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

41–50 of 92 posts

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

#41

Post by GHFigs »

semanticist wrote: post #24
epistasis wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PhoneGap seems interesting, but I don't fully understand it yet. Which of its capabilities should be added to the browser? Should they be standardized in HTML5 or should they be part of a devices OS?

PhoneGap provides, if you include its JavaScript file in your PhoneGap-wrapped web app, JavaScript APIs to the camera, stored photos, the address book, and some other stuff. Some of this stuff is in 'HTML5', like geolocation, but much of it isn't. Apple could have provided custom APIs to the camera and so on and allowed people to access it from their iOS-specific web apps. The way that an API gets to be a standard is…

a camera access API in Mobile Safari, it probably would have found its way into a spec and been implemented by other browsers

To give the curious an idea of what that might look like: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete/c...

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

#43

Post by semanticist »

GHFigs wrote: post #41
semanticist wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PhoneGap provides, if you include its JavaScript file in your PhoneGap-wrapped web app, JavaScript APIs to the camera, stored photos, the address book, and some other stuff. Some of this stuff is in 'HTML5', like geolocation, but much of it isn't. Apple could have provided custom APIs to the camera and so on and allowed people to access it from their iOS-specific web apps. The way that an API gets to be a standard is…

a camera access API in Mobile Safari, it probably would have found its way into a spec and been implemented by other browsers To give the curious an idea of what that might look like: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete/c...

Exactly. I would be surprised if people working on WebKit for Apple weren't involved in those kind of discussions, and would fully expect Mobile Safari to support a workable device API.

I wonder how long before iOS development is like WebOS development?

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

#44

Post by btmorex »

pohl wrote: post #40
btmorex wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, one real story is a whole lot more compelling than hearsay.

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

#45

Post by eftpotrm »

glhaynes wrote: post #38
eftpotrm wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Beats me; so often IME it's true though. There've even been cases where I've installed the app and found I preferred the company's mobile website so used that instead.

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

#46

Post by alok-g »

fryguy wrote: post #39
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.

My personal plight is the opposite -- In order to do things with Android, you need to sync to the cloud. Plugging it to the computer is not enough.

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

#47

Post by notahacker »

zipdog wrote: post #14

Thinking about the questions at the end, Microsoft is (or was) really good at backwards compatibility (and making it easy to import other formats into their own). This is their weakness: they are focused on getting content into their own formats. Facebook's strength is to get people to impart information into their system. Their weakness is in always trying to make it public (or at the least visible to anyone you fri…

My slightly different spin:

Microsoft is very good at understanding the median user. Their sweet spot is good enough to justify paying rather than reassuringly expensive, and they impress users with feature lists and [sometimes illusory] choice over usability and extensibility. As a result their products can be pretty horrible for beginners and power users alike, and their blindness towards early adopters leaves them paying catchup in markets like smartphones

Facebook's strength is addictiveness; they understand how to get eyeballs in. Their weakness is a failure to add much value to users' lives beyond voyeurism and distraction.

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

#48

Post by mcav »

glhaynes wrote: post #38
eftpotrm wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because customers can buy apps in one click, so they do.

If webapps had the same payment/installation procedure, they'd take off like a rocket too. (Given HTML5's local caching and the like.)

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

#49

Post by wvenable »

fryguy wrote: post #39
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.

My parents just purchased a laptop; they're not really "computer people" but it's hard to get by without one these days. They might have been better off with an iPad but they could never use it because it requires an existing computer to work.

My daughter got an iPod touch for Christmas and I was shocked that it's just a useless brick until connected to a computer. I had to bring her laptop to Christmas (and hide it) so she could use her shinny new toy once it was out of the package.

Post reply on HN