Comment by mcantor | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mcantor | Hacker News Reader

Full disclosure: I recently purchased a T-Mobile Android-powered G-1, with which I am more than a little enamored. Feel free to discard the following post as fanboy tripe.

Couldn't this article have just as easily been written about the G-1, or certain models of Blackberry? (Especially since Android is open-source. Isn't it?) It disturbs me when Apple products are treated like the exclusive apotheosis of their niche. I remember reading an article in which the journalist blathered spastically about "iPod-jacking," the paradigm-breaking practice of two people swapping headphones on their iPod to see what the other is listening to.

Huh???

ANY pair of MP3 players could accomplish the same thing, just like any modern wi-fi/GPS/accelerometer/etc. enabled smartphone could accomplish what this article is talking about.

Also, I have an open question: I'm perplexed by people who criticize Apple for keeping apps out of the store. Aren't you free to publish your app on your own website, which any user can navigate to, and install your app from there? Are people angry because, if Apple doesn't let you in the app store, you're almost definitely going to get less customers? (That's a fair thing to be angry about). Or... are people angry because, if you get kicked out of the app store, no one can install your app AT ALL?

"Aren't you free to publish your app on your own website, which any user can navigate to, and install your app from there?"

No. Which is why having a gate keeper at the store is so frustrating.

There are three ways to distribute--iTunes store, ad hoc (limited to 100 device IDs per app and is designed to use for testing) and enterprise which only works for corporate accounts and is limited to devices inside your company.

Then how do you develop for the iPhone, without being able to install the app you're developing on your own device?

You can't. You have to sign up for the dev program to get the app on your device. You can program to the simulator, but that doesn't help you with the unique features of the phone (camera, accelerometer, etc).

WOW. I didn't realize that was the case. Now I understand the App store fiasco much more... it seems like Apple is paying the price for its closed architecture culture.

That makes me feel even more strongly about my original post: With an open architecture and less stringent gatekeeping, the G-1 is poised to take advantage of the PR disaster that Apple has been cultivating. It's too bad Apple has a monopoly on branding expertise, or T-Mobile and Google could really strike a decisive blow.

Apple has a monopoly on branding expertise

Could you explain this?

I just meant that there's no one out there who can inspire consumers to brand loyalty and excitement as deftly as Apple can.

There is no monopoly on deftness.

Fiasco? You think App Store is not a success but a fiasco?

Well, I'm a developer who is interested in stuff more serious than iFart. I recently got an Android phone because I was turned off by all the negative stories I read about developing for iPhone. I can't be the only one in this boat.

If the App Store wasn't a massive success, no one would bother to develop for it, and no one would complain. The negative stories are an indicator of Apple's success. For developers, the Store is a negative, but for the users it is a clear positive; it delivers advanced and slick applications at relatively cheap prices. The users don't hear/care about the developer problems.

Or you can jailbreak, which lets you run unsigned apps including ones that you build in Xcode. But yeah, developing exclusively for the iPhone is just handing Apple a kill switch to your company.

Your point is clear and practical, but a thought just occurred to me:

Imagine if you had to jailbreak your Windows machine to use applications that Microsoft hadn't approved...

The issue here is that the average person doesn't see the iPhone as a computer. That's why Apple is able to screw its users over like this and not catch any flak for it.

I agree completely. Most of the fanboys who defend Apple's practices would be (justifiably) howling in outrage if any other company did the same thing.

you mean like the Xbox? I don't think anyone is really complaining about that.

The Dreamcast was relatively open. I think the big reason that Apple kept the phone closed was because it could. People make the mistake of looking at it from a Mac/PC perspective, when really the iPhone was aimed at a consumer market which was already used to phones where the carrier had all the power. Sure, Windows Mobile is pretty open, but how many people use WM compared to generic "text phones"? I'd bet the vast majority of iPhone switchers are coming from the latter category, where the phone company owns your phone for all intents and purposes.

Author here.

I agree with you: the G1 (and G2!) is a very capable device. As Android is adopted by more and more device manufacturers, Android could very well become a ubiquitous, ambient computing environment.

The reason I focus on the iPhone is for two reasons. First off: it's hardware. No matter how good the G1 is, the crux of the phone is it's OS. That's the standard being pushed in that case. With the iPhone, they're pushing the hardware and software standard.

Second (and this is by far the larger reason) is the install base. There's 40,000,000 iPhones and iPod touches in the market! The ubiquity and large adoption of this device is why it's "White Label." People already have it. For comparison, as of Jan 09 the X-Box 360 had ~28 million units in market. A large % of which might not even be on X-Box Live.

The penetration of the iPhone is what makes it special in this case.

I think I see what you were getting at now, about the market penetration. I still don't really understand your point about hardware vs. software. The G-1 and iPhone are both pieces of hardware with pre-packaged software on them. Is there really anything the iPhone's hardware is capable of that the G-1 isn't, in some profound way? They both have wi-fi, GPS, accelerometer, calculator, touch screen, etc.

The iPhone really has become startlingly popular; I think I had a knee-jerk reaction to your article because Apple's incredible aptitude for branding always makes me a little queasy. People get so excited about Apple that and Apple this, that functional alternatives like the G-1 and Blackberry go unnoticed, and in the end, the market suffers because consumers are complacent instead of asking, "Can't it be better?"

in the end, the market suffers because consumers are complacent

I believe you're projecting your own preferences here. Unless you have evidence to suggest that the average iPhone owner is not happy with his purchase, saying "the market suffers" is a bit much.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that the market suffers because of a lack of competition - and I tend to agree with that.

And as a side note, this article seems to sort of be leading towards that sentiment: "there’s very little reason for start-ups to even attempt to pursue the wonky world of hardware."

He's saying that the market suffers because of a lack of competition

Huh? What lack of competition? The post is about the competition.

this article seems to sort of be leading towards that sentiment

He's referring to stand-alone devices, not other smartphones.

People get so excited about Apple that and Apple this, that functional alternatives like the G-1 and Blackberry go unnoticed

They don't go unnoticed. It's only in geek-apple-loving communities like HN where they make it seem like the iPhone is the only viable choice for a joyful mobile experience.

Out there, normal people are buying other phones and are happy with them. Last time I checked Blackberry was still outselling the iPhone. http://www.phonemag.com/blackberrys-dominate-top-five-us-sma...

40M iphone devices have been sold, but I'm not sure if there are 40M active iphones out there.

I would guess 2-7M or so are not being used(broken or cast aside by the owner when they upgrade).

Small nitpicky point, but just came to mind.

Couldn't this article have just as easily been written about the G-1, or certain models of Blackberry?

Android is not a large enough market for anyone to target exclusively. The Blackberry has inconsistent hardware capabilities, which fragments the large market it has.

The advantages that each of those platforms has just don't matter in achieving the kind of success that Apple has had with the iPhone platform in the way that the author describes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com