John Gruber: I'll Tell You What's Fair
daringfireball.net
daringfireball.net
> Look at those 2007 Android designs compared to the original 2007 iPhone. Now compare a 2010 Android design to a current iPhone. Don’t tell me Google’s mobile strategy hasn’t changed.
I mean, he's totally right. It did change. But it wasn't to knock off Apple, it's because Google is building what consumers want and demand now.
Apple can say, "We pioneered that!" That's true. But they can't say, "We pioneered that - how dare they!" Because that's misplaced. Consumer preference has shifted, and yes, that's due in large part because of Apple's actions.
But Apple gets into trouble when they start thinking, "People want iPhones and these jerks are copying our iPhone" - because consumers don't necessarily want iPhones. They want well-designed devices which are fun and intuitive to use. Apple helped reveal that path, but they don't exactly get to plant a flag in the ground and say that's theirs now, forever, and how dare anyone else build well-designed devices with intuitive touchscreen interfaces.
Any other company I'd shrug at the misplaced righteous indignation, but Apple really should know better, since they got into this with Microsoft over "look and feel" last decade over GUI. The reaction was the same, "How dare Microsoft try to give people Apple-like stuff!" But that's wrong. Microsoft gave people what they wanted, which was pretty and and more intuitive navigation.
It's like - when you introduce a new general standard, you can't really own it. It's out there. You get a massive head start, but then people will start using that standard and innovating on it. Traditionally what companies with the head start do is cut prices to lock in market share and make it impossible for people to compete, but Apple runs on crazy margins, so they refuse to do this, get angry at whoever is making something that fills similar needs for a lower price than them, and then lose their market. And now they're doing it again.
Give me a break, John.
As far as I can tell, the first touchscreen Android phone came out in late 2009 (HTC Magic, according to this: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/google-android-htc-touch,news-34...) That's a full two years after the release of the iPhone. It took time for Google to start competing on the iPhone's turf, and that's why the relationship changed.
I'm frankly surprised this is framed as Google vs Apple. It's actually a textbook case of the free-market adapting and competition continuing. It means the free market is working. Which makes me happy. I can now get a decent smartphone on the Carrier of my choice at a price I can afford. If the IPhone was the only game in town I'd still be stuck with a blackberry. I was not in love with my blackberry I had it because I loved it. I am in love with my Android phone though.
Gruber explicitly says that it is fair for Google to compete with Apple and to copy the iPhone. He is making the point that it is reasonable for Apple to compete with Google (in ads).
Here is the excerpt
>>It wasn’t unfair for Google to decide to compete directly against and copy ideas from the iPhone. That’s competition. It may be angering to Apple, but it’s not out of bounds.
>>What’s goofy is the idea that Google would do this — to aggressively change Android from a BlackBerry/Windows Mobile competitor into an iPhone competitor — and that anyone would expect Apple not to retaliate, to instead just sit there and take it and allow all other aspects of their previous buddy-buddy corporate relationship with Google to continue as though nothing had changed.
Bullshit. Google started this. It was Google that turned its sights on the iPhone. [...] They made their bed, now they have to sleep in it.
There’s no question it’s a dick move on Apple’s part. But what’s the argument against it? That Google gets a pass for being dicks to Apple, and Apple ought to just sit there and take it?
What is Gruber suggesting that Google shouldn't get a pass for being dicks about here?
I understand what he's saying Apple are being dicks about, and it's not competing in ads. It's a dick move to begin competing in ads and start by banning your main competitor's product from the market you control.
This has always puzzled me. Why would they NOT do it? Apple does not control smartphone market - they control iPhone market, a subset of smartphone market. They have made the product, the supporting infrastructure for it, how are they obliged to allow competition in there?
For example, some time ago I bought a Canon printer. There was a booklet packed with it, telling me what inks can be used with it - all were of Canon brand. Now, I know there are some third parties selling inks for Canon printers, and without a doubt they would like to be featured in those booklets, preferably with the notice that their ink is of comparable quality while costing far less. But Canon is not including them - is that a dick move too?
Yes, you can happily use X ink in your Canon printer. And you can run X adds in your iPhone apps. But those inks would not be sold in Canon stores. And the same way, Apple can choose not to distribute those apps in their Appstore.
Last time I checked, neither iPhone platform, nor Appstore were public domain :)
Have you not noticed the widespread uproar about the price gouging on ink supplies? Your example of what's an appropriate business move is a textbook case illustrating the opposite.
