Ask HN: Are we too lenient on Google and Apple? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Are we too lenient on Google and Apple?

29 pointsdnsworks56 comments

It seems to me that the geek hoi polloi would be up in arms over the shenanigans that Apple and Google have been pulling over the last year if they were Microsoft. Apple's monopolistic practices over iPhone applications and clone makers for example. Also Google's privacy invasions including Eric Schmidt's dismissal of the notion that people have a right to privacy.

Do we cut Apple and Google far too much slack just because they have cooler products than and are not Microsoft?

View on HN

Some of us don't cut Apple any more slack. I am rather tired of the free pass they seem to get from others. They are probably worse than MS in terms of vendor lock-in but just don't have a large enough market share to bully people around.

"They are probably worse than MS in terms of vendor lock-in but just don't have a large enough market share to bully people around."

In the past couple years they created a cross platform multi-vendor open standard for GPU computing, they took a big risk by launching the iPhone without support for flash and have continued to be basically the only major company giving adobe any pressure to improve its shit-tastic platform, they have (granted extremely slowly) improved their iPhone development program from basically non-existant to acceptable in a sadistic way (and if the trend continues it might actually be good within a year or two), they mostly got rid of DRM from iTunes, and most recently they opened up their SDK for making the iTunes LP things (which will likely be of importance when (if ever) the iTablet/iSlate comes out).

The only two (somewhat related) things Apple does that I would classify as vendor lock-in are 1: XCode, and therefore OS X, is required for iPhone development, and 2: You need a Mac to run OS X. I would consider these to be more of an issue if Apple preemptively put a stop to #2 through activation checks or some WGA-esque program, but they don't. As long as you aren't going around selling preinstalled copies of OS X on non-Apple hardware, Apple could seemingly care less.

Microsoft in recent history hasn't been bad either, they still have WGA, and there was the whole OOXML thing, but other than those two things I can't think of anything they have done that has caused an e-uproar. Personally I would put the two (Apple and MS) roughly equal to each other in terms of Evil.

"The only two (somewhat related) things Apple does that I would classify as vendor lock-in are 1: XCode, and therefore OS X, is required for iPhone development, and 2: You need a Mac to run OS X."

What about the fact that they actively sabotage efforts to make the iPod work with music library managers other than iTunes, or to make iTunes work with MP3 players other than the iPod?

A lot of this is overplayed. You use a security flaw in iTunes/iPod/iPhone to connect to it, Apple closes the security flaw. Apple decides to change how any of these components interface to each other, third party stuff stops working.

Frankly, I would be very surprised if Apple cared at all about things like gtkpod working or not. There is some simplification of effort involved when Apple assumes that iTunes and iPod are an integrated system that doesn't need to talk to anything else, and if you don't want to buy into that ecosystem there are tons of viable competitors. Deliberately positioning your products as a closed system is fine. Apple has better things to do than worry about backwards compatibility with iTunes/iPod external API's.

I think the reason they get a lot more free passes is that their vendor lock-in actually works very well. When you have all Apple products in your house, stuff just kind of works together in ways that I never experienced with Microsoft's lock-in attempts. So you could argue that it's a bad thing, but unlike the way Microsoft tended to do it, Apple's way actually makes my life better for the most part.

True enough, but just because I get a better user experience in exchange for Freedom doesn't mean it's a good trade.

How can you possibly tell what is a good trade when using nebulous terms like "Freedom"?

is user experience not as nebulous (if not more) as well? to each his own, I say. I can't speak for you and vice versa on which trades are worth making. some people will pick A, and some will pick B. the winner is the guy who serves both A^B not AxorB.

is user experience not as nebulous (if not more) as well?

No, it isn't. "Good user experience" is a just a fancy way of saying "people enjoy using it". Even if you can't fully articulate a rationale, you probably have a concrete idea about whether you enjoy or don't enjoy using a thing. A sharp knife has a better user experience than a dull knife. A cardboard box has a better user experience than plastic clamshells. It may not a thing you can point to, but the meaning is pretty easy to nail down, unlike "Freedom".

