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

Google doesn't get 'social', but Apple doesn't understand the Internet

decipher.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 92 posts

Re: Google doesn't get 'social', but Apple doesn't understand the Internet

#31

Post by joshes »

The author claims that Google doesn't "get" social because social relies on messiness and Google's forte is providing order. However, Facebook, an organization who does seem to understand social exceedingly well, is known for its emphasis on organization. We see stories about the higher-ups in Facebook, such as Zuckerberg, and their heavy hitters whom have gone on to other projects (colloquially known as the "Facebook Mafia") all sharing this desire to organize messy, chaotic information across numerous domains.

If Facebook succeeds in social, at least in part because of its attention to order and organization, why is this fatal for Google?

Re: Google doesn't get 'social', but Apple doesn't understand the Internet

#32

Post by eftpotrm »

sfphotoarts wrote: post #5
apress wrote: post #2

Apps are a return to the walled garden -- the anti-Internet, if you will.

No they are not! apps mostly use the internet for their data, but provide a richer UX than what a web browser can do. The internet is the underpinning of most apps.

But so much of the beauty of the Internet is its portable ubiquity; I can write a website once and it's available in much the same format to Windows, MacOS, Unix, iOS, Android.... you name it. Whereas in the mobile world we're seeing _millions_ spent on creating what are essentially platform-specific mobile data clients in parallel versions. They're barely even superior to what's possible with HTML now. This is madness.

Re: Google doesn't get 'social', but Apple doesn't understand the Internet

#33

Post by philsalesses »

joshes wrote: post #31

The author claims that Google doesn't "get" social because social relies on messiness and Google's forte is providing order. However, Facebook, an organization who does seem to understand social exceedingly well, is known for its emphasis on organization. We see stories about the higher-ups in Facebook, such as Zuckerberg, and their heavy hitters whom have gone on to other projects (colloquially known as the "Faceboo…

In my opinion, facebook can see order where others would see chaos. Order does not mean hierarchical yet too often those are the buckets information is placed in. Facebook identifies hubs and organize things around those hubs. Flexible yet rigid organizational structures are the future.

Re: Google doesn't get 'social', but Apple doesn't understand the Internet

#34

Post by btmorex »

pohl wrote: post #15
larrik wrote: post #9

Exhibit A: iTunes (the service) is essentially blocked off from being accessed by people who don't have iTunes (the program) installed. This becomes VERY obvious if you run Linux. The App Store and the iTune music library are not easily searchable or browseable from your Linux PC. 3rd party websites that do this instead aren't really the point, either.

I don't think that makes a very compelling exhibit, given that "the internet" is not "all things you can get to via a web browser". The internet, rather, is IP, TCP, UDP, etc...and every protocol built on top of it. This includes HTTP & HTML (which iTunes leverages heavily) but also a many other things that are not browser-oriented. Regardless, I think your exhibit is more easily explained by Apple understanding exac…

but I have to admit that the linux users are the most tight-fisted demographic I've ever seen.

This seems to suggest the exact opposite of what you just said: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28471/Humble_Indie_Bundle...

Re: Google doesn't get 'social', but Apple doesn't understand the Internet

#37

Post by redial »

eftpotrm wrote: post #32
sfphotoarts wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they are not! apps mostly use the internet for their data, but provide a richer UX than what a web browser can do. The internet is the underpinning of most apps.

But so much of the beauty of the Internet is its portable ubiquity; I can write a website once and it's available in much the same format to Windows, MacOS, Unix, iOS, Android.... you name it. Whereas in the mobile world we're seeing _millions_ spent on creating what are essentially platform-specific mobile data clients in parallel versions. They're barely even superior to what's possible with HTML now. This is madne…

A lot of people are making the same mistake in this thread. the web != the internet. By focusing only on the web you are leaving out other great, open technologies that helped the internet become ubiquitous. IRC, FTP, VoIP, IM, USENET, just to name a few.

Yes, HTML is a big part of the internet, maybe even the biggest, but its not the only one.

Re: Google doesn't get 'social', but Apple doesn't understand the Internet

#38

Post by glhaynes »

eftpotrm wrote: post #32
sfphotoarts wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they are not! apps mostly use the internet for their data, but provide a richer UX than what a web browser can do. The internet is the underpinning of most apps.

But so much of the beauty of the Internet is its portable ubiquity; I can write a website once and it's available in much the same format to Windows, MacOS, Unix, iOS, Android.... you name it. Whereas in the mobile world we're seeing _millions_ spent on creating what are essentially platform-specific mobile data clients in parallel versions. They're barely even superior to what's possible with HTML now. This is madne…

They're barely even superior to what's possible with HTML now.

If this were really the case — not just in a spec-sheet way but in a user experience way — why are all these companies making apps?

Re: Google doesn't get 'social', but Apple doesn't understand the Internet

#39

Post by fryguy »

larrik wrote: post #9

Exhibit A: iTunes (the service) is essentially blocked off from being accessed by people who don't have iTunes (the program) installed. This becomes VERY obvious if you run Linux. The App Store and the iTune music library are not easily searchable or browseable from your Linux PC. 3rd party websites that do this instead aren't really the point, either.

Exhibit B: In order to do things with your iPhone (like download podcasts, or update firmware), you need to plug it in to your computer and have it do a sync. The phone is on the internet, why do you need to plug it in? Google got this completely right on their phone in that everything syncs to "the cloud." I'm not saying android is perfect, but that is one aspect that's better about it.

Re: Google doesn't get 'social', but Apple doesn't understand the Internet

#40

Post by pohl »

btmorex wrote: post #34
pohl wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that makes a very compelling exhibit, given that "the internet" is not "all things you can get to via a web browser". The internet, rather, is IP, TCP, UDP, etc...and every protocol built on top of it. This includes HTTP & HTML (which iTunes leverages heavily) but also a many other things that are not browser-oriented. Regardless, I think your exhibit is more easily explained by Apple understanding exac…

but I have to admit that the linux users are the most tight-fisted demographic I've ever seen. This seems to suggest the exact opposite of what you just said: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28471/Humble_Indie_Bundle...

Yeah, that always gets trotted out in this context. If what you think this suggests is true there would be more than one such story. To me it just smells of a demographic grateful of finally getting some mercy sex.

Besides, it's a charity. I was talking about commerce.

Post reply on HN