The fact that you're more pro-Apple than Gruber on this should be a sign that you're out in the left-field. You'll need better arguments than inkjet manufactures do it too and the iPhone isn't public domain if you want to be convincing. Unless your argument is that not only can corporations do whatever they want but we have to like it too.
And if you are not doing research before purchase, there are only two options: either the product/sum you are going to spend is not that important to you, or you are about to get a valuable lesson.
Any way, I'm not trying to campaign for Apple, Google or Gruber here - I am trying to point out that this is how the market works. If you would rather have it differently, join/start a political party.
I got his point, I just think he's wrong.
He says Google shifting from trying to compete from Blackberry/Microsoft to competing with Apple was basically an act of war, so Apple is justified in fighting back in the ad market.
I think that's wrong for three reasons - first, Google didn't go after Apple, they're building things people want. Their devices resemble Apple's more than Blackberry's because Apple is also doing what people want, whereas Blackberry isn't.
Second, it wasn't an act of war/betrayal/attack/breach of the Apple/Google business relationship (which Gruber implies).
Third, Apple are kind of being pricks pulling the rug out from a company after Google acquires them. They can do that because it's their business, but it's not justified as some sort of retaliatory measure. It is justified as business if they want, it's kind of prick-ish, but it's their right to do.
So, I understood, I just thought some of his points were wrong. I agree with him about not having comments on his site though - except in rare instances with a carefully built commenting community, comments become just noise and take away from a site. I like Gruber and have learned some really good stuff from him. I'm just not with him on this one.
(Don't run for where the ball is, run for where the ball is going to be. Or however that saying goes.)
Strikes me as a generic sports/life tip: anticipate and be there first.
Edit: Gauius's reply suggests I'm probably dead wrong about the movie. Never knew where the quote came from. Thanks.
But I've never heard anyone say "I love my Android", people talk about how clever it is, but the brand doesn't seem to resonate nearly as much, and it's not as clear what it says as a lifestyle accessory.
Second, in my experience, people react to it with a "So you're a DIY-er, huh?" That is, people are aware, however vaguely, of the opensource/hacker vibe that the brand carries. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by "what it says as a lifestyle accesory," but I think it is.
(Btw, you had your +1 at "Jay-Z mentions...")
Up here in Mass, I tend to see Android devices being carried by unpleasant, street hoodlum types, which I guess to be a consequence of and reinforce the "iPhone knockoff" image associated with them.
This is exactly how it was with the Danger handsets 5-7 years ago, simply because they were great for power-texters, had a camera and were way, way cheaper than BlackBerries. And yes, as a result they were great for conducting street business -- don't be all shocked if that's true of Loopt as well.
I love my Nexus One. I love the Android platform. I wouldn't say "I love my Android", because it doesn't make any more sense than saying "I love my Windows" (whereas a Mac user would easily say "I love my Mac", as the hardware and software are a deal package).
The "Droid" brand is starting to change that, though. People are referring to all manner of Android phones as "Droids". It's a name that is being used to refer to both the platform and the hardware. I could easily see it gaining the same kind of brand mindshare that the iPhone and Blackberry brands have.
That's because you don't buy an "Android". I've heard tons of people say "I love my Droid" or "I love my Nexus One".
I've been doing some BB development lately using a Storm II. Compared to the iPhone 3GS, it's a flying turd. I wonder if these BlackBerry lovers just haven't tried an iPhone or Android device.
Maybe I would think differently if I was testing on a keyboard device like a Bold, but I can't imagine it would change my opinion that much.
The buzz I meant was media buzz. Among users, I think Blackberry has plenty. Their users are fanatical. (Stephen Fry had an article on this a bit back, as I recall.)
Android was Google seeing a rich opportunity to take uncertain ground from Apple and now it's a dance to find a stable boundary line. One smart, if risky, way to get another couple moves to extend that line is to attack them somewhere else. Even Google has limited attention. Best, for Apple, is that this attack strengthens their smartphone position. It sounds really clever to me.
EDIT: I don't normally respond to downvotes, but I find it odd that at least three people have disagreed without anyone explaining how this very factual comment is wrong. If there's something factually or logically wrong in my comment, we would all be better off if you'd explain the truth rather than (or as well as) downvote.
Let's compare to Apple, who doesn't have a majority share in any competitive market besides portable music players and digital music distribution. The actual share of revenues from these businesses is a small and shrinking fraction of Apple's income. The portable music player business is collapsing in the face of evolving consumer smart phones and mobile internet devices like the iPod Touch, and the digital music distribution is an insignificant part of Apple's revenue. All the areas in which Apple is making all their profits are either nascent markets like consumer tablets and mobile internet devices, or Apple is a relatively small player. To imply that Apple can use their position in these markets it doesn't dominate to unfairly move into other established markets needs a bit more supportive evidence than that.
