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

21–30 of 110 posts

Re: Demoted

#21

Post by napierzaza »

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 very narrow understanding about what businesses do. They don't think of things that lock in users. They think of features that people will want to use. Solutions to peoples problems, even ones they didn't know they had.

So if you're good enough at that, people have trouble giving up your platform or service. Calling it lock in is just good features and service in a negative light.

"Oh, Apple does great to replace things when they break, but it's just lock in. It's not actually good service."

Re: Demoted

#23

Post by Tiomaidh »

bane wrote: post #20
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.

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.

Re: Demoted

#24

Post by ChrisLTD »

napierzaza wrote: post #21
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 very narrow understanding about what businesses do. They don't think of things that lock in users. They think of features that people will want to use. Solutions to peoples problems, even ones they didn't know they had. So if you're good enough at that, people have trouble giving up your platform or service. Calling it lock in is just good features and service in a negative light. "Oh, Apple does great to r…

Sure, thinking of good features is the first step. But then isn't the next step figuring out how to make money?

Re: Demoted

#25

Post by 51Cards »

"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?

Re: Demoted

#26

Post by paulirish »

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…

> offline use remains fundamental

Absolutely agree. The ChromeOS platform is absolutely focused on offline capability as well. A huge number of apps within the Chrome Web Store work offline without any connectivity. Many regular web apps work offline. All of Google Apps will within a few months.

I think many people forget that you can take web apps offline, perhaps because launching a mobile browser while you have no connectivity feels so awkward. Anyway it's just a myth to be dispelled, and some remaining evangelism work to be done. (Disclaimer: I work on the Chrome team or whatever.)

Re: Demoted

#27

Post by stcredzero »

I don't think Apple is about native so much as Apple is about making the best integrated services for devices and selling those devices. Apple isn't native-oriented so much as device oriented. It's just that native apps fill a large and indispensable niche right now.

Re: Demoted

#28

Post by tedunangst »

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…

Are your reading list, email, calendar, to do list, and office documents not tied to the google cloud? If you use enough of them, isn't switching to yahoo/msn/apple going to be a nightmare? There doesn't appear to be much difference to me.

Also, minor point, your music is not tied to a subscription. The syncing is. Cancel the subscription, keep the files.

Re: Demoted

#29

Post by c0riander »

napierzaza wrote: post #21
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 very narrow understanding about what businesses do. They don't think of things that lock in users. They think of features that people will want to use. Solutions to peoples problems, even ones they didn't know they had. So if you're good enough at that, people have trouble giving up your platform or service. Calling it lock in is just good features and service in a negative light. "Oh, Apple does great to r…

Creating switching costs is in fact a regular market strategy and is certainly more than just doing something so well that people will have trouble giving it up.

Facebook has switching costs because all your friends are on it, not on another network, plus you'd have to learn a whole new set of privacy settings, right? The Kindle has switching costs because all your books are in your Kindle library and you can't transfer them to the Nook. Moving has switching costs because you have to give people a new address, learn a new neighborhood, memorize new driving routes, etc.

Strong businesses often have very natural switching costs built in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switching_costs

Re: Demoted

#30

Post by RyanMcGreal »

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…

Divergence = competition = innovation.

The worst thing that could happen is One Platform To Rule Them All, if that platform is controlled by a company for its own interests.

Post reply on HN