* to each his own, I say.*

You're not actually saying anything though. Of course people value different things, but unless you have some idea of what those things are, you may as well be talking nonsense, because you can't draw any sensible judgement on the value of an abstract concept over something concrete.

I think this is important--and not just something to dismiss with "to each his own"--because nebulous terms like "Freedom" are often used to mask actual concrete demands like the legal right to modify and distribute someone else's work. "Freedom" is an idea I can get behind, but when it's code for something that I'm not so sure I agree with, then there's a problem with people using the two interchangeably.

the winner is the guy who serves both A^B not AxorB

But that guy competes with the guy who serves A^C, and the guy who serves B^C, etc. You cannot possibly appeal to every possible demand, which is why we have competition.

> No, it isn't. "Good user experience" is a just a fancy way of saying "people enjoy using it". Even if you can't fully articulate a rationale, you probably have a concrete idea about whether you enjoy or don't enjoy using a thing. A sharp knife has a better user experience than a dull knife. A cardboard box has a better user experience than plastic clamshells. It may not a thing you can point to, but the meaning is pretty easy to nail down, unlike "Freedom".

But user experience is nebulous. The examples you give are obvious in the choice in which is better or worse, but, for example, I can't stand the blackberry interface because the fonts are ugly. now, someone who isn't a typography snob won't care. For me it has a poor user experience, but for others it does not.

> You're not actually saying anything though. Of course people value different things, but unless you have some idea of what those things are, you may as well be talking nonsense, because you can't draw any sensible judgement on the value of an abstract concept over something concrete.

What I am saying is that there is no accounting for taste. That a universal one-size-fits all judgment cannot be made.

> But that guy competes with the guy who serves A^C, and the guy who serves B^C, etc. You cannot possibly appeal to every possible demand, which is why we have competition.

I don't understand your point here. Clearly the winner is he who can satisfy A^B^C, and while perfection is an impossible goal, as entrepreneurs, we should strive to make as many happy customers as possible, given our constraints.

My point boils down to two things:

1) as users of phones, we shouldn't get all bent out of shape in determining which is the best phone. It's fun & we tend to want to justify our own purchases & there is a sort of rooting-for-our-team aspect to it, but in the end it's pointless. some people like the nebulous concept of "freedom", while others like the nebulous concept of "slick".

2) as entrepreneurs, it's silly to pick sides based on what we want out of a phone as a user. instead, things like whether or not a market exists so that you can make money or whether or not the device has the necessary capabilities to support your idea should drive the decision. Our own biases and preferences as users should be secondary.

I can't stand the blackberry interface because the fonts are ugly.

That is a concrete thing. You can (and did) actually point to that as a reason for not liking the thing. You cannot point to "Freedom."

That a universal one-size-fits all judgment cannot be made.

Yes, and? That's obvious, and I said the same thing myself. What isn't obvious is what you mean with a term like "Freedom", which is why I bothered to point out that it was nebulous. Clearly you're not making a judgement based on "Freedom", which is abstract, but some actual thing or things which that codes for. So why speak in code?

Clearly the winner is he who can satisfy A^B^C

...I give up.

some people like the nebulous concept of "freedom", while others like the nebulous concept of "slick".

This is intellectual laziness in action. I hope that you will realize that someday, and I'm sorry to have wasted your time and mine on this thread.

Methinks that point is far more debatable than you are making it out to be...

I assume by "freedom" you mean the ability to mix and match components as you wish? ("Freedom" is a vague term.)

Whether the user experience is worth giving up the ability to mix and match components can be measured easily: consider the value of each possible combination of components, and if the Apple combination has more value than other possible combinations, then it's worth it.