Apple also has disproportionate influence even in markets where it is not a monopoly.
As for Apple's skill in managing media exposure and marketing, that's certainly not an area in which they can hope to have any kind of monopoly.
There's a lot of people out there who love physical keyboards and who must type with their thumbs!
Gruber is drawing an arbitrary distinction here that never really existed. RIM and Microsoft have been in the process of adapting in the very same way: Look at the BlackBerry Storm or Windows Phone 7. Are RIM and MS suddenly changing markets? No, they're just evolving to meet consumer demand, same as Google did.
And I don't think Gruber is making a coherent point here. Why even argue about who started it? That just comes across as whining and a ultimately a semantic argument. Of course companies will compete - let's talk about the implementations, what is best for consumers, and which is best for developers.
I guess it's not at all clear from my comment, but I agree with lionhearted insofar as his description of Apple's (or Steve's) motives are basically right. I'm not sure if I agree with their method of retaliation (blocking AdMob from targeting), but I do think they're justified in feeling angry about having their UI innovations ripped off. They don't get to hold onto them forever, but when their work advances the industry by that much, they deserve a level of deference, the same way deserving patent-holders do.
Funnily enough, it's Microsoft that chose not to develop a derivative UI this time, with Windows Phone 7. Something tells me that that UI is going to get old fast, but at least they attempted to innovate and be original.
[citation needed]
I used an iPhone for a couple years, got a G1 and used it for a while, got a Nexus One and used it for a while, used the iPhone for a little while longer, and then switched back to the Nexus One for good.
My preference is Android (for a myriad of reasons, including the UX); got anything non-anecdotal that speaks to this, or at least a (neutral) third-party authority on UX?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOgOP_aqqtg
> got anything non-anecdotal that speaks to this, or at least a (neutral) third-party authority on UX?
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/iphone-vs-...
http://www.google.com/search?q=iphone+android+customer+satis...
U.S. iPhone users have the highest customer satisfaction, despite having greater dissatisfaction with their carrier, AT&T, which is responsible for a pretty big portion of a phone user's experience.
Consumers want and demand touchscreen smartphones with large screens and no keypads precisely because Apple trained people to want them.
Google is knocking off Apple, just like Microsoft knocked off Apple with the GUI computer interface. (Apple trained people to want them too). And it's not just Google. You can hardly turn around without tripping over another iPhone knockoff (large touchscreen, no keypad) from Nokia, RIM, Samsung and basically everyone else.
EDIT: Not sure why this is being downvoted - name a touchscreen smartphone that people were raving about before the iPhone? Pointing this out doesn't make me a fanboy. The iPhone wasn't the first of it's kind, but it was the first touchcscreen smartphone people were nuts for. See the number of sales and downloads on the App store compared to anywhere else. Or the fact that despite being locked down, and bundled with shitty carriers, people were still willing to endure that to own an iPhone.
I still used it in 2007 when my E70 was in repair.
In retrospect, doesn't it seem like Google should have emphasized the original Android phones and gone after Blackberry's market share? I think Google wants more corporate mindshare. The part of the world's data that both badly needs organization and has big flows of money associated with it is in the hands of big corporations.
By differentiating themselves as the "business-oriented" smartphone, they could have eaten Blackberry's lunch or scared them into partnership while still chipping away at Apple with the Multitouch phones.
Then again, consumer demand is perhaps the way for newcomers to enter the corporate market.
> But Apple gets into trouble when they start thinking, "People want iPhones and these jerks are copying our iPhone"
and
>The reaction was the same, "How dare Microsoft try to give people Apple-like stuff!"
I think Apple's position on this has been misinterpreted over the years. They don't have any problem with copying good ideas from others and don't have the "how dare they" attitude towards Microsoft (or Google) that people seem to think. What I believe annoyed them over the years was that Microsoft took the basic premise of their stuff, made it worse (i.e. produced a "third-rate" product as Jobs has called it), and was winning with this strategy (because, they felt, that "enterprise" was making the purchasing decisions and that they were suffering from the layer between them and the consumers).
On Google, they're competition, so they're competing with them. The Eric Schmidt angle might make it a bit different, but largely I get the sense that Apple respects what Google does, believes they make great products, and is focused on beating them in the market where they both compete.
