Hacker News Reader

Comment by simonsarris | Hacker News Reader

I think you're correct that Apple is going to have to do things differently get some of their web properties to catch on, but I disagree heavily on your premise.

For a counterexample, Facebook is professional-looking and very structured compared to MySpace, which in turn is very amateurish-feeling.

There isn't any question which is preferred.

Forums are amateurish. Stackoverflow is professional. I know where I'm going for Q&A.

I think there's a lot more to Apple's problems than professionalism vs amateurism, to the point where it is a minor point, if one at all.

I'm very wary against sayings like "the web is about amateur content." The web is about a lot of things, and while a lot of the web is about amateur content, a lot of the web is also about providing good structure, order, and execution to that content. In general, it even seems to be that the company that can put the most order unto the all of the content reaps the greatest success.

View on HN

My point wasn't that less professional looking websites succeed over more professional looking sites. It's Apple's focus on professional content (the select few) vs amateur content (all of us).

I didn't mean to use amateur in a derogative sense. Amateurs are just people who don't get paid for their work.

Re: Facebook/MySpace, I think this was a different dynamic. The thing facebook did right was tone down the design significantly so that everyone's content became the only important thing on the page. It's still amateur content though.

If Apple had done Stack Overflow, I bet they would have had a team of certified experts to answer the questions and I don't think it would have worked very well. In Stack Overflow, there's no separation between who can ask and answer questions (besides a few karma points). That kind of chaos Apple doesn't excel at.

> If Apple had done Stack Overflow, I bet they would have had a team of certified experts to answer the questions and I don't think it would have worked very well.

Something like Knol?

Maybe "professional/amateur" isn't the right dichotomy here. I think it's more accurate to describe it as "peer/tiered". In Facebook/MySpace/SO users are all at the same level and communicate roughly as equals. In most Apple products, there are a small number of special broadcasters (creators) and a large number of receivers (consumers).

> Apple's focus on professional content vs. amateur content

On the contrary, Apple was founded on bringing professional or expert tools to regular people.

Apple ][ brought amateur computing into the home, Mac allowed amateur publishing.

Apple has made a killing on enabling amateurs. The iPad broadens that reach even more.

That's essentially the argument they've been making. I.e., Apple is focusing on things which make amateurs able to produce professional results, not amateurs producing amateur results (like Youtube).

It's this part that's going to get people disagreeing with you:

"No more pixel perfect web apps that feel like desktop apps, no more sites that look like glossy brochures, and embracing chaos and amateurism over order and professionalism. It is going to be very hard."

I just don't see his point. Why go ugly/messy when elegant/perfect is working so well?

OK, so Ping isn't doing well. Seemed a "me too!" gesture in a market saturated with social networking apps, a messy application for a slick product.

No point in changing a paradigm that works, only to garner greater market coverage with subsequent much less penetration. If Apple's gonna "go ugly", they have to compete with "ugly" at 10% the price they're used to.

Why be worse, when you're famous for best?

I'd also attribute Ping's failure to 1) Failing to get an agreement for Facebook Connect in time for the launch and 2) Largely ignoring the portion of your music library not purchased from Apple.

In this day and age, when I join a new network I want it to be easy to find my existing "friends" on said network. SC2 nailed this - I was playing with friends within minutes of my first login. Ping, on the other hand... I saw a couple updates from friends and a lot of more-or-less fluff from Yo-Yo Ma. OH! and the spam. Sweet monkey jesus there was a lot of spam the first week. Not exactly a compelling social experience.

    Why go ugly/messy when elegant/perfect 
    is working so well?

That wasn't his point - his point is more like the "Cathedral and the Bazaar", but recreated and worded improperly.

The point is that many web services do not have a clear vision and their trajectory is set by the people using it, favoring content created by amateurs (as in people that don't get paid for their work and that take pictures by themselves, not helped by professionals with hugely expensive lenses attached to full-frame cameras and strobes).

I also disagree that elegant/perfect works versus having a community, which trumps all other aspects. And I agree that elegant/perfect is cool and I like cool, but I prefer Amazon over any other online store because Amazon has real honest-to-god reviews.

    Why be worse, when you're famous for best?

Yeah, but even mighty Apple that barely escaped bankruptcy and now has surpassed Microsoft in value; even Apple is not immune to the innovator's dilemma.

The example provided is good - and no, Google Buzz and Google +1 are a "me too!". When the second search result for "Apple Ping" is "How to remove ping from itunes" that's just plain sad.

Yeah, I guess there are a few small leaps in the first two points there. The connection I was trying to make was that Apple's taking it's experience with things they understand (desktop apps, marketing to professionals, making beautiful things, etc) and applying it to a new domain that they don't have a good grasp on.

> My point wasn't that less professional looking websites > succeed over more professional looking sites.

Besides that your point is not true I fail to see how it applies to Apple. Should they remake apple.com to something horribly amateurish, and then they somehow succeed? Are they failing?

And I bet that if some website which looks amateur succeeds over more professionally done the looks is not the key to success.

No they're not failing over all at all. They're just failing at web stuff (which they keep trying at). I wouldn't change a thing with their hardware business, and as a result I wouldn't change apple.com. I would change me.com though, because it's not a success by any definition of the term.

Also, my point was not about whether a site is amateur or professionally done. It's whether the focus is on amateur or professional content. Apple is very good at the latter and not so much at the former which is why they have so much trouble with the web.

I still don't get what are you talking about. What is that "web stuff" that Apple is failing? What has me.com to do with content, professional or amateur? It is not some blogging platform.

Honestly, I think you're both right. My feeling is that Apple has not successfully been able to from that successful web platforms have are professional, but "open-ended with a purpose". Your examples of Facebook and Stack Overflow are perfect representations of this: both are professionally implemented, but the content itself is basically open, but purposed.

Ping doesn't let you generate anything new, or provide information that is broadly useful.

Craiglist is the most amateur-looking website I've seen in a very long time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com