What? Ridiculous how? This claim is ridiculous.
Suck it up and use Android. You'll live. I did.
These things weren't difficult for me, but they're a pretty big hurdle for 'normal' people. If Amazon pulls the Kindle app, a user is probably more likely to "just switch" to iBooks as opposed to a different platform that supports Kindle. Which is apparently what Apple is counting on.
Fast forward three years. Mom has developed a lot of habits and expectations. Time for a new smartphone. When Mom buys a new smartphone, if it works differently than the one she had before, it is confusing and you just can't do anything with this piece of crap and why oh WHY can't it just be like her old one?
And asking people to just throw away everything they own and buy it all again? Not only should that extra cost factor into your decision, there's a wealth of evidence that people irrationally weigh sunk costs more heavily than they should.
(From reading HN, I'm starting to believe that I must be one of the blessed few with a Mom who is not a complete jackass).
If she wants to switch (and she will if she can no longer get the things that she wants), it will get bitched about for 2 weeks, then she will figure it out and you'll never hear about it again. This is some sort of squeaky wheel confirmation bias.
In my experience, it takes more than two weeks before they stop missing the other way of doing things. The violation of their expectations bothers them to such a degree that it interrupts the part of their brain that would otherwise help them learn the system. They might learn eventually, but they will have to be dragged there kicking and screaming.
Normal people is a pointless term. You may as well just say people.
Saying 'These things weren't difficult for me, but they're a pretty big hurdle for people.' would sound horrible and arrogant, but at least it would be honest.
You, and the author of this article, shouldn't use such a lazy and condescending phrase.
to be blunt, i can't even find the arrogance in the quote you fabricated. are you suggesting that people who are considered tech savvy don't have an easier time navigating new technology?
Which isn't a polite thing to say no matter how you phrase it.
In the context of this article in particular, in order to bolster a flawed argument, 'normal people' are presented as people so stupid as to be unable to comprehend a second brand of telephone.
This is simply untrue, and to imply that people don't have the power to choose between two products, because 'normal people' are too stupid to use more than one type of phone is absurd.
If you have a problem with Apple's 30% cut of in app purchases, that's fine. But please use something a little more substantive than a silent, and most likely non-existent, underclass of sub-humans as your justification.
in fact, i know several "normal people" who'd probably prefer considering themselves "normal people". at the very least, as opposed to "computer nerds". which incidentally is a term i've never found offensive.
I just don't see why the author would choose to use the loaded term 'normal people' instead of just 'people'.
edit: Unless he was being lazy and hanging his argument on an unfair caricature.
Which I believe he was.
Also let's not forget about early termination fees from carriers, or getting another subscription just to get another phone.
For some people moving to another platform can be a significant expense. And for most people it's not really clear what else you might be missing on the other platform, that you were accustomed to using now.
Also, as a reminder in case you live in a country where it isn't so: Contracts prevent most of Apple's customers from jumping platforms, and sunk costs in iOS apps tighten the lock-in.
It sounds like being on iOS as opposed to Android is worth money to you. That's what Apple thinks too.
Either prove them wrong or pay the piper.
You know who Apple doesn't resemble? Sun. Sun let everyone besides themselves get rich off of Java, and look where they are today.
And, monopoly, what? Having the best product doesn't make you a monopoly.
Regarding your second paragraph: I agree with you. The Mac is the best personal computing platform, yet it is not a monopoly. But having a monopoly in the mobile app market does give Apple a monopoly.
They don't. Doesn't Android actually have more apps in their app store? It really is what the parent said: the Apple market place is just better, it's not any kind of monopoly.
You might be confusing it with the fact that installed base of Android is now equal to iOS on smartphones. (It's not yet caught up with iOS across phones, pods and pads)
On the other hand, I think Android has already earned its place as the next Windows, which I'm glad of, because it's open source which avoids the possibility of it being abused too much.
But monopolies are about power rather than simple numbers. One good test would be if Apple can single-handedly dictate a price rise across the industry, which is one possible outcome of this latest announcement. Though, I actually think the interlocking demands are specifically intended to remove certain competitors from iOS without explicitly naming and kicking them out, much like they blocked Flash apps via over-broad limitations on programming language choice.
