3 ms·

> "Don't want to go elsewhere is a great thing". Sounds like the Stockholm syndrome of tech brand loyalty. The world is full of devices and technology "from e

by exodust 10y ago

> "Don't want to go elsewhere is a great thing". Sounds like the Stockholm syndrome of tech brand loyalty. The world is full of devices and technology "from elsewhere". Just because you choose to only shop at Apple, doesn't mean never buying any other brand is a good thing for general users of technology in this world, for a healthy industry, for innovation. There will always be other brand. Your Apple-only view of the world is the exception, not the norm. The whole point of ecosystem lock-in is about keeping customers buying Apple products, or LG products or whatever brand is playing the lock-in game. What you're doing is trying your best to flip the definition and motivation behind ecosystem lock-in, to make it something that users actually want. Let me guess, you're on the board of directors of a brand doing exactly that? This discussion started with the Jobs statement: "tie all of our products together, so we further lock customers into our ecosystem" His choice of words is important. The primary objective in his statement is not "tie products together so they work nicely". The primary objective is "further lock customers in". He has decided that one way to achieve that objective is to tie products together, but obviously there are many other ways already in place to lock customers in, as hinted by the word "further". >"multiple lightning-enabled SD card readers that you can plug into your iOS devices." I realize I'm bringing lack of flexibility and openness into this, but I see them as related to lock-in. These SD devices can only access photos. Let's say I'm browsing the web on my iDevice and want to "Save as" a PDF file, or very large hi-res JPEG, or some other file. You can't do it. There's no file system you can access to save the file, and none you can access to read/copy the file later. I'm talking about expandable storage for whatever purpose I choose, not what Apple decides is best for me. They could have locked down protected OS files while allowing a general file system, but no... it's photos and videos only. Everything else is forbidden. Wi-Fi direct - I was talking about screen mirroring, not streaming iTunes video. Screen mirroring is useful for things like games and hi-res photo albums, the video camera in real time etc, where HD quality without the bottleneck of an access point is needed. Not possible on an iOS device. It could be, but Apple don't allow it. My Android and Windows laptop allows it but not my iPad. When I visit my nephew, we play soccer on his big screen at 1080p via wi-fi direct from my laptop. I couldn't care less what Apple does as I will probably sell my iPad soon anyway, even though I've spent hundreds of dollars on apps over the years. What bothers my is that Google and Microsoft see what Apple is doing, and all the money Apple has and think that's what will make them more money - by taking away user control, calling it "protecting user security" and increasing lock-in. I'm not a fan of that, and nor should you be.

eridius 10y ago
By what logic do you think it's a bad thing for a company to make products that complement each other so well that users don't want to leave the ecosystem? Yes, tech diversity is a good thing, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing for one company to build a great ecosystem that attracts users. If they're the only company that builds these products, then there's no diversity, but Apple is hardly the only company making products in the various categories that make up its ecosystem (it's not even the market share leader in those products, with the sole exception of the Apple Watch). I'll try to explain it again in more concrete terms. The way this form of lock-in works is by making products that not only have good value on their own, but have even better value when used together because they complement each other and work great together. Any given product may have competitors from other companies, and those competing products may even be objectively better when compared just against the product (and not against the ecosystem as a whole). But someone who's invested in the ecosystem may still choose to stick with their current product because, even though in isolation it's worse than the competitor, when viewed in the context of the ecosystem it's better because it makes all the other products they have better, and in turn those products make this one better. As a concrete example, let's go with phones. Someone who has an iMac and a MacBook Pro and an AppleTV will get a lot of benefit from having an iPhone, because these products work well together and complement each other. But if they buy an Android phone instead, then they can't AirPlay to their AppleTV, they can't play their iTunes TV shows or movies on their Android, they don't get Universal Clipboard or Handoff, they don't get iCloud integration, they don't have Pages/Numbers/Keynote and so can't seamlessly switch between devices while editing their files, etc. All these features are ways the Apple devices work together that are lost if you leave the ecosystem. And that's fine, none of these things are artificial roadblocks created by Apple to prevent customers from switching. > The primary objective is "further lock customers in". He has decided that one way to achieve that objective is to tie products together, but obviously there are many other ways already in place to lock customers in, as hinted by the word "further". You're being incredibly nitpicky about something that you are objectively wrong about. The phrase "lock-in" does not mean what you're trying to imply it means. Yes, there are forms of lock-in that are bad for users, but to say that the usage of the phrase "lock-in" implies these bad forms is a logical fallacy. And no, the usage of the word "further" does not in any way mean that Apple is doing both bad lock-in and good lock-in together, it just means that Apple already has an ecosystem that works well together and thus provides benign lock-in, and Jobs was saying they should double-down on this approach, making their products work even better together and therefore strengthening the (benign) lock-in. > Wi-Fi direct - I was talking about screen mirroring, not streaming iTunes video Before I wrote that comment I read the whole wikipedia page on Wi-Fi direct, and no, it doesn't mean screen mirroring either (in fact, the page doesn't even contain the word "video"). You may be using some feature of your laptop/receiver device that uses Wi-Fi direct, but Wi-Fi direct itself does not magically let you send video from one device to another. You need some protocol built on top of Wi-Fi direct for that. BTW what device are you streaming to? Because the devices I'm familiar with that allow wireless streaming all have their own special way of doing it (e.g. Chromecast, as I mentioned before, requires using Google's SDK).

