Hacker News Reader

Comment by crazygringo | Hacker News Reader

> ...how difficult consumer services were going to continue to be for them if they insisted on perfection before release. I still think of this every time I use Dropbox instead of iCloud...

There's a big difference between startups iterating, and giants like Apple. I think we all remember how they were excoriated on the Maps release, which certainly wasn't perfect. Because of their scale, Apple doesn't have the kind of flexibility that unknown startups do -- not just because of their scale, but also because most of their software isn't solely web-based, but is tied into software that is sold with hardware which is released yearly.

I agree that they have a difficult time with a lot of consumer services. But I don't think it's nearly as simple as the author suggests.

View on HN

Isn't the author comparing Google's approach to Apple's? Google has more market share than Apple in just about every software category, so if Google can iterate, than why can't Apple?

I think it has more to do with Apple's marketing. Every time they release even the most trivial improvement they tout it as being amazingly innovative. They also charge premium prices. This creates an expectation with their users that everything will be perfect from the beginning.

>so if Google can iterate, than why can't Apple?

Google is known for no customer service because you are the product, Apple while not being perfect, it is clear that their users take precedent over advertisers and even developers.

People pay for Apple products, so they expect something that works well and looks good.

The switching costs are also much higher with hardware than software. You don't want to pay for a phone and find out it's half-baked, while if a 'free' web service doesn't work, it's easy to switch.

It's also about branding and culture, people expect different things from each company. That has pros and cons.

Just staying with the Google example, I don't remember any major Google product having a major failure. The new Google Maps may be. I know many people complain about the new GMail but it's just about choices of design they made and not about some bugs in the product. So again, Google products are iterative and not buggy irrespective of whether people pay for them or not.

Start watching a YouTube video. Pause it. Come back hours later. Hit play. It'll play a few more seconds and then fail to continue. I'd call that a major Google product with a major failure, though our definitions for major may differ.

Google Chrome for iOS crashes on a regular basis. It also fails to start YouTube videos a lot. Again, I consider those major products with major failures.

Gchat-in-Gmail has issues on a regular basis.

Also, non-major Google products have plenty of bugs. Google Groups digest emails have been broken forever. Once in a while one randomly trickles into my inbox, and I think for a second it may be fixed. Nope, still borked. Despite quite a bit of effort, I've never managed to communicate with any actual human Googler about it.

I've often had to authenticate twice, for unknown reasons, while getting into Gmail from Chrome, when trying to get in via their Gmail app icon.

I like plenty of Google products and services, and use them daily, but they seem to have their fair share of bugs.

For Gmail, the prime example of "major failure" is not the redesign, but Google Buzz. See the HN discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1120145

Google buzz exposing all your contacts to the world.

"Google has more market share than Apple in just about every software category, so if Google can iterate, than why can't Apple?"

This seems like the wrong way to understand each companies motivations. Google got into the maps market because Google's ambition is to be the worldwide leader in (among other things) mapping software. Apple got into maps because Google maps product for iOS was shitty and that was being held against the iPhone.

Apple doesn't want to be in every software category, much less be the leader. Google does.

>Apple got into maps because Google maps product for iOS was shitty and that was being held against the iPhone.

Wait, really? Was this an actual thing, for anyone? Because I _never_ was disappointed by any Google Maps related product on the iPhone. Serious question here.

The whole saga is fairly well documented. Go to any comparison of iOS and Android in 2010-11 and you'll see Google Maps for Android held up as one of the biggest Android advantages. Maps for Android had turn by turn. Maps for iOS didn't.

Apple was excited to partner with Google for Maps on the iPhone launch and it was excited to partner with companies like Garmin on expensive third party turn by turn solutions. Once it became obvious that free turn by turn nav was a fundamental OS level checkbox Apple was forced to rush out their Maps product.

The iOS 5 Google Maps app was very dated and lacking in features compared to the Android version at the time - probably the biggest thing it was missing was turn-by-turn navigation.

It wasn't terrible, it just hadn't been updated in a long time and had fallen behind the other options.

