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

The Time I “Interviewed” At Apple

hunterwalk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–87 of 87 posts

Re: The Time I “Interviewed” At Apple

#81

Post by dragonwriter »

infinotize wrote: post #77
Steko wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maps is a great example of the difference because, wait for it, Apple never wanted to be in the mapping business. People are comparing Apple and Google and forgetting that the two companies ambitions are completely different. Google wants the full vampire squid platter. It wants to be your phone OS, your browser, your desktop OS, your search company, your video site, your social network, your office software solution…

You can't compare the browser situation however many years ago and the Maps calamity. Google's app was hardly a "shitty" alternative, but as others have indicated the Apple response is mostly due to other reasons. How many iOS users rejoiced when Google Maps got rereleased?

> Google's app

The pre-iOS6 app wasn't "Google's app".

It was Apple's Maps app which used Google-licensed data. Insofar as it was neglected, it was neglected because Apple neglected to improve it and declined to license additional uses of the data (like for turn-by-turn nav).

Re: The Time I “Interviewed” At Apple

#82

Post by Steko »

dragonwriter wrote: post #81
infinotize wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't compare the browser situation however many years ago and the Maps calamity. Google's app was hardly a "shitty" alternative, but as others have indicated the Apple response is mostly due to other reasons. How many iOS users rejoiced when Google Maps got rereleased?

> Google's app The pre-iOS6 app wasn't "Google's app". It was Apple's Maps app which used Google-licensed data. Insofar as it was neglected, it was neglected because Apple neglected to improve it and declined to license additional uses of the data (like for turn-by-turn nav).

"Apple neglected to improve it and declined to license additional uses of the data (like for turn-by-turn nav)."

Or, translated from Google spin speak, Apple wanted to improve it but the two parties were not able to agree on terms.

http://allthingsd.com/20120926/apple-google-maps-talks-crash...

Re: The Time I “Interviewed” At Apple

#83

Post by vitd »

Reading this leaves me feeling like the author has some enormous cognitive dissonance going on:

"And finally I defended some of YouTube’s UX elements by demonstrating how it needed to feel like the community’s fingerprints were on the site, not just some experience they lean back and watch but don’t touch."

Every Google service is an experience where Google just leans back and watches but doesn't touch. They have no tech support, not even an email to write to in most cases. What a baffling statement to make.

Re: The Time I “Interviewed” At Apple

#84

Post by cromwellian »

Steko wrote: post #82
dragonwriter wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google's app The pre-iOS6 app wasn't "Google's app". It was Apple's Maps app which used Google-licensed data. Insofar as it was neglected, it was neglected because Apple neglected to improve it and declined to license additional uses of the data (like for turn-by-turn nav).

"Apple neglected to improve it and declined to license additional uses of the data (like for turn-by-turn nav)." Or, translated from Google spin speak, Apple wanted to improve it but the two parties were not able to agree on terms. http://allthingsd.com/20120926/apple-google-maps-talks-crash...

Or, as translated from Apple-spin-speak, according to the allthingsd story, Apple wanted to commoditize the Maps data, Google wanted more say over the app, including for it to be called "Google Maps", and feature things like Latitude and other features Android had.

In short, Apple wanted the maps data, but did not want it to be "Google Maps".

If it were really just about withholding features from iOS, why then are most major Android features on iOS, including Google Now, and including a version of the new Google Maps before Android even had it.

Sounds to me like Apple was pulling a John Boehner, refusing to compromise.

Re: The Time I “Interviewed” At Apple

#85

Post by Steko »

cromwellian wrote: post #84
Steko wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Apple neglected to improve it and declined to license additional uses of the data (like for turn-by-turn nav)." Or, translated from Google spin speak, Apple wanted to improve it but the two parties were not able to agree on terms. http://allthingsd.com/20120926/apple-google-maps-talks-crash...

Or, as translated from Apple-spin-speak, according to the allthingsd story, Apple wanted to commoditize the Maps data, Google wanted more say over the app, including for it to be called "Google Maps", and feature things like Latitude and other features Android had. In short, Apple wanted the maps data, but did not want it to be "Google Maps". If it were really just about withholding features from iOS, why then are mo…

False equivalence fail. Apple spin would have been to blame Google the way parent had blamed Apple for everything. I simply noted both sides couldn't reach terms. Sheesh.

"If it were really just about withholding features from iOS, "

Nowhere do I claim this. Straw man alert.

Re: The Time I “Interviewed” At Apple

#86

Post by millstone »

what_ever wrote: post #60
MikeCapone wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People pay for Apple products, so they expect something that works well and looks good. The switching costs are also much higher with hardware than software. You don't want to pay for a phone and find out it's half-baked, while if a 'free' web service doesn't work, it's easy to switch. It's also about branding and culture, people expect different things from each company. That has pros and cons.

Just staying with the Google example, I don't remember any major Google product having a major failure. The new Google Maps may be. I know many people complain about the new GMail but it's just about choices of design they made and not about some bugs in the product. So again, Google products are iterative and not buggy irrespective of whether people pay for them or not.

For Gmail, the prime example of "major failure" is not the redesign, but Google Buzz. See the HN discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1120145

Re: The Time I “Interviewed” At Apple

#87

Post by Irishsteve »

what_ever wrote: post #60
MikeCapone wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People pay for Apple products, so they expect something that works well and looks good. The switching costs are also much higher with hardware than software. You don't want to pay for a phone and find out it's half-baked, while if a 'free' web service doesn't work, it's easy to switch. It's also about branding and culture, people expect different things from each company. That has pros and cons.

Just staying with the Google example, I don't remember any major Google product having a major failure. The new Google Maps may be. I know many people complain about the new GMail but it's just about choices of design they made and not about some bugs in the product. So again, Google products are iterative and not buggy irrespective of whether people pay for them or not.

Google buzz exposing all your contacts to the world.
Post reply on HN