Techies don't understand what business Apple is in
caffeine.shugendo.org
caffeine.shugendo.org
That is who this article is talking about, I gather.
And their actual actions and discourse is easily as tiresome as the imagined annoyance from the strawman "macolytes" they conjure during their rants.
Which is to say: I know exactly one type of people who unwaveringly watch what Apple is doing, opine loudly on every move they make and proclaim a singular truth and vision.
They are a subset of techies and they are absolutely not Apple fanboys.
For instance, consider the sentence "Angry Birds is lots of fun - you should get it from their website, they take paypal"[2]. To HNers that's incredibly straightforward and simple - (1) Google "Angry Birds", (2) make sure it's a legit site, (3) look for the "Buy" button, (4) check out, (5) enter your paypal information, and (6) install the game. To me (and most HNers, I'd imagine), the hardest part of that is "what was my PayPal password again?", but to the average computer user, that's a confusing 30 minutes, part of which will be spent on an ornithology site. It's for that average user that things like the Mac App Store and locked-down phones were designed.
The point of this long, meandering post is that the reason techies have issues analyzing Apple's strategy is because they mis-over-estimate the skill of the average computer user, for the totally understandable reason that they're surrounded by people with well-above-average computer skills.
[1] - Probably hyperbole, but not by much. [2] - I've actually never played Angry Birds.
Everyone reading this post is in the top 5% in terms of computer skill
who's still getting the hang of EBay and Amazon, who
Googles URLs instead of typing them
techies ... mis-over-estimate the skill of the average computer user
Apple's products are not idiot proof. The iPhone itself does take some time before you become productive with it. But they make the learning process fun and they respect their customers enough to not make them feel like idiots.
Also, there is no such thing as an "average" computer user, as that would mean some kind of common-denominator, which would be false since all people have different personalities / skills.
I've actually never played Angry Birds.
He put you into that same category ...
> Never used EBay, never bought anything from Amazon and I also Google for URLs from time to time ... pretty sweat if you can't remember the exact string.
He is referring to people that type "facebook" into google to go Facebook.com. He is making a generalised statement. Generally to present an argument or point it is okay to make generalised statements to help bring a point across.
> I actually think we underestimate the "average" computer user more often than not.
I tend to overestimate them, to each their own. Who are you qualifying as "we" here anyhow? Clearly I don't belong in your "we".
> Apple's products are not idiot proof. The iPhone itself does take some time before you become productive with it. But they make the learning process fun and they respect their customers enough to not make them feel like idiots.
No, not idiot proof but they are easy enough to pick up and start using by just playing, click on options, turn stuff on and off, download new apps to play with, hit the home button and back you are in familiar territory. The same could not be said for some other pieces of software. It took me a while to figure out how the Zune worked for instance, it wasn't intuitive like my iPod was.
> Also, there is no such thing as an "average" computer user, as that would mean some kind of common-denominator, which would be false since all people have different personalities / skills.
"average computer user" is used in the same manner as "average person" or the "average child" (such as "the average child at age 10 can read X").
> I also Google for URLs from time to time
Of course, typing "facebook.com" into Google and clicking on the first result (which, of course, is "facebook.com") is not really the same thing as typing "facebook privacy" into Google to get a quick link to the facebook privacy policy. One of these is convenient, and the other one just adds a step. It's the difference between googling for a URL, and googling a URL. Adding the "for" obfuscates.
Not just me, everyone who regularly posts on a niche board about programming and entrepreneurship. Maybe my original statement was hyperbole, but it's not crazy to say that people who voluntarily seek out conversations on the value of OOP are more tech literate than the average. Similarly, if we were on a website catering towards people trying out for minor-league baseball teams, the audience would mostly be in the top 5% in terms of athleticism.
And for the record, I'm probably the dumbest guy here, and I freely admit it.
>Never used EBay, never bought anything from Amazon and I also Google for URLs from time to time ... pretty sweat if you can't remember the exact string.
You're trying to misread me here. There are people for whom "order tickets online" is a major accomplishment, akin to cleaning out the garage. Once, a ReadWriteWeb article[1] overtook Facebook in the Google search for "facebook login" (w/o quotes). It resulted in thousands of people commenting on the article trying to log into facebook. I'm not saying "can't tell RWW and Facebook apart" is average, but I am saying that that's a rare occurrence.
