5 ms·

As a developer I think you're obsessed with features. Whereas users don't necessarily want those features. Apple's bet is that users will reject the platform wi

As a developer I think you're obsessed with features. Whereas users don't necessarily want those features. Apple's bet is that users will reject the platform with more features in favor of the platform that works better. Let's take your examples. When most people search their phone they're looking for information in either mail, contacts, or SMS messages. They don't want the data from the other hundred programs on their phone cluttering up the important results from those areas. So in this case Apple's stance is actually an advantage for the users. On the cloud to device API it is nice but it's not like you can't accomplish the same goal simply by polling. So while this is an area where android is superior I don't think it's a feature that makes that much of a difference. All that said the greatest argument against android winning because of features is the fact that they've always had more features than iOS. I mean if multitasking wasn't a big enough feature to woo users to android than I don't think something like cloud to device messaging is going to do it.

Tichy 16y ago
"When most people search their phone they're looking for information in either mail, contacts, or SMS messages." Why even bother with a smartphone and an app store then?
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  I'm not sure I'm understanding your point but let me clarify my own and see if that addresses it. What I'm saying is when people use the phone search they are trying to search the phone part of the device (SMS, email, etc...). That doesn't preclude developeres from putting search in their own apps they just can't clutter up the phone search with results from their apps. That in mind I see Apple's point here as being "we think developers will abuse search if they are allowed in and we don't think users want that so we're keeping them out". Not "Google beat us to that feature" Apple might not be right in thinking that I'm just trying to point out that's their design philosophy and not a sign that Android has leap frogged them.
  - Tichy 16y ago
    Hm, I am actually not sure what kind of searchability the OP is talking about. Of course you can't have random apps clutter a search in contacts. What happens on Android is that an App can specify that it is ready to answer certain types of searches. In certain situations, the user can choose the app he wants to search. Lot's of useful applications for that come to mind. Do I have to ship a spell checker with my app, or can all apps share a spell checker? And so on... Of course, yes, it could result in utter chaos, with 100reds of apps to choose from for a particular search. That kind of problem is really overblown, though, just like the multitasking problem. If an app annoys me or sucks too much energy, I just uninstall it... That goes for pretty much any kind of "developers are going to abuse feature X" argument - annoying apps just get uninstalled, end of story. There is a problem of potential sneaky apps, I guess. That is also existent on the iPhone, I suppose (don't they do their own user tracking), but of course there is slightly more potential with background tasks. Some common sense can eliminate most of the problems, though (ie why does an ebook reader need my GPS coordinates? Skip it).
    - extension 16y ago
      Assuming the user can tell which app is misbehaving, they may already depend on it or be invested in it by the time they discover the problem. It may be the only app of it's kind. Clearly, Apple is not simply trying to block bad apps, they are trying to force apps to be better, through the platform. I too am skeptical of this approach, but I understand where they're coming from.
  - pyre 16y ago
    > What I'm saying is when people use the phone search > they are trying to search the phone part of the > device (SMS, email, etc...). > That in mind I see Apple's point here as being > "we think developers will abuse search if they > are allowed in and we don't think users want that > so we're keeping them out" This is a straw man. Apple can weight the search so that search hits in the more important apps are always at the top of the results.
    - TomOfTTB 16y ago
Lewisham 16y ago
"Apple's bet is that users will reject the platform with more features in favor of the platform that works better." For as long as Mac OS X 10.2 (that's when I jumped on board, so I can't comment about the OS 9 days), this has been how Apple has operated. Mac OS X is actually pretty feature devoid, out-of-the-box. First thing I have to do when I get a new machine is install Google Search Box, Growl, Skitch, MarcoPolo just so it feels like it works right. I don't count these as applications; I think of them as base OS features. By laundry list of features, Windows comes out on top. What is different is that Mac OS X's UNIX underpinnings, coupled with a thoughtful Cocoa API means that developers can fill in the gaps for power users, whereas everyone else is happy with the experience they get. I'm not sure if Apple's strategists really understand this, or if it is just the engineers. You could be forgiven for thinking the UNIX core is just some accident of history due to NeXT rather than any conscious effort. iOS doesn't support extension like this, and it's deliberate and calculated. The App Store is not there to protect normal users, it's there to protect Apple. If you gave users the option of App Store apps and also the ability to install unsigned apps (with appropriate scary warnings), all the people Apple claims to be concerned about would function exactly as they do now, downloading from the App Store and avoiding everything else. Why would they need to do otherwise? Instead, we have an App Store that seems to be all about sticking it to Google and maintaining some Disney-esque political landscape. It's nothing like the Apple we used to know.
- GrandMasterBirt 16y ago
  Its simple actually... 1) Apple was first-to-market. And I don't mean the iPhone. The iPod was when apple just used a rocket booster to jump ahead of the game, and finally their steam is running low. - The iPod was revolutionary. - The iPod was never quite cloned "correctly" there was more to the iPod than meets the eye. By the time Apple removed the DRM restrictions it was too late for consumers, Apple had already made a dent in the market which others could not recover from. - When everyone finally caught up to the iPod... poof there goes the iPhone again darting apple ahead of the game. For at least 2 years before again anyone even came close. - The iPad is another attempt to do the same, but by now it did not dart them as far as the iPhone did. The competition is now riding on unicorns and are hard to out-meneuver. 2) Apple literally filled the void of the tech industry. The void was in usability. It was simple, give users a very friendly UI, and lets do away with core concepts we find important but most don't. I don't know how to explain "files" to my grandfather. He asks me "will my programs be there when I leave home with my laptop?" I tell him yes and no. You need an internet connection because to him his "programs" are the websites he visits. He can't even grasp the concept of moving files from hard disk to usb flash drive. To him "files" are mythical unicorns. And I see this from many people, he is just the best example. Apple is trying to cater to the audience of people who are completely lost with computers by making computers behave like "real" objects are inside them. The ipad is a great example because it makes things tangible. A child can understand it. The point at the end is this: Apple never had "features" they had "usability". OSX is a great OS because it combines user friendliness with unix. That is why developers love it. Hey I can't get over how awesome it is that uninstalling an application is dragging it from applications to trash (just got a mac). And to top it all off its quite easy to find all configurations and such for any installed application. On top of it all I don't feel like I need to re-install mac osx every 6 months like I had to with windows xp. AND to make it even better their keyboard shortcuts are a perfect fit for a laptop keyboard without having to resort to a lack of home/end/page up/page down keys. I swear check out those 4 frequently used keys layout in ANY pc laptop. It is insanity. Look at mac, the defaults are made so that you can use the say layout/combinations everywhere, brilliant! In the end apple is running out of steam. I think they will level out in a year or two taking their place as the new Microsoft of the industry (which is fine). I just wish macs were not so f-ing expensive. I mean I feel like I am getting inappropriately touched by Steve Jobs every time I add more ram to my order.
wallflower 16y ago
> As a developer I think you're obsessed with features. Whereas users don't necessarily want those features. The Apple iPhone is a mobile experience. Those of us who are fortunate to forgo its "lack" of features, understand that it can add value to part of the routine and boredom of day-to-day life. It's actually fun to do something productive and/or kill time with it while out-and-about. Repost but from presentation by Jared Spool of User Interface Engineering: 1st generation - It's about the Technology (Big mainframe computers - had to go to specialized training at HQ to be able to use it, let alone program it. Early dotcom sites where you could theoretically buy something if you could figure it out) 2nd generation - Features (Mobile phones with streaming TV, MP3 - all thrown in, loosely coupled, none integrated, some Internet portals) 3rd generation - Experience (Craigslist, MySpace (it does what their target market wants them to - peer communication), Google is getting there... Facebook is getting there, flying sheep aside). In Jared's opinion, the Apple iPhone leapfrogged directly to the 3rd generation - it's not a phone, it's not a portable computer - it is a great way to kill time (everywhere I go I see people trying to kill time on their mobile phones, rarely is it an iPhone).
Rantenki 16y ago
Developers developers developers developers

