Hacker News Reader

Comment by eridius | Hacker News Reader

Everybody tries to do this, but few companies have such a comprehensive ecosystem as Apple. Do note that what you've quoted is not in any way malicious. It's just saying "make all of our products work really great together, so that way someone who uses one of them is much more likely to buy into the rest of the ecosystem". This is a bit different than saying "make it difficult for customers to leave our ecosystem", which would be the malicious approach.

View on HN

Wow that's quite funny that you've interpreted what is clearly about locking users in so they can't leave, as "make all our products work great together".

Let me put this to you, if he'd meant "make our products work great together" then that's what he would have said. But he didn't say that. So please don't try to change what the man said.

All these tech giants fall over themselves trying to dream up ways to lock users into their ecosystem, it's what they do. It's motivated by profit, competition, and aggressive marketing and business. Nothing to do with benefits for the end user, or open technologies or saving people money.

You seem to be missing the point. There's two different ways to lock people in to an ecosystem. The first way (the "good" way) is to make all the components of your ecosystem work so well together that it's hard for someone to find good replacements for any component (i.e. any replacements they look at won't work quite so well with the rest of the ecosystem, so they would be losing value by replacing any component). The second way (the "bad" way) is to deliberately put up roadblocks that actually prevent people from finding replacements. For example, making it impossible to export your data in a cross-platform format, or using proprietary protocols for the sole purpose of preventing others from being compatible. Apple doesn't do the latter - they use open protocols whenever appropriate, and nearly all products have some way to export your data in a cross-platform format.

There's no such thing as a "good way" of locking someone in. Stop trying to describe a shit sandwich as a gourmet lunch. The very nature of being locked into something gives us a good idea of how to evaluate that state. The exception would be if outside of this locked in environment is pure evil trying to get in and kill us.

Your claim that Apple is all about cross-platform data formats and non-proprietary protocols "where appropriate" is not my experience at all. I can only imagine you are speaking from within the locked-in ecosystem you so love, and have no need to ever go outside?

From iOS app development (at least the submission stage); to prohibiting users from installing software not signed by Apple; to accessing files on your iPad (requires iTunes); lack of SD card on iOS devices; forget about USB; screen mirroring your iPhone to your TV (requires Apple TV, and sensible protocols such as Wi-Fi direct are not permitted); full screen web page on iOS Safari - forget about it; charging your iPad (requires Apple charger); developing a browser for iOS (no alternative render engines allowed); connecting a video-out cable to your iOS device (requires special Apple cable. The list goes on. So many times on my iPad I've wanted to retrieve a file such as an animation I made with an app, and the hassle to bring it across to my desktop PC.. it's a lock-in shit-sandwich, and it's not nice.

> There's no such thing as a "good way" of locking someone in.

You're focusing too much on the word "lock" and completely ignoring the actual meaning. "Locking someone in" by providing so much value that they don't want to go elsewhere is a great thing!

> Your claim that Apple is all about cross-platform data formats and non-proprietary protocols "where appropriate" is not my experience at all.

Please explain, then. As I mentioned in another comment, the only data I can think of from an Apple product that I can't export somehow is my iMessages, and the only purchased content (not apps, it should be obvious why those aren't portable) is TV/Movies, which is because they're DRM'd, which is a requirement from the content producer rather than something Apple chose to do.

Nothing in your last paragraph is at all relevant to being able to export your data, and it's got a lot of misinformation in it as well. I'll respond to some of the more obvious ones.

> prohibiting users from installing software not signed by Apple

This is a major security issue, and isn't even remotely relevant to the discussion about leaving the Apple ecosystem. And of course you can actually install self-signed open-source software through Xcode.

> lack of SD card on iOS devices

A cursory internet search pulls up multiple lightning-enabled SD card readers that you can plug into your iOS devices.

> Wi-Fi direct

Wi-Fi direct isn't a video streaming protocol, it's a way of connecting two wi-fi devices without a wireless access point. It's not even remotely related to the problem of streaming video from your mobile device to your TV. I'm not aware of any "standard" that replicates AirPlay, and competing devices seem to be using their own non-standardized protocols (e.g. Chromecast seems to require using Google's SDK).

