Hacker News Reader

Comment by ozmbie | Hacker News Reader

Apple is a still computer company, because Phones ARE computers.

For the majority of the population in developed countries, and almost all of the population of developing countries, smartphones are the only computer people have or need.

I agree that Apple have shifted focus away from "making tools for people to create things and solve problems" towards consumption-oriented mobile devices. But those devices are still computers, and they're wildly successful.

If Apple devoted their focus to products in proportion to their revenue, then they would be putting 12x as much effort into the iPhone than they would for the entire Mac lineup.

View on HN

Sure, phones are computers. Also, most people use phones as their primary way of connecting to the Internet.

But what does that have to do with me (or, it seems, the GP poster)?

I want a great computer on which I can do what I usually do on my computer which is mostly programming, but I guess I could be fancy and say "content creation" instead.

The fact that phones are computers have exactly zero relevance when it comes to me choosing a new laptop.

I used to be a hardcore Mac user, because the computing environment was superior to any other choice, but that's not the case anymore so my next computer will be a Linux laptop.

> If Apple devoted their focus to products in proportion to their revenue, then they would be putting 12x as much effort into the iPhone than they would for the entire Mac lineup.

True. However, creators and developers (who, in my experience, almost always use a desktop) are important for the iOS platform. Someone has to write those native apps. Therefore it doesn't make sense to ignore them for too long.

Developers flock to the platform with more users. Which means Apple actually does need to focus on iOS to get more people to keep using mac.

Those of us who are ios developers will keep bitching about it but have no alternative so will keep on using macs as long as their iOS ecosystem is doing great.

While this is generally true, it's a little more nuanced. For example: Android has a larger market share (by a lot globally), but apps are frequently developed for iOS first. Why? Because it's easier. Device fragmentation plays a large role in that, but part of the cost of the project is dealing with the development ecosystem (good or bad). As Apple makes the development less appealing (because of sub standard hardware / OSX) android will seem like a better option.

Developers don't develop for iOS first because it is easier. They develop there first because iOS users pay money for things/apps. Android users do not.

I'm an Android user and I pay for things (?) and apps. Are you saying that I'm the only Android user who pays for apps and "things"? Or is your statement just a gratuitous cliche?

Statistically the average revenue per android user is lower than per iOS user. It's not a binary either/or.

Source: have been a mobile developer for 6 years.

Is the average revenue per user a relevant number though? When it comes to choosing what platform to develop for, wouldn't total revenue be a more important number?

The difference between total revenue and average revenue per user is important, but I think the answer is still iOS.

http://bgr.com/2016/07/20/ios-vs-android-developers-profits-...

It's well understood by many startups and established companies that developing for iOS often takes priority because there's a larger group of users willing to pay more money than their android counterparts

My point is not whether Android or iOS is better. It's that the key to keeping iOS developers around is NOT to make a better laptop but by putting more effort into iOS so that its market share grows.

No matter how great XCode becomes, if everyone starts using Android, people will all jump ship to Android, which means many iOS developers will change to windows.

Sadly that's more a race to the bottom since Google still don't seem particularly interested in actually making the experience for Android developers any better.

iOS apps are also more profitable than Android.

No one makes money selling phone apps.

"Apple's App Store has paid over $50 billion to developers"[0]

[0]http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/3/12371006/app-store-50-billi...

You don't have to sell an app to make money from it

I live in developing countries. It's true that smartphones are the only computer people have or need, which is a problem.

Mobile devices are still consumption devices. It's hard to create complex, multi-layer structures on phones: the screen is too small, the processor is too underpowered... take your pick. But creating a good SaaS or a good UX on a phone is darn tough.

Here comes speculation:

Websites/services in developing countries are painfully bad.

This is due to a number of factors outside technology, but it's also true that universities here graduate people who never grew up with big screens and unwalled gardens, never grew up creating rather than consuming, and don't have a sense of what it's like to go from blank screen to working prototype to polished platform.

Neither do most people in developed countries.

But at least computers are widely available in developed countries so that the x% of kids who have an affinity for these things end up getting started early.

Someday mobile devices will match and surpass desktops and laptops. But that day is not today, and meanwhile developing countries are years behind not only in physical infrastructure, but in online infrastructure as well.

You're correct that phones are computers, however:

Solidworks, AutoCAD, etc. don't run on phones

Photoshop/Lightroom/Illustrator don't run on phones

SPICE, VHDL, Verilog don't run on phones

InDesign and other DTP programs don't run on phones

Emacs/Vi don't run on phones

There are a host of actually-useful programs that are completely unsuitable for run on phone-computers, that do run well on laptop-computers and desktop-computers.

Vim and Emacs support Android. Vim is also on iOS.

VIM: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.momodalo.a...

