Hacker News Reader

I think that line clarifies what people in the tech industry seem to be missing in this whole controversy: It's not about developers.

It's about users, and creating a great experience for them. Developers getting upset about flash not running on the device, apps getting rejected, etc--that's just an unintentional side-effect of putting the user first.

Users do have to use something. Developers make those things.

Right, which simply means that the leverage developers have is a non-zero positive value.

It doesn't mean it's a large, non-zero positive value. I think recent developments in mobiles have shown that customers have orders of magnitude more leverage above everyone.

That's not to say Apple doesn't care about their developers at all. They've created nice development tools, easy distribution methods that can lead to handsome profits, and they even hold a pretty neat conference for developers once a year. It's just that it's all secondary to their vision for the user.

I'm only the friend of an armchair economist, but wasn't supply-side economics deemed bullshit?

If there are users, the developers will come. Just because there are developers, doesn't guarantee users. This explains everything about Apple and Linux.

Except Linux is used far more than Apple. Just not necessarily on the client side.

Or by actual people. Your web broswer connecting to a linux powered website isn't you "using" linux, it's you using a web browser.

"Your web broswer connecting to a linux powered website isn't you "using" linux, it's you using a web browser."

Why would you think a web browser connecting to website is a user using the OS of the website? Why would you make that connection?

Why?

Anyways, back on target. Users choose to use Linux all the time. Countless people choose Linux over other OS's for hosting their websites. Even people with little technical knowledge choose Linux over other options out there as their OS of choice.

And then you have Linux on mobile devices. Android isn't doing half bad, last I checked. And Android is based on Linux.

While your original argument is sound, your conclusion about Apple and Linux is off the mark.

Yep. It may have been about developers in the past, but it doesn't look that way going forward. The app store only needs so many apps, and there are tons of devs to fill in, no matter which technology isn't allowed.

You're making the fallacious argument that one developer can be easily substituted for another. That's just insulting to developers, and completely unrealistic. I mean, sure, if a developer comes out with something interesting on another platform, some guy will probably try to clone it on the App Store, granting the App Store policies even allow the type of app. It'll never be as good as the original, however. At some point, you do want the real app innovation taking place on your platform first, or you'll be missing out on a lot of critical media and social exposure to a competing platform.

No. I'm making the argument that 100 developers can replace another. Because that's essentially what you have. You're right, there will be a few things here or there that aren't done as well. But overall? There will be plenty of people to step in.

Developers also have choices, though, and if they feel Apple isn't treating them right they should develop for another platform. As a group, developers have a lot to say about the success of a platforms with consumers.

If there's a market that you don't want to serve because of your principles, you take your principles, and I'll take your market share.

What if it violates your principles, but not mine? What then?

Of course you don't care about violating my principles. But do you care about violating your own?

Right, and users would notice and care if some application "duplicated functionality".

3.3.1 is not the only problem - there have been lots of bullshit rejections too.

But Apple seems to limit the role of users. I'm a user -- a relatively skilled one, since I not only consume software, but create it too.

As I understand, there are two Apple bureaucracies in the way: one which collects about a $100/year fee to let you go beneath a superficial level, and another where Apple bureaucrats examine your software before it can be conveniently shared. (Do I misunderstand?) This apparently even holds true with free software.

These bureaucracies make it difficult for interested users to move along the skill spectrum. They seem to enforce a strict separation between developers and users.

If you do not agree with such a decision, there are several other competing platforms.

What makes it so frustrating, I think, is that most people like the Apple platform and experience. Giving it up and going somewhere else for ideological reasons sounds good until you're resetting your phone by pulling the battery, struggling to get hardware to work, asking why Linux still has no good mixed sound support layer, or other realities of less unified platforms.

We want Steve & his company to agree with us so that we can have our cake and also know that the cake is made according to our ideology.

Make it difficult? $100 is difficult for an interested user? Really? 20 lattes?

If you make something well and it's non-trivial, the chances of it getting refused for any substantive reason (porn, stepping on Apple's toes, etc.) are actually pretty small.

I.e., there's small set of things you can't do, but an unlimited set of things you can do.

It makes me angry that a company that appears to go against my ideals is so popular and successful, because I believe my ideals are better. It's not in any way a good argument, but I might as well admit it rather than claiming otherwise.

