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

91–100 of 110 posts

Re: Demoted

#91

Post by sambeau »

lurker14 wrote: post #55
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…

10 years after release, iPhoto still cannot export a complete set of user-created photo metadata. 10 years and counting.

It does title, keywords and location. What else does a casual photographer need?

Re: Demoted

#92

Post by sambeau »

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 don't agree. It's not just about money. Both companies are more complex & emotional than that. Apple really cares about creating well-designed technology and Google really care about indexing the world's information.

It's in their DNAs.

Re: Demoted

#94

Post by mcherm »

guptaneil wrote: post #56
gfodor wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a striking point. Up until now, switching costs off of the iPhone were basically a matter of dealing with AT&T. Once the iCloud tentacles are in deep enough it will be nearly impossible to say goodbye to all the licensed content that I only can access through Apple devices.

How does iCloud make it harder to move away from iOS? All of my apps are already locked into iOS, regardless of iCloud. This is true of any OS though.

I'm not tethered to my apps... I can, if necessary, move to new apps. Once I did everything in Emacs, but I have moved on.

I AM, however, tethered to my data.

Re: Demoted

#95

Post by sesqu »

swombat wrote: post #86
sesqu wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ru…

  If you don't like it, don't buy it.
That's not what vendor lock-in is about. Lock-in means that after you bought it, you can't reasonably switch to something better, something that commonly you didn't know about or that didn't exist when you made the initial buy. For example, when offering integrated services, lock-in might mean that they won't allow a third party to integrate with their suite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in

Re: Demoted

#96

Post by ralfd »

hexix wrote: post #89
esrauch wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 v…

This was in October 2008:

http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/10/android-marke...

--------------------------------

"Developers will get 70% of the revenue from each purchase; the remaining amount goes to carriers and billing settlement fees — Google does not take a percentage. We believe this revenue model creates a fair and positive experience for users, developers, and carriers," notes Eric Chu.

--------------------------------

This statement was at that time interpreted, that Google is buying marketshare from the carriers.

I don't know if the sentence "Google does not take a persentage" still stands and how the transactions fee is splitted today.

Re: Demoted

#97

Post by ralfd »

code_duck wrote: post #66

"Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen. That’s what we’ll remember about today’s keynote ten years from now." So... what happens when you maximize the browser window? The actual issue is Google wants to be accessible from any device, Apple wants to sell you their custom hardware. "But Google’s vision is about software you run in a web browser. Apple’s is about native apps you run on device…

> So... what happens when you maximize the browser window?

And what happens when you minimize it?

That is Grubers point. Google wants to make the (their) browser to be the OS. Apple likes native applications. At least from John Grubers larger narrative. According to him (and I agree) ChromeOS and the Chromebook are feeling more Google-y than Android.

Re: Demoted

#98

Post by ralfd »

matthew-wegner wrote: post #33
napierzaza wrote: post #18

"That’s what we’ll remember about today’s keynote ten years from now." Classic Gruber. I really hope that no one that I know ever mentions a WWDC presentation from a decade before.

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…

Great presentation foreshadowing the iPod.

Re: Demoted

#99

Post by meric »

marshray wrote: post #54
meric wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Google wins , Apple can still sell commoditized hardware to a certain extent.

No, Apple has never been able to sell commoditized hardware.

I'm sure if the iPhone ran Android they will receive a fraction of their current sales.

Re: Demoted

#100

Post by swombat »

sesqu wrote: post #95
swombat wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ru…

If you don't like it, don't buy it. That's not what vendor lock-in is about. Lock-in means that after you bought it, you can't reasonably switch to something better, something that commonly you didn't know about or that didn't exist when you made the initial buy. For example, when offering integrated services, lock-in might mean that they won't allow a third party to integrate with their suite. http://en.wikipedia.or…

Well, I just bought car X, but then car Y came out and I like it better, but they won't allow me to switch without buying a whole new car!

I guess car makers practice vendor lock-in too by your definition.

In fact, almost anyone who sells something practices some form of lock-in.

Post reply on HN