked into iOS, regardless of iCloud. This is true of any OS though.

Re: Demoted

#57

Post by rimantas »

ChrisLTD wrote: post #15
kenjackson wrote: post #7

Gruber is repeating the obvious, but in a convoluted way. Apple is about selling HW. Google is about selling ads. That's it. Everything else falls from that. Google's goal is to commodotize HW, and I this is, at least theoretically, doable. Apple can't really commodotize ads, at least in no way I can think of.

Exactly. A lot of Apple's big announcements today were about features that create lock-in. Your music is tied to a $25 iTunes subscriptions; your reading list, email, calendar, to do list, and office documents are tied to iCloud; they even want your text messaging tied to your iOS devices. Then there's all those apps you bought on the Mac and iOS App Stores that you'll never be able to transfer to another system. If…

  > Your music is tied to a $25 iTunes subscriptions
But it is not.

  > they even want your text messaging tied to your iOS
  > devices
Another way to look at it: your text messaging is freed from your carrier.

  > Then there's all those apps you bought on the Mac and iOS App
  > Stores that you'll never be able to transfer to another system.
How is that different from any other system?

Re: Demoted

#58

Post by othermaciej »

pyre wrote: post #17
sshumaker wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's goal isn't to commoditize ads, but to commoditize the software that runs on their hardware. And they've done an excellent job of that with the app store - with hundreds of thousands of apps available.

I think that the point was that Google's revenue stream doesn't seem to be easily commodotizable, while Apple's (at least theoretically) is. update: Downvotes? In my HN? I was just clarifying what I thought the original author was getting at, which wasn't what the parent post to mine was arguing against. If you have a disagreement with what I say, then argue against it, rather than just down-voting. Then maybe we can…

The point of commoditization is to commoditize your complements. It's clear that hardware and software are a complement to ads, and software is a complement to hardware. Are ads a complement to hardware?

Re: Demoted

#59

Post by sunchild »

patrickaljord wrote: post #37
matthew-wegner wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I don't know. The 2001 Macworld keynote that outlines the "digital hub" is still fascinating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9046oXrm7f8 It's remarkably prescient in a lot of ways. Take this quote: Digital cameras now constitute 15% of all cameras sold in the US. 15% percent. It'll be 50% in a few years. He also makes the point that a hub is necessary because of all these various devices can't talk to the Interne…

> Digital cameras now constitute 15% of all cameras sold in the US. 15% percent. It'll be 50% in a few years. Really? That's the same thought I had the first time I saw a usable digital camera 10 years ago, and I don't think I'm special or that I was the only one...

Do you have a link to your keynote speech? The one where you committed your publicly-traded company to this strategy?

Re: Demoted

#60

Post by rimantas »

Alterlife wrote: post #51
jarin wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory this is restrictive and bad, but when every platform you want to use is Apple's it's a different story. When Apple stops making what I consider to be the best computers, the best phones, the best tablets, and the best way to monetize my coding skills, then I'll probably be just as upset as all of the "openness" advocates.

I think the argument goes more like: When somebody else starts making better phones, computers, blah blah... You, and many other users will be so far locked in, you won't be able to switch. Remember Microsoft?

  > When somebody else starts making better phones,
  > computers, blah blah...
What would be your guess, when will be the time when you can start editing your document on Windows machine at work, tweak some on your tablet at home, and then show to someone on your phone without hitting "save" and "export" at all?

Even is Dell starts to make better computers than Apple, HTC—better phones, and HP—better tablets Apple would have an huge advantage of seamless experience.

Post reply on HN