Hacker News Reader

Let me put it this way:

With an iPhone you've got a shiny device that just works and doesn't come with shit installed and that you cannot tinker with.

With an Android you've got a shiny device that many times comes with shit installed and that you cannot tinker with (depending on the manufacturer).

The difference: you can build your own unlocked Android device, and because of competition there will be phone manufacturers that will do just that.

Windows PCs aren't locked, and this came to be mostly due to harsh competition, or am I missing something? Don't you think the likes of Compaq/HP would've rather sold locked devices akin to gaming consoles (also popular at that time)?

You're saying it is "theoretical openness"; I'm saying the market is too young for Android's openness to unravel.

Just because Apple makes it, doesn't mean it's not shit. I invite you to try and remove their shitty stock app, or weather app or any of the other numerous shitty little apps the iPhone comes with.

I just drag those into a folder on the last page of apps.

They might be basic, but I think the stock iPhone apps are a long way from being shitty in the same sense as Sprint's bundled NASCAR app.

Is this just a class thing? What does the NASCAR app do that's so objectional except be possibly unwanted by the kind of person who doesn't object to a stocks app.

I'm not in the US, but the fact that no-one even bothers to advance any actual reason for not wanting it beyond it being "NASCAR" leads me to assume it's plain old snobbery.

> you can build your own unlocked Android device, and because of competition there will be phone manufacturers that will do just that.

Wrong. Because handsets are subsidized by the carriers and won't sell otherwise -- so all that competition is equally focused on pleasing the carrier as they are on pleasing the customer. Besides, it's been pointed out many times to me here that the majority of consumers don't care if the platform is open.

> Because handsets are subsidized by the carriers and won't sell otherwise

In the United States. I saw an iPhone sitting in a glass case here for 600 Euro the other day.

You can buy unlocked phones in the states, as well, but they obviously bring a much higher up-front cost. It doesn't change the fact that manufacturers want their phones to be subsidized by the carriers in the US. They're not going to build a separate "more open" version for the rest of the world because it's simply not worth it.

You would be surprised. They are already building separate models for North America (so it is not separate for rest of the world, but separate for NA!).

It's not about theoretical openness, but whether the manufacturer you bought your phone from passes Android's openness on to you, their customer. Most (all?) of the successful ones (HTC, Samsung, Motorola) don't.

Since Android is Apache-licensed, the openness isn't enforced to all users of the software.

That's obviously not the point Jobs is going after. He'd be silly to do so. The warped, personalized, differentiated Android variants is exactly why Android is taking off.

Hm, obviousness aside - would you mind elaborating on that?

Additionally, even if warped, personalized and differentiated Android variants have turned the underlying OS into a success, that doesn't imply that it's a good thing. Coincidence, iffy business tactics and "being good enough" are exactly why Windows took off.

This is beneficial for the phone companies only, not for the customers.

And that is what Jobs is getting at. He want to make the best possible experience for the customers not create a fragmented ecosystem that allows anyone to make a version of how they see Android.

A fragmented ecosystem is also a competitive one: how can you argue that this doesn't benefit the customers is beyond my comprehension.

Competition isn't intrinsically beneficial. Within the Android ecosystem, all you get is pseudo-competition: none of the players are interested in making Android any more open than it has to be.

That depends on market forces that change by definition and it is definitely not a rule.

Android gives the possibility of building unlocked phones ... from there it's just an issue of customer-demand.

If only one manufacturer, like HTC or maybe Samsung, has success with an unlocked phone, the others will start replicating the recipe.

It's not about customer-demand, it's about big enterprise logic.

Big enterprise logic changes the same way, as cash flow changes. It is called "vote with your wallet" for a reason.

It doesn't change the way you seem to be assuming.

Big enterprise havs cash cows and until those cash cows are gone they will be making all sorts of ego driven decisions.

You would be surprised how much is driven by individuals and how little is driven by rationality.

There are states within the states with their own motives.

It is my experience that besides with the cash cows, it's anything but rational decisions that are being made in most cases.