> "We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it. We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours." -- Steve Jobs, regarding the recent Apple vs HTC lawsuit.
That's about as cut-and-dried "how dare they" as it comes, particular when examined in the context of the lawsuit.
For some context, watch this video, specifically 0:35-0:46 and 2:50-3:43. It's a younger and more "pissed off" Steve Jobs than we know today, however his feelings are clear: He's not against copying ideas, adding value to them, and producing a wonderful product.
I specified "In the context of the lawsuit" quite particularly. I know that it's about patent claims, but it's about paper-thin patent claims which are transparently "how dare you" saber-rattling, not a legitimate defense of significant trade secrets.
The video you linked only makes the dichotomy more stark. Apple's attitude, based on historical observation, has been "Copying ideas and adding value is great...when we do it. If you try it from us, get ready for Lawyerfest 2010."
Before arguing the validity of patents, the point you were trying to make is that Apple has a "how dare they" attitude towards Microsoft and Google as they enter into markets which Apple first resides. I'm saying it's not that. They expect others to come into the PC market, they expect others to come into the touchscreen smartphone market. When they get there, they compete with them. Their tiff with Microsoft in the 90's, in my opinion, was not that they made an OS with a GUI, rather that they made an inferior OS with a GUI which lacked originality and innovation and ended up with 95% market share.
But Apple also deserves some praise: their unique strength has been in designing commercially viable products that integrate technologies that are still very early in the adoption curve, providing the marketing force that's needed to push new tech into the mainstream. They've also been very effective at breaking the logjam in established industries that have held back certain innovations (digital music distribution and consumer smartphones come to mind).
This has been enormously valuable for the technology industry as a whole, and has often opened the frontier for Microsoft, Google, and others. We probably wouldn't have Android devices now if Apple hadn't used their marketing prowess to get the phone carriers to accept the entire category.
Incidentally Gruber seems to be conveniently overlooking a lot of history here. Hostilities really started when Apple banned Google Voice from the iPhone. Prior to that things were pretty friendly, but after that Google realized it couldn't afford to play friendly with Apple - so they enabled multitouch in Android and things went downhill from there. Although it's a completely pointless and silly game to play if you really follow it back I think there is a very good argument that Apple started this whole falling out.
I'd say there is a clear parallel here, and consciously or subconsciously, that is why it is war -- because it was war last time, and they almost lost.
Microsoft actively courted hardware manufacturers of all shapes and sizes. Apple sued anyone who tried to produce compatible hardware without their blessing.
Microsoft actively courted developers, by providing them with a strong toolchain and turning them loose on the platform. Apple sacrificed developers on the altar of user experience.
It's not much different today. Android is "fragmented" across who-knows how many different hardware sets, which has the dual result of making the platform less consistent for the benefit of letting consumers pick the hardware that does what they want at a price point they are comfortable with. Android favors developers almost to a fault; Apple's abuse of developers in order to preserve the user experience is legendary. If history is any indicator, Jobs should be very afraid. Apple has a tremendous first-mover advantage, and there is one very key difference in that they have the larger software base at the moment, but with the speed at which the Android platform is evolving and growing, it isn't difficult at all to imagine that Apple could find the iPhone eating dust in a few short quarters.
Jobs wasn't even at Apple after John Sculley forced him out in 1985, you know. Even before the Macintosh debuted, it was Sculley who decided to raise the price from the originally-planned $1,995 price to $2,495. Does that sound like a move Steve would make? Contrary to your point, I think Jobs-era Apple is pretty different from Sculley-era Apple.
> Microsoft actively courted hardware manufacturers of all shapes and sizes. Apple sued anyone who tried to produce compatible hardware without their blessing.
No-one is going to make a compatible iPhone, and Apple is also using patents to try prevent anyone making anything even comparable. On hardware, Apple is fighting harder than last time.
> Microsoft actively courted developers, by providing them with a strong toolchain and turning them loose on the platform. Apple sacrificed developers on the altar of user experience.
Now, Apple can actually stop you selling your software on their platform, in an instant - power only to be dreamed of in 1985! Add to that, the ban on Flash that is forcing developers to do twice the work or only support the dominant player (Apple.) They did the same with the Mac, no cursor keys and so on, but this time it's even stricter. No Google Voice, no way to run the same code on iPhone and Android, no apps that infringe on Apple's ever-moving goalposts...
Apple has not given up on the strategy they tried with the Mac. Oh no, it's just that they weren't strict enough and the stupid courts never ruled in their favour! Now they have a proper level of control, they can make sure the iPhone wins! BUWAHAHAHAHAAAA!