> full screen web page on iOS Safari

What are you trying to say here? You're not actually describing a problem. And I'm not sure how this is supposed to be related at all to the current discussion anyway.

> charging your iPad (requires Apple charger)

No it doesn't, it just requires a 12W USB charger. A cursory internet search for "ipad charger" pulls up many third-party devices.

> developing a browser for iOS

I don't see how this is related to the discussion either.

> connecting a video-out cable to your iOS device

Assuming your implication is correct and there are no third-party solutions to doing this besides buying Apple's Lightning Digital AV Adapater, this still doesn't have anything to do with "lock-in", because you can just buy that adapter and now you have industry-standard video out.

> So many times on my iPad I've wanted to retrieve a file such as an animation I made with an app, and the hassle to bring it across to my desktop PC..

This is not a lock-in problem either. I assume you're saying that this particular app requires using iTunes to get the file (though if so that's really surprising, it's been literally years since I've seen an app that actually requires using iTunes file browsing). If there's no easy way to do that, that's a problem with the app. Most apps that let you create content also have a variety of mechanisms for getting the content off of the device. iTunes file browsing dates back from a time when almost everybody actually regularly synced their iOS devices with their computer, and so it wasn't a problem to require using iTunes to transfer files back and forth. Now that syncing with iTunes isn't something everybody is expected to do anymore, there's no reason for apps to be stuck in the past and require using iTunes file syncing to transfer files. So really, your complaint should be with the app's choice of file syncing mechanisms, and not this weird insinuation that the existence of the completely optional feature that is iTunes file syncing is some form of lock-in.

> "Don't want to go elsewhere is a great thing".

Sounds like the Stockholm syndrome of tech brand loyalty.

The world is full of devices and technology "from elsewhere". Just because you choose to only shop at Apple, doesn't mean never buying any other brand is a good thing for general users of technology in this world, for a healthy industry, for innovation. There will always be other brand. Your Apple-only view of the world is the exception, not the norm.

The whole point of ecosystem lock-in is about keeping customers buying Apple products, or LG products or whatever brand is playing the lock-in game. What you're doing is trying your best to flip the definition and motivation behind ecosystem lock-in, to make it something that users actually want. Let me guess, you're on the board of directors of a brand doing exactly that?

This discussion started with the Jobs statement: "tie all of our products together, so we further lock customers into our ecosystem"

His choice of words is important. The primary objective in his statement is not "tie products together so they work nicely". The primary objective is "further lock customers in". He has decided that one way to achieve that objective is to tie products together, but obviously there are many other ways already in place to lock customers in, as hinted by the word "further".

>"multiple lightning-enabled SD card readers that you can plug into your iOS devices."

I realize I'm bringing lack of flexibility and openness into this, but I see them as related to lock-in.

These SD devices can only access photos. Let's say I'm browsing the web on my iDevice and want to "Save as" a PDF file, or very large hi-res JPEG, or some other file. You can't do it. There's no file system you can access to save the file, and none you can access to read/copy the file later. I'm talking about expandable storage for whatever purpose I choose, not what Apple decides is best for me. They could have locked down protected OS files while allowing a general file system, but no... it's photos and videos only. Everything else is forbidden.

Wi-Fi direct - I was talking about screen mirroring, not streaming iTunes video. Screen mirroring is useful for things like games and hi-res photo albums, the video camera in real time etc, where HD quality without the bottleneck of an access point is needed. Not possible on an iOS device. It could be, but Apple don't allow it. My Android and Windows laptop allows it but not my iPad. When I visit my nephew, we play soccer on his big screen at 1080p via wi-fi direct from my laptop.

I couldn't care less what Apple does as I will probably sell my iPad soon anyway, even though I've spent hundreds of dollars on apps over the years. What bothers my is that Google and Microsoft see what Apple is doing, and all the money Apple has and think that's what will make them more money - by taking away user control, calling it "protecting user security" and increasing lock-in. I'm not a fan of that, and nor should you be.

