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

81–90 of 110 posts

Re: Demoted

#81

Post by cubicle67 »

patrickaljord wrote: post #37
matthew-wegner wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I don't know. The 2001 Macworld keynote that outlines the "digital hub" is still fascinating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9046oXrm7f8 It's remarkably prescient in a lot of ways. Take this quote: Digital cameras now constitute 15% of all cameras sold in the US. 15% percent. It'll be 50% in a few years. He also makes the point that a hub is necessary because of all these various devices can't talk to the Interne…

> Digital cameras now constitute 15% of all cameras sold in the US. 15% percent. It'll be 50% in a few years. Really? That's the same thought I had the first time I saw a usable digital camera 10 years ago, and I don't think I'm special or that I was the only one...

go and read photography magazines from that era. There's was much heated and vehement objection to including articles pertaining to digital photography and cameras. Many photographers at that time were convinced digital cameras were just toys and had no part in 'professional' magazines.

of course, some thought the opposite

Re: Demoted

#82

Post by ordinary »

Tichy wrote: post #79
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.

I think Google is more about collecting data. Ads are just a byproduct.

I think you're confusing the end with the means. Collecting data is a method Google uses to be able to sell (more expensive) ads. The data collection is not where the money comes from, the ads are.

Re: Demoted

#83

Post by Tichy »

ordinary wrote: post #82
Tichy wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Google is more about collecting data. Ads are just a byproduct.

I think you're confusing the end with the means. Collecting data is a method Google uses to be able to sell (more expensive) ads. The data collection is not where the money comes from, the ads are.

It may be where most of the money comes from at the moment. But Google did not start out as an advertising company, and I don't think (from reading "In The Plex") they really want to be one, either. If they could kill ads, they would do it.

Re: Demoted

#84

Post by sesqu »

thought_alarm wrote: post #34
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…

> A lot of Apple's big announcements today were > about features that create lock-in. Nonsense. It's only lock-in in that the user is locked into a feature that's really great and useful. In other words, no lock-in at all. Their music and their content hasn't gone anywhere. Their contacts and calendar events are easily shared and exported via standard formats. They only thing they lose by leaving is the great softwar…

  It's only lock-in in that the user is locked in [--] In other words, no lock-in at all.
I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. Vendor lock-in doesn't only apply when you don't like the product. Now, if there were no other products you could switch to, that would invalidate lock-in, but it's reasonable to assume that the product being initially good is essential for lock-in to work at all.

Re: Demoted

#85

Post by saurik »

rimantas wrote: post #57
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…

> Your music is tied to a $25 iTunes subscriptions But it is not. > they even want your text messaging tied to your iOS > devices Another way to look at it: your text messaging is freed from your carrier. > 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. How is that different from any other system?

Seriously? Before the unified App Store concept, cross-device upgrade pricing was very common. You get Word for Mac one year, and then you pay a fraction of the price to upgrade to word for Windows the next; you get a medical dictionary for your Palm Treo one year, and then pay a fraction of the price to upgrade to the same app for your new BlackBerry the next... Apple wants to control the business of software sale, and in so doing control what those practices mean for their platform: developers are then kept from seeing their customer lists, forcing everyone to get a new kind of "lock in" to the platform that has never before been common.

Re: Demoted

#86

Post by swombat »

sesqu wrote: post #84
thought_alarm wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of Apple's big announcements today were > about features that create lock-in. Nonsense. It's only lock-in in that the user is locked into a feature that's really great and useful. In other words, no lock-in at all. Their music and their content hasn't gone anywhere. Their contacts and calendar events are easily shared and exported via standard formats. They only thing they lose by leaving is the great softwar…

It's only lock-in in that the user is locked in [--] In other words, no lock-in at all. I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. Vendor lock-in doesn't only apply when you don't like the product. Now, if there were no other products you could switch to, that would invalidate lock-in, but it's reasonable to assume that the product being initially good is essential for lock-in to work at all.