Tichy 16y ago

"When most people search their phone they're looking for information in either mail, contacts, or SMS messages." Why even bother with a smartphone and an app store then?

TomOfTTB 16y ago
I'm not sure I'm understanding your point but let me clarify my own and see if that addresses it. What I'm saying is when people use the phone search they are trying to search the phone part of the device (SMS, email, etc...). That doesn't preclude developeres from putting search in their own apps they just can't clutter up the phone search with results from their apps. That in mind I see Apple's point here as being "we think developers will abuse search if they are allowed in and we don't think users want that so we're keeping them out". Not "Google beat us to that feature" Apple might not be right in thinking that I'm just trying to point out that's their design philosophy and not a sign that Android has leap frogged them.
- Tichy 16y ago
  Hm, I am actually not sure what kind of searchability the OP is talking about. Of course you can't have random apps clutter a search in contacts. What happens on Android is that an App can specify that it is ready to answer certain types of searches. In certain situations, the user can choose the app he wants to search. Lot's of useful applications for that come to mind. Do I have to ship a spell checker with my app, or can all apps share a spell checker? And so on... Of course, yes, it could result in utter chaos, with 100reds of apps to choose from for a particular search. That kind of problem is really overblown, though, just like the multitasking problem. If an app annoys me or sucks too much energy, I just uninstall it... That goes for pretty much any kind of "developers are going to abuse feature X" argument - annoying apps just get uninstalled, end of story. There is a problem of potential sneaky apps, I guess. That is also existent on the iPhone, I suppose (don't they do their own user tracking), but of course there is slightly more potential with background tasks. Some common sense can eliminate most of the problems, though (ie why does an ebook reader need my GPS coordinates? Skip it).
  - extension 16y ago
    Assuming the user can tell which app is misbehaving, they may already depend on it or be invested in it by the time they discover the problem. It may be the only app of it's kind. Clearly, Apple is not simply trying to block bad apps, they are trying to force apps to be better, through the platform. I too am skeptical of this approach, but I understand where they're coming from.
- pyre 16y ago
  > What I'm saying is when people use the phone search > they are trying to search the phone part of the > device (SMS, email, etc...). > That in mind I see Apple's point here as being > "we think developers will abuse search if they > are allowed in and we don't think users want that > so we're keeping them out" This is a straw man. Apple can weight the search so that search hits in the more important apps are always at the top of the results.
  - TomOfTTB 16y ago

