Live data from Hacker News

Only Apple

daringfireball.net

101–110 of 182 posts

Re: Only Apple

#101
post #70

Sorry to disagree with Gruber, but I don't think a set of devices made by one company is the future. It's always been Apple's play, in part because of the consistency of experience that it affords them, but it also let's them off the hook on the hard problems--device interop, working with varied OEMs, etc. Whether open (Google) or closed (Microsoft), platforms that run on multiple OEM devices are the right way forwar…

>I feel like we're living in a constant world of incompatible systems whose (nearly) sole purpose is to "own the market": VHS vs. Beta, GSM vs. CDMA, Canon vs. Nikon lenses, and so on.

It is almost always the case that a company desires a monopoly on its market - despite whatever thin endorsement of "strong competition" they espouse.

Re: Only Apple

#102
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google and Amazon both understand the web a whole heck of a lot better than Apple I really doubt this. Google yes. Amazon no. What has Amazon did that shows it "gets" the Cloud? It has its one (and that's it) highly succesful store front (which is like a Google that only offered the search service). That's is, as far as the Cloud goes for Amazon. As for AWS, the do get cloud infrastructure and services to developer…

There are different layers of the cloud: IaaS, PaaS and SaaS. The only layer Apple gets is SaaS and really only for its own apps/services. Apple keeps trying to do PaaS, but the anti-decentralization and specifically wall-garden approach of a seemless experience across all your Apple devices, but a sometimes intentionally crippled experience across other devices you own and a certainly deficient experience with devic…

I already aknowledged Amazon has a fine IaaS in AWS, but that's not really what we were talking about. The cloud we were talking about is the SaaS part.

Apple doesn't do IaaS anyway (at all), so it makes no sense to compare offerings in this area with Apple's.

For the SaaS that Apple does, it has huge successes with iCloud and iTMS and the App Store.

We might find them klunky or whatever (compared to what? Google Play? Kindle's sync?), but if it was a third party company called iTunes that had the #1 music store in the U.S, it would be hailed as a huge success in itself. And for Apple it's just a byproduct, and coming from a company with no roots in the music business at all when it started it.

>a certainly deficient experience with devices owned by others with whom you may want to share an experience, Apple will always be second fiddle.

At least Apple has the "seamlessly between Apple devices" right. There are platforms that even between devices of that one platform the sharing experience is subpar.

But, as someone who works with Windows and Linux too, and has an iPhone and a cheap Android phone, I really don't see any platform that does this cross-platform sharing thing any better ("first fiddle").

How's sharing from Android to iOS or Windows Phone or PC any better?

Re: Only Apple

#103

This is largely true, but it draws the playing field Apple wants you to see. There is a large part of the playing field that is omitted, cloud, the web and the Internet in general. And this playing field alone is as important as all the playing fields Apple is competent in combined. Apple is second to last in that respect. Google and Amazon both understand the web a whole heck of a lot better than Apple. Only Samsung…

I think this points to Apple's fundamental weakness: when they can't control the experience, their efforts are second-rate.

It's a weird binary behavior that's tied to the pre-internet days. You buy into Apple's ecosystem and you do Apple-y things and you'll have a world class experience, a 9 or 10 on a 10 point scale.

But as soon as you start interfacing with anything else, especially something messy like the Internet, and hold onto your pants because you have no idea what the experience is going to be like, but you can guarantee it won't be better than a 5 out of 10 at best.

As much as other companies might like to provide an Apple-like walled garden (and I'll completely agree that previous attempts by non-Apples have been 3 out of 10s at best), they fundamentally understand that there is a bigger world out there. It's much harder to interface with the rest of the world, it is messy, but you can bring some kind of sanity to it if you work at it. These companies work really hard to provide a 7 or 8 out of 10 experience while Apple provides a 5. And they're rewarded for it. They hit these perfectly reasonable experience levels in-spite of the underlying mess they have to deal with, and they manage to make viable businesses out of it. What's more remarkable to me is that despite Apple controlling 100% of the experience in the Apple ecosystem, they aren't a perfect 10.

I think this magnifies the flaws even more and makes them more damning and I think a surprising amount of it backfires. Otherwise Apple would absolutely dominate the market, but it doesn't.

Where Apple does talk to the outside world, it's an acknowledgment that it's simply cheaper to deliver content through proprietary end-to-end points over the Internet rather than build the infrastructure themselves. But it's such a begrudging acknowledgment and the result is a collective "meh" out of Apple. "It's not part of us, so why really try?" Make no mistake, if Apple could replace Internet connectivity with a global AppleTalk network to deliver music and videos to you and ensure no unclean non-Apple users weren't dirtying up the bandwidth, they would.