No one is forcing you to use Apple's messaging platform. You can pay for SMS instead, if you feel that's the "free" option.

No one is forcing you to upload your music to the iCloud. You can keep syncing it the same way you always have (afaict, anyway).

No one is forcing you to buy an iPhone, iPad, or any other Apple product. What kind of lock-in are you on about?

No one is even forcing you to upgrade to Lion. Keep running Snow Leopard if you want.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. There are plenty of other vendors. The only way in which you could claim that Apple was "locking people in" is that they offer an integrated experience, so that if you go all-Apple, things work better.

Well, damn them, they should be shot! How dare they try to offer an integrated user experience to their paying customers? What bastards!

Re: Demoted

#87

Post by 6ren »

cubicle67 wrote: post #81
patrickaljord wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Digital cameras now constitute 15% of all cameras sold in the US. 15% percent. It'll be 50% in a few years. Really? That's the same thought I had the first time I saw a usable digital camera 10 years ago, and I don't think I'm special or that I was the only one...

go and read photography magazines from that era. There's was much heated and vehement objection to including articles pertaining to digital photography and cameras. Many photographers at that time were convinced digital cameras were just toys and had no part in 'professional' magazines. of course, some thought the opposite

Classic disruption. When the new tech isn't very good and gets a foothold in new markets, the professional users (correctly) view it as inferior, rubbish, a toy. The big picture question is whether it could improve enough to be usable by professional users. It's kind of odd that many are oblivious to the obvious trajectory of improvement.

EDIT e.g.1 (from Worse is Better) could AI become good enough? A tricky one, since they aren't competing with another product, but with us. OTOH, computers are constantly replacing people for simple tasks - the history of computation is the history of mental automation. e.g.2 could PHP become good enough to replace Java in the Enterprise (apparently their target)?

Something that can stall the trajectory is the next wave of disruption breathing on their heels.

Re: Demoted

#88

Post by billybob »

patrickaljord wrote: post #38
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. The web is not controlled by one company. Edit: For the downvoters, the html5 APIs are made of contributions from mozilla, microsoft, opera, yahoo, apple, google and many more. How many companies participate in writing the iOS API?

Exactly. Web standards - or standards in general - are not a player in a competition; they are a field upon which to play. We want everyone playing on that field.

Re: Demoted

#89

Post by hexix »

esrauch wrote: post #53
cageface wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except that Android app sales don't pay out to Google, they pay out to Verizon whereas iPhone app sales pay out to Apple. Google does support a ton of native apps (GMail, Calendar, Places, Goggles, Latitude, Maps, etc) but their strategy going forward seems to try to push these things from apps into the browser, spending a ton of time supporting the mobile browser version of all of these things (except for Goggles).

I've never heard that before. I think Google gets the money. Verizon probably gets a cut just for the carrier billing option when used.

I just did a search and couldn't find anything saying Verizon gets the money for android app payments.

Also I can't think of a single Google Android app that has been discontinued and replaced with a web version. I think you're getting confused about google also offering mobile web versions for platforms they can't get their apps on. They've even said they'd like to offer a better maps app for iPhone but can't.

Re: Demoted

#90

Post by napierzaza »

click170 wrote: post #50
napierzaza wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the features Apple announced today are features that people have been demanding from Apple and any other vendor. What's the lock in? Putting DRM on music so you can only play it on iPod is lock in. Though I agree Apple is integrating services into iOS that are only available to iOS.So I imagine that gives them lock in. I don't want to start trying to guess as Apple's motivations, but I don't see them coming out w…

>> What's the lock in? I never said there was lock-in with this new update, I was pointing out what I perceived to be one of the biggest reasons your comment was down-voted. From the brief bits and pieces I've read about this, I've heard of nothing so far that smells like lock-in. And I'm by no stretch an Apple fanboy either.

I was responding to your comment while restating my point. Not arguing with your comment. :-)
Post reply on HN