Update (11/02/2010): Unfortunately twitter isn’t very supportive of open access to tweets – after a while they just disappear into the abyss of twitters databases. As you can see, the twitter widget isn’t showing any part of the conversation we’ve had and that’s very unfortunate. I’ve googled the tweets, but it’s not really a non-messy solution. If you’re still interesting in reading up on (at least parts of )the conversation, please click here – strangely enough, that’s actually another good example on why it’s so important to keep companies on their toes.
Ok, so everything started with the following tweet by Amir:
AmirKassaei: Who needs a Google Phone? You don’t need apple search either. #google #apple
Which lead to some discussion between us. Read from the bottom, I couldn’t get the twitter search widget to sort the tweets otherwise.
At some point it was obvious, that twitter wasn’t sufficient for this discussion and we decided to put it somewhere else. Hendrik was wise enough to remind us to keep the discussion open, so that everybody could participate and that’s why it landed here.
So, here it is. It would be nice, if others would join in and state their opinion. The discussions switched from being Apple vs. Google to Closed vs. Open, but both companies are quite good examples for the grand meta discussion.
I would like to continue this discussion by pointing to an article by Chris Messina. It’s not exactly on topic, but it describes some issues we are having and one of them is the App Store. Amir, you’ve said that Google is more afraid of Apple than Apple of Google. I’m not sure, if that’s actually true, but I do think that Google is seeing Apple as a valid threat to the Internet itself, yes. Apple is envisioning a sphere in which they control everything. Starting with the Hardware, the Software and the content you’re supposed to see on an iPhone for example. That’s not only a threat to Google, which is also trying to control the sphere in which they are operating. They didn’t create Android and Chrome OS without reason. But it’s actually a big threat for all of us.
But I don’t want to get ahead of myself or the discussion. Let’s continue the discussion.
To see the most innovative company in the last 200 years as a treat is some kind of funny. The guys from cupertino changed the way we consume music, they openes up the barriers for the mobile internet to unleash the real power of thr world wide web as the new infrastructzre of the world and they will for sure redefining the media and content business from 2010 on. Yes they are not totally open.
Because they want to have control over thr whole system. Not in terms of the bad power like microsoft is doing it but to be sure that the quality met their or to make it precise steve’s expectations.
— Amir Kassaei · Dec 30, 08:45 PM · #
To me, verbiage like “most innovative company in the last 200 years” is a (presumably intentionally provocative) blanket statement that belies the true complexity of the global discourse that the evolution of information technology in the last 200 years has been.
Apple has certainly been a relevant participant in that discourse, but they’re not the only one at the party, and that myth of Apple going it alone and innovating in a vacuum is as naive as it is false. Apple has been a follower as much as it has been a leader over the course of its history, both in the idea space (you might want to read up on Xerox PARC some time) and in the technology space (I’m a KDE developer; we originally supplied the technology that makes the “real power of the world wide web” on Apple’s mobile devices possible).
— Eike Hein · Dec 30, 09:10 PM · #
Ok, but what measure is Apple the most innovative company in the last 200 years? I don’t really know what would be the best way to measure innovation, but Apple isn’t coming even close to mind, if it comes to innovating. My first thought way IBM, but that’s because they are sitting on so many patents.
Apple was always great in adopting existing technology for the masses. Yes, it’s their ability to create perfect design that’s beautiful and very functional at the same time. They are contributing a lot in this manner. But really, they are far away from being even a bit open. That’s a big difference to “not totally open”.
Google is a different company. It’s a company of Geeks and technology people. They are interested in the big picture and the big picture will be ubiquitous computing. Yes, smartphones are surely a very important part of contemporaneity technology spectrum, but there is a lot more to ubiquity than the smartphone and Google is aiming for this big picture. That’s why Android is so important, because it can be the OS for the refrigerator and not only for the mobile device. Yes, they need to compromise because of that, when it comes to mobile devices. At least for now.
You should really stop thinking about the immediate clippings and think about the big technological consequences that are in play here. Google is much more prepared for the future than Apple.
— Igor Schwarzmann · Dec 30, 09:14 PM · #
Gentlemen,
first: innovative means to me that a company or a person is able to use existing technology in a new way
to produce something which makes the people’s life better, easier and more effective. In this term apple is the most innovative company in the world.
Second: the whole big thing is ver simple. Looking at the digital way as the new infrastructure and giving the peiple the right tools to use this infrastructure in the best ans most easiest way.