The goal of other companies then is to try to hit the feel of this kind of tight vertical integration that Apple has, but to do it across vendors, networks, software, etc...to do it in a non-integrated way. And you know what? It's not bad. It's not Apple-level, but you have to admit the Internet, the Web, etc. all that is pretty bad ass. These things that we take for granted are the result of a decidedly non-Apple, very open, approach that benefits people far more in the balance.

>Apple is second to last in that respect. Google and Amazon both understand the web a whole heck of a lot better than Apple. Only Samsung understands the web less than Apple.

Then again, Samsung and Apple are two of the largest companies in the world. So maybe they're doing something right.

Re: Only Apple

#104
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I tried to download a television show on iTunes it took 40 minutes before the iPad thought it was sufficiently buffered to begin playback. That was on my local 5GHz 802.11n backhauled over 100mbps cable. Every time I want to watch something on Amazon Instant Video, Netflix, or Google Play they all start more or less instantly. I would argue that Google also has a superior app store buying experience, in at…

> Last time I tried to download a television show on iTunes it took 40 minutes... That video was almost certainly coming from a CDN. If you were experiencing connection difficulties to that CDN, I'm not so sure you can claim that's Apple's fault.

Using a 3rd party doesn't absolve the first party of responsibility for customer experience. In the iTunes case, the experience was bad, and incongruous with the rest of the iOS experience, which is usually good. That's why I reach for my iPad instead of my Nexus 7 more often than not, because I don't have time to waste on Android bullshit (and anyway, usually the Android's battery is dead). But if I pay for a TV show and then can't watch it until 40 minutes later, that's a terrible experience and it put me off iTunes for TV shows, forever.

Re: Only Apple

#105
post #70

Sorry to disagree with Gruber, but I don't think a set of devices made by one company is the future. It's always been Apple's play, in part because of the consistency of experience that it affords them, but it also let's them off the hook on the hard problems--device interop, working with varied OEMs, etc. Whether open (Google) or closed (Microsoft), platforms that run on multiple OEM devices are the right way forwar…

Its odd to imply that Apple iOS has a worse developer experience than Google. IMO, MS is far and away the best but if I had the choice of targeting Apple's 5 devices vs Android 1000, I'd choose Apple. I have not heard spectacular things about Android development, especially with regards to fragmentation that would lead me to believe that from a developer POV Google is better than Apple. Granted that this is only for mobile.

Doubling down on mobile, say what you want about the walled garden, but it seems in "developer" experience Apple also wins when you consider the size of their developer eco systems. The App Store simply makes more money and it still seems that the iPhone still gets preferential treatment.

In the end open vs. closed or single OEM vs multi OEM doesn't seem to matter.

Re: Only Apple

#106
post #77
post #70

Sorry to disagree with Gruber, but I don't think a set of devices made by one company is the future. It's always been Apple's play, in part because of the consistency of experience that it affords them, but it also let's them off the hook on the hard problems--device interop, working with varied OEMs, etc. Whether open (Google) or closed (Microsoft), platforms that run on multiple OEM devices are the right way forwar…

>Whether open (Google) or closed (Microsoft), platforms that run on multiple OEM devices are the right way forward. I don't know about others, but I don't want to live in a world where my only option to control my house, car, and life is to go to an Apple store. At least Google and Microsoft give us some choices. Platforms that run on multiple OEMs might be good, but you haven't proven that. Those choices would be go…

> Those choices would be good if they actually delivered a better experience than Apple's vertical integration.

"Experience" is not the only axis of a successful strategy.

Re: Only Apple

#107
post #70

Sorry to disagree with Gruber, but I don't think a set of devices made by one company is the future. It's always been Apple's play, in part because of the consistency of experience that it affords them, but it also let's them off the hook on the hard problems--device interop, working with varied OEMs, etc. Whether open (Google) or closed (Microsoft), platforms that run on multiple OEM devices are the right way forwar…

"I don't know about others, but I don't want to live in a world where my only option to control my house, car, and life is to go to an Apple store." Me either. Even so, I still believe Apple got the model right. If only we could live in a world where we have a healthy competitive ecosystem of Apple-like companies. Then you would have many options at hand to control your house, car, and life.