>Apple's products are not idiot proof.
Of course not. But the flipside of the file structure and CLI on an iPhone being locked away is that users can't accidentally do something to their System directory. And locked-down, reviewed applications means fewer compatibility issues and fewer misbehaving apps slowing things down.
[1] - http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_wants_to_be_yo...
Apple's strategy is not one of creating hardware. It isn't one of creating software. It's one of creating a digital ecosystem which interoperates with almost magical fluidity.
I'd consider myself to be in the top percentile in terms of technical ability worldwide - fine, sounds like bragging, but there are precious few people on this earth who know code from machine to assembly to a few dozen high-level languages, and also know how to build large, highly redundant and highly available systems. I know others like me - and the vast majority of them use apple hardware and software for their daily computing needs.
The reason? When you're ascending, and you're in that top 5%, you're still at the point where you want to tinker with everything. You want to switch motherboards. You want to upgrade your graphics card. You want to build a custom firmware for your phone just because. Eventually, you master those skills, and you move on - you move into industry, or you move into an area of expertise in which you don't want to have to worry about whether you've got enough cooling on your overclocked GPU.
The point is - apple make some of the best tools out there. The iPhone just works. Sure, you can't run custom, unvetted code on there, but the code you can run on it does what it says on the can and does it damned well. Sure, upgrading a mac is a pain in the jacksie, but those elements which you'd reasonably want to upgrade within the lifecycle, you can, easily. As for reliability? In the organisation I run, we have a 50/50-ish split between commodity hardware (think dell) and apple machines. The overall failure rate is roughly even between the two, and given that all of the macs are laptops, I think it's a fair cop.
Summary: apple make tools. They make tools which work for everybody from total noobs to über-leets. Plenty of people don't get this. One day they will. Therefore this doesn't matter.
Most of us agree that some of the Mac computers are a benchmark for buying PCs. I personally think MacOS is a fantastic OS.
BUT the core argument here is regarding iPhone and what I think as a downside to buying it like its markets policies, objective-c, hurdle to develop an application in my PC. And why buying Android makes it more appealing to developers like me. I love my custom hardware, I love the ability to develop application that I want and just run it, I love interfacing Android to my Arduino, I love running my friends hacks on my Android.
1. You claim the reason why vast majority of proficient system designers use Apple because the designers would somehow not want custom hardware even if he is displeased with the product and would find such a task of customizing worrisome. The only user statistics you provide for such a claim is from the pool of your friends.
2. Then you go on to say Apple makes the "best tools out there" because "iPhone just works". Like they say define "works". I think no designer is all knowing to encompass every user base out there. That is why you have customizations, extension techniques and abstraction layers. The language layer extension is a amazing abstraction. You agree that "You can't run custom, unvetted code on there". For some of us that is a HUGE deal. My friends and I write apps all the time. Imagine a device that is packed with a good processor, a camera, bluetooth, touch screen, accelerometer, compass, runs on Linux and can connect to the Internet. It has an open source SDK, open source OS, open source VM. Fuck how could you NOT want to tinker with them? Sorry I degrade to emotional arguments. But seriously, this is a HUGE aspect of it.
3. "you can run on it does what it says on the can and does it damned well." Well so far what you have wanted it to do has been fulfilled and never had a need for extension. Maybe there were times when you thought of improving something but just let that thought pass. What it says on the can is a phone but we all agree it is more than that. It is a freaking powerful computing system.
4. You then argue for system reliability by comparing Macs with Dell PCs. I can't speak for either but can you make such generalizations on iPhone vs Android phones?
5. Then you ended up with what made me write this long rant. "Plenty of people don't get this. One day they will. Therefore this doesn't matter." I would argue that most of the people who buy iPhone would never be excited from the things I can do on Android. I would trade all of that "apple experience" to what I can do on Droid. Man you should really see what this shit is actually capable of. If you are still into hacking, you will have tons of fun.
I majored in electrical and telecommunication engineering in my undegraduate and I went to grad school in order to study computer science. I too understand the computer system abstraction layers and appreciate a good stack.