> You would be surprised how much is driven by individuals and how little is driven by rationality.

Oh, I wouldn't, I see it every day. Thank god for consultants, you can bring them in, and they will say the obvious/rational thing.

Well then you know that enterprise logic far from always are rational.

I'm not seeing HP or Dell selling locked Windows PCs on which you cannot install Linux.

Let's get straight on what we are discussing here.

We are talking normal consumers no hackers.

No one beside a small fraction of this world cares what operating system they have or can have. They change OS when they buy a new computer.

Trusted Computing (this shit Apple is doing right now with the iTunes store and iOS) was dismissed by consumers and by hardware manufacturers (besides Intel).

Normal people don't care for their OS, but they care about installing whatever they want on their PC, no matter the source or function.

And you know what? All the friends I have with non-technical skills that own a gaming consoles (about a dozen of them) ... have had those consoles unlocked.

The reason gaming consoles come locked is piracy, since most profits come from selling games. This is not the same situation with PCs or with phones for that matter.

I hope you are just joking.

Dismissed as reflected in what? Apples latest quarterly results? Their overall success?

How has the consumer dismissed trusted computing.

Normal people don't install things. It's really as simple as that.

Before the iphone most people didn't even know what an app was.

Trusted Computing is a technology that was promoted by the Trusted Computing Group (IBM, Intel, Microsoft, HP, big enough for you?).

Over 90% of PCs are Wintel. Apple's market is a niche.

Apple's shit I'm talking about is similar, but different: we aren't talking about over 1 billion people (more like 50 million).

> Normal people don't install things

You're the one that must be joking.

You seem to have forgotten completely what this discussion is all about. When you can put the trolling behind you perhaps you can explain to me since when market size is an indicator of best product.

And no I am not joking. Most people use the browser and that is really it. This is why many people think that Google is their browser.

Trusted Computing (this shit Apple is doing right now with the iTunes store and iOS) was dismissed by consumers and by hardware manufacturers (besides Intel).

You're seriously wrong here. I mean, this statement alone makes me think you have no idea what you're talking about. Care to clarify what you meant by that? Or even what you meant by Trusted Computing (because your current definition is definitely incorrect).

You simply ask yourself this question

What would be best.

If the customer had to go to three different app stores to get what they want or just one.

A fragmented ecosystem can never be a benefit to consumer as it hinders the free flow of information and increases friction.

I did a longer post about digital ecosystems if you are interested

http://000fff.org/the-power-of-digital-ecoystems/

Is it a big drain on your life to decide, where to do your (physical) shopping?

With apps stores, it is the same. You can have your favourite shop, where you do your shopping most of the time. But you have an option to change. Which is important, because the shop owner is also aware of this. As a result, he will not trying to f*ck you so hard, as he would, if you didn't have this option. (If you are locked in and the conditions change to worse, what are you going to do? Accept and submit, that's what.)

I don't understand your reasoning here.

If I have an android I have to go to different app stores to get different apps.

With apple I just have one store where I can get all my apps no matter what telco I am on. That is the benefit of the integrated approach.

I have yet to see how apple is exploiting customers. They aren't setting the price, they are allowing free apps.

Aren't you confusing being a developer with being a customer?

> If I have an android I have to go to different app stores to get different apps.

No. On Android, you can get most apps in most stores. Some stores are more popular than other (have more customers and more apps). As for now, the most popular is Google Market.

On Apple, you must go through store. Even if you have .ipa on you harddrive, you must go through store.

Apple sets conditions, what an app can and cannot do. Would you accept similar scheme for your computer?

In most businesses, sole supplier is a no-no (if you ever forget, your risk auditors will remind you). There is a reason for that, believing in benevolent dictatorship will get you nowhere.

Take on your consumer hat instead of your developer/hacker hat.

Setting conditions to streamline and create consistency is good for the consumer not bad.

No one is forcing people to buy apple products. If you want you can just choose android or Nokia. But people want the iphone because it's easy.

Apple isn't sole supplier I don't know why this strawmen keeps getting thrown around.