Apple can undermine Google's profits from mobile advertising, by giving the advertising revenue from iAds away (keep a small cut, give the rest to developers.) Google is trying to commoditize hardware, but Apple can do the equivalent with respect to advertising revenues. Apple doesn't need to make money from ads, google does.
This frequent meme is restated by people who don't know what commoditize means. The Android ecosystem is anything but a commoditized market.
Also, when you buy a new phone, you don't get to choose what operating system you want to install on it and then buy that OS. The phone+os ships together as a single entity.
"A commodity is a good for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market. It is fungible, i.e. the same no matter who produces it."
That is becoming a more accurate description of the Android market by the day. Nexus One, EVO 4G, Droid X... they're all pretty similar.
So then why buy any specific one of them?
Because they aren't similar, your ridiculous statement aside.
The whole point of the Android hardware ecosystem is that it's a disparity of often very different phones. Some have fast CPUs some have slow CPUs. Some have great cameras with a Xenon flash, some don't. Some have keyboards, some don't. Some are big, some are small. It is the absolute opposite of commodity, and only the most ludicrous, superficial analysis could even imagine using that word.
An iPhone, on the other hand, is a commodity as far as iPhones go. It's an iPhone, you know. Just an iPhone.
Feel free to be frustrated by imprecise usage of technical terms.
It's as logical as saying food is a commodity item because ultimately you eat food. Or cars are a commodity item because you use them to drive from a to b. Only an utter moron would use it in such a context.
I still think it's okay to refer to decreasing differentiation in a market as "commoditization". People understand what's being said, and there's no other concise way to say it.
[1] What, you don't like three screams?
Commodity isn't a totally binary state, even with fuel or coffee you get variations in quality and brand. It's just that these factors do not dominate. At the other end of the scale Apple is trying very hard to stop iPhones becoming commodities by stopping cross platform Flash apps, not allowing access to iTunes etc. which prevents similar devices from other manufacturers being swapped in without disruption. Saying you want to move your complements down the scale towards being a commodity doesn't imply that they will end up at the extreme, just that they'll have less market power over you, the definition of commodity often being given as an item being sold or bought at a market rate.
Google is and always has been playing a "heads I win, tails I win" game with Android and sure enough is positioned to win. Not just against Apple but the telcos too.
Google Voice was a major move here.
I like my iPhone, but I like a carrier independent phone number with web access to my voicemail and SMS way more.
Apple is putting up a killer fight and it's fun to watch. But Google is hacking away at the entire mobile, portable, and cloud landscape. Someday Apple will come back to drink from these wells or customers will leave.
Gruber is nuts for the footnote saying Android will lose money for Google...
As for the footnote, I agree that it's a loser's game to argue that Google shouldn't have risked competing with Apple's iPhone platform, in the hopes that they wouldn't eventually choose to lock their ad platform out. These companies don't run on hope.
Separately, it's funny you should mention Skype and Facetime. The move with the Facetime 'open standard' seems aimed squarely at Skype, a shot across their bow, while Apple empowers them with iOS 4 multitasking support.
This is also interesting in the iPad. It had a mounting spot for a camera in the body, but shipped with it empty. Was the concession made to AT&T, who would offer a cheap data plan in exchange for refraining from giving the platform away to Skype? Was it simply that Apple needed more time to develop other plans in the VoIP voice/video space? Is it a form of coerced obsolescence? My guess is that Apple and AT&T (and other carrier partners) agreed to hold off on the camera until next year's 4G network model, as the wireless network could conceivably support widespread use of videoconferencing, making their offering much more competitive against Skype.
"It’s not that Google changed course and got into the phone business, period. It’s that they got into the iPhone’s segment of the phone business. This is what Android looked like in 2007. Here’s an actual hardware prototype from then. It didn’t look anything like an iPhone, nor like anything Apple would ever be interested in making. It looked like a BlackBerry or Windows Mobile phone — hardware keyboards and non-touch screens"
His highly flawed assumptions are
1. That the hardware was the competition. 2. Google bought a software company to compete in hardware 3. HTC was not making touch screen phones before. 4. If you see a successful trend you stick to something unsuccessful in order not to compete.
He goes on to say
"I don’t believe Apple would have unveiled iAds. Maybe I’m wrong, and Apple would have done it anyway, because it always comes down to money, and there’s soon going to be an awful lot of money in mobile advertising."
sigh!
He speaks about the absence of comments on his blog. I think he can do whatever he wants regarding that.