What I really meant by Freedom is the ability to do whatever I want with the products I use but especially those I have to pay money for. If I buy a product, what right does the company that built the product have to dictate how I can use it? So included in that is the ability to mix and match devices. Now I'm not saying that Apple, or anyone else for that matter, has an obligation to support every possible combination in the universe, but by using well-documented, open standards for connecting devices and what naught, they make their device much more attractive. By inventing their own and keeping it closed, they force reverse-engineering and, as a result, cause frustration when they make breaking changes. While a company is, as I said, under no obligation to play nice in this way, I'm also under no obligation to buy their products. In theory "market forces" would solve this problem as the closed products would die. Eventually this may happen but, unfortunately, Openness and Freedom aren't valued by most people.

You have the freedom to do whatever you wish with Apple's products, of course--but Apple has the freedom to design them however they wish. When you say "freedom", you mean "compelling Apple to make the design decisions you want".

What I want as a creator is the freedom to design and build things the way I want to, and what I want as a customer is the freedom to buy and use products that are built from any number of design philosophies. If your design philosophy is so much better, let's see a combination of products built by that philosophy by as many vendors as you'd like that I'd prefer to my MacBook and iPhone. As it stands, Apple's design philosophy has made available to me a better product than I'd be able to buy otherwise. I'm not going to complain. They seem to know what they're doing better than their competitors, and I'm not fucking with that based on some damned ideology. Whether you brand that ideology with the name "Freedom" or "Puppies and Rainbows" or even "Eternal Bliss", it's just demagoguery.

Vendor lock in is not evil, in of itself. Almost every single product in the world is proprietary. The problem with Microsoft's lock-in is they controlled 98% of desktop computing. I would argue vendor lock-in even leads to better products, since the developer don't have to worry about interoperability.

Monopolies are the real problem. Apple can go have it's little slice of the cellphone market for all I care. Google is getting monopolistically scary though.

"I would argue vendor lock-in even leads to better products, since the developer don't have to worry about interoperability. Monopolies are the real problem."

Aren't monopolies the logical conclusion of vendor lock-in that is allowed to flourish? By your logic, monopolies are even better for developers because they they REALLY never have to worry about interoperability.

The word "monopoly" is often abused. Neither Apple nor Google have one. There are other phones than the iPhone. There are other MP3 players than the iPod. There are other computers than Macs. There are even other search engines than Google, as Microsoft will be happy to tell you.

Things were different back in the old days. One reason why people seem so much more relaxed about things is that the alternatives are so much easier to find than they used to be.

Alternative search engines don't help much when you need traffic to your web site. Alternative MP3 players don't help much when you want to sell mobile apps. (Note: I don't like the "monopoly" cries either).

The difference between Google, for example, and Microsoft is that if Google start doing horrible things, people can switch their homepage pretty quickly. Switching OS is very very very very hard for the average computer user.

Eric Schmidt's dismissal of the notion that people have a right to privacy.

Wow, started out with word twisting, now it's up to out right lying about what he said? That's impressive.

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" -- Eric Schmidt, 12/2009

Have you seen the full quote?

"I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines–including Google–do retain this information for some time and it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."

In this context, and not in the pull-quote part everyone loves, I think his meaning is quite clear. Your expectation of privacy is flawed because of the legal system you (probably) operate within. I'm trying to imagine what you want him to say: "We think privacy is important so we ignore federal laws for geek cred WHOOO". Does that seem like a prudent thing to say as the CEO of a major American firm?

No law compels Google to retain user information.

It is misleading to suggest that Google isn't deliberately retaining information and that it is just trying to comply with the law. The law only states (in some circumstances) that any "retained" information must be provided to the govt

And yet retaining information is only part of the problem. The Patriot Act can put some pretty demanding requirements on companies such as Google. They can be asked, if not obliged to cooperate with investigations by providing search data or email headers.