You're weighing the iPhone against android - they're similar devices, but with significantly different philosophies. My point is that apple's devices appeal to people who want to use them simply as tools to achieve a task. Android is bloody fantastic, as is arduino - and they aren't going to go anywhere, and you're going to be able to tinker on them 'til kingdom come.
Apple do things their way, because they can - and it's a philosophy that works very well for them, and so long as there are other, open, devices, I don't see how apple's design and market philosophy is any hurdle to innovation.
Also - I'm not talking about my friends (although plenty of them are), I'm talking about well known, well respected, extremely proficient industry leaders.
And just because techies see problems that non-techies never even consider, are they wrong in issuing the one or other warning? One day it might be too late, and the happy naive non-techies might be in for a rude awakening when somebody has established a monopoly on distribution.
If you want a computer that allows you to tinker and use it for purposes other than that for which it was originally intended, they'll always be there, because there'll always be a market for it.
Apple has a closed ecosystem. That doesn't make it bad, it just makes it controlled. You don't expect to be able to modify the source of facebook, or google, or any other large web service, but you'll happily use it - wherein, fundamentally, lies the difference?
Finally, apple's approach to jailbreaking and the like is laudable, insofar as they're basically fine with people doing whatever they want with their hardware, so long as those people are also OK with being excluded from the ecosystem those devices are designed to operate within. I highly doubt that the fact that the original root password on iOS devices was a dictionary word was accidental.
As for a monopoly on distribution - not so long ago, the tech community was aflame with panic that microsoft would monopolise everything, and we'd all be fucked in various different imaginary malthusian techno-catastrophes. It didn't happen, microsoft is in decline, and it's because they attempted to enforce their monopoly through legal means rather than through building loyalty through quality. If apple end up with a monopoly because they excel at what they do, it's not necessarily a bad thing, as if they cease to be good at what they do, it'll be nary a heartbeat before the wolves are at the door, building and creating better alternatives.
I don't want to mess with Google's or Facebook's or Apple's code. I want to publish stuff without having to pay a fee to Apple.
Granted, maybe there will always be the Internet, so we have nothing to worry about.
In essence, Apple would end up being more like TV, only with more channels.
I don't like Google or Facebook becoming monopolies, either.
Monopolies only exist when they're protected by law - take, for instance, Fannie Mae and friends - in a capitalist society, however, in the absence of such foul concepts as lobbying, monopolies don't exist, and can't, as typical monopolistic behaviour is ultimately self-destructive, as it merely encourages consumers to seek alternate service or product providers.
In terms of having to pay a fee to apple - they provide the platform, they provide the consumers, they provide the tools - and for that, you pay a fee. The alternative is self-publishing, which is, and always will be, possible, but it doesn't come with a built-in consumer base, and therein lies the rub.
As I said in another comment, I have nothing against app stores.
However, I don't think anybody has a problem with App stores in themselves. The problem starts when the App store is the only way to get software onto the computer. It is a popular predication that Apple might try to push their "normal" computers into the same direction as iOS.
So when talking about why "techies" don't like Apple, what else than the dictatorship would be the reason?
Ubuntu has an App Store, too. So has Android.
I'll grant it's a popular prediction. But it's not a plausible one. It's plausible that the Mac would be neglected, perhaps, but not crippled outright. The whole point of iOS devices is to sell a product that's differentiated from traditional personal computers.
Now, if it was a matter of not being in control of one's phone, that would be a reasonable discussion.
- Geeks: Love Apple. Appreciate the superior technology that goes into iOS/Mac OS. bash!
- Wannabe geeks: Hate Apple. Their tinkering skills are neither required nor wanted on Mac OS.
- Normal people: Love Apple. Appreciate things that just work.
A year ago it was a real possibility that they would dominate mobile computing (soon to be just "computing"), and even today it's not out of the question if Android lawsuits go badly. I and plenty of others don't want to see a world where we're denied control of "our" hardware, and told we're criminals if we try to reclaim it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ytech_wguy/ytech_wguy_tc3236
Did something change?
First:
> Why? Why do all companies have to operate the way you want them to and why do you have to buy their things?
klochner never said companies "have" to operate a certain way. He just said that a company annoys him. That's all. He said nothing about how the company "should" or "must" operate. Just that the current model was annoying.
Second:
> I don't understand why people who don't buy Apple products complain about Apple.
