Hacker News Reader

Comment by ripperdoc | Hacker News Reader

That is true, but they all represent somehow the older version of connected software, as a pure extension of the device rather than a service on it's own. iCloud works great for a device as an invisible backup, but you can't use it to share files, co-operate, publish, share data between applications, etc. And I'd say the popular web services of today are so because they integrate across services and socialize the usage. Apple are still stuck 5-10 years behind.

View on HN

Agreed. The Maps fiasco is a great illustration of how Apple have an institutional blind spot around the complexity of doing online, data-driven services right - and won't invest (despite $120bn in the bank) properly to deliver these. This is the single biggest thing that relegates them to "just a consumer electronics" firm - and as we know, CE firms are lucky to have 10 years on top.

The other interesting data point is the bidding for the new TLDs in summer 2012 (http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/rss/1136468/Amazon-G...). Amazon and Google bidded on 150+ new TLDs between them. Apple? With $120bn in the bank, they applied for... .apple. Even Microsoft understood the potential importance of this more than Apple (they applied for 5 or so - .live, .docs, .bing etc).

This is the single biggest thing that relegates them to "just a consumer electronics" firm - and as we know, CE firms are lucky to have 10 years on top.

Yeah this is the thing exactly. Amazon and Google are essentially content plays in mobile. Devices can come and go but as long as people are using their services they're making money.

Apple is a hardware play and that gave them a big first-mover advantage but unless they can keep coming up with iPhone/iPad level home runs that advantage deteriorates quickly. I will never buy anything in iBooks, for example, because I don't want to be limited to Apple's devices to read my books, even if I do currently have an iPhone, iPad and MBA.

They do have some platform tie-in with iTunes Music but the writing is on the wall there. Subscription models are the way forward.

I'm not sold on the long term benefit to subscription models. A well curated library has much more appeal to me than an all you can eat buffet. I have recently seen this with Netflix great service but the content I would miss the most is the kid shows that my daughter watches. The tv and movies I look forward to watching with her are not on there so in one form or snouty I curate a library that I only have to pay for once.

Same for magazines and book. I keep a few subscriptions but mainly consume the content once. When I find a good book, one I will read again I put it on my library shelf and come back to it later. Subscriptions for media lock me into a singe channel if I ever want to go back. And like Netflix, who has to negotiate with the content providers for their content, with subscriptions there is no guarantee the 5-10% of quality content I like will be there when I come back.

Well, there is some sharing (PhotoStream), but you are right in general. And even if Google is 5 years ahead (I don't think they are), and I do use google services for sharing, the thing is I don't enjoy it. Functionality is there, but experience is lacking, alas I cannot pinpoint why. Just every time I use Google docs or Google drive I want to get out as soon as possible. For this reason I don't see Apples lack of these services as a big problem and I don't see Googles offer as a big advantage. It is possible, however, that with right implementation it may become a necessity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com