By what logic do you think it's a bad thing for a company to make products that complement each other so well that users don't want to leave the ecosystem? Yes, tech diversity is a good thing, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing for one company to build a great ecosystem that attracts users. If they're the only company that builds these products, then there's no diversity, but Apple is hardly the only company making products in the various categories that make up its ecosystem (it's not even the market share leader in those products, with the sole exception of the Apple Watch).

I'll try to explain it again in more concrete terms. The way this form of lock-in works is by making products that not only have good value on their own, but have even better value when used together because they complement each other and work great together. Any given product may have competitors from other companies, and those competing products may even be objectively better when compared just against the product (and not against the ecosystem as a whole). But someone who's invested in the ecosystem may still choose to stick with their current product because, even though in isolation it's worse than the competitor, when viewed in the context of the ecosystem it's better because it makes all the other products they have better, and in turn those products make this one better.

As a concrete example, let's go with phones. Someone who has an iMac and a MacBook Pro and an AppleTV will get a lot of benefit from having an iPhone, because these products work well together and complement each other. But if they buy an Android phone instead, then they can't AirPlay to their AppleTV, they can't play their iTunes TV shows or movies on their Android, they don't get Universal Clipboard or Handoff, they don't get iCloud integration, they don't have Pages/Numbers/Keynote and so can't seamlessly switch between devices while editing their files, etc. All these features are ways the Apple devices work together that are lost if you leave the ecosystem. And that's fine, none of these things are artificial roadblocks created by Apple to prevent customers from switching.

> The primary objective is "further lock customers in". He has decided that one way to achieve that objective is to tie products together, but obviously there are many other ways already in place to lock customers in, as hinted by the word "further".

You're being incredibly nitpicky about something that you are objectively wrong about. The phrase "lock-in" does not mean what you're trying to imply it means. Yes, there are forms of lock-in that are bad for users, but to say that the usage of the phrase "lock-in" implies these bad forms is a logical fallacy. And no, the usage of the word "further" does not in any way mean that Apple is doing both bad lock-in and good lock-in together, it just means that Apple already has an ecosystem that works well together and thus provides benign lock-in, and Jobs was saying they should double-down on this approach, making their products work even better together and therefore strengthening the (benign) lock-in.

> Wi-Fi direct - I was talking about screen mirroring, not streaming iTunes video

Before I wrote that comment I read the whole wikipedia page on Wi-Fi direct, and no, it doesn't mean screen mirroring either (in fact, the page doesn't even contain the word "video"). You may be using some feature of your laptop/receiver device that uses Wi-Fi direct, but Wi-Fi direct itself does not magically let you send video from one device to another. You need some protocol built on top of Wi-Fi direct for that. BTW what device are you streaming to? Because the devices I'm familiar with that allow wireless streaming all have their own special way of doing it (e.g. Chromecast, as I mentioned before, requires using Google's SDK).

Except that you can't build anything for OSX when you don't have a Mac. That's a totally artificial constraint. Not lock in, you say? Hell,_Microsoft_ is more open than this... the crowd favourite lock-in bogeyman no less...

Apple does not provide developer tools for other platforms, that's true. But that doesn't make this an artificial constraint. Apple would have to invest time and effort to support development on other platforms, and there's not really any reason for them to do so.

Also, you certainly can develop for macOS from another platform, if you're using a development environment that supports this. There's a number of cross-platform environments that will work. The latest fad is Electron. You just can't build a native Cocoa app. That said, I'm unsure if any third party has a way to codesign your macOS app or if that's limited to Apple's developer tools.

While Apple may not intentionally keep you from leaving their platform, a side effect of their tight integration is that it's harder to leave. Take the Apple Watch for example. Without an iPhone, the Apple Watch goes from a smartwatch to only being able to tell the time. Sure, you could own an Android phone and an Apple Watch, but you wouldn't get any of the benefits of the Apple Watch, which further ties customers to the iPhone.

True, but the Apple Watch is in most ways just an iPhone accessory, and you could make this same argument about any iPhone accessory (though other accessories typically aren't as expensive as the Apple Watch is).

But Apple entered the smart watch market by making an iPhone accessory. Whereas when they entered the smart phone market they made a phone for everyone, not just Mac users. On the other hand IIRC the original iPod required a Mac and they opened that up later.

