Comment by replicatorblog | Hacker News Reader

Comment by replicatorblog | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I wonder if this notion that Apple needs to "get" web services to survive will really matter in the long run? It's the conventional wisdom, just like that they "lost" the PC wars even though they've been the most profitable PC maker for a decade now. There haven't been many web services that have lasted for a decade or more in a dominant position.

Might Apple's best long term strategy to...

1. Support/innovate the heck out of browser/web connectivity software

2. Push the boundaries of input devices and make the best hardware

3. Secure content deals with popular artists

4. Continue to expand their retail/service footprint

5. Let the various waves of social networks rise and fall, but make money on every device sold?

Even the Android hegemon, which supposedly poses an existential threat, could easily fracture if Samsung decides to go their own way.

Apple's position would be better with a firm control of key web services, but I'm not sure it's a requirement.

Apple is in the position Sun Microsystems was 20 years ago. They supplied finished, working solutions, which were really "just" high-quality versions of what the other guys did. Eventually, services got so widespread (Lintel) that customers got less picky and Sun's peculiar quality didn't matter anymore.

However, that won't be how Apple will die out (if they do...), because there is already a huge market of people with lesser quality standards than Apple (Android). Instead, Apple's threat is another company who takes the time to give extraordinary quality for novice users. This isn't happening right now, b/c everyone is fighting for the disruptive (low) end of the market.

So, Sun could have extended their business by diversifying to serve specific high-volume customer markets. Java was an epic half-step. They gave away their ability to add value to customers for nearly free, while focusing ever harder on custom unix hardware and software (UltraSPARC!).

If Apple wants to avoid a Sun-like fate, they'll need to properly diversify beyond custom hw and sw and extend into the spaces of large customers where they can add value. You see _some_ of this in their supporting multimedia Bitflingers, but they'll need to incur much deeper and much more specifically into the multimedia and small office spaces.

Perhaps the Cyanogen corporation could morph into a "luxury" distro?

Difference between apple and sun is that apple is a consumer product. Companies make cost effective decisions. Consumers emotional factors.

I don't think that's the whole story. It's true that companies often buy cost-effective but unsexy computer hardware for their employees (viz. Dell). But back when the Macintosh was getting its market-share crushed by good-enough Win95 PCs, consumers were behaving in a similar price-conscious way. (Though the crashiness of late System 7 probably helped to loosen emotional attachments to the Mac as well.) In fact the Mac had famous bulwarks of continued demand in the institutional education market and among graphics and other "creative" professionals.

However, the situation is different in some ways that favour Apple this time. The shift to smaller, portable devices like the iPod, iPhone and iPad really seems to help Apple to sell premium products, because probably many more people are tempted to choose their phone on emotional (or quality) grounds than their PC. First, people tend to associate the PC with 'work' - in particular, with grinding office documents for work - or with utilitarian duty as a thinnish client for the Web. And unlike a desktop box which sits mostly hidden under your desk, you touch, lift and look at your phone's hardware many times every day. You also take it to public places where other people will get to know about and admire your lifestyle choice. (A laptop is roughly halfway between a phone and a desktop computer in these respects.) And a smartphone still generally costs less than a PC - the price of a whole iPhone after subsidy can easily be less than the price premium for a Mac over a PC. (Back in '96 a desktop computer cost even more than it does now, and better hardware specs could make a big difference to the quality of the user experience, so buyers had a compelling motivation to save their money and/or spend it on specs rather than OS polish or brand mystique.) In the iPhone Apple can sell a glowing, no-compromises 'perfect thing' and at the same time sell it for a lot less.

Which isn't to say that the march of good-enough Android isn't going to squeeze Apple in future: I think it will.

Hah. Those of us who spent the late 90's deploying on Solaris boxes instead of the Linux or BSD hardware we wanted know that's not true. Middle management has the same brand loyalty mania as phone-jealous teenagers. And Sun at the time was the face of Unix and clearly the "best" by every metric management cared to look at.

This is exactly what I was going to say. Apple is a consumer product company while more tech big names are for prosumers(not quite accurate here, but I guess you can get what I mean). When we look at the market this way, the two big segments certainly have different needs. And I guess, if most prosumers here are more related to more or less engineering background, those come from information tech science background might have different needs as well. But compared with majority of the prosumer group, they are just niche. Please take market segmentation into account since information technology market is more accessible. And this is continuing. Consumers and prosumers are all every important in their own context. Hope this helps.

The big difference is that in the enterprise the people who buy the products and the people who use the products are different. In consumer products, they are same, and so the details and the user experience matter.

A lot of the stuff that the enterprise does would be fatal in the consumer business.

"Even the Android hegemon, which supposedly poses an existential threat, could easily fracture if Samsung decides to go their own way."

I highly doubt Android would fracture if Samsung goes its own way. A number of manufacturers (Motorola, ZTE, even Xiaomi) would fill the void if Samsung leaves Android.

I highly doubt Samsung would do it. Samsung doesn't know platform. Microsoft does but it still struggles to convince developers to build on top of Windows Phone.

If Samsung leaves, it loses all the Google apps and services. I highly doubt that Samsung could build a decent Map, Mail and other essential apps.

Maybe, but I'd be surprised if Google didn't port their apps over to this imaginary platform. My larger point is that now that a rich UI is becoming a commodity, non-software/platform factors will become increasingly important e.g. manufacturing, distribution, etc.

Why would Google do that? They would be helping another rival platform get market share.

Google is releasing iOS apps because there's no way Apple is going away soon.

Google is releasing iOS apps because they make money from traffic. Android has served its purpose -- preventing Google from getting frozen out of mobile computing traffic. Chrome is the future brand for Google in the human software world.

while google loves android, they live off traffic, if it comes from android, ios, windows, etc they don't care they built google apps for all those platforms

If Google only cares about traffic, it would have certified Amazon and the Chinese Android clones.

I don't think we're contradicting each other though.

Google will go where the users are but I doubt it would help out OS gain a foothold that would threaten the Android ecosystem.

Google doesn't really make Windows Phone apps though, why would they make SamsungOS apps?

Look at people's IPhones. A lot of its users use apps not built by Apple.

Search, Mail, Social Network, Maps, Photo-sharing, etc.

Yeah, Apple will always make tons of money but IPhone/IPad will become just a device that hosts these apps. If most of the apps people need are available in another platform, the costs of switching is going to be low.

Isn't the prevailing argument in the industry that vertical integration is necessary for great customer experience?

On Android, I sign in ONCE with my @gmail address and everything is instantly configured.

Another great example is Google Now. That feature is very deeply tied into the Android UI and possible because Google owns the services.

I'm not saying you can't get "good enough" without owning the services, but I think you can provide greater value if you do.

For sure, but can't the same be said of their Mac lines? I'm sure iOS will always be a minority in terms of market share, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are the dominant player in the part of the market where people actually PAY for their product compared to free Android phones.

The tablet market is a good example of this, aside from Kindle's no Android tablet has really taken off and I think it's because of some of those points I enumerated above.

"no Android tablet has really taken off"

FYI, Android tablet has larger market share than the IPad now.

If you're narrowing it to just one brand/model, you're right. But Android tablets in general are selling a ton.

The assumption is that the integration of those apps into use-patterns closely enough resembles what they do on the iPhone/Pad. The reality is that it's mostly people who have a predilection towards experimenting with technology who will switch. I doubt that user group makes up more than a few percent of the consumer market.

Apple, I'm sure, studies price patterns and knows well how far up they can push a price without losing the core of their market.

Many of these apps, have no equal on other platforms.

Like what?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com