Good point, and Maps is a good example. Apple's whole image is around "it just works", so things are expected to just work. "If you're not embarrassed by it, you waited too long to release it" doesn't really work in Apple's case.

I actually don't think Maps is a good example. I'd argue that Apple wouldn't have taken such heat and criticism if they'd launch Maps as an independent app, worked to iterate and improve it, and then baked it into iOS as a Google Maps replacement when it was good and ready.

It's very likely that their hand was forced by Google's contract renewal.

Doesn't seem to change his point.

It does if you think having an iPhone without a Maps app by default is unacceptable.

Actually the premium prices paid for apple products makes me expect it's perfect. I'm nog going to pay for a beta product that improves at those prices!

Apple has a history of only getting one chance. The Newton at the end was great. Maps could turn into the best mapping system ever and it won't matter. As for Microsoft, Bing could start giving the best results and it won't matter. You have to be in shouting distance of perfect in the consumer market.

For a media version take SNL's clumsy portrayal of Pres. Ford after his incident and the reality of his athleticism[1].

Ask Blackberry about how their release with flaws worked.

1) he played linebacker and was actually pretty athletic and not clumsy. Chose your shoes wisely.

Maps might not be a great example. Apple was clearly banking on crowdsourcing to help with its inaccurate maps. They could have just released it as an optional app and fixed it over time, until it became mature and then replaced google maps with it. But it looks like they were caught with their pants down as the google maps contract renewel deadline was looming and they said "fuck it, launch with it, and we'll handle the PR of it sucking."

Maps is a great example of the difference because, wait for it, Apple never wanted to be in the mapping business. People are comparing Apple and Google and forgetting that the two companies ambitions are completely different.

Google wants the full vampire squid platter. It wants to be your phone OS, your browser, your desktop OS, your search company, your video site, your social network, your office software solution, your maps solution, your knowledge resource, your ISP, etc.

Apple never wanted to make a browser. Apple had to make a browser because the vampire squid company that led the market in browsers gave them a shitty one and used it to malign one of Apple's biggest products.

Similarly, Apple never even wanted to be in the Maps business. Apple had to get in the maps business on relatively short notice because the vampire squid company that led the maps market gave them a shitty one and used it to malign one of Apple's biggest products.

You can't compare the browser situation however many years ago and the Maps calamity. Google's app was hardly a "shitty" alternative, but as others have indicated the Apple response is mostly due to other reasons. How many iOS users rejoiced when Google Maps got rereleased?

"You can't compare the browser situation however many years ago and the Maps calamity."

Actually I just did.

"Google's app was hardly a "shitty" alternative ... How many iOS users rejoiced when Google Maps got rereleased?"

'Rereleased' he says... you mean with turn-by-turn which was never there in the original app. Which is why the original was shitty compared to Maps for Android. QED.

> Google's app

The pre-iOS6 app wasn't "Google's app".

It was Apple's Maps app which used Google-licensed data. Insofar as it was neglected, it was neglected because Apple neglected to improve it and declined to license additional uses of the data (like for turn-by-turn nav).

"Apple neglected to improve it and declined to license additional uses of the data (like for turn-by-turn nav)."

Or, translated from Google spin speak, Apple wanted to improve it but the two parties were not able to agree on terms.

http://allthingsd.com/20120926/apple-google-maps-talks-crash...

Or, as translated from Apple-spin-speak, according to the allthingsd story, Apple wanted to commoditize the Maps data, Google wanted more say over the app, including for it to be called "Google Maps", and feature things like Latitude and other features Android had.

In short, Apple wanted the maps data, but did not want it to be "Google Maps".

If it were really just about withholding features from iOS, why then are most major Android features on iOS, including Google Now, and including a version of the new Google Maps before Android even had it.

Sounds to me like Apple was pulling a John Boehner, refusing to compromise.

False equivalence fail. Apple spin would have been to blame Google the way parent had blamed Apple for everything. I simply noted both sides couldn't reach terms. Sheesh.

"If it were really just about withholding features from iOS, "

Nowhere do I claim this. Straw man alert.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com