Google doesn't get 'social', but Apple doesn't understand the Internet
decipher.orgExhibit A: iTunes (the service) is essentially blocked off from being accessed by people who don't have iTunes (the program) installed. This becomes VERY obvious if you run Linux. The App Store and the iTune music library are not easily searchable or browseable from your Linux PC.
3rd party websites that do this instead aren't really the point, either.
I don't think that makes a very compelling exhibit, given that "the internet" is not "all things you can get to via a web browser". The internet, rather, is IP, TCP, UDP, etc...and every protocol built on top of it. This includes HTTP & HTML (which iTunes leverages heavily) but also a many other things that are not browser-oriented.
Regardless, I think your exhibit is more easily explained by Apple understanding exactly who is likely to spend money and making them want to be their customers. I'm a huge Debian fanatic, but I have to admit that the linux users are the most tight-fisted demographic I've ever seen.
but I have to admit that the linux users are the most tight-fisted demographic I've ever seen.
This seems to suggest the exact opposite of what you just said: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28471/Humble_Indie_Bundle...
Yeah, that always gets trotted out in this context. If what you think this suggests is true there would be more than one such story. To me it just smells of a demographic grateful of finally getting some mercy sex.
Besides, it's a charity. I was talking about commerce.
Well, one real story is a whole lot more compelling than hearsay.
He has a bit more than hearsay going for him; Apple's success in various markets lately has been huge. Linux's success in getting people to spend anything like that kind of money in any consumer context? Basically nil.
Come on, we all know this, we don't need a page of citations to prove to us that Apple is the biggest non-Exxon company in world history, and it's not by accident or some mysterious means.
Linux's 'failure' in getting people to spend "that kind of money" in a consumer context is most likely due to the fact that it's not a centrally-owned commercial entity with a product line and shareholders (i.e. what Apple Inc. is), not due to do any actual 'failure'.
I'm not saying that the users of Apple products and those of Linux distributions don't differ in their purchasing habits (and I'm not saying they do, either)--I'm just pointing out the flaw in this line of reasoning.
And I don't know why you keep repeating this "biggest non-Exxon company in world history" argument, too. It's sensationalist and by two of the most common metrics, false:
* By market capitalization they've been the biggest in only three quarters in history (most recent), all of which are smaller than other companies in history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporations_by_market_...
* By revenue there are many, many non-Exxon (i.e. oil?) companies bigger than Apple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue
I'm repeating it because it's fun and useful shorthand for saying that Apple has become incomprehensibly huge lately, not out of some innate desire to mislead you personally. :) And come on; it's clearly not a linchpin of my "argument", which does not fall flat just because PetroChina and whoever else might also be really big. Nor am I delivering some cruel insult to Linux. I loves me some Linux. I was just pointing out the facts.
As an aside, it would appear that Linux now has an exciting new path to earning money: winning Jeopardy!
1) I don't know about Mac, but most windows users I know pirated a lot of their software. Isn't that just as tight-fisted?
2) There is not much commercial software for sale for Linux at all, so I guess there is a chicken and egg problem.
3) Of course you will sell less Linux copies of a piece of software. There are less Linux users.
But to say Linux users are comparatively tight-fisted compared to users of other OSes, I'm not sure how you come up with that, Personnally, I'd buy a lot more games if they simply worked in Ubuntu... And if iTunes worked on Linux I'd buy more music there.
Really? I'm a linux user, but I bought an OpenMoko phone despite knowing it's pretty much going to be a paperweight. I bought an ugly keychain from RMS when he was in KL. I own a couple of Android phones. I could have saved some money on my Milestone if I'd gotten an iPhone on the cheap from my carrier and then sold it to offset my Milestone purchase, but I opted not to put more money in the Apple coffers (it was right after that fiasco about them dictating what languages you could use to develop for their app store and I was pissed). I am not tight-fisted, but I am pretty idealistic about who I am supporting with my purchases. I have two close friends who use primarily linux and they're both pretty generous. Both of them also own iPhones, incidentally. My anecdotal evidence against yours.
We're not that tight fisted, and besides, what's the point of actively working to make it harder for us to give Apple money?
>Regardless, I think your exhibit is more easily explained by Apple understanding exactly who is likely to spend money and making them want to be their customers.
It's slightly different from the iTunes situation, but the same case can be made for Mobile me services. On any iOS device you won't be able to access mobile me (mail, calendar, address book, gallery) through the browser, you have to set it up locally and use the native applications.
Mobile me is for people who by definition spent money upfront on the service, and people using iOS devices are the customers. So far it's been a pita to deal with their lack of support for mobile safari access.