For the same reason that people who don't run Windows complain about Microsoft. Apple and Microsoft are defining forces in their industries. Even people who don't buy their products are massively affected by the actions of those companies.
Examples: I don't own Windows or Office, so for years I could not reliably open .doc files. [1] Microsoft's proprietary file formats affect those who don't have enough money / don't wish to purchase their products.
I don't own any iOS devices, but I am a software developer. If the future of computing moves to iPad-like devices (say, tablets, phones, whatever the future brings), Apple's closed model affects me greatly. I would be less capable of selling my own software due to their practices.
Microsoft doesn't demand money from you if you want to develop for Windows. Apple does demand money from you if you want to develop for iOS (and seeing as iOS will soon - or already has - gained more users that OS X, I believe this is a fair comparison).
This is not a good model for the future of computing, but it is the model Apple is using and they are a powerful force.
So even though I do not own any Apple products, they are a dominating force in the industry and what they do matters to me.
Edit: [1] I think that .doc is now an "open" standard, right? LibreOffice will probably eventually be fully compatible, but it's not ready yet.
This is something Apple pioneered, and you can bet other companies are going to want a slice of that sweet sweet revenue pie.
Yes I know, I tried to address that in my comment. I postulated that there are more iOS users than OS X users, just as there are more Windows users than XBox or WP7 users.
For the purposes of my example, I picked the OS from each company with the greatest number of users. I definitely think my example is valid here, despite the differences between "PCs" and tablets, phones, whatever.
Not at all, ask any console game developer.
I am not in Apple's market, so their practices don't affect me directly as a user. However, their practices do affect me in that having one of the largest, most successful companies in the world engage in what I see as problematic practices tells other companies that it's a good, or at least tenable, idea. In the future, a fledgling company could see a choice between the Pro-Consumer But Difficult path and the Closed Everything But Simple path, and think, "Well, Apple did it, so I guess if we do it, it's okay." And that's why I find Apple troubling.
I can't really get that from anyone but Apple. I've got a Thinkpad, but even that very nice machine is in a lower class of industrial design compared to Apple products. Likewise, my HTC Incredible is a great phone, but bits of it are clearly of lower quality than my friends' iPhone 4s.
That's why some of Apple's practices annoy me-- because they're so damn good at everything else, they tempt me anyway.
FWIW, I buy and love apple products, I just like to tinker as well.
Obviously they don't, but I'd like them to. I've no right to tell you you have to save energy (for example), but I'd rather you did. Your right to do something is in no way impaired by my right to have an opinion about what you do, and vice versa. Nobody's saying Apple HAS to run a certain way, but boy would we prefer if they did a few things differently.
> Why do you have to buy their things?
I think the problem with Apple in particular is that they're Really, Really good. The products they put out are normally class-leading - I have a Droid, but the iPhone is just flat sexier. That said, I won't buy an iPhone, despite the fact that I think it's a really sexy, really well-made piece of hardware, because of certain policy and design decisions Apple made.
I'm obviously not Apple's target demographic - my droid is rooted and I spend most of my day staring at a terminal window, so they're not going to do a whole lot to make my life easier, and I understand that, but it's still frustrating to see a drop-dead sexy piece of hardware that doesn't live up to what I see as it's potential.
IOW: Sour Grapes.
Until the iPhone, Apple never tried to stop you from running whatever software you wanted on your hardware, nor did they accuse you of being a criminal for doing so.
(To add a bit more detail: Package managers are awesome but not in any way easy to understand. They are more elegant than other methods of installing software but not easy.)
Not to mention that each distribution has it's own package manager (or at least its own package servers) so the "market" is horribly fragmented.
That is the issue, and why Linux has not yet become a major force on the desktop. Too many times stuff will go wrong and it is down to a command line to fix it. Too much configuration exists within the command line there is no graphical user interface for it. There is no single Linux version, so stuff is stored all over the place. There is not a single package manager (Do I need the .deb, or the .rpm?).
This is what confuses users, and the choice paralyses them.
I am a geek, I absolutely love playing with different OS's and whatnot, but I am sick and tired of having to worry that updating is going to cause my OS to not boot (I'm looking at you Ubuntu and your nouveau graphics driver).
