Comment by symesc | Hacker News Reader

Comment by symesc | Hacker News Reader

What's interesting to me is how big a shift mobile represents to Apple's strategy.

Gruber was first to convince me that Apple didn't care about the business that Dell was in. Dell could have it. No margin.

Apple believed they built computers for the "elite" consumer who had taste or money or both and wanted a premium experience. They played there because that's where the margin is.

This situation (highlighted by iPhone vs. Android) is a stark departure for Apple, and it probably illustrates one of two things:

1. The competition is better, or 2. The switching costs for phones is much lower than for computers, and by costs I mean both money and the hassle of migrating data and applications.

Google is doing an amazing job on both fronts. If the iPhone didn't exist, Android would be the clear leader in this market. And when it comes to switching costs, Google is eradicating them: I use Gmail, Google Calendar, and Picasa. All work on both platforms very well. And I use Google Contacts as my primary rolodex.

I don't use Mobile Me because Google provides the equivalent for free (Google's services are probably better, really). Apple really doesn't have any hooks into me.

If Google can deliver a compelling alternative to iTunes, I could move tomorrow and the only costs I'd incur would be walking away from the $30 in Apps I've purchased.

Compare that to my trying to move from OS X to Windows.

Apple is rightly terrified of Google.

And it probably gets worse when the Chrome OS hits the market.

I love love love my MacBook Pro and my iPhone. But increasingly they are delivery vehicles for Google services. The irreplaceable part of that equation is Google, primarily because I'm not interested in Microsoft's or Yahoo's or Apple's alternatives.

Sorry, but I see this as a very micro-focused example.

And my argument revolves around iTunes. The sheer amount of content that apple has sold through iTunes would surely suggest that moving to another platform would be a major barrier to transferring to another service.

As you said, Google indeed is doing a fantastic job on a lot of fronts. But from what I see, in this "war" Apple is accomplishing a well executed flank attack by controlling both the hardware and software platforms.

Apple will never get into the search business, but there are so many outliers that many companies (Google, MS, Yahoo etc) have that Apple can out-flank and simple dominate in the long term.

In addition, I'm convinced that Apple is sitting on the AppleTV since they don't yet in their eyes have enough control over games, media content and associated distribution. But, they are headed there, and I would expect that the app Store will soon make it's way to the apple TV (and variants) platform.

"The sheer amount of content that apple has sold through iTunes would surely suggest that moving to another platform would be a major barrier to transferring to another service."

That will not continue to be true for long. The future of media consumption (well, at least music consumption) is from streaming services, which don't make you deal with syncing. iTunes may be user friendly, but the whole sync process is still time consuming and frustrating. Also, all music that's been sold on iTunes for over a year is DRM-free, and you can 'upgrade' your older songs for a relatively modest fee if you want to.

There's an argument that video content (which is still laden with DRM) will provide adequate lock-in, but that will probably start streaming too in the next year or two. And I think it's less of a big deal to most people if they can watch a TV show on their phone, anyway.

That will not continue to be true for long. The future of media consumption (well, at least music consumption) is from streaming services, which don't make you deal with syncing.

Fair, but remember that iTunes strength isn't their sync ability to their associated devices, it is the already negotiated agreements with content providers who have agreed to distribute their content electronically.

Youtube is getting there in terms of content and is already there for music videos.

>The future of media consumption (well, at least music consumption) is from streaming services,

What a sad future that would be, an extension of moving your data in the cloud.

For people with a strong bias towards "pay as you go", it's not a sad future at all. The headache of managing bought content in terms of backups, syncing to various devices, changing formats, essentially making everyone a expert in storage management is one that could use some creative destruction.

I already got rid of my collection of music videos in favour of youtube playlists, movie collection in favour of a netflix subscription, document store for Google docs and would dearly love to get rid of my mp3 collection in favour of a streaming service. Spotify et al cant get here soon enough for me. Once that happens I wont be in perpetual fear of my laptop breaking down (just replace with another netbook) or losing my various cd/dvd/flash-drive backups. If one day I'm not able to afford these services or a net connection, I have bigger issues to worry about than being able to enjoy the movies/music.

This stuff is not rare enough to make it worth me owning a copy (unlike in the 90s or before)

"The future of media consumption (well, at least music consumption) is from streaming services, which don't make you deal with syncing."

Wow, that would certainly stop me from listening to my music on the subway. Or anywhere that data roaming charges would apply (without Wifi).

Some people may go for streaming instead of buying music, but I'll keep purchasing unencumbered tracks from iTunes and Amazon thank you very much.

syncing is only an issue because apple makes it an issue. itunes is invasive crapware that throws up artificial barriers to migration.

I also think that the Apple TV could become much more than what it is right now. I actually don't have one because I can't yet justify the price to myself, but traditional cable is not the way I would like to enjoy TV and movies. Hulu and Netflix streaming (and a bit of movies from iTunes) is what I use and I wish the Apple TV was delivering that in a smart way (and without hacking).

I am really looking forward to the day Apple will stop calling the Apple TV a "hobby" and do something cool with it. The App Store (or an App Store) might be the way to go…

As for iTunes, as jkincaid said, the catalog is now DRM-free so it's not as much of a lock-in problem. But right now, there isn't much to move your music to. You can replace it with services like Pandora and Last.fm, but your music library would stay where it is. However the acquisition of Lala.com and the rumors around itunes.com (if they become true) have the potential to maintain Apple's control of the music part when it moves towards a completely streamed system. And in that domain, Apple's mindshare is already so huge that it would assure their success if they execute on time.

Apple has an uphill battle on this one. from the start they did not support Divx or Xvid, which are the leading torrent formats.

On the other hand, Xbox360 supports those formats and more, has lastFM, Netflix, Games, and streaming from the computer, at a price that is cheaper then Apple sub par offer, the xbox360 outsells the appleTV dramatically.

>Google is doing an amazing job on both fronts. If the iPhone didn't exist, Android would be the clear leader in this market.

What market? Nor iPhone nor Android are the leaders of any market, either separated or combined. Add the marketshare of iPhone and Android together and you (almost) get RIM's marketshare. Double that and you get Nokia's minus a few percent.

Enthusiasm is generally an alright thing to have, but the enthusiasm of Android fans was always unrealistic and it's becoming off-putting.

"What market?"

The touchscreen mobile phone market.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com