Exhibit B: In order to do things with your iPhone (like download podcasts, or update firmware), you need to plug it in to your computer and have it do a sync. The phone is on the internet, why do you need to plug it in? Google got this completely right on their phone in that everything syncs to "the cloud." I'm not saying android is perfect, but that is one aspect that's better about it.
My parents just purchased a laptop; they're not really "computer people" but it's hard to get by without one these days. They might have been better off with an iPad but they could never use it because it requires an existing computer to work.
My daughter got an iPod touch for Christmas and I was shocked that it's just a useless brick until connected to a computer. I had to bring her laptop to Christmas (and hide it) so she could use her shinny new toy once it was out of the package.
I think the first person who makes a "hard drive" with an iPod/iPad connector that emulates iTunes so people can backup their iPads without owning a computer will make a lot of money. It's the only thing keeping an iPad from being a general-purpose device for a very large demographic (or Apple could get with the times and allow a true cloud sync).
> It's the only thing keeping an iPad from being a general-purpose device for a very large demographic
That and the fact that the device hides the existence of a file system. Even unsophisticated computer users understand and use the concept of folders and files.
No, my parents would be much more comfortable without files and folders. They'd also be much more comfortable with a big screen of icons instead of the start menu, having all applications be full screen all the time, and very limited multitasking.
You were shocked that her music collection did not magically spring into the iPod from points unseen?
What were you expecting to happen? Did it involve an omnipotent Deity?
While she does primarily use it for music, she spends just as much time playing games and surfing the web. She can add games without connecting it to a computer, but it still requires a computer to get it that far.
It's just surprising that a device with so many capabilities (other than playing music) cannot do anything without that initial connection. You can't even just play around with the home screen icons!
Looks like someone else hasn't heard of the internet.
Doesn't really look like that, no.
Transferring an average music collection, say 10 gig, over USB2 is a much better way to do things than using WiFi. In addition, of course, although it seems you're mostly interested in being difficult and dishing out random pettiness, using WiFi would also involve making a connection to (gasp) your computer, where your music was likely residing before you purchased the mobile device in question.
So yes, Zero, I have "heard of" the Internet. I've also heard of plugging a cable in when it's much faster to do things that way, and when you have to plug the device in to charge it anyway, usually at least once daily.
If you're looking for someone being difficult and dishing out random pettiness you might want to re-read your own contribution to this thread.
As for the actual point, you still seem to think, despite the other answer, that an iPod Touch is only used for large, purchased music collections. That's not really true any longer with music available via Youtube, Spotify etc. and a variety of other diversions available (web, gaming, email, netflix, iPlayer) basically none of which require a(nother) computer to be involved.
My personal plight is the opposite -- In order to do things with Android, you need to sync to the cloud. Plugging it to the computer is not enough.
That's absurd. How difficult is it to connect your wifi-capable, smartphone to the Internet?
Connecting it to internet is not the issue. The issue is that there are features on the phone that have been artificially rendered unusable without syncing with Google.
Just for example, you cannot create a new entry in Google's Calendar app without adding a Google account for syncing.
It further seems that Google has even restricted the APIs beneath so the third-party developers cannot populate the calendar app using data from Outlook. You must have a Google account added to the Calendar app.
Because of this limitation, developers have to build their own app for calendar to support Outlook sync without Google account.
Likewise, I have found it often difficult to add apps to Android without using Android Market (which requires signing into Google Account). ADB works fine, but then it is generally hard to find APK file to begin with.
> Exhibit B: In order to do things with your iPhone (like download podcasts, or update firmware)
Can you not download podcasts on the iPhone over the cell network? I have 3rd gen iPod touch and it lets me download podcasts over wifi.
From personal experience, you can not (unless maybe you come across an especially small podcast episode; there might be a maximum data limit like you get with apps)
I just tried to download a 44mb podcast over 3G using iTunes on the iPhone, it told me it was above the 20mb over the air limit. I normally use the Podcaster app though, I just tested the same podcast and it downloaded on 3G without problems.
Not quite, iTunes is a proprietary service that just happens to utilize HTML as it's markup language, at least in Apple's intent. It's use is similar to the use of XML in other applications: the service is strictly there for one client, it just so happens that a lot of other applications implement it. The web-accessible version is a benefit of this, but it really reveals the bullshit motive behind keeping iTunes' store closed.
I think it would be more accurate to say that from Apple's perspective 'the internet' is more than just the World Wide Web. Apps (and desktop applications) are peers to the browser - not something that necessarily has to run within it.