However, your comment, "How many times do we need to see ignorant people lured into these roach motels before we as an industry or a society do something about it?" stuck out. From my perspective, the fallacy there is that we as a society exist as something more than a collection of individuals. I read a very interesting article today about how Darwin might actually be a better economic father, as opposed to Adam Smith. The reasoning was that Darwin's theory explains self-interest outside of the context of society; that individuals act in their best interests which may or may not benefit society.
Perhaps our differences are down to our backgrounds. Europe, as a whole, tends to look at the societal unit, whereas Americans tend to look at the individual level, where societal consequences are emergent behavior.
Do you even know what a monopoly is? Because based off your comment I don't think you do.
"In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
So tell me what product does Apple have a monopoly on? Laptops? No. Cell phones? No. Mp3 players? No. App store? No: https://market.android.com/
There are alternatives to Apple, you just don't like them.
Man, I can't read this thread. There is so much hyperbole. I should have recognized the type of people this headline and article would bring out.
edit: I don't understand your claim. Your wording wasn't problematic. As I read it before and read it now, you're implying that moving to Android results in "little money to be made". That's the part that I don't really understand I guess.
My understanding from every report I have ever read is that there just isn't a lot of money in Android apps. Not a lot of developers share, but those who do tend to report underwhelming results compared to what I see from iOS shops (and those who develop for both platforms have said exactly that in no uncertain terms). For example, Kreci posts his profits every month, and the monthly average is something like $1300 from 10 apps, several of which are pretty popular. All the news stories I see about the Android Market seem to agree with this. If you have better information, I would honestly be fascinated to hear.
(I don't mean to impugn Kreci's success. He's well within the range he wants to be in for where he lives and I'm nothing but happy for him — but for where I live, that's rent on a cheap apartment.)
We're about to release another paid app in March on both platforms that will be give us more data about the performance of apps in each marketplace. Maybe I should write a blog post about it...
I think the perception of Android has been deeply colored by the early experience of developers when Android really was a niche geek market. However after 800% growth last year it just isn't that market any more - it's a market mainly full of real consumers who outnumber the geeks now. When a platform is growing as fast as Android pretty much any benchmark you read from even months ago is going to be misleading.
http://www.conceivablytech.com/5652/business/apple-leads-glo...
I say 80% of all apps we do, we do now both for iOS and Android. While Android used to be a second class citizen a year or so ago - often just recieving a 'port' of the iPhone version (ok it runs, we're done) - now there's much more focus on making 'native' Android apps (no more Back-button in the navigation bar etc.). Android revenue is still behind iOS, but it's profitable and worth doing.
Since Android is growing already at a much faster rate than iOS and the whole tablet & smartphone business is only expected to get bigger anyway, you gotta wonder where we'll be in say - 5 years from now? Which will be the next Windows, the OS with 90% market share, that everybody is gonna develop for? Well it could've been iOS, but I don't think that's going to happen anymore.
Is it possible that the market won't coalesce and will instead stay fragmented? I wonder about the likelihood of that happening. It seems unlikely that either Android or iOS will capture 90% market share any time soon, plus, there is Blackberry to contend with (perhaps the Playbook will revive their fortunes somewhat) and you can never completely count out Microsoft either, as we've seen with the recent Nokia situation.
I think there are perhaps a couple of ways this could go. First, regardless of who executes best on technology, there may be a company who executes best on earning money for developers, and this economic factor could really boost the platform - if developers start coalescing around a platform, consumers may (will?) follow. (I think iOS has the edge here.)
Second, if the market remains fragmented it is going to be untenable for many companies, particularly small ones who develop software for clients, to support all of the platforms. They'll either have to specialize in one, perhaps two, of the platforms and avoid or subcontract work for the other platforms, or they'll need to start relying more heavily on HTML5 and workarounds like Phonegap. From that perspective, it may be in the best interest of web developers to see the platform fragmentation continue and perhaps get even worse.
But what I find ironic is Microsoft's role in this new platform war. Microsoft and Windows Phone 7 has now taken on the role of what was the stodgy old monopoly that only cared to make products for enterprises: IBM and OS/2.
So yes, move to Android and stop being such miserable worms. Ditching an iPhone is not like ditching $5,000 worth of IBM PC-XT, especially because Apple have sync'd all your contacts, emails, and other personal data with your computer.