Third: the founders of Google admites that one of their biggest idols ist steve jobs and one of the companies they admire most is apple
fourth: As said before: Googles business model is only about referring ads. In a world where ads will not work anymore it will not be the best business model.
Fifth: http://www.businessinsider.com/whats-strategic-for-google-2009-12?mobile=1
thanks
Fourth:
— Amir Kassaei · Dec 30, 09:28 PM · #
Thinking about it a bit more, I find the notion that Apple has “changed the way we consume music” quite contestable. I’d say Sony changed the way we consume music (with the Walkman, taking it mobile), the Fraunhofer Institute changed the way we consume music (with MP3, viable and available compression) and Napster changed the way we consume music (digital content delivery — yes, it was used for piracy, but consume people certainly did).
What Apple did is build a somewhat sexier Walkman. One that requires you to store music on it twice if you want to both listen to it and copy it off the device, I might add, and one that is quite anti-customer in how they use their market share in the hardware sector to inhibit competition in the software sector by using crypto technology to prevent applications other than iTunes from accessing iPods comfortably (Microsoft was sued for billions for similar maneuvers). Culturally, I don’t think the iTunes Store was a revolution for anyone but the record industry after Napster – certainly not for the consumer.
As for the App Store element of iTunes, Apple essentially copied what Linux has been doing in the application distribution department since the mid-nineties – but with a closed approval process. To quote their ’84 original Macintosh commercial:
“Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology.”
Sound familiar? :-)
— Eike Hein · Dec 30, 09:41 PM · #
I see Apple as a door opener. I’m pretty sure, without the iPhone as a counterpart for the business centered Blackberry, the smartphone market wouldn’t have evolved this fast with its recent compitors. Now Apple is – not at least because of there quite closed approach – in the lead. It enables fast innovation, but sustainability is the point.
Of course, with this success Apple hit the mainstream and therefore, they are the company of the decade. And no doubt, they learned from Microsoft’s failures. The question is: Did they learn enough? I’m not sure, if the company will dominate the next 10 years, too.
Apple TV? Come on. Okay, for music and maybe movies etc., iTunes is the big player. Music and film companies slept here and are now complaining. But the rejected apps are legion, take the STERN example.
Amir, do you remember our discussion about the Sports Illustrated prototype on your <a herf=“http://amirkassaei.posterous.com/the-media-revolution-by-apple”>posterous</a> some weeks ago? I don’t know, if “news” aren’t too important, that the consumers worldwide will let an American company have such a control about so much content as they do it now the App Store way.
But maybe Apple can learn more. I the future I think, I hope, they will have to open up. At a certain point, usability and design are not enough.
— drikkes · Dec 30, 09:42 PM · #
Open means to give everyone the freedom and the chance to live a better life. Nothing else. And no other company in the world got even closer to live that promise the way apple did and does it. Again If there is one company who will be able to make cloudcomputing, realtime communication and digital media solutions work in the way that are accepted by the masses and economically successfull than i bet it will be apple.
Remember:
“Here is to the crazy ones, the rebels, the trouble makers. The round pegs in the square hols, the one’s who see things differentley. They’re not fond of rules and they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, glorify or vilify them but the only thing you can’t do is ignore them, then they pusch the human race forward. And while some see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the pwople who are crazy enough to think that they can change the worls are the one’s who do.” Apple Think different ad 1998.
And all these comments, tweets and thougts were written on a device which was not existent three years ago.
— Amir Kassaei · Dec 30, 09:55 PM · #
I fail to see how you can bring that quote in line with their App Store policies and keep a straight face, however. Paul Graham’s excellent and recent piece seems relevant.
— Eike Hein · Dec 30, 09:59 PM · #
Graham did’nt get it and you maybe too: Who needs the App stote more? Apple or the developers? Exactly. And therefore Apple is setting the rules because it is their responsibilty towards their customers. And i did’nt see one developer arguing that the app store is wrong ir bad or uncoopertaive beside the people who try ro launch shitty android like apps about crap that nobody need.
Again Apple never claimed to be open in your sense but they are open in their sense and they get ever month another million fans across the planet.
Apple is not open. Apple is open minded. Every other argumen is invalid.
— Amir Kassaei · Dec 30, 10:12 PM · #
I’m not a developer. I’m hardly an early adopter. But Apple’s dilemma “hardware vs policy” diagnosed by Paul Graham seems quite reasonable to me.
I think Amir isn’t a tech guy, so I am not, too. We are advertisers & marketers. And like the consuming masses, we don’t want to know (that is: we don’t care enough) how it works, we only want to use it.