What surprises me is the amusing weakness of his arguments. This is the first time I have actually read a full blog post of his (I mainly see bits of his writing in rebuttals) and I go away wondering how he has been made into a thought leader of some sort.
Apple is a hardware company, that's what they see and compete on.
> 2. Google bought a software company to compete in hardware 3. HTC was not making touch screen phones before.
hardware and software go hand in hand. Google implemented a touchscreen core since the first public Android release and their base design (the N1) is fully touch-oriented. They clearly set up the Android platform aiming at the segment the iPhone also occupies, putting the platforms head to head. I don't see how you an claim otherwise.
Did Apple influence some design decisions? Sure. However, the design of the G1 and the first Android phones were also a logical extension from what was available at the time.
He's dividing phones into two categories here: BlackBerry/Windows Mobile-like phones and iPhone-like phones. This is a very questionable standpoint. It's like dividing tablets into Windows-like tablets and iPad-like tablets, and claiming that they're two separate markets.
On the contrary, tech hardware is constantly evolving. What's possible in 2010 wasn't possible in 2005, and what was possible in 2005 wasn't possible in 1995. In the past, it made sense to go with the benefits of a physical keyboard at the expense of screen real estate. Today, phones are extremely powerful, their screens run at high resolutions, carriers are more liberal, and mobile app developers abound. Google isn't switching markets to suddenly start competing with the iPhone; they're just keeping up with the times. Saying that Google should have "kept Android targeted at BlackBerry" is like saying the US should have focused on producing spears and arrows during the nuclear arms race.
Exactly. Apple didn't invent touch-screen smartphones: they pretty much just evolved the ideas of Palm.
'They want to kill the iPhone' -- remember that little gem? How did he know this? Because Android-based products were looking more and more like iPhones. But the reason for the convergent evolution of the two platforms is quite obvious: it's a winning design. It's a ridiculous justification for preemptive retaliation, on par with 'Saddam tried to kill my daddy'.
The reason Google decided to get involved in smartphones is the same reason Apple did: the internet. Before the current sheer-slab-of-touchscreen became the recognised form-factor of an internet-friendly phone, we waited years and years for Nokia, SE and Motorola and crucially, the carriers, to give us a device that could freely access the services and content that we knew were all around us. What did we get? Push email. The pressure was building and by 2005 the industry was ripe for disruption.
Apple's prestige, combined with the exclusive AT&T deal, was what forced the carriers to abandon their walled-garden ideal and take the internet seriously. The iPhone was an offer they couldn't refuse. Google could not have done that. The problem is that having freed us from the carriers' walled gardens, Apple now wants to take their place.
I think Jobs was being just a little disingenuous when he said Google wants to kill the iPhone. What he could have more honestly and accurately said is that Google wants to kill the iPhone OS's chance of achieving a monopoly position. Why do they want that? For the same reason they got into smartphone design: the internet.
PG: any chance we could have a temporary (or permanent) ban on John Gruber posts?
+1. Banning Apple speculation/interpretation/fanboi/defense posts in general would be great.
+1 for banning DF links, because the comments here when a link to DF is posted are really depressingly stupid, and they make me suspicious of the quality of thinking behind everything else that's said on HN. Little else makes the fundamental defectiveness of the nerd mentality as clear as the reactions to John Gruber's writing.
This is like being in a room full of Rob Malda. The last time it was this obvious to me how defective nerd thinking is was Malda's reaction to the iPod: "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame."
To be fair, that wasn't dissimilar to the response of a lot of people here regarding the iPad - quite a few of whom have gone on to say they were "wrong" after actually using one.
The first iPod really did suck. Its sales were slow for ages and it didn't take off seriously until the color ones hit.
Hacker News is democratic. Things that get voted up do well. Things that are not voted up don't make the front page. By banning stuff, you'd be censoring the people on HN who think that certain sites and links are worth reading. You're as much saying that you don't like other HN readers' opinions than the links they post.
Considering this story is at 147 votes and counting, there are quite a few people who clearly thought it was worth checking out. Stop trying to silence their opinions.
Those people at Google are dicks for competing. It's like they are operating in capitalism or something.
But what I really hate is hypocrisy. Everyone understood why Google did it without blog-posts from self-proclaimed spokesmen.
In the case of Apple though, things aren't so clear ... and I would bet that Apple would've gotten into the advertising business anyway. They just picked a fight ... and you don't need brains to figure out why. Look around ... picking a fight is good marketing.