Part of the reason so much online activity shifted to the web in the web 1.0 era was that the browser sidestepped the problems of distributing and updating client applications.
With its app stores, Apple has solved these problems, and put applications back on an equal footing with web apps.
Whether or not this is is the winning strategy over the long term remains to be seen, but I think it's hard to make the case that Apple doesn't understand the internet.
Apple understands the internet, it just doesn't like what it sees. There's a lot of smut, hate speech, pirated content, and malware out there.
Just as Google has tried to do with its search engine, Apple is building a system that makes it easy to find quality content. Content that is legal, age rated and doesn't harm your devices. A lot of families value those qualities over 'absolute freedom'.
I would disagree. Apple fundamentally doesn't understand the Internet. MobileMe/.Mac has been a decent disaster for a long time, not even able to meet the quality levels of services that Google gives away for free. That's not because Apple chooses to not like bits about the net, that's because Apple doesn't seem to have any idea what its doing in that space.
I'd say that Apple doesn't just not understand the Internet, but at a higher level, it doesn't understand communication. Look at the iOS notification system: it is, and always has been, fundamentally broken. It assumes you'll only get a single notification, and that that notification is so important that it should interrupt your current app to get it.
Apple have been selling computers in phone formats. Android, Microsoft, and especially Palm, are selling you communicators, that pulls in data from all over your communication space and centralizes it. Apple doesn't seem to know how to do this (or assumes most people don't have an online persona in various locations, which I think most people really do).
What you're saying is that Apple doesn't understand social networking and cloud services. I agree, but I suspect Apple is working on those; although it's anyone's guess what they're going to do with the massive data center they've just built in NC.
The article was about Apple trying to control how people interact with content on the internet. The author feels that that's against the nature of the internet, hence: "Apple doesn't understand the internet".
Well, to be fair, the author only has one paragraph about Apple and the Internet, and you could get multiple readings from it :) When I read control and centralization, I don't just think of iTunes, but I do think of Apple's dogged insistence that everything you do is essentially tied to one machine. Your iPhone, and (as I think Tim Bray described it "monsterously") your iPad, need to be sync'd to a computer when they start up, for no compelling reason. My Android phone lets me type in my Google ID and off I go.
Honestly, I think Apple's attitude towards the Internet is not because they don't like it. I think they just don't know what to do with it, certainly aren't willing to partner with companies that do, and they're letting their market get chipped away little by little. I've felt like Apple have been resting on their laurels for years, software-wise. Jonathan Ive is producing great hardware, but year on year competitors are catching up or surpassing Mac OS X and iOS, and Apple doesn't seem to notice/care.
While I don't disagree with you, I wonder how much of this is a function of Apple not being able to figure out how to monetize the Internet to the profit percentages they want and/or use the Internet to constrain people to the Apple ecosystem (which I suppose it just another path to monetization).
I really hope it's other trolls modding up these pro-censorship posts.
Just because someone has an opinion different from yours doesn't make them a troll. You calling someone a troll because you don't agree with someone's opinion does.
I was being charitable. Not all opinions are created equal.
Thinking about the questions at the end,
Microsoft is (or was) really good at backwards compatibility (and making it easy to import other formats into their own). This is their weakness: they are focused on getting content into their own formats.
Facebook's strength is to get people to impart information into their system. Their weakness is in always trying to make it public (or at the least visible to anyone you friend)
My slightly different spin:
Microsoft is very good at understanding the median user. Their sweet spot is good enough to justify paying rather than reassuringly expensive, and they impress users with feature lists and [sometimes illusory] choice over usability and extensibility. As a result their products can be pretty horrible for beginners and power users alike, and their blindness towards early adopters leaves them paying catchup in markets like smartphones
Facebook's strength is addictiveness; they understand how to get eyeballs in. Their weakness is a failure to add much value to users' lives beyond voyeurism and distraction.
this bit of thread makes me feel like it's time for neal stephenson to write a sequel to in the beginning was the command line, only this time the car companies are apple, google and facebook instead of microsoft, apple, be, and linux.
"Google doesn't know how to have fun"
Has anyone ever actually said this? Between the logo doodles, April fools jokes, and bright colors, Google is one of the funnest companies around.
Don't forget silly extras you find from time to time (kayak across the Pacific in Maps, 'Undo send' in gmail). How often do you find things like that from large companies?
Undo send is awesome - my ADD ass always remembers one more thing just after hitting send. The delay helps on a mental level oddly enough.
What this is basically saying is that the software these companies create doesn't understand the complexities and chaos of human interaction and thought.