But, as you can see in the car industry for example, an open ideology doesn’t make a business model. And that is also Google’s problem. Because Amir is right with his proclaimed change of advertisement. Not mentioning other companies beside Google.
— drikkes · Dec 30, 10:21 PM · #
Alrighty — it’s becoming increasingly clear that you’re trying to make your argument based on semantics, first by redefining “innovation” and now taking a stab at bending “open” to your needs ;).
That and claiming that no credible iPhone developers have shown dissatisfaction with the App Store process has you either being unfamiliar with the subject at hand or heading for Chewbacca defense territory very quickly.
Either way, the promise for fruitful debate seems rather low at this point. I’m out.
— Eike Hein · Dec 30, 10:29 PM · #
Jetzt in deutsch, damit es auch klar und verstaendlich wird. Opensource macht sinn wenn es um
die optimierung eines existierenden gedankenguts geht.
Opensource wird nie die quelle für Innovation sein weder in technischem sinn noch im sinne wie ixh innovation verstehe. Ich lege auch nichts zu rexht sondern versuche nach meiner ansicht die logik von apple zu erklaeren. Die basiert auf kompromisslose qualität.
Ich habe bis heute nicht annaehernd aus der open source ecke etwas gesehen, was diese qualität hervorbringt. Vielleicht kenne ich nicht alles, aber ich wuerde es wissen, wenn es so was existieren würde. Ich bewundere Apple nicht fuer ihre produkte sondern fuer ihre konsequenz und ihre art wie sie in systemen denken. Google ist erst am anfang und bis sie meinen respekt bekommen, müssen sie zweinbis drei mal die welt verändert haben.
— Amir Kassaei · Dec 30, 10:40 PM · #
Ganz offen: Mit Glueck liest Du den Beitrag in ein paar Jahren nochmal und denkst Dir dabei dann, dass klar und verstaendlich gewesen zu sein in dem Fall absolut nicht gut fuer Deine Reputation war. Dann haettest Du naemlich zwischenzeitlich dazugelernt, was natuerlich prima waere.
Zu behaupten, dass Open Source kein Quell technischer wie auch formaler Innovationen war und ist zeigt einfach nur auf, dass Du in der Materie Technik und Technik und Mensch und derlei Geschichte nicht wirklich tief drin steckst. Bei der Aussage wuerde sich auch jeder Apple-Ingenieur an den Kopf fassen (nette und faehige Leute uebrigens, man spricht sich gelegentlich), denn einmal stammen viele davon heute natuerlich aus den Open Source-Ecke, und zum anderen hat Apple effektiv fast kein Produkt, dass ohne Open Source-Technologie funktionieren wuerde: Große Teile dessen, was auf Deiner OS X-DVD steckt, stammt nicht aus der Feder von Apple, sondern von Open Source-Programmierern.
Frag Dich selbst: Wenn Dir in der Vergangenheit von der “Gegenseite” die Argumentationstaktik “Wenn es so waere, dann wuesste ich das!” entgegen geschallt ist, wie oft hat Dich das ueberzeugt?
— Eike Hein · Dec 30, 10:56 PM · #
Vielleicht willst du auch nicht verstehen was ich meine: noch mal: was du unter open source meinst ist nicht das was googke unzer open source versteht und vorhat. Und dass apple auf open sozrce uurueckgreift bestätigt noch mal meine meinung dass open source zur optimierung eines bestehenden konzeptes gut ist: siehe auch firefox, wikipedia procter und so fort. Ich entvloesse mich nicht durxg unwissenheit sondern
sagr klipp und klar und geradeaus meine meinung und solange nicht ueberzeugende argumente
hoere, lese oder sehe, weree ich
auch meine meinung vertreten. Ich meine es auch nicht persoenlich sondern direkt und ehrlich und wenn du jetzt erwartet hast dass ich irgendwelchen stanford techies in den arsch krieche weil sie einen simnvollen allgorithmus programmiert haben, dann muss ich dich enttäuschen.
— Amir Kassaei · Dec 30, 11:11 PM · #
Eigentlich wollte ich gar nicht schreiben, daß mir die Diskussion mit dem 140-Zeichen-Limit besser gefallen hat…
Wahrscheinlich sich die Fronten da zu verhärtet.