So I presume you have started a company based around your ideals? I think people don't realize that there is no magic fairy dust at 1 Infinite Loop. Apple's success is really quite easy to reproduce. It only takes one thing: guts!

Well... and talent and taste and opportunity.

Taste, above all.

Taste is nothing without the balls to follow through even when everyone thinks you're crazy.

> "Apple's success is really quite easy to reproduce."

I doubt this...

They're not unbeatable, but let's be honest, a lot of money has been thrown at the "kill Apple" by some very large players with a lot of money and experience. No one has done it yet - I'm not convinced it's really simply a matter of determination.

I really think the reason why people haven't done it is they're trying to compete on Apple's terms.

Palm trying to out-iPhone the iPhone, Microsoft trying to out-iPod the iPod, both of which weren't successful on the same level.

You either need to transcend their technology (which is difficult given the positive brand experience that Apple has) or compete in different fields to truly beat them. This just hasn't happened yet.

Or they could mount a full-frontal assault like Google is and attack the iPhone from every angle with an open platform. Palm was a small fish, Google, not so much.

"Kill Apple" is a poor goal. One of the first things Steve Jobs said upon returning to Apple was "We have to let go of the notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose."

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-202143.html

Instead, try to make things people want.

> Instead, try to make things people want.

Because, considering human nature, that is a much better defined and more static goal than "kill Apple."

Are a human? Do you work on a product that you would want to buy from yourself? Seems like a pretty easy target if you ask me... (hint: you're not as unique as you think, and that's a good thing!)

A very interesting quote, seeing as I seem to always be told what I want and if I don't then buy/develop for something else.

Money != determination

Look at Zune -- First generation was ugly (eh, that's a personal opinion), but it had some features the iPod didn't. Second generation cleaned up the design a bit, was at least competitive on price, and had a feature that iPod's still to this day don't have: the ability to sync wirelessly...

...but was Microsoft ever really that into Zune? I mean, they made one strong push at the start, but then what? Microsoft is such a schizophrenic company these days. If they were really determined, I think they could've beaten Apple.

But, then, if they were really determined I think they'd have to do something radical...like change their name. I mean, come on! Microsoft? That's so...80s! Sure, changing their name would mean throwing away practically priceless brand identity, but I'll bet you it would improve their ability to compete with Apple in the consumer electronics market. What's that you say? They'd be stupid to toss the brand behind their Windows/Office monopoly just to compete in consumer electronics? Well, maybe...maybe they don't really want to kill the iPod...maybe the Zune was a half-hearted, ultimately misguided attempt...

...maybe they don't have the guts. I did hear about this one company that changed its name and abandoned the best selling personal music player so that they could introduce a new model with less capacity at a higher price because they believed that flash technology was better than mini-hardrives and then held their announce their annual developers' conference wouldn't cover their operating system even as sales of it are better then they've ever been before...

GUTS!

I don't think dropping "Computer" from "Apple Computer, Inc." is really a dramatic change that takes guts.

Anyway, Microsoft is a soft and pretty easy target. Your critique of Google's efforts with Android, please?

Android wasn't gutsy at all: they hired the original Sidekick developers that were already most of the way through developing a bastard medley of other failed platforms on top of a bludgeoned Linux kernel.

Palm's WebOS and HP's acquisition of them are gutsy. Google's development of ChromeOS is gutsy. Android ain't.

The Android team did most of what they could to repeat all the mistakes of NewtonOS (app transclusion), the Sidekick (mandatory incomplete instant OTA-only sync), and classic Windows Mobile (total fealty to fractious manufacturers and carriers) — and then they added some of their own absurd retardation on top of that (like anything to do with the SD card, Dalvik, OpenBinder, etc.).

Have you actually used a recent Android phone? I recently switched to an incredible after more than two years with iPhones (a first-gen and then a 3GS). In many ways I find the Android superior to the iPhone model.

App transclusion, in my mind, is a positive. The application stack on Android makes great sense. It creates a repeatable sequence of events that I find easy to navigate. My wife, who is very much non-technical agrees. She has a much easier time with Android than she did with iPhone(s).