Pretty sure people have been working on this problem for a while, and it won't be solved anytime soon.
Agreed. How can you possibly expect a computer to make a non-optimal decision, such as humans regularly do (e.g., the lottery, short versus long-term output, etc.)? Until we can model these decisions, there will be areas that tech falls flat.
Apps are a return to the walled garden -- the anti-Internet, if you will.
No they are not! apps mostly use the internet for their data, but provide a richer UX than what a web browser can do. The internet is the underpinning of most apps.
But so much of the beauty of the Internet is its portable ubiquity; I can write a website once and it's available in much the same format to Windows, MacOS, Unix, iOS, Android.... you name it. Whereas in the mobile world we're seeing _millions_ spent on creating what are essentially platform-specific mobile data clients in parallel versions. They're barely even superior to what's possible with HTML now. This is madness.
A lot of people are making the same mistake in this thread. the web != the internet. By focusing only on the web you are leaving out other great, open technologies that helped the internet become ubiquitous. IRC, FTP, VoIP, IM, USENET, just to name a few.
Yes, HTML is a big part of the internet, maybe even the biggest, but its not the only one.
They're barely even superior to what's possible with HTML now.
If this were really the case — not just in a spec-sheet way but in a user experience way — why are all these companies making apps?
Obviously there are native app advantages to the end user beyond that, particularly given the slowness of 3G internet and the ease of making payments via the App Store. In many cases though its simply the same reason they also have Facebook fan pages and once had AOL keywords - branding.
Steve Jobs even started extolling the virtues of Apple's ability to "bring subscribers" to digitl publishers, and going by their latest announcement, Apple themselves regard their platform as being worth 30% of the value of the content, even to those who would rather process payments themselves.
It remains to be seen how far consumers and creators agree.
Because customers can buy apps in one click, so they do.
If webapps had the same payment/installation procedure, they'd take off like a rocket too. (Given HTML5's local caching and the like.)
I'd love if it that was true, but the evidence isn't really there.
For instance, Chrome Web Store offers a payment/installation for web apps, and it doesn't seem to be taking off like a rocket.
If people are using apps because they make more money with them, then what is your basis for claiming web apps are superior?
Beats me; so often IME it's true though. There've even been cases where I've installed the app and found I preferred the company's mobile website so used that instead.
Apps may not be the antithesis of the Internet, but the concept of an App Store arguably is. Internet = decentralized freedom, App store = centralized control.
The data is not the problem, the communication medium is not the problem, the issue is the control over the distribution channel.
Couldn't disagree more. The "all apps should be web apps" movement is just an attempt to return to dumb terminals. Now the pendulum is swinging the other way again, but this time "fat client" apps can just be nicer front ends to web services.
Personally, my strategy is to create my product as a REST web service and provide some kind of default web interface, but let native clients use the REST interface to provide a nicer experience where applicable. I.e. the HTML interface is just one possible "view" to the service.
Why does my native app have to be the completely generic web browser native app when it could be a specific "web browser" custom tailored for my specific service?
iOS tries hard to make web apps first class citizens. And the HTML, CSS, and JavaScript parts that make this possible are in HTML5.
It's not that Apple doesn't understand the internet, it's that many geeks want "native" apps, rather than having web apps on mobile devices. Apple tolerates these apps, but just barely, and offers the web as the way out of their walled garden.
>Apple tolerates these [native] apps, but just barely, and offers the web as the way out of their walled garden.
Geeks wanting native apps, and Apple reluctantly going along may have been the case when the iPhone & App Store first began, but Apple has long since realized that the app channel is very valuable to users and to the platform, and that control over that channel will be hugely profitable.
If Apple really wanted to have webapps be first class iOS citizens, they would provide Phonegap capabilities standardized in the native browser (http://www.phonegap.com/).
PhoneGap seems interesting, but I don't fully understand it yet. Which of its capabilities should be added to the browser? Should they be standardized in HTML5 or should they be part of a devices OS?
PhoneGap provides, if you include its JavaScript file in your PhoneGap-wrapped web app, JavaScript APIs to the camera, stored photos, the address book, and some other stuff.
Some of this stuff is in 'HTML5', like geolocation, but much of it isn't. Apple could have provided custom APIs to the camera and so on and allowed people to access it from their iOS-specific web apps.
The way that an API gets to be a standard is that someone implements it and people use it - if Apple had included a camera access API in Mobile Safari, it probably would have found its way into a spec and been implemented by other browsers.
