6 ms·

All these elaborate workarounds. The root cause is Apple, as usual, has a set of use cases cast in stone and refuses to give customers what they want: a config

All these elaborate workarounds. The root cause is Apple, as usual, has a set of use cases cast in stone and refuses to give customers what they want: a configurable experience.

jcoffland 9y ago
Apple users don't want a configurable experience. They want a low stress experience and a brand name. Otherwise they would use Android.
- pwython 9y ago
  > Apple users don't want a configurable experience. They want a low stress experience and a brand name. Otherwise they would use Android. You almost nailed it, until you mentioned Apple users wanting a brand name. I guess that's the stereotype though. I used to be a config-every-bit-of-settings tech kid. But now... I just want a streamlined, simple UI that works for the 5 features I use daily (phone, messaging, camera, internet, and music). For the most part, Apple gets it right. macOS and iOS are perfect for my needs as a consumer and developer. I have no complaints. But listening to music with an iPhone -- with an Apple Music subscription -- ridiculously unpolished. It's a separate department that has been lost in the shuffle. I hope they start paying more attention to it.
  - vacri 9y ago
    > You almost nailed it, until you mentioned Apple users wanting a brand name. I guess that's the stereotype though. Last year a colleague of mine ordered an Apple laptop, for $2800 (AU). Then he found out about the touchbar, which he didn't want, and cancelled the order. He was asking for other laptops, so I pointed him at an X1 for $2400. His response? "Too expensive". But you just paid $2800 for an Apple laptop? "Yeah, but when you run an apple laptop, people know you're running an apple". This guy was willing to pay a premium just for a brand name.
    - vacri 9y ago
      Weird that this anecdote has people disagreeing with it. I guess people only buy for brandname-bragging when YSL is on a handbag, or Ferrari is on the bonnet, but never when Apple is on electronics. Never mind that Apple's greatest successes came from turning electronics into fashion; clearly when people buy Apple, it's only ever because they've done a sober analysis of suitability for the task at hand.
  - superasn 9y ago
    Maybe not in your case but most people I know also buy it for the brand name here in India. It's still kind of a big deal to sport the latest iphone and it does catch people's eye.
eclipxe 9y ago
Not really. This is due to the legacy of the iPod. Many cars integrated iPod specific systems years and years ago. The iPhones of today retained much of that compatibility. Apple could have removed iPod accessory support from the iPhone and this problem wouldn’t occur.
- vec 9y ago
  Nope, still Apple. There's no good reason that the iPod couldn't use a standard protocol. For that matter, there's not much reason not to just read it as a USB drive and let the car's internal music player do all the work, even if just as a fallback. I can kind of understand why Apple would want the entire world to only work with their proprietary connector, but for the life of me I still can't figure out why anyone else, especially auto manufacturers, went along with it. It's a horribly short-sighted decision for products like cars which regularly have a useful lifetime measured in decades.
  - clintonb 9y ago
    The USB drive solution solves only one part of the problem. You assume all of my music in iTunes/Apple Music. I only listen to music in that app...because the car plays "Aaj Ki Raat" every time I plug in my iPhone. I usually listen to podcasts or Amazon Music. A standard protocol would be great, if one exists. Treating the external device as a USB drive closes the door on other apps/functionality.
  - eclipxe 9y ago
    Sure there is (was) - DRM. Your average iPod had thousands of iTunes DRM protected songs. A standard USB drive with a bunch of files with DRM wouldn't playback on the headunit.

All these elaborate workarounds. The root cause is Apple, as usual, has a set of use cases cast in stone and refuses to give customers what they want: a configurable experience.

jcoffland 9y ago

Apple users don't want a configurable experience. They want a low stress experience and a brand name. Otherwise they would use Android.

pwython 9y ago
> Apple users don't want a configurable experience. They want a low stress experience and a brand name. Otherwise they would use Android. You almost nailed it, until you mentioned Apple users wanting a brand name. I guess that's the stereotype though. I used to be a config-every-bit-of-settings tech kid. But now... I just want a streamlined, simple UI that works for the 5 features I use daily (phone, messaging, camera, internet, and music). For the most part, Apple gets it right. macOS and iOS are perfect for my needs as a consumer and developer. I have no complaints. But listening to music with an iPhone -- with an Apple Music subscription -- ridiculously unpolished. It's a separate department that has been lost in the shuffle. I hope they start paying more attention to it.
- vacri 9y ago
  > You almost nailed it, until you mentioned Apple users wanting a brand name. I guess that's the stereotype though. Last year a colleague of mine ordered an Apple laptop, for $2800 (AU). Then he found out about the touchbar, which he didn't want, and cancelled the order. He was asking for other laptops, so I pointed him at an X1 for $2400. His response? "Too expensive". But you just paid $2800 for an Apple laptop? "Yeah, but when you run an apple laptop, people know you're running an apple". This guy was willing to pay a premium just for a brand name.
  - vacri 9y ago
    Weird that this anecdote has people disagreeing with it. I guess people only buy for brandname-bragging when YSL is on a handbag, or Ferrari is on the bonnet, but never when Apple is on electronics. Never mind that Apple's greatest successes came from turning electronics into fashion; clearly when people buy Apple, it's only ever because they've done a sober analysis of suitability for the task at hand.
- superasn 9y ago
  Maybe not in your case but most people I know also buy it for the brand name here in India. It's still kind of a big deal to sport the latest iphone and it does catch people's eye.

eclipxe 9y ago

Not really. This is due to the legacy of the iPod. Many cars integrated iPod specific systems years and years ago. The iPhones of today retained much of that compatibility. Apple could have removed iPod accessory support from the iPhone and this problem wouldn’t occur.

vec 9y ago
Nope, still Apple. There's no good reason that the iPod couldn't use a standard protocol. For that matter, there's not much reason not to just read it as a USB drive and let the car's internal music player do all the work, even if just as a fallback. I can kind of understand why Apple would want the entire world to only work with their proprietary connector, but for the life of me I still can't figure out why anyone else, especially auto manufacturers, went along with it. It's a horribly short-sighted decision for products like cars which regularly have a useful lifetime measured in decades.
- clintonb 9y ago
  The USB drive solution solves only one part of the problem. You assume all of my music in iTunes/Apple Music. I only listen to music in that app...because the car plays "Aaj Ki Raat" every time I plug in my iPhone. I usually listen to podcasts or Amazon Music. A standard protocol would be great, if one exists. Treating the external device as a USB drive closes the door on other apps/functionality.
- eclipxe 9y ago
  Sure there is (was) - DRM. Your average iPod had thousands of iTunes DRM protected songs. A standard USB drive with a bunch of files with DRM wouldn't playback on the headunit.