— drikkes · Dec 30, 11:18 PM · #
Schaetze wir da wohl an einem klassischen Konflikt zwischen Deiner und meiner Zunft angekommen: Von hier aus gesehen verdankst Du – ueberspitzt ausgedrueckt und im uebertragenen Sinn – irgendwelchen Standford-Techies Deinen Job ;). Ich sehe Innovation und Schoepfungshoehe wohl einfach woanders als Du.
Wenn ich ein bischen darueber nachdenke kann ich Deinen Blickwinkel schon verstehen – als Werber gilt Deine Hochachtung denen, die eine Idee sehen, aufgreifen, verlaengern und an die Masse kommunizieren. Was Apple fraglos sehr gut kann. Mich interessiert aber mehr, wer die Idee hatte, wer sie implementiert hat und ob damit verantwortungsbewusst umgegangen wird. Hier ist Apple sowohl einer unter vielen als auch mehr kritikwuerdig als manche.
Aber auch nach meinem Verstaendnis ist Apple eine wichtige Firma, bei der viele gute Leute gearbeitet haben und auch heute arbeiten. Aus Cupertino sind viele gute Ideen und Produkte gekommen. Aber auch auch Apple arbeitet eben nicht in einem Vakuum, sondern schwimmt in einem großen Gewaesser. Mal gegen, aber genauso oft mit der Stroemung, und verwunden mit und geloest in allem anderen.
— Eike Hein · Dec 30, 11:32 PM · #
Ok, da ist man fuer ein paar Stunden mal offline und die ganze Diskussion nimmt einen sehr … interessanten Verlauf.
Vielleicht muss ich hier ein wenig ausholen.
Amir: Deine Einstellung ist falsch. Grundlegend falsch. Du kannst nicht ueber Innovation sprechen, wenn du nur das Ende des Spektrum siehst. Es gibt das A nicht ohne das O. Alles ist vernetzt, nichts kommt aus der Luft heraus und die Tatsache, dass Apple die Technologie benutzt, die andere geschaffen haben ist eine der Gruende warum sie sich z.B. alleine aus finanziellen Gruenden leisten koennen so gute Produkte zu produzieren. Marge ist ein Faktor der dir sicherlich vertraut sein duerfte. Wenn Apple alles selbst entwickeln muesste, dann wuerden sie nicht das Unternehmen sein welches sie heute sind.
Ich muss auch sagen, dass es in mir eine aeußerst große Verwunderung ausloest, wenn jemand so ignorant ist. Warum wuerde man den die Augen vor der Realitaet verschließen wollen, wenn es heute so einfach geworden ist an diese Informationen zu kommen? Nun bin ich bei besten Willen kein Hacker oder Developer. Ich kann noch nicht mal mit HMTL umgehen und dennoch interessieren mich die großen Zusammenhange, weil ich dann ueberhaup verstehe, wie z.B. ein Apple dazu in der Lage ist das zu machen was sie machen.
In einer vernetzten Gesellschaft sind alle Faktoren wichtig, wer sich nur die fuer sich selbst interessantesten herauspickt ist im Grunde genommen blind.
Ich dachte mir schon, dass ich dich nicht ueberzeugen koennen werde aber das hier ist gerade nicht mal die Fingeruebung so richtig wert.
— Igor Schwarzmann · Dec 31, 12:27 AM · #
i believe that you can easily put your dilemma like this, guys:
as a single on the hunt for love, you are lacking protection and all that other stuff that you imagine to get from a partner. life improvement. or maybe even a life innovation. something new, that keeps making things exciting and different.
so now you get to know some person who you might have slight interest in (or so be it some new technology). what do you do? you keep it open, date that person for quite a while and learn about him or her.
up until this point, this relationship is open. it is not for sure where it is heading and you might “share” some other great date-nights with other people.
it’s all about developing, about trying out new things and going crazy.
but now…this does not make a lovestory, does it?
at the point when you decide that a person or technology is so good, you don’t want to share it anymore, that’s what makes shiny things. that improve your life,
in a relationship, you are a happy couple. in technology, you’re apple.
so why don’t you see the good in both- the open and the closed? it’s a process of seeding, growth and harvesting. like in life, like in love.
— Nora Oberle · Dec 31, 01:14 AM · #
Your comment is very interesting and thought-provoking. I’m not sure I really understand it as intended, but on the note of applying the metaphor of interpersonal relationships to technology, I have to say that to me, one of the most beautiful things about open technology is the sense of community it fosters and the connections it creates between people: Between users and users, creators and creators, and users and creators (and of course nothing else is as successful at enabling a user to participate as a creators – that’s in many ways the point).