Your last question seems confused: HTML/CSS rendering and JavaScript processing is part of the device's OS (in the form of its web browser). No browser does everything that's in the standard, and most browsers do things that aren't in the standard. Just adding it to the spec for HTML5 wouldn't be directly meaningful.
a camera access API in Mobile Safari, it probably would have found its way into a spec and been implemented by other browsers
To give the curious an idea of what that might look like: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete/c...
Exactly. I would be surprised if people working on WebKit for Apple weren't involved in those kind of discussions, and would fully expect Mobile Safari to support a workable device API.
I wonder how long before iOS development is like WebOS development?
PhoneGap sees itself as a temporary measure and everything should be a browser capability. They bridge the OS capabilities that are not available now in the browser.
it's that many geeks want "native" apps, rather than having web apps on mobile devices.
The app store didn't get to be a huge success by appealing to geeks. Native apps really do have significant advantages over web apps (and vice versa).
I'd venture to say the internet doesn't get Apple. Many geeks are just anti anything Apple, and have an irrational hatred for them.
Apple have made huge contributions to the internet, such as Webkit, promoting web standards, the iPhone and yes, even the iTunes store - still the biggest internet-based media distribution channel.
Nearly every geek I know has a MBP, and every startup I've worked at uses the same.
I can't stand the walled garden approach Apple takes.
I think the OSX/Mac overall experience is the best out there, beating Ubuntu 10.10 and W7. (Reliability, programmer-friendliness, 'normal' programs).
The two aren't as mutually exclusive as one might think. I'm anti-Apple when it comes to their walled garden media strategy, their iOS App store approach and most things connected those. I am however very pro nice, solid, laptops with a unix based OS that just works out of the box, and that basically means buying Apple.
His statement definitely feels true the other way though; the most ani-Apple people are geeks.
Well, of course. That is how fandom works. I don't particularly care if Bella gets with Jacob or Edwards, but I don't like the Twilight books. In order to dislike a particular team/company/entity, you probably have to passionate about the field in general.
Sure, I think I over-generalized a bit - I mean the kind of comments you see from Android boosters and people who are just bewildered by Apple's success.
The author claims that Google doesn't "get" social because social relies on messiness and Google's forte is providing order. However, Facebook, an organization who does seem to understand social exceedingly well, is known for its emphasis on organization. We see stories about the higher-ups in Facebook, such as Zuckerberg, and their heavy hitters whom have gone on to other projects (colloquially known as the "Facebook Mafia") all sharing this desire to organize messy, chaotic information across numerous domains.
If Facebook succeeds in social, at least in part because of its attention to order and organization, why is this fatal for Google?
In my opinion, facebook can see order where others would see chaos. Order does not mean hierarchical yet too often those are the buckets information is placed in. Facebook identifies hubs and organize things around those hubs. Flexible yet rigid organizational structures are the future.
>"What, for example, is Microsoft really, really good at? Or Facebook?"
Microsoft is really good at B2B.
Facebook has a great email replacement because it does not fill your inbox with your friend's vacation photos, but still provides the opportunity to view them.
I think facebook understand human intra-actions. It understand community. But it lacks understanding complications in relationships. What is lacks is understanding of what is excess of usual social-ness. I dont really think they are helping anyone with their social gaming time-waste-con or their wall post advertisements or lot of means to do completely unproductive stuff.
For Microsoft its simple. They understand customers, and they understand that avg customer never needs over-excellence in product. So, they would never be creative like apple, or tech-savvy like google. Its sad, but the software giant will never be upto the mark when it comes to driving technology and innovations.
People buy Apple because they like the way they work in comparison to everything else. Since a lot of people seem to be buying Apple devices, by extension does that mean a lot of people don't understand the internet?
This article doesn't make sense. Recap: Apple gets people but doesn't get the internet because the internet is too messy. Google gets the internet but doesn't get people because people are too messy.
what is this article about? It is totally random, not edited. It clearly lacks lack of thought.
Google has failed multiple times at launching social apps. Is there an equivalent series of Apple failures from being too controlling? If not, what makes this a blindspot?
iTools, .Mac and MobileMe. Also, Ping.
The first 3 are the same thing and aren't even social apps.
But, iTools was great when it was around. Way ahead of its time and free! When they went to subscription model I think most early adopters had a hard time justifying the price when you could get hotmail for nothing.
Evidence that these failures are due to Apple's blindspot of being too controlling?
Internet != Web
Also I think Google get social, they appreciate it's potential but just haven't succeeded at it yet. They weren't focused on it.
What is your evidence to support that statement? All I see is many attempts that indicate Google gets that social is important. All those attempts seem to illustrate (to me), that they don't get how to do it, or what the core ideas in "social" are about.