by exodust 10y ago

eridius 10y ago

By what logic do you think it's a bad thing for a company to make products that complement each other so well that users don't want to leave the ecosystem? Yes, tech diversity is a good thing, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing for one company to build a great ecosystem that attracts users. If they're the only company that builds these products, then there's no diversity, but Apple is hardly the only company making products in the various categories that make up its ecosystem (it's not even the market share leader in those products, with the sole exception of the Apple Watch). I'll try to explain it again in more concrete terms. The way this form of lock-in works is by making products that not only have good value on their own, but have even better value when used together because they complement each other and work great together. Any given product may have competitors from other companies, and those competing products may even be objectively better when compared just against the product (and not against the ecosystem as a whole). But someone who's invested in the ecosystem may still choose to stick with their current product because, even though in isolation it's worse than the competitor, when viewed in the context of the ecosystem it's better because it makes all the other products they have better, and in turn those products make this one better. As a concrete example, let's go with phones. Someone who has an iMac and a MacBook Pro and an AppleTV will get a lot of benefit from having an iPhone, because these products work well together and complement each other. But if they buy an Android phone instead, then they can't AirPlay to their AppleTV, they can't play their iTunes TV shows or movies on their Android, they don't get Universal Clipboard or Handoff, they don't get iCloud integration, they don't have Pages/Numbers/Keynote and so can't seamlessly switch between devices while editing their files, etc. All these features are ways the Apple devices work together that are lost if you leave the ecosystem. And that's fine, none of these things are artificial roadblocks created by Apple to prevent customers from switching. > The primary objective is "further lock customers in". He has decided that one way to achieve that objective is to tie products together, but obviously there are many other ways already in place to lock customers in, as hinted by the word "further". You're being incredibly nitpicky about something that you are objectively wrong about. The phrase "lock-in" does not mean what you're trying to imply it means. Yes, there are forms of lock-in that are bad for users, but to say that the usage of the phrase "lock-in" implies these bad forms is a logical fallacy. And no, the usage of the word "further" does not in any way mean that Apple is doing both bad lock-in and good lock-in together, it just means that Apple already has an ecosystem that works well together and thus provides benign lock-in, and Jobs was saying they should double-down on this approach, making their products work even better together and therefore strengthening the (benign) lock-in. > Wi-Fi direct - I was talking about screen mirroring, not streaming iTunes video Before I wrote that comment I read the whole wikipedia page on Wi-Fi direct, and no, it doesn't mean screen mirroring either (in fact, the page doesn't even contain the word "video"). You may be using some feature of your laptop/receiver device that uses Wi-Fi direct, but Wi-Fi direct itself does not magically let you send video from one device to another. You need some protocol built on top of Wi-Fi direct for that. BTW what device are you streaming to? Because the devices I'm familiar with that allow wireless streaming all have their own special way of doing it (e.g. Chromecast, as I mentioned before, requires using Google's SDK).