This goes for the world wide web – open technology from day one – and its phenomenal democratization effect, obviously, but also in particular for the open software world. This is a more human technology, one that is about participation, collaboration and social responsibility.
Apple and its walled gardens, on the other hand, is the anti-thesis of participatory. The user is not the equal of the creators in their system. They know better. They tightly frame and restrict the creativity of creators on their mobile platform (by way of design decisions such as placing limits on the ability to do multi-tasking and create background tasks), are the gatekeeper when it comes to creators sharing their creations (distributing applications is only possible via the App Store, submissions to which are regularly rejected for the most ludicrous reasons, e.g. a dictionary app containing the word “screw”; some types of apps are flat-out disallowed) and certainly don’t encourage users to become creators either.
What makes a happy couple? I would say a happy couple is made up of two partners who trust each other and who treat each other as equals, who only then can go through life both supporting and criticizing each other when necessary.
None of the above is the case in the relationship between Apple and an iPhone owner or Apple and an iPhone application developer.
— Eike Hein · Dec 31, 01:46 AM · #
apple offers a means to an end and open source technology finds ends to means that have not yet been discovered.
i really don’t think those two can easily be compared, that’s why i tried to pull the human relationship metaphor- because being in the state of development is completely different from having a reliable device with intuitive function and withdrawn design.
you say that
“They tightly frame and restrict the creativity of creators on their mobile platform (…)”
but i say that apple actually enhances participation- in web apps like dopplr, youtube, 4square and all the others.
(and yes, i see your point about the technology and software, but really- i wouldn’t want to rewrite my os or phone and neither do millions of users alongside of me)
— Nora Oberle · Dec 31, 02:15 AM · #
I don’t want to rewrite my OS either, but I sure would want to have the ability, if I could.
It’s the perspective from which organisations, companies and people perceive the world. Should we live in a world where a few people can dictate to many or is it a world where people who are able can solve problems and maybe it’s even a world in which a community is solving big issues.
We actually do this quite often already, but on different topics. Technology enabled us to perform open source on a daily basis. We blog, we tweet and it’s all available to everybody. Sure, we have some rules to rewrite, because they’ve been written by people who aren’t that much into sharing, but in the end it’s the people who will decide which way to go. At least, that’s what democracy is all about.
And Eike’s example is actually quite good. Napster and the MP3 format created a potential market. Apple delivered with iTunes a solution for a specific problem, but they didn’t create the need in the consumer. Creating solutions is innovation, sure, but it’s not the whole spectrum – it’s just the tipping point.
Tipping points are important, yes. Enabling people to do more because of a specific design solution is something that Apple is doing quite remarkably. I don’t argue, that Apple is doing bad products. I would just say, that they can do a lot more and specifically more open.
Technology enabled us to great things. We’re using today gadgets that would have been material for Scifi movies 10 years ago. And technology isn’t stopping or slowing down either. The result will be: more power to the poeple.
— Igor Schwarzmann · Dec 31, 02:34 AM · #
“i wouldn’t want to rewrite my os or phone and neither do millions of users alongside of me”
But some do. They should get the chance. Some would, if they were encouraged: They should be.
It’s a question of attitude. It’s about having the option to do it, the freedom to do it. Getting the keys to the car if you do want them. It levels the playing field. Openness is facilitates innovation.
You cite a couple of web services that the iPhone increases participation in. Amir mentioned that one of Apple’s innovations has been to bring the “real power of the world wide web” to mobile. Clearly the web is a big deal in the equation here.
Guess what: The web is open technology. No one is a gatekeeper on creating these websites. You don’t need to ask permission to put one up, like you need Apple’s permission to publish an iPhone application. No one tells you the limits of what experiments you can do or where and when to publish them. Look back at the last ten years and tell me that open technology hasn’t changed the world a lot more than Apple has.
By the way, as I alluded to earlier, the web browser on the iPhone uses open source technology. The engine it uses to display websites was originally created by developers from the KDE community; some of them are my friends. This technology, called KHTML, brought many firsts to the world wide web that opened it to a wider audience and allowed for new applications, from bidirectional text display support to richer formatting and layouting. Its resource efficiency is what allowed it to be put on a cellphone. Apple engineers were able to take this technology and adapt it to their platform because it was open. Many other components of the software on the iPhone were similarly not created by Apple.
This blog is powered by an open source application, Textpattern. Together with others like it, such as Wordpress and Drupal, it powers most blogs in the world. The web server software that delivers it to your web browser is an open source application, Apache. It serves most websites in the world. The operating system it runs on is open source: Linux. It powers most servers in the world.