Linux package managers may have "solved" the problem, but that is not what you get points for. You get points for getting users to adopt it and use it. Apple gets an A in that category (App Store on Mac OS X and iOS is a success), Linux a D (Package managers are a success, but the user experience isn't).
You mean about installing applications right? Copy to /Applications or click "Buy" in App Store.
But if I give Systems Preferences to a "common" user instead of /etc, for the majority of users, in my experience, they feel the same bad user experience of a configuration utility, with a great number of concepts that they do not understand, at least it's prettier.
My mother still does not understands why she needs iTunes at all to upgrade her iPhone, and that after upgrading iTunes simply deletes the two applications that she does use, Apple insists she needs it.
This last case is anecdotal, but it shows that Apple also does have it's poor user experience with some of its decisions, the common user, contrary to the average Joe iPod user, does not understand why the hell iTunes is necessary if he doesn't listen to music.
> " Apple gets an A in that category (App Store on Mac OS X and iOS is a success), Linux a D (Package managers are a success, but the user experience isn't)."
I would completely agree with the idea if Apple pricing was not so elitist and if the majority of users that I know that have a Apple product was not a techie nerd at least (ie, he knows how to deal with the basics of a computer, whatever system he's using, can install a program if you provide instructions, he follows technology section of his favorite newspaper, etc.).
Every company dominates one axis, excels at another and is at par with the rest.
One might argue that Apple dominates in the experience category and is above average in service with everything else more or less at par with the competition.
But they certainly don't sell experience.. they sell computers, mmkay?
Like the article said, the average user wants toast, not a toaster.
[1] - it's starting to look like we can add internet video to this list.
Talk to some Rails developers, I will bet my nuts that none of the experts, ninjas, you name it are developing on a Mac.
Apple doesn't sell millions of computers every quarter to Rails developers, it sells them to 90%-ers. Sure, some developers buy them, but they're not the main market.
I use a Mac with OSX to do rails development. I don't want to stroke by own ego here but I'll be having those nuts. :)
Looks like >60% of Apple's revenue comes from iPhone/iPad/iPod/iTunes.
Although you could argue that a modern cellphone is technically a computer, I'm pretty sure that in the minds of most people it's a "SMS and email and web browsing appliance" rather than a computer.
You pick up your phone and dial the pizza place. [1] You tell them whether you want pepperoni, supreme, or cheese, etc. You tell them the type of crust and quantity. They may ask you if you'd like any of their side options -- soda, salad, wings, breadsticks, etc. You answer them. They tell you the total price and you both hangup.
Then some "magic" happens. And about 30 minutes later your doorbell rings. You get excited because you're really hungry! Afterall, you've been busy hacking and didn't have time or want to spend energy thinking about food. You just want to get back to hacking.
Most people want technology to work like this. They're not interested in hacking. They're at the movies, shopping, playing sports, at bars, raising kids, etc. "Normal" life stuff.
And if you offer a better experience, perhaps by making an especially delicious pizza, or by delivering it faster, even better. You can also probably charge more for it then, too.
Most of the time Pizza and Apple products "just work". And it so happens that there's a significant market that wants (and is willing to pay) for things that "just work".
[1] Or you order online because it's a better experience -- you can focus your energy on what you want.
When dealing with consumer wifi gear, the FCC required that we use non-standard antenna connectors, for instance - to prevent people from just putting whatever they wanted on there.
This wasn't specifically to prevent tampering, but to make it evident that, from our point of view as a company, we do not intend or encourage people to just open it up and mess with it.
What Apple really sells expectations, because actual experience only comes after the money changes hands. It's unfulfilled expectations which frustrate the subset of hackers mentioned in the article. Those expectations are in no small part legitimate. Apple thrives off the mythology of changing the world via the power of the individual...even while the prize is a passive consumption.
Instead, the theme is the existential (and grammatically incomplete) "iPad is..." encouraging the viewer to complete the subject. Structured such that the viewer will project their own goals and desires onto the object, it intends to instill the belief that each unique idea can be brought to fruition by the device.
In other words, even such biased completions as "[The] iPad is an energy conversion device" are an valid and grammatically correct. Anything which pops into the viewers mind works within the pattern by marketing intent.