Why is it that everyone thinks that Android is "hard"?

I think a point that most people are missing is that Android isn't actually hard at all. With the newer devices, we are seeing better and better interfaces. The reason many people think iPhone is better is because the marketing comes from one direction, rather than the diffuse marketing from Android. So iPhone gets cast in a better light. In reality? Not a huge difference.

I do agree that consistency is good for the customer. But so is direct competition and choice. I think what will decide who dominates in the (far) future is which hardware people will develop more for and I can see either one being on top.

There is direct competitions. Between android and apple. The discussion resembles around what is best for the end consumer. And it's my view it the integrated approach is better than a fragmented one when we are talking about the same product

And why is that? What facts directly support that opinion?

I think that if that was the case, there wouldn't be an immediate discussion following Jobs' comment on the same thing. If anything, I think the fact that these remarks have made it all the way to this discussion proves that it isn't such a clear-cut answer.

In fact in many areas I'd disagree with the statement that integrated is better. While in some cases simplicity is great, what the hell is the difference between a store with 170,000 applications versus 90,000? If you're saying that the average consumer can tell the difference, I'd call BS. If you're talking about an above-average user, then the issue is moot because they will know how to get the applications they need without hassle anyway.

Not only that, but fragmentation in itself has many levels. Yeah, everyone that codes iPhone applications has to use (somewhat) similar tools and API. However, what's the main draw for an app-maker? If anything, I think what platform a developer writes for has a lot more to do with his previous experience than the current dominant or integrated platform.

Don't distance the developer from this. Consumers and developers, especially in these kinds of micro-transactions, are intimately tied. Things that affect developers DIRECTLY affect consumers, and I don't think it's so easy to draw the line.

What fact?

The fact that apple have the most popular ecosystem out there with nothing even close.

The fact that everyone knows how to install an app on the iphone.

The fact that the iPhone helped introduce the idea of an application to the general consumer.

The fact that the iPhone just works and is consistently thought through, the UI is easy to use.

The fact that apple not anyone else solved the GUI for touch screens.

iPod, iPhone, iPad what can I say they all resolve around the most lucrative ecoystem that exist besides the internet itself.

The fact that when you want to write for iPhone you write one an distribute to all devices.

Want to write for Android? Good luck. Ask Tweetdeck how many versions they had to develop to get out on as many android versions as possible.

I am not even talking about the number of apps that each store have.

I am talking about the in my mind pretty simple fact that an android with only one market and one system to develop to is better for both the the consumer and developer than 3 different markets and who knows how many permutations of the android platform that exist out there today.

I'm not going to address this point-by-point, because very little of it has to do with ease-of-use for either the consumer or the developer.

I'll give you this - writing for iPhone is certainly easier in the sense that you only have to write for one (maybe two) software versions. However, take a look at Tweetdeck's later response to the comments : that they had a team of TWO to deal with versioning. Sure, it's a bit of a hassle, but there are always trade-offs.

That's also not the only consideration. There are many factors - App pricing, prior programming experience, target market, etc. that play into making an application. Not only that, having one market and one system is not necessarily better, and it's definitely not a fact.

It comes back to the issue of competition; I'm not talking about Android vs. iPhone; I mean the competition between developers in putting out applications that are meaningful and easy to use. Neither system (right now) is inherently better, and I think that casting it in the light of integration vs. fragmentation turns the spotlight in the wrong direction.

Want to write for Android? Good luck. Ask Tweetdeck how many versions they had to develop to get out on as many android versions as possible.

Yes, why don't you ask them: http://twitter.com/iaindodsworth/status/27813709366

     If the customer had to go to three different app stores 
     to get what they want or just one.

Personally I go to Google and type "best free iPhone apps", and I also ask friends for their preferences.

I also have one mall where I make all my shopping and one phone carrier that provides me with what I need.

BUT I CHANGED my phone carrier twice in the last 5 years, and I ended up with one that has better contractual terms and lower prices.

You are not answering the question.