Next time you browse the web on your iPhone, think about what element in this chain is the most restrictive and oppressive as a platform and the stark contrast to the web.
— Eike Hein · Dec 31, 02:41 AM · #
This whole topic isn’t leaving me alone and I had some time to think, so here is a follow up.
We’ve been talking so far about the better solution for a specific problem and although we are disagreeing on a lot of issues here, I guess we can agree that both “sides” created some really remarkable solutions. And I’m not talking only about Apple vs. Google, but the total paradigm of Closed vs. Open. There is no denying, that the iPhone is a device that the consumers seems to like most. At least for now. Millions of people decided to buy this device, to accept the way Apple is handling things and that’s a statement for itself. We don’t need to argue about that.
What we can argue about is: what is our expectation towards companies that we are buying from? We’ve head to media revolution, we’ve experiencing it still and same goes for the financial crisis. In some way, the Internet – a free and open technology – has enabled society to do greater things than ever before. We’ve developed a much richer sense to share (Wikipedia) and to help (Kiva). We’ve started doing good things and we’re much more effective at it than ever before.
But back to the iPhone and Apple: As I said, I’m not arguing that it’s a bad device, I’m actually arguing that it’s a good device with bad karma. And by karma, I’m not all that specific about the actual meaning of it, because I’m not a Buddhist; it’s just an expression.
Let me give you another example. You may know, that I’m running Linux as my main OS on my notebook. I didn’t buy this notebook, it was given to me by my company who is gracious enough to let me experiment with software in a manner that is seldom allowed. And I’m using Linux party because it’s much better than the Windows alternative, but also out of my idealogical responsibility. I see myself in the responsibility to make people aware of the possibilities of open and free technology, since I was lucky enough to learn about them. It’s not always easy to be a Linux user, I need to compromise and find extraordinary solutions for my work environment, which is obviously very Windows driven. It’s more work, yes, but I’m taking it up gladly.
And that brings me back to the iPhone. I could have gotten myself one, sure. It’s appealing, most of my friends are using one and they seem rather happy with it. I didn’t, because it felt wrong to use a closed device, if I have an alternative. Is the G1 as good as the iPhone? No, although it’s not as bad as you might suggest, Amir. Android is enabling the device to perform quite a few tasks, that you can’t do with your iPhone and if the Hardware is an issue for you, than take a closer look at the Motorola Milestone, which is according to quite a lot respectable reviewers is as “good” as the iPhone.
We have the choice to make decisions that aren’t only based on design, but on a lot different factors as well. Creating the best device in an open environment shouldn’t be considered something less respectful; on the contrary, it’s something we should encourage and help built. Do we need to compromise a bit? Maybe. Will people buy the iPhone for a long time? Sure and that’s freakin’ ok, because Apple is delivering a great experience and I’m not judging here … really, I’m not. My only wish is, that we aspire to something better than the status quo and the Internet is such a great example for greatness that has been created on the idea of open, that I can’t really stop wandering: how would our world look like, if everything would have been built in the same way?
— Igor Schwarzmann · Dec 31, 11:36 AM · #
I’m in full agreement on most of your points there, except for this one:
“Millions of people decided to buy this device, to accept the way Apple is handling things and that’s a statement for itself.”
I don’t think that’s really the case — it’s an education problem, really. Most iPhone users by far are not aware of Apple’s App Store policies. And I’m not saying it’s their fault, because Apple tried pretty hard to hide them for a while: As an application developer, you originally had to sign an NDA that disallowed you from mentioning it in public if your app got rejected by Apple. This was only grudgingly lifted when the device had already achieved considerable momentum.
I generally believe in the good of people, and I’d say that a lot less of them would be willing to “accept the way Apple is handling things” if they knew more, and thought for a while about how their PC (or their Mac, for that matter) or the web would look like today if they were ran like the iPhone platform.
Also don’t forget that for many people, the iPhone was their first smartphone – you can’t compare and contrast with only a single data point at hand. Plus Apple had the iPod’s momentum to build upon.
— Eike Hein · Dec 31, 02:47 PM · #
Yes, it’s an education problem. That’s why we are discussing in here. But the information that is accessible to us, isn’t necessarily accessible to the consumer and it’s not even designed to be processed before the consumer decides to buy an iPhone or any other device.
Somehow we sound like elitist snobs. ,)
— Igor Schwarzmann · Dec 31, 03:15 PM · #