While there are definitely issues with device fracturing it's an issue I'm hoping Google works to control more cleanly in the future. As it stands today you can safely target a small number of devices with more or less compatible specs and do quite well.

Android 2.2 continues to address a lot of these issues. The pace at which the platform has matured is very nice.

Overall, I think the user experience on Android is rapidly approaching (and in some cases surpasses) that of the iPhone. I do find it interesting that in my social world, 2/3 of my non-technical friends have Android phones (mostly Motorola Droids). Every single one of them is pleased as punch.

Since you asked...

Similar to Zune, Google's efforts with Android seemed really promising at the start. They took a different approach, attempting to be open from the start...and then went, what? six months without an update to the "public" source? That was just the first sign of trouble though, and the first indication that Google was not willing to do what it took to stand up to the carriers and stick by their original idea: an open phone OS.

Since then, we've seen time and again how Google has essentially just thrown this OS out there and the handset makers and service providers are free to do with it as they please... Want to never update the OS for your users? eh, Google doesn't care. Want to provide a custom, potentially inferior, UI while still claiming the "Android" brand? bah, who cares about brand purity anyway, right?

Seriously, outside of the hacker community I don't know of anyone who identifies their "Android" phone as an "Andriod" phone. In other words, Google seems to have done a giant favor to the handset makers by doing their job for them and demanding almost nothing in return, including nothing to improve the situation for Google's customers. If I buy an HTC phone from Verizon running Android, who's making sure I get what I want? and not just what happens to be most convenient and profitable for the companies involved?

When Apple went carrier shopping, they went to Verizon first. Verizon was the biggest. Verizon had the best network. But Verizon demanded their typical suite of extortions and lock-downs on the phone. Did Apple cave? Nope! GUTS! They said, "You know what? AT&T might not have the best network, but we see this as a platform. Trust us, the call quality might not be great, but we're going to give you in a phone something no one has ever thought of giving you in a phone, and that's going to change everything!"

Oh, and Google is no less schizophrenic of a company at the moment than Microsoft. Worse even! They seem to be frantically trying to find some way of earning money that doesn't involve advertising, but at the same time they seem too timid to really put all their chips behind anything.

(edit: Oh, and yes...dropping "Computer" wasn't huge, but I also didn't mention the drastic change of processor architecture, the complete reinvention of their OS, cutting their product line down to 3 or 4 major SKUs...I could go on.)

I don't fully agree, but I acknowledge the effort and the thought in your reply. Thanks.

The true in theory is the successful in practice. Have you considered that your ideals could be wrong?

If the iPad is succesful, then it will affect me whether I buy it or not. Just like Micrsoft's success has filled my inbox with spam from botnets and limited my tech choices in a myriad of ways. Just like Facebook's success means there's no room for an alternative until they really shaft people.

It's called network effects and it's one of the basic elements of information technology. That's why we care about what the idiots are buying and what the power-crazed shysters are selling them.

Ironically, the answer to your question is that many of the other large companies (e.g. Microsoft, Telcos) have already locked people in and don't even need to care about competing at Apple's level in order to rake in the cash, they just have to occasionally intervene to prevent competition from entering their market. Does that sound familiar in the context on Apple?

A big part of it is psychological - when I was at the Apple store last night, people were waiting in line to play with any and all of the Apple products. Whenever someone would move away from something, another person would jump on it without knowing or caring what it was. If a consumer sees everyone around them buying a product, chances are they're going to want that item too. It's like peer pressure for the consumer market, you buy things to be cool (of course this applies to everything, not just Apple).

Minor nit - I found the upsell when buying an iPhone at the Boston Apple store crass to say the least. My wife got told she HAD to buy Apple Care to have a warranty, HAD to get Mobile Me "to use the phone properly" and HAD to get an SMS plan if she wanted to send texts.

I called to complain and got a fairly hopeless uninterested manager.

Complain further up the chain. Nobody should be doing that, it's preying on the uninformed.

I'd already invested a lot of time in complaining. Who do I go above the store manager? How would I even figure that out? I sent an email to a generic Apple email address and got no response. What do I do next -- email Steve?

It's frustrating, but mainly saddening, as I'd never seen anything quite like that before. A friend of mine bought his iPhone from a New Hampshire AT&T store the following week and the difference was amazing. Since when does a cell phone store have a less pushy sales team?