Apple are masters of quality of execution. That's what matters in making a device as successful as the iPhone and iPad, not whether you personally invented a particular component.
Ferrari didn't invent the car...
I don't see customers blaming Lamborghini (a tractor manufacturer) for getting in Ferrari's turf. Neither of them invented the car, so why should anyone have any opinion?
I also couldn't see Ferrari entering the tractor manufacturing business, but if it did happen it would have happened only because tractor manufacturing was a very lucrative market, picking a fight with Lamborghini being only about marketing.
Also what really matters is ... why the fuck do people waist time on such arguments and why am I not working instead of arguing with you?
Marketing is used to increase the visibility of a product or to hide its flaws.
In this particular case the elephant in the room is that Apple built something that looks and smells like a platform, but it's just a tightly controlled product line, probably with the intention of earning a monopoly on smartphones (both on hardware and on software).
And what better way to do it than ... getting people's attention on a holy war to purge the world of evil-doers like Google and Adobe, both of which have the capacity to reduce the iOS to a mere platform that can be replaced / be subject to anti-trust laws.
You're defining marketing to include the definition of the word 'ban'. It's rather silly IMO.
Apple's actions taken against evil/incompetent Google/Adobe is just a marketing ploy meant to distract critics from its real problems and to increase its loyal following ... it's been done before by others, successfully even.
In contrast Google is quite transparent in their marketing scheme ... they want world domination/monopoly of their cash-cows, and being the forward-looking people that they are, they are eliminating/preventing intermediaries from coming between them and their customers.
THE BIG QUESTION when it comes to us (outside developers or customers) is "WHAT's IN IT FOR ME?".
Who do you benefit most? In my case it's Google as they are more open and willing to crack old monopolies that also get in my way (as a dev).
Other talks about who is right, who provoked whom, or how awesome or right Jobs or Larry or Sergey are (or how they shoot thunderbolts up their arse) ... are simply irrelevant, and the fact that I have to read such stupid articles (unfortunately I feel compelled for some reason) ... keeps me from learning new things or from working.
And it's not like I can avoid it ... these kind of articles are taking over as they provoke passionate (and silly) discussions (yes, marketers know that).
I don't buy it. It's a nice idea (well, not really) but I don't believe for a second that Apple is doing it for the publicity rather than the raw ad market share.
Well, Apple quite successfully introduced an app store that didn't require carrier approval for everything. You wouldn't have been able to get past that in the first place. Or did Google announce something like that in Android first? I can't remember now, but I doubt it.
I'm not sure how this is interesting. Companies compete, and that's a good thing. Rambling about who started what is irrelevant.
Apple broke the peace when they rejected Google Voice from the AppStore last summer (and retroactively removed and banned all the third party Google Voice clients already sold through the store). That was the first dickish shot of war--an act of unfair competition by Apple and AT&T--not this iAds business or Google making a phone OS
The hardware issue is a red herring, it's all about who controls the information<->user interface.
It's interesting how profoundly the backgrounds of the company founders affect corporate strategy. Steve is fundamentally a salesman and thinks in terms of products. Google's heads are engineers and think first about platforms and protocols. Last time these two philosophies clashed Apple leaped out ahead but eventually lost to a cheaper, commodifiable platform. I expect this time will be no different.
And in particular by using large capacitive touchscreens with soft keyboards? That's just the way the world was going, you'd be as right to argue that they shouldn't use Wi-Fi or USB or Windowed UI or mice because Apple did them first.
(edit: just to be clear, I'm aware that Apple did none of these things first, but popularised and/or polished them to greater or lesser extents)
Well they entered the phone business licensing their software for zero dollars. It's a fairly common thing that software companies do - Sun dumped a ton of money into OpenOffice just to be a pain in the ass to Microsoft, Microsoft keeps trying to do search and maps for god knows what reason when it isn't making them money.
If the software industry were more mature they wouldn't rise to the press's baiting about "killing" each other and just put resources into their core products and make those great.
As a customer I'm glad it's not a mature industry then.
No, that was a defensive move to prevent Microsoft from completely taking over the software industry which would've made them irrelevant. You also forgot about Java, which original was targeted at consumers as a way to have multi-platform apps that will make the OS irrelevant.
It was a fun test, and we're all impressed at how much you won. The test is over. Come back
This is your fault. It didn't have to be like this.
Also, the idea that early hardware used for developing software is any indication of the ultimate direction is ridiculous. Touch interface is one of the last things you're going to tack onto an operating system. Even if it is a core part of your user interface, you need to get all the underlying parts you never want the user to know about working first, and that is just alot easier with hard interfaces.