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/vim/id492668168?mt=8

Emacs: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.zielm.emac...

Yes, but on iOS you still can't compile or run any of the programs you write.

> Solidworks, AutoCAD, etc. don't run on phones

"AutoCAD" is a brand that applies to a large number of different CAD-related programs, some of which are mobile apps.

> Photoshop/Lightroom/Illustrator don't run on phones

Both Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Photoshop Lightroom are in the Google Play Store for Android phones.

> SPICE, VHDL, Verilog don't run on phones

Well, I can find circuit design apps that support a subset of verilog, but this is basically right.

> Emacs/Vi don't run on phones

There are ports of both on the Android App Store, supporting phones.

> There are a host of actually-useful programs that are completely unsuitable for run on phone-computers, that do run well on laptop-computers and desktop-computers.

There may be applications that phones don't have the processing capacity for or that work best with certain I/O peripherals that phones aren't often used with, sure. But the array of classes apps that are completely unavailable for phones is smaller than you seem to think.

SPICE, VHDL and Verilog typically run on some 56 core machine in a server room. At least once you are working on a sufficiently complex design.

> For the majority of the population in developed countries, and almost all of the population of developing countries, smartphones are the only computer people have or need.

Not true. I am from India. Developing country. There are 5 working people in my family. None of us can replace our notebooks with our phones. For all of us phone is for communication and notebook for work.

> because Phones ARE computers.

This is like saying trucks are cars, too.

Different form factor for different purpose.

Yes, this, thank you. The "but it's a computer!" sophistry falls apart the moment you take one look at the user interface. The reason people are starting to get annoyed with Apple is their continued phone-ification of the desktop.

It. Doesn't. Work.

Your first line is true but only in a trivial sense. In this sense Fitbit is also a computer company. That would be a stretch, but not by far.

Wholly agree with you -- in fact I think we're at a turning point in smartphones catching up to being full fledged computers.

I've written some thoughts about this previously, if you would care for a detailed elaboration: https://guan.sg/apples-2017/

Thanks, that is a nice write up. I especially like "Imagine a world where the way desktops are meant to function is by plugging your ultraportable into any available set of peripherals: monitor, keyboard and mouse. The interchangeablity and convenience of that, necessarily implies that the brand and type of monitor / keyboard / mouse you plug your ultraportable into doesn’t matter, as long as they’re technically compatible." I have written on the same topic, and that is the future I see. Microsoft had the right idea with Continuam, and I expect Apple, Microsoft, and Google to all try to make this work on the mobile side while leaving it to 3rd party manufacturers to develop USB-C compatible monitors that act as a hub for keyboard, mouse, USB drives, etc.

Thanks! Would love to read, if you have a link!

> Imagine a world where the way desktops are meant to function is by plugging your ultraportable into any available set of peripherals: monitor, keyboard and mouse.

I'm skeptical that this will work for everyone.

Everything is tradeoffs. When "must be tiny" is the top priority, performance and battery life necessarily suffer.

There will always be people - from gamers to video producers - whose top priority is performance. And for computer geeks generally, the weight difference between a laptop and a phone is not compelling, but having four times as many cores would be.

The portability difference between a mainframe and a laptop is immense - it changes your working life. The portability difference between a laptop and a phone is much smaller. It means you can do things spontaneously, because you can always have the phone with you. But if you're planning to work, the difference is minimal. Especially if the smaller form factor means you have to plan to have peripherals wherever you're going.

Eg, I can take my laptop to a cafe or a park and work. I couldn't do that with an "ultraportable" unless I bring my own peripherals. So it's actually less portable for the situations I care about.

Saying phones ARE computers is being completely pedantic.

Of course they are. So are microwaves at this point. So are toilets at this point.

I fail to believe that you just "missed" the real point, that the form factor and the user interface are (and need to be) quite different from a phone to a desktop.

> If Apple devoted their focus to products in proportion to their revenue, then they would be putting 12x as much effort into the iPhone than they would for the entire Mac lineup.

Consider:

- iPhones will suck if developers stop making software for them.

- You need XCode to make software for iPhones

- XCode only runs on MacOS

If developers start abandoning Mac en masse, that's going to hurt iOS a lot.

Also, if photographers, videographers, animators, designers, audio engineers, etc start championing Windows or Linux as their platform of choice, the average person will follow eventually. "All the pros I know use X" persuades a lot of average people.

And if people aren't using Mac, there's a lot less reason to use iPhone as opposed to Android.

I hate to use the word "synergy", but that seems to be what they're risking here.

No, Phones are TVs, books, consoles etc. A typical computer usage at a guess is an Excel file. I would wager that majority of business usage is some kind of document editing stuff and Phone by design will never ever be able to do this.

> Phones ARE computers

Computers that need jail-breaking, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com