As the article points out, Apple's actions are along the lines of "We don't like people like you." The hurt to hackers when their expectations are unfulfilled by Apple may not be so much technical as social. The disappointment is not, "These damn screws," but rather "Hey, I thought you said I was cool."
Think about it, how many different types of laptops does Dell of HP or Toshiba sell? It's absurd. It's like the difference between the GM when there was Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, and Saturn. There were just too many overlapping products that confused their customers. They (GM, Dell, HP, et al) spread themselves too thin. Look at who ended up doing well: those companies who narrowed their product scope down: BMW, Honda, Acura, Scion. Maybe companies need to think about staying ahead of Apple instead of just playing catch up.
Apple isn't just selling an experience, it's selling security and peace of mind.
Marketing sums all this up in the oft-misued word 'Brand', which is the sum of the experiences we have with a product or company.
> Why would someone by [sic] a <company> or <company> mp3
> player when there is no guarantee the company will stay
> in business
If we assume your claim that Apple is guaranteed to stay in business, then we also have to accept the possibility that Apple being the dominant player in the mp3 player is what is driving the other companies out of business. In other words, the fact that people are buying Apple mp3 players instead of other brands is the only reason that Apple is guaranteed to be in business while the other companies (according to you) could go under at any moment. This seems like a feedback cycle to me, and this probably has less to do with the quality of Apple products than it does with feedback cycle itself.
tl;dr If Apple is 'guaranteed' to stay in business while others could fail at any moment, then it has more to do with a feedback cycle of people buying Apple products than it does with the quality of Apple products.
You're also not realizing that (as far as the iPhone is concerned), most people get new phones every 2 years (in the US at least) because they just pay the subsidized price when they sign a new contract.
One notable exception recently (though it may have technical reasons) is the old Apple TV not getting Netflix where the new one did. People expected better of Apple, and thus complained bitterly.
EDIT: He also mentions that the other manufacturers offer an overwhelming number of barely-differentiated products, which you have to read about in-depth in order to decide what's really right for you. Paralysis of choice is a very bad thing for a lot of people, especially for non-experts.
It's paralyzing for experts, too. The fact that I can properly evaluate the options makes it incredibly hard to actually decide. It's much easier when I can get by with ignorance.
I'm the sort that cares about making the right choice the first time with expensive stuff, though, so when it comes to a field I know nothing about, I generally need to become knowledgeable in it first before I'll make a decision. Simpler when there's a more limited range of choices and they're all pretty good.
The iPhone 3G was released in July of 2008, I will have gotten software updates with new features, bug fixes and other stuff for almost 3 years. Owners of Samsung Android phones are not getting the latest and greatest (not yet at least).
Also, Microsoft has shot themselves in the foot multiple times. Plays-for-Sure and some of their other music initiatives have not been compatible with each other, especially the Zune. Why would I go with Microsoft if within the next couple of years that I own the device they could suddenly close down a music store or deprecate a certain music format thereby making my device instantly unusable. Apple has proven since the first iPod came out that if I purchase music on the iTunes store that I will be able to listen to it on any Apple device I own for years to come. That stability is important to a consumer.
When you also consider that basically none of the features of iOS 4 made it to the 3G, I think it's a pretty poor example.
Given that Apple's computer business has largely fallen by the wayside and still has only fractional sales of Dell, I fail to see your point. Laptop sales go: Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba, Apple.
My sister for example bought a Toshiba laptop, and it has failed (the mousepad), everything else worked fine) three times now and has had to be serviced three times, and during those times it was gone for a month at a time. Whereas with Apple she could have taken it to an Apple store and if they had the part in stock had a replacement same day, if they don't have it on stock she could have used an external mouse until they called her and she could get it replaced same day.
Customers are much more satisfied with their Apple products than with products from Dell, HP (don't get me started on their shitty hinge design ...), Acer, or Toshiba.
This. Try and think of one other computer company that has/takes/enforces that much control on every aspect of their product. Sure, some companies make decent high-quality hardware, and some companies make okay software. But what sets Apple apart is the quality/attention to detail that goes into every aspect of the product.
Each product is designed as an cohesive package, that "just works" out of the box. If you want to hack that product, it's your prerogative, but don't complain that it's not as easy to accomplish.
Disclaimer: We are a Mac software company. We consider hack-ability important, it's just not what Apple is selling.
Non-Apple’s Mistake