AFAIK all smart watches require other devices to configure them. Even if you give them cellular connections and whatnot, the screen is just too tiny to do any real configuring on the device directly. But who knows, maybe someday we'll have Apple Watches that can be configured using icloud.com.

So you talked to him, and can now report that it was in no way malicious? Because it sure seems they make it difficult for customers to leave their ecosystem. The effort involved in leaving is usually the justification I hear for why people continue to buy Apple, even when there is other products they'd like to try. No one can deny how effective it has been for them, and a lot of people seem to have no problem with it.

Where's the lock-in exactly? Because I can't think of any besides "this application isn't available for linux/windows/android".

Photos -> Export unmodified originals

Calendar -> Export as iCal

E-Mail -> IMAP anyway (and most people use gmail anyway)

iTunes -> Stuff you bought is .aac without DRM. Music subscription can be cancelled every month

Personally I'm mostly using google services, some of them in parallel to Apple's (i. e. Photos, Cloud Storage) and some exclusively (Gmail, Calendar). I could switch any day. But I use computers professionally and lack the time to debug kernels to get audio or sleep or networking to work. And I lack the tastelessness to spend the majority of my working hours with a tool made from cheap plastic.

I apologize, I didn't mean to dis your choice in devices. I promised myself I wouldn't go at it with the Kook-Aid drinkers anymore. It's just seeing Jobs set 'locking users in' as part of the agenda makes me upset for Apple users, it obviously never affected me.

You can be as condescending as you want, I'm still curious to hear an example.

In what way do they make it difficult? Leaving their ecosystem means you're giving up the hardware/software you've paid money for, so the only real question is data, right? I'm struggling to come up with ways in which Apple makes it hard to export your data. The best I can think of is you can't export your iMessages, and any TV/Movies you've purchased on the iTunes Store aren't portable outside of Apple's ecosystem since they're DRM'd (which is not a ploy by Apple to lock you in, but rather a requirement imposed by the content producer), though if you're switching to Windows you can still use iTunes there if you want. Everything else I can think of has at least some way to export it, e.g. Pages/Numbers/Keynote can all be exported into alternative formats, Contacts and Calendars can be exported, etc.

What else is there besides your data, and what you have invested in media or applications. I imagine it's gotten better than it used to be. But does iPhone even have a built-in file explorer yet, or do you still have to download one to really view your content? I haven't had one in a long time, so I could be off on this. But ask yourself why they didn't. Yes you can sync up to Windows now, and it's less buggy, but you still have to go through their iTunes gateway so they can control whats going on. It's all possible, just like deactivating Facebook is possible. But they only give as much control as people have demanded, and it definitely was a bitch at one time. And now we know that it was by design, hence this email.

And believe me, it irks me that every platform now expects me to buy the same Beatles album over and over again.

> And believe me, it irks me that every platform now expects me to buy the same Beatles album over and over again.

What are you taking about? We've had DRM-free music for a long time now.

Further down he describes it as making it "sticky". This more clearly says friction to get out, no?

In the dot-com era, marketing types aspired to make their Web sites and apps "sticky" in the sense that readers and users would not just dip in for something in particular, but would be motivated to come back again and again. Frequent, small, regular updates to content is one example of this strategy.

This is where the term "sticky" comes from. I realize that's not quite as satisfying as your villain-validating interpretation.

Thanks for the explanation. Personally I'm not looking for villains, I always think it's at least in part more systemic. They stick to what works, and tight integration of their services can be done in a purely positive intention that makes everything work better together.

However they have the resources and reach to build "their ecosystem" and strengthening it will have the side effect of relieving pressure to do anything open. At most we get some legacy products like itunes on windows or a hidden ical export. Just compare it to a new player like slack with a minimal ecosystem, they build or make possible all the apis for all the services they don't offer.

Furthermore apple will use proper apis for all their services, nicely documented, but just not open to the public. (I don't know apple too much, might be wrong here)

Oh and by the way: psycho tricks that add no true benefit to the product, but make you stick are very common and widely accepted, but I sill dislike them (though maybe you have to play this game to stay in the game at all)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com