It's not about finding iphone apps but about having to have your credit card info in one store (iphone) vs. having it a different app stores (android)

With regards to changing your phone carrier that actually just proves my point.

With apple telcos can't make their own app store with android they can.

In other words, androids ecosystem will be fragmented, I will have to be a verizon customer or a Amazon customer or a t-mobile customer.

You don't have that problem with Apples app store. And that is the reason why it's better for the customer.

Bullshit ... if multiple marketplaces happen, it is only because Google won't /doesn't manage to build a good enough marketplace in the first place, which proves my point.

You've also probably been spoiled by the country you live in, but I used to live under a communist system where there was no such thing as consumer choice and competition.

YES, it makes people unhappy to make choices (I've seen the switch in mentality on a large-scale). But it makes their lives better, since a free marketplace that allows choice is driven by natural-selection, with trends like lower and lower prices, better and better service.

That's called a paradox and you're not seeing the forest from the trees, or you're just some shill.

How does that prove your point?

My claim was that multiple app stores isn't a benefit for the consumer. You still haven't told me how that is a benefit to the customer. What is better about the multiple app stores that sells android apps and then the app store from apple.

Pray tell. How is that better today? From a consumers point of view? Is it more expensive? More tedious? So far your sole argument is confusing communism with consumerism.

Maybe the alternate store has a better presentation of apps (I find App Brainz on Android easier to browse than the default marketplace app). Maybe I want to see an app store that's filtered out all the porn, maybe I want to see one that only has porn in it.

The I think rather than open vs. free, Android and iPhone could better be compared by choice vs. simplicity. Android gives you choice on just about every bit of the phone (new marketplace, new home screen, new soft keyboard -- all without rooting) whereas on the iPhone it's Steve's way or the high way.

Now Steve's way is pretty damn good and it benefits a ton from the simplicity of not having choices, but it's not really possible to make a "best" choice for everyone, and Android can really hit a wider range of tastes. Whether any of the manufacturers/networks are doing that well now is very debatable.

You really think that only one market is better for the consumer? Do you think this is a universal principle?

Also, how the ability to discover apps is not part of the market, having my credit card in only one store is much less important to me than finding good apps. In fact if one store allowed me to use paypal instead of a credit card I would probably use that store.

Why are you all confusing market for market place?

No one is talking about only one market.

The customer has been able to install "apps" on ANY pre-iPhone device from ANYWHERE. They know how that works and they didn't mind the freedom at all. Sure J2ME apps sometimes suck, but you could get them anywhere, not from a single app store.

Fragmentation kills. Too many versions to support, too few resources, risk of targeting the wrong version (newest) etc. etc.

TweetDeck's launch stats show that this weak argument against fragmentation simply doesn't stand up.

Ironic how spot on I would be...

http://www.businessinsider.com/tweetdeck-steve-jobs-2010-10

>This is beneficial for the phone companies only, not for the customers.

I have a number of top notch companies fighting for my attention and purchases, all of them generally on a common "app level": None have the comfort of sitting back, cocky that you'll have to choose them anyways.

Do I want a Galaxy S? Maybe a slider? That new dual core? Maybe an inexpensive LG?

It's extremely good for consumers.

You are missing the point.

We are talking ecosystems here. Namely Androids vs. Apples

I'm not missing any point: An ancestor post made the very correct statement that Android's "fragmentation" is also its strength. You went off about how it doesn't benefit consumers.

That is simply wrong.

Sidenote: The phone companies don't customize the handsets at all. The manufacturers do it for them. If the Verizon Samsung comes with a particular app or has a feature removed, it's because Samsung -- an Android partner -- did that for them. It's a small nuance, but it's an important one.

I haven't yet seen anyone show how it benefits to customer.

If you can't see how choice and a competitive ecosystem benefits consumers, then I don't think you're really looking.

Choice between what?

I am all for choice between Android and Apple.

But we are debating choice WITHIN Android ecosystem.

I.e. different app stores for the same type of os.

That isn't good for consumers there is absolutely no advantage to that. What should that be?