Hacker News Reader

Comment by exodust | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com