I've found the downtown Boston store to be a less than great experience myself. Try the mall Apple store in Burlington, I've had very good experiences there. In fact, I've found the mid sized mall Apple stores to be much more customer centric than the big flagship stores. Maybe it's the high priced real-estate, or maybe the bigger stores just attract more "competitive" sales staff.

> they don't have to buy or develop or publish on iPads if they don't want to

That's a non-argument. Like saying if you don't like America why don't you leave. It's designed to shut down criticism. He's saying you should accept (or reject) the entire package without looking at details.

> and turn it into a why isn't anyone even close to competing on Apple's level missive.

It's certainly not because open platforms are unsuccessful, if that's what you're implying. You can find any number of examples of this.

> That's a non-argument. Like saying if you don't like America why don't you leave.

Bzzzt! But thanks for playing... Unfortunately there's this concept known as citizenship. You're sorta born into it (usually). Ask any immigrant you meet, and I'm pretty sure they'll tell you that getting over all the legal requirements associated with moving countries is non-trivial (and that's even considering that the US, for all the criticism it receives, has one of the more open immigration policies in the world).

You know what it takes to be free from the tyranny of the iPad? Don't buy one! So why is that a non-argument? Because you're entitled to an iPad under terms and conditions you feel are reasonable? Freedom comes with citizenship because you don't have a choice there...

> It's certainly not because open platforms are unsuccessful

Did I say that? Here, let me try this again: Apple makes a product and sells it for a price. You have a job (presumably) and make money to spend on products. You can buy Apple's product, or not. They're not trying to trick you by claiming this product is something its not. You, having not entered into a contract commissioning the product they are selling have precisely zero right to demand the product be anything other than what it is.

If you don't like the product, buy something else. If there's nothing else comparable to buy your choices are: 1. make something better yourself 2. ask somebody else to make something better for you to buy

Put your pants back on. People don't need a contract to complain. I bought an ipad because I thought the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. I still do. For now, I'll occasionally post about the advantages & occasionally also complain about the disadvantages. Maybe I'll jailbreak it. Or maybe I'll sell it when something better comes along. Life is more complex than "buy something else" & there are more important things to get angry about.

Sorry, didn't mean to rant. I agree that it's perfectly fine to complain about a product that you otherwise like well enough to have purchased. I guess what angers me is all these hackers and programmers and creative business types complaining so much...when they're precisely the ones who can do something about it! You know what? I have a lot of respect for Fusion Garage. They may be far off the mark, but at least they are trying!

Just like Apple can design their product in any way they want, all these hackers and programmers and creative business types can complain all they want. But because they complain, does not mean they want to get into hardware business.

So just like the advice "if you do not like the devices, buy something else" is valid, so is "if you do not like hearing critique, grow a thicker skin".

We are (mostly) from free countries, with freedom of expression and all that jazz.

The problem is that these critiques are often much more than just critique. They often take the form of an outright call to arms against a great injustice. And, you know, even that wouldn't bother me so much, except for the boy-crying-wolf effect. When someone does actually do something worth taking up arms to oppose, is anyone going to pay attention anymore? or are they just going to think, "Pfft...probably somebody stole another iPhone. Who cares..."?

> So, it's no wonder that people want to think that Apple is somehow conning them into giving up their freedom or being locked-down unnecessarily.

As long as Apple products either 1) play with open standards or 2) remain a niche, that's fine, they can lock in and lock down all their loving fans as much as they want. Not my game, but yeah, I buy other stuff and don't worry about it.

The worries start when they get big enough in something to have "positive network externalities" - network effects - that start influencing my life, whether I like it or not. For instance, if their phones managed to really take over the market, it would make it impossible not to deal with their crap for me, and I would at that point face the choice of either having to deal with "Steve's world" or simply not doing mobile phone stuff. I think I'd choose the latter, but it's not a choice I want to be forced into.

What does that have to do with anything? Also not sure if it is true or not. "Conning" says too much, but Apple does promise a lot of things that are not really true. Their computers are not that easy to use and not free of problems.

A lot of people have been led to believe that their computing problems will all go away if they switch to Apple, which simply isn't true.

70,000 Android activations/day. Each and every day. It's coming and Apple won't be able to stop it this time either.