Take for example this article by the ACLU, in particular the Pen register searches applied to the Internet section (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-under-usa...). I'm not a lawyer, but given those guidelines the query string variables used by Google seem to be within the purveys of the law. Subsequently they are required to allow the appropriate government agencies to access these requests if they so desire.

In brief, Schmidt's quote is incredibly relevant, because people might be mistaken about what is private under the law. He suggests that people adopt a common sense approach to their activities, especially the ones they consider of a sensitive nature. Instead of suggesting people become familiar with very complex legal documents or adopt a false sense of security. People need to stop thinking that all transactions with web servers are somehow private or privileged, when the government clearly does not want them to be.

Which has what to do with the out of context quote?

I've seen this fifty times now:

"Google says no one can have privacy!" "No, that's not what he said. He said not to use public things if you want to remain private." "Well then Google shouldn't retain user information!" "OK, but what does that have to do with you making misleading comments about what he said?" "-1"

what is misleading about what I said ?

please answer that without making up any quotes.

Logging is useful for debugging issues that crop up in production, conducting A/B tests, and generally making things work, and work well. There is a fairly nuanced judgement here in terms of how much information one should collect weighed against the privacy woes that legislation can impose.

I am not sure you realize the ramifications of what you are suggesting, or, we simply have differing systems of values.

So in context, we should cut Schmidt slack for enthusiastically following and enforcing an unjust law, and even worse, profiting from it?

His point is Google can't really make any stand about the justness of the law; they have to follow it to the letter (and, yes, help lobby for change if they want - but that is a separate issue).

His point was simple and very clear: if your doing something the law considers illegal you should be taking more care to cover your tracks, don't blame Google.

No, you're right. Instead you should quote him out of context and suggest he's saying no one should have privacy.

That seems like the smartest thing to do. Certainly gets you more up votes here.

Fucking thank you.

Do you have a twitter or something? You just made me want to listen to more of what your obviously sensible brain has to say :D

Yes, I know what he said and that's why I can say "out right lie".

In it's "not-out-of-context" form the "it" clearly means "search for it with a public, open, and FBI-seizable search engine"

This may surprise you, but there are intelligent and rational people who aren't personally offended by the same things you are.

I think it's pretty clear why geeks tend to go easier on them: they make good products.

When Google and Apple start making products that are on par with Microsoft products, I'm pretty sure they'll be just as reviled.

There is usually at least one comment putting forward this idea for every story about Apple or Google and I wouldn't say it's particularly controversial. "we" are a collection of people, many of us with differing ideas on many subjects.

Microsoft does basically all the same things but doesn't provide me with any upside like Google & Apple. The Xbox/Zune are locked down walled gardens like the iPhone. Microsoft has had a history with DRM-ed audio files just like Apple. Windows is commercial software with an EULA/TOS attached to it just like OSX. If Bing gets a subpoena for user information they'll comply because it's the law. Personally I don't feel like Google, Apple or Microsoft have ever invaded my privacy. So yeah, all things being equal of course I'm going with the company that does provide me a better product/service.

Also Google's privacy invasions including Eric Schmidt's dismissal of the notion that people have a right to privacy.

I'm sorry, but I understood his comment on this to mean "You can't put stuff on a server you don't own without...putting stuff on a server you don't own".

I wouldn't lump Google in with Apple at all...google, at least to me, still isn't doing any evil. Apple on the other hand leaves me speechless.

Everything is on a server in Google's world. They're even giving out free operating systems with the expectation that all of your data will end up residing on their servers anyways.

You're handwaving the part where this is presumed to be bad.

It may seem obvious to you, but it isn't to everyone, and the process of explaining why exactly you think that is probably more useful than asking people to be more upset about it. Why is having all of my data on Google's servers bad? I keep all of my money in a bank without trouble, and that would seem to be at least as important as my data. What makes Google evil?

What if I told you that your bank gave detailed descriptions of your purchasing activities to the federal government, while simultaneously selling that data to the advertising agencies who represent the companies you do business with? Would you find that to be evil? Because in both cases, it's true.