Lewisham 16y ago

"Apple's bet is that users will reject the platform with more features in favor of the platform that works better." For as long as Mac OS X 10.2 (that's when I jumped on board, so I can't comment about the OS 9 days), this has been how Apple has operated. Mac OS X is actually pretty feature devoid, out-of-the-box. First thing I have to do when I get a new machine is install Google Search Box, Growl, Skitch, MarcoPolo just so it feels like it works right. I don't count these as applications; I think of them as base OS features. By laundry list of features, Windows comes out on top. What is different is that Mac OS X's UNIX underpinnings, coupled with a thoughtful Cocoa API means that developers can fill in the gaps for power users, whereas everyone else is happy with the experience they get. I'm not sure if Apple's strategists really understand this, or if it is just the engineers. You could be forgiven for thinking the UNIX core is just some accident of history due to NeXT rather than any conscious effort. iOS doesn't support extension like this, and it's deliberate and calculated. The App Store is not there to protect normal users, it's there to protect Apple. If you gave users the option of App Store apps and also the ability to install unsigned apps (with appropriate scary warnings), all the people Apple claims to be concerned about would function exactly as they do now, downloading from the App Store and avoiding everything else. Why would they need to do otherwise? Instead, we have an App Store that seems to be all about sticking it to Google and maintaining some Disney-esque political landscape. It's nothing like the Apple we used to know.

GrandMasterBirt 16y ago
Its simple actually... 1) Apple was first-to-market. And I don't mean the iPhone. The iPod was when apple just used a rocket booster to jump ahead of the game, and finally their steam is running low. - The iPod was revolutionary. - The iPod was never quite cloned "correctly" there was more to the iPod than meets the eye. By the time Apple removed the DRM restrictions it was too late for consumers, Apple had already made a dent in the market which others could not recover from. - When everyone finally caught up to the iPod... poof there goes the iPhone again darting apple ahead of the game. For at least 2 years before again anyone even came close. - The iPad is another attempt to do the same, but by now it did not dart them as far as the iPhone did. The competition is now riding on unicorns and are hard to out-meneuver. 2) Apple literally filled the void of the tech industry. The void was in usability. It was simple, give users a very friendly UI, and lets do away with core concepts we find important but most don't. I don't know how to explain "files" to my grandfather. He asks me "will my programs be there when I leave home with my laptop?" I tell him yes and no. You need an internet connection because to him his "programs" are the websites he visits. He can't even grasp the concept of moving files from hard disk to usb flash drive. To him "files" are mythical unicorns. And I see this from many people, he is just the best example. Apple is trying to cater to the audience of people who are completely lost with computers by making computers behave like "real" objects are inside them. The ipad is a great example because it makes things tangible. A child can understand it. The point at the end is this: Apple never had "features" they had "usability". OSX is a great OS because it combines user friendliness with unix. That is why developers love it. Hey I can't get over how awesome it is that uninstalling an application is dragging it from applications to trash (just got a mac). And to top it all off its quite easy to find all configurations and such for any installed application. On top of it all I don't feel like I need to re-install mac osx every 6 months like I had to with windows xp. AND to make it even better their keyboard shortcuts are a perfect fit for a laptop keyboard without having to resort to a lack of home/end/page up/page down keys. I swear check out those 4 frequently used keys layout in ANY pc laptop. It is insanity. Look at mac, the defaults are made so that you can use the say layout/combinations everywhere, brilliant! In the end apple is running out of steam. I think they will level out in a year or two taking their place as the new Microsoft of the industry (which is fine). I just wish macs were not so f-ing expensive. I mean I feel like I am getting inappropriately touched by Steve Jobs every time I add more ram to my order.

wallflower 16y ago

> As a developer I think you're obsessed with features. Whereas users don't necessarily want those features. The Apple iPhone is a mobile experience. Those of us who are fortunate to forgo its "lack" of features, understand that it can add value to part of the routine and boredom of day-to-day life. It's actually fun to do something productive and/or kill time with it while out-and-about. Repost but from presentation by Jared Spool of User Interface Engineering: 1st generation - It's about the Technology (Big mainframe computers - had to go to specialized training at HQ to be able to use it, let alone program it. Early dotcom sites where you could theoretically buy something if you could figure it out) 2nd generation - Features (Mobile phones with streaming TV, MP3 - all thrown in, loosely coupled, none integrated, some Internet portals) 3rd generation - Experience (Craigslist, MySpace (it does what their target market wants them to - peer communication), Google is getting there... Facebook is getting there, flying sheep aside). In Jared's opinion, the Apple iPhone leapfrogged directly to the 3rd generation - it's not a phone, it's not a portable computer - it is a great way to kill time (everywhere I go I see people trying to kill time on their mobile phones, rarely is it an iPhone).

Rantenki 16y ago

Developers developers developers developers