> If only we could live in a world where we have a healthy competitive ecosystem of Apple-like companies.

That would require these companies to share interoperability specification. Something Apple tries mightily to not do.

All that being said, Apple definitely sets the gold standard on the user-experience axis, and the entire landscape is better for it.

Re: Only Apple

#108
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Last time I tried to download a television show on iTunes it took 40 minutes... That video was almost certainly coming from a CDN. If you were experiencing connection difficulties to that CDN, I'm not so sure you can claim that's Apple's fault.

Using a 3rd party doesn't absolve the first party of responsibility for customer experience. In the iTunes case, the experience was bad, and incongruous with the rest of the iOS experience, which is usually good. That's why I reach for my iPad instead of my Nexus 7 more often than not, because I don't have time to waste on Android bullshit (and anyway, usually the Android's battery is dead). But if I pay for a TV sho…

One single bad experience which could have just as easily been caused by your ISP, or even by you (e.g. by using a DNS provider that interacts badly with CDN geolocation), turns you off forever from a service that otherwise acts better than its competitors? That's a rather extreme statement to make.

Besides, do you really think the competing services don't have the same potential for problems with whatever delivery network they're using?

Re: Only Apple

#109
post #70

Sorry to disagree with Gruber, but I don't think a set of devices made by one company is the future. It's always been Apple's play, in part because of the consistency of experience that it affords them, but it also let's them off the hook on the hard problems--device interop, working with varied OEMs, etc. Whether open (Google) or closed (Microsoft), platforms that run on multiple OEM devices are the right way forwar…

"I don't know about others, but I don't want to live in a world where my only option to control my house, car, and life is to go to an Apple store." Me either. Even so, I still believe Apple got the model right. If only we could live in a world where we have a healthy competitive ecosystem of Apple-like companies. Then you would have many options at hand to control your house, car, and life.

We need forward thinking investors like pmarca to drop some of the VC cash on the W3C standards process. We have the most amount of innovations and investible companies when there are more open APIs. The image tag, the current implementation of which was first coded by pmarca, enabled tons of startups, the biggest of which are companies instagram, facebook, imgur, etc.

The one API that is languishing at the W3C that would help us immensely is the Contacts API. Right now your contacts is effectively owned by companies like Google (via Android), Facebook, and Apple (via iOS). Every other company that wants access to your address book for the purpose of a social experience, needs to go through those three gatekeepers 99% of the time.

The ideal gatekeeper of your contacts should be the browser. The term for them is "user agent", i.e. it acts as an agent on behalf of the user. Right now there are a lot of "skills" these user agents lack. Investing in giving them more skills creates more decentralization and debases the power of the giants we resent.

Re: Only Apple

#110
post #103

This is largely true, but it draws the playing field Apple wants you to see. There is a large part of the playing field that is omitted, cloud, the web and the Internet in general. And this playing field alone is as important as all the playing fields Apple is competent in combined. Apple is second to last in that respect. Google and Amazon both understand the web a whole heck of a lot better than Apple. Only Samsung…

I think this points to Apple's fundamental weakness: when they can't control the experience, their efforts are second-rate. It's a weird binary behavior that's tied to the pre-internet days. You buy into Apple's ecosystem and you do Apple-y things and you'll have a world class experience, a 9 or 10 on a 10 point scale. But as soon as you start interfacing with anything else, especially something messy like the Intern…

Excellent comment.

The only thing I would contest is the last comment about Samsung. It is like 1/3 of South Korea's economy, but its not a true comparable because it functions more like a keiretsu [0]. At it's core, it's a bank that finances many companies operating in different industries that cooperate when it makes sense. They are a giant in computing, but they also draw a ton of strength from other lines of business. For example, Samsung Heavy Industries is one of the biggest builders of large cargo container ships in the world. There are many more lines of business like this.

On that note, one reason for Apple's ability to deliver a 9/10 experience with a closed ecosystem is because it can afford to. There would be a lot more companies able to deliver a 9 out of 10 closed experience if they had the cash reserves Apple does. Cash funds the development of perfected services, but more importantly it affords Apple's leadership the luxury to focus on the long-term. When cash is an issue, companies have to make trade-offs that compromise on building the foundation to get to a 9 out of 10 experience. Apple never has to compromise. They just need to make sure there is a market and then build out the foundational layers of the onion necessary to build a unified experience including complementary products and services that make the difference between a 7 out of 10 experience and a 9 out of 10 experience.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiretsu

Post reply on HN