I thought they fought the first point in court, and you didn't mention that the data selling is anonymous. Seems like a pretty conscientious way to do evil...

I think you missed the point. You're trying to scare me rather than explain what actual events that actually transpired you actually think are actually wrong.

I'm just asking you to not be vague and presumptive when making a moral argument.

> gave detailed descriptions of your purchasing activities to the federal government,

They would have to do this if made to, same as Google.

> selling that data to the advertising agencies who represent the companies you do business with?

Are Google doing this? What data? Evidence? EDIT: I mean the identifiable stuff... anonymous doesn't personally bother me. But you linked it to point #1 which is identifiable data

Banks do gave detailed descriptions of your purchasing activities to the federal government. However, Google does not sell data to advertising agencies because they are an advertising agency. In other words when you give information to Google they user it internally. OMG, the horror.

As to bundelling up information and selling it in bulk they also just give it away. Where to do think the search suggestions come from? That's correct it's excerpts from everything anyone has ever typed into Google, yet people don't complain about it.

Back in the 1990s, I remember a phrase that circulated. It's memorable because at the time it rang so incredibly true. It was a remark about how the market and industry regarded the Titan Microsoft, and went: "Whenever Bill Gates throws a dart at a wall, everyone races to the wall to paint a target around that dart". Yes, M$ had gained such stature, and Bill such celebrity, that many a blind eye was turned toward their technology, marketing practices, and other less-than-wonderful aspects.

Today, Google (peer'd by Apple) is the new Microsoft (IBM is the new General Motors, but that's a different topic). And yes, everyone again seems to be racing to draw targets around the arrows they've shot.

It's not amazing (though bitterly disappointing) to see consumers accept limits from vendors: changes in rules of 'ownership', accepting lock-in with cell carriers, etc....but it _is_ amazing to me how developers accept (and even embrace) Apple's re-definition of software development and platform control. Maybe it's a generational thing -- but, a _vendor_ decides if you get to write/sell software?!!?

Not only that, but anything released by Apple or Google is omg awesome and fantastic, and anything released by Microsoft is another me-too product, no matter how innovative it actually is.

What innovative products has Microsoft released recently?

Songsmith, Surface.

As someone who never "hated" MS in the first place I am amused to see the recent spate of anti-Google posting.

I think... people have fads and at the moment Google is getting to be on certain individuals radars. I have to say I will just continue using products I think are cool and useful and keep an eye on their practices (without getting too excitable about certain, umm, things).

Ironically, I just blogged about this, except with FB in the place of Google: http://blog.1530technologies.com/2009/12/where-is-the-disgus...

I remain confident that a portion of the success of Google has come from the fact that they came along at the peak of anti-MS fever in the industry. People were yearning for someone other than MS and jumpped on to Googles wagon and haven't looked back. Everything Google does is spun as the ultimate good. Even though if MS launched hotmail and had the phrase 'scanning the users email to tailor ads', people would have erupted.

Weird: I see a lot of complaining about - and outright accusations toward - Google on HN. Every ad-scammer's complaint about Google not directing half the internet to look at eir site (much less booting them off of AdSense) gets taken remarkably seriously and sympathetically here. Every conspiracy theory gets lot of attention.

I think people tend to associate slack with quality. If a product is better than the average then people will tend to give it more slack. But this isn't uniform to everyone. Not everyone will give a value greater than zero for the slack.

This community is Anti-MS (not all, but many); so you'll find a lot here that hates Microsoft and loves Google.

But MS is the underdog now...

"Google's privacy invasions..."

Could I have a list, with details, of these privacy invasions?

"the shenanigans that Apple and Google have been pulling"

Is that your opinion or fact? Were they mis-steps, mistakes or shenanigans?

Are you bringing these popular topics up because you read about all this on forums or do you have facts?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com