This hardly captures Apple's strategy. It appears to offer an insight into one step in their strategic thinking for one issue, but the title of the post is quite misleading.
I disagree.
Facebook, Google, Microsoft have a walled garden, in-fact every company on earth thinks on how to keep customers from leaving.
The difference between Apple and others is that Apple products are far superior, i can't imagine myself using any Microsoft product if Apple provides it.
Really? How are superior?
Go a head, take OSX and Windows 7 and compare between them, see how much it takes Windows 7 to crash and tell you: "do you want to send us a report?".
The report should be sent automatically and analyzed by computers before it reaches humans.
As I type into my girlfriend's macbook, I feel ashamed, but at the same time I cannot get myself to buy a laptop because they all suck.
But seriously, what are you demonstrating here by providing an anecdote? I've got some of my own: I use osx and windows 7/8 extensively every day, and (except xcode!) neither of them crashes with even the slightest degree of regularity: they're both great operating systems.
But of course, neither are evidence of any form to support the claim "x is better than y". Which is good, because it's a stupid debate anyway.
*Sent from my Linux Mint machine.
I have not seen a OS crash since years. If you're talking about app crashing I see more less the same on both oses
I can say that you are in the minority, people use apple now because they are cool and with subsidies cheap. I see a larger amount of android phones now than I did 2 years ago when everyone and their mother had an iPhone and now the Android phones are starting to look cool with there gimmicks like the phone pausing video when you look away.
People bought iPads because they were a cheapish replacement for a computer and they were cool, I think Apple has everyone beat on the tablet market at the moment, while more people might know what a Galaxy S4 is they probably don't know the name of a Tablet that isn't iPad.
But for computers cheap Windows laptops still reign supreme.
At 10" yes, but at the 7" range the Nexus 7 is really superior to me as a user - I don't know the sales numbers though, maybe the iPad Mini is doing better there too.
Google releases pretty much all of its products on iPhone. Apple doesn't releases anything on other platforms and when they do because they have no choice (iTunes on Windows), they do it poorly.
All of these companies throw walls up for the sake of profits and strategic benefit. Different heights, different locations, some hard walls, some soft, -but they all build them.
The entire free Android operating systems itself is just vendor lock-in for Google, which is an advertising (not search) company.
Android is not vendor lock in, because Google isn't the vendor in this scenario, Samsung, Amazon, Sony, etc are. For example, Amazon doesn't include Google's services, and Samsung is clearly moving in the direction of pushing their own stuff in front of Google's.
I didn't say they didn't, nor did I even imply it. Understand that this doesn't change the fact that Google witheld app features from other OEMs and kept enhanced versions for its own partners for competitive reasons. Just because Apple did it too doesn't mean Google didn't (as I already pointed out).
>Android is not vendor lock in, because Google isn't the vendor in this scenario, Samsung, Amazon, Sony, etc are.
I was talking about walled gardens, and wasn't making an arbitrary distinction of "vendor" lock-in.
As I was saying though, from the standpoint of a walled garden, Android as a free operating system has been remarkably successful as a soft wall for Google, getting their advertisements on more handsets more quickly than any other method. Instead of risking consumers switching, they are eliminating competitors before consumers even get the option to switch. OEMs have been keen to adopt an OS that cost them next to nothing and played nice with branding and in house apps.
Clearly Amazon and Samsung modifying the OS is a concern of Google's, and they are combating this with native apps, web apps, and their own competitive offerings (hardware included).
Chrome serves the same function. It ensures Google is not blocked by browser default search engine changing, it prevents other people's walls. But would you claim Chrome is "vendor lock in"?
Android is primarily a defense mechanism. If Apple and Microsoft together had nearly 100% of the market for the mobile web, they could change the default search engine to Bing and sink Google overnight.
Android if anything, preserves choice and prevents lock-in, because unlike iOS, it is an open OS, and vendors can always change the defaults.
Did you try microsoft mice?
On the contrary, I think this highlights that Jobs thinks, "They want to compare? Great, let's force them to really compare."
Jobs: "If they want to compare us to Android, let’s force them to use our far superior payment system."
It's one thing to build a walled garden that's crap but users get stuck with it. It's another to build something you believe is truly superior for users, then forcibly rub people's noses in it.
While the primary message is that there are Kindle apps on lots of mobile devices, the secondary message that can’t be missed is that it is easy to switch from iPhone to Android. Not fun to watch.
Steve Jobs:
What do you recommend we do? [then suggests as first step to show how better the payment experience is on iOS]
The conversation is about a problem identified by Phil Shiller. The problem is that switching from iOS to Android seems easy.
Jobs proposes (as a first step) to show how the iOS payment system is superior. This is a nice response to a threat from the competition, but it does not change the basic fact: Apple considers that easy switching to Android is a problem, and something must be done about it.
This is consistent with Apple not supporting Android (no Apple app to access iTunes content, etc). Google on the other hand makes apps for iOS, e.g. the books app[1]. When an iOS app is not available (e.g. for music where the app is in the works[2]) users can still use the Web services.
[1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google-play-books/id40098900...
[2] http://www.imore.com/google-play-music-all-access-officially...
Unless violence is being used to force people to buy things, there doesn't have to be a big difference between "the company's benefit" and "the user's benefit."
As long as the developers submit themselves to Apple's authority, Apple and its related products could offer superior service. Most developers are still accepting the "Apple way", even in cases where it hurts their own business proposition. The reason Apple has such a strong supplier power is that they have a very strong market share. However, Apple's arrogance will one day contribute to their downfall. Developers choose to develop first and foremost for the platform that offers the greatest benefits; as Apple's market shares are falling, the userbase is less of a reason to choose to develop for Apple first. Also, because alternatives are strengthening on various fronts, developers will be less likely to swallow Apple's authoritative terms if those terms hurt their own business model - even if that means offering a suboptimal service to Apple's customers.
but no, they still make a laptop that you can't close the lid while downloading a large file... and try to lock you in with lock-in tactics on the media YOU BUY.
See how well that worked for sony betamax/lasedisc/minidics... blueray... oh, wait.
The focus was mentioned in the email from Schiller to Jobs:
> ... secondary message [of the ad] that can’t be missed is that it is easy to switch from iPhone to Android.