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

11–20 of 110 posts

Re: Demoted

#11

Post by powerje »

niels_olson wrote: post #8

having used the Cr48 and a 3g iPad for several months in the US and Japan, I think Apple's vision is more robust, ultimately better for me, the end user. When I'm mobile, whether I'm doing sysadmin, reading, listening to music, I can do more of it, in more locations (especially offline), with better, more reliable apps, on an iPad. edit: reposted here from a comment on the webian group: === I wrote this a few weeks a…

Apple's vision is more robust in the framework presented by Daring Fireball, but is that really correct? Comparing iOS to ChromeOS, yes - but shouldn't he be comparing iOS to Android, which also focusses on native applications for mobile devices?

Re: Demoted

#12

Post by mkramlich »

native vs web is a false choice: it's not like one wins and the other loses. they're both better in different ways. do native for some things where it's a net win, and do web for others where web is a net win. And in terms of capabilities, the line is blurring further, esp from the web side.

Re: Demoted

#13

Post by cageface »

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.

Re: Demoted

#14

Post by melvinram »

jlees wrote: post #6

So, if the next fight will be apps vs web (or screen vs browser), what does this mean for us hackers? And what about Facebook? Already we create a web app, a mobile version, an API, a Chrome extension, a Firefox extension, a Facebook app, not to mention mobile and tablet apps for anywhere between 1 and 6 platforms. Isn't this all getting particularly spaghetti-like? Weren't we supposed to have platform convergence, n…

The various platforms you mention really serve different purposes and users use them with very different intentions.

Re: Demoted

#15

Post by ChrisLTD »

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 you start using enough of these new features, switching away to Android, WebOS or Windows will be a nightmare.

Re: Demoted

#16

Post by gfodor »

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…

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.

Re: Demoted

#17

Post by pyre »

sshumaker wrote: post #10
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.

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 both learn something, instead of "I disagree with you, and I want to let people know that, but I don't want to expose my ideas to possible ridicule so I'll lurk in the background."

Re: Demoted

#18

Post by napierzaza »

"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.

Re: Demoted

#19

Post by pyre »

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.

Though it depends on Apple's licensing terms, Apps that work on multiple platforms have an incentive to allow you to export the data that it syncs with iCloud. They want to keep you as a customer if you jump ship to Android.

Re: Demoted

#20

Post by bane »

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.

It almost sounds like your conjecture is that, in the long run, Apple is destined to lose this.
Post reply on HN