They aren't selling the operating system are they? therefore really the business is advertising, as it has always been with Google, and Apple has just entered that business.
Then I guess it's kind of insulting to Microsoft's mobile division that Apple is now playing nice with Bing. :)
Seriously. Just write. Comments in general are a distraction to productivity; comments on blogs are no exception.
So, in a nutshell: soapboxes are good, but not when you want to create community.
I see it in kind of the same way Gruber sees it, but without nearly as much hubris and ego. To me, it's my website, and I prefer it to be an editorial publication. I select who writes for the site, because I want a higher quality end result.
That said, some sites benefit from public comment. I remember being ticked off when News.com got bought out by CNet because they eventually turned off comments, and often times the comments helped balance out the ridiculous spin in the articles posted to the site.
Agreed. Perhaps a better generalizing statement to make would be: community cannot exist where there is no channel for user feedback. You have a forum, I have comments. Both are mediums for reader expression.
Comments can be a distraction, but they can also be a source of good material and feedback. I read a number of blogs that have had excellent posts that began in the comments on another article but blossomed into full fledged posts in themselves.
As for Gruber's site, I agree that his adding comments would be a bad idea. He writes about a highly polarizing subject in a manner that can seem condescending and arrogant. I don't think he's going to get good discussion, at least not on the recent articles he writes.
This is the funniest sentence in the history of the web.
It doesn't really matter what the early Android prototypes looked like, since Google doesn't do that bit, the free market does.
Does any of this really matter?
At present, Browsing via mobile is relatively slow, if you dont have unlimited data plans, then it follows that you will pay for Ad traffic, rich media ad traffic will make this problem worse.
The killer feature for me is no advertising, and I am willing to pay for apps to avoid them, An adblocker on the native phone browser is a killer feature for me. One that at least in theory is easier to get on the android platform then on the iphone.
Kinda like how Zynga is at the mercy of Facebook despite making them profitable through there heavy advertising on the platform.
He does not claim that being a dick when competing is wrong or evil. To quote him: “It wasn’t unfair for Google to decide to compete directly against and copy ideas from the iPhone. That’s competition. It may be angering to Apple, but it’s not out of bounds.”
From my point of view - a man who might write mobile app someday - all these fuss and arguments are totally wasted energy and karmatically ugly.
Apple is running their monarchy, and I should choose, as it becomes relevant, whether to set up an embassy at that territory or not (in a form of app at appstore).
If the business interests would justify it, I'll be in, if not, out, simple dimple.
Why do we have to read about all these emotions and fights every single day, why? Isn't coding/hacking itself dramatic enough that we have to bring in strange boosters?
You eat my lunch, I eat yours, and kick you in the balls.
Seriously though, it's interesting how people tend to come to emulate their role models in this way. You can see the Jobsian 'tone' used by a lot of people who agree with him. It's a very 'no bullshit', 'here's the bottom line' style that can sound dismissive and, dare I say it, a little arrogant.
'I don’t care what’s out of place. I care about what’s best.'
'My goal is for not a single wasted word to appear anywhere on any page of the site.'
And the best bit:
'...demands from entitled people who see that I’ve built something very nice that draws much attention, and who believe they have a right to share in it. They don’t.'
Pointing fingers about stealing ideas is ridiculously silly, no wonder Gruber is wasting his precious word count on it. But to defend Apple's draconian policies as good in the eyes of competition is simply too much for me to hear without the bullshit-ometer going off.
One side is competing with the other. The other side is locking them out of the platform on an application (Google Voice) and an advertising level.
What if Google said they weren't going to allow Apple apps on Android or allow iAds on Android (not that I think either would ever happen in a million years).
I simply can't fathom the double think that Gruber uses to excuse Apple's actions while pointing fingers at Google.
I wonder what it must be like living with the knowledge that your ongoing fame is so dependent on friendly leaks and peaks from a patron known for ire-based reversals of largesse. His career keeps him prone to something like Stockholm syndrome.
At this point, how many months or years away from this dependency would he need, before we could start trusting that he is giving us independent opinions that are truly from him; not things that are, as likely as not, what he needs to believe.
Just as an example: I think a lot of people forget that a couple of years ago, Apple was very friendly with Gizmodo. That started to sour when Gizmodo ran some pieces speculating on Jobs' health, and has only deteriorated since - Gizmodo was cut out of prelaunch iPad access entirely and we all know the iPhone 4 saga by now.
Apple is very comfortable with being the ones to taketh away.