11 ms·

Apple changes words in order to change the debate

183 points by marilyn 16y ago

zacharypinter 16y ago
Say what you may about Jobs, but you have to admire how he plays the game.
- recoiledsnake 16y ago
  I would prefer that he let his products do the talking - which they do. That's what makes all of this even stranger.
burgerbrain 16y ago
Oldest trick in the book. It's good to see the tech industry catch up with what politicians discovered centuries ago.
- pohl 16y ago
  The use of framing the debate like this in the tech industry is pretty old. One of the most notable examples that comes to mind is how the fledgling open-systems community (the loose collection of competing Unix vendors back in the 80s) kept pounding the pulpit of "standards", and Microsoft countered by propagating the phrase "de facto standard" in the trade rags. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
- SlyShy 16y ago
  Why would be it good to see an industry take cues from the least honest profession?
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    I wrote that with sarcasm dripping from my words, but I suppose it didn't translate.
steveklabnik 16y ago
Another "great" example of this: the Corn Refiner's Association has applied to rebrand HFCS into "corn sugar." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100914/ap_on_bi_ge/us_corn_syrup_image http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100914/ap_on_bi_ge/us_corn_syru...
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- fleitz 16y ago
  The only difference between HFCS 55 and 'sugar' (meaning cane sugar refined to purely fructose/glucose) is the glycosidic bond between the fructose and glucose. In your gut sucrase will snap this bond and sugar becomes identical to HFCS 55 in your gut. In this sense HFCS has gotten an unfairly bad rap because HFCS 55 is equally as unhealthy as sugar. If anyone thinks sugar is more healthy than HFCS 55 they are sorrily mistaken. If you're eating HFCS 90 then perhaps it is more toxic, but for the most part they are on equal footing.
- j_b_f 16y ago
  Wow, that's fascinating. My gut reaction to the term "corn sugar" is "that doesn't sound too bad."
- gxti 16y ago
  It's a very interesting situation because while it's clearly a "typical evil corporation" move, it's one that's objectively justifiable given the evidence. Because I am anti-putting-sugar-in-everything (HFCS or otherwise), I hope that this will result in more people associating corn syrup with sugar. All the campaigns against HFCS should really have been campaigning against all forms of sugar all along and the association will (perhaps inadvertently) make people more averse of products with too much sugar.
cahooon 16y ago
Their previous argument—"yes, it's open, but it sucks"—was less effective than this. It also said pretty much the same thing.
mikeryan 16y ago
Open and closed can mean so many things in this context. The whole debate really needs to be more semantically focused on what they mean to really make any sense.
zacharydanger 16y ago
Jobs begs the question: Are the users actually the system integrators? What does that even mean anyway?
- catch23 16y ago
  I think he means that it is up to the users to decide how to sync their android device with whatever future devices they'll own. With the iPhone, you'll just buy the next generation device and your settings will easily migrate over. With android, you might switch from droid to htc desire and it will be up to you to migrate your data & settings. With fragmentation it makes this harder simply because carriers can prevent OTA updates and force stuff like the sense ui on their customers.
- guelo 16y ago
  Exactly. And what does fragmented and integrated mean in the context of a consumer? I've heard fragmented as far as developers go but consumers just get a device and normally keep it for at least 2 years. How is fragmentation hurting them and what integration is it that they're doing?
  - awakeasleep 16y ago
    One way this 'fragmentation' can hurt users is by removing some developer's incentive to build on the platform. I believe that is what the Tweetdeck quote was about, anyway.
    - snotrockets 16y ago
      Except it wasn't a real quote. @iaindodsworth (TweetDeck's CEO) wrote today it wasn't: http://twitter.com/#!/iaindodsworth/statuses/27813412620 http://twitter.com/#!/iaindodsworth/statuses/27813412620
  - GHFigs 16y ago
    The fragmentation problem for users is that they must be conscious of the deviations of the particular handset/carrier/version/store fragment they are buying in to or potentially suffer the consequences of their ignorance. That is, the Android phone you buy may be a very different experience than the Android phone I buy, and that creates a lot of opportunity for dissatisfaction internal to the platform which simply would not be there with a strong first-party stance on how things ought to be done.
napierzaza 16y ago
Debating 101: Frame the argument. Both sides of any argument do this. Google by calling it "open" which means more than it really does. Apple doesn't debate it's not open, it just debates that the results aren't any good because of the confusion of choices. "Open" is supposed to be a good thing, Apple doesn't believe it is. But the fact is that Apple is crying about it, they're explaining why they made the decisions they made. They need to justify this to their investors. Google needs PR to make Android look good. That's why people are "Pro Life" not anti-abortion. Do these guys read the news, maybe they just started?
- noilly 16y ago
  Exactly. An old, old technique. Do people still study rhetoric in school, grumble grumble?
- endtime 16y ago
  >That's why people are "Pro Life" not anti-abortion. That's a pretty touchy example. Honestly, I've always thought that "pro-choice" was stretching the truth more than "pro-life".
  - wtallis 16y ago
    If you want to see where "pro-life" may be stretching the truth, consider that not all "pro-life"-ers are vegans. When they say "pro-life", they're trying to imply that embryos are people, which is really the crux of the debate.
    - jpwagner 16y ago
      "pro embryo life" doesnt have the same ring to it
      - wtallis 16y ago
        And neither does "pro abortion choice". Basically everyone involved prefers oversimplification to accuracy, which is one of the top two reasons why the "debate" can't go anywhere.
ugh 16y ago
Framing is powerful and fascinating game every spokesperson worth its money plays. Steve Jobs talked a lot about fragmentation and brushed openness aside. Why then did Andy Rubin not talk about fragmentation but emphasize openness? Because he is not stupid, that’s why. That’s what makes many of those public fights very frustrating to watch. In a perfect world humans wouldn’t get distracted by frames. They would be able to recognize that there is nearly always more than one aspect to a story. It absolutely drives me crazy when, for example, so many advocates of nuclear power can only ever talk about CO2 and so many adversaries of nuclear power can only ever talk about safety and waste.
- xenophanes 16y ago
  It's not really relevant to your point, but I happen to be a nuclear power advocate who thinks it's safe, clean, and efficient.
danilocampos 16y ago
It's easy to look at this cynically but it's not unreasonable to change the conversation. Google's exploitation of "open" has been disingenuous at best. When you try to square their high ideals against reality, you end up in an uncomfortable spot. The fact is, Android's openness does not make it to the end user. Its openness is exploited for the benefit of the carriers to load branded crapware onto the device, disable specific features and other nonsense. Don't like this? Too bad. Android's openness isn't for you, now that carriers and manufacturers are getting wise to your hackery tricks. They're going to make it as hard as possible to root your Android phone. So you'd better get used to that awesome Blockbuster app. In the end, iOS and Android devices are on even footing in terms of big companies trying to control the final experience. Which leaves us with one thing: motivations. Carrier motivations are to fuck you out of as much money as humanly possible in the short term. In the past that meant disabling device features to force you into their ecosystem – I'm sure this will continue one way or another. They'll load branded garbage onto your device. They'll put specific marketplaces on your device, and maybe even remove Google's if they want to. Their manufacturing partners will happily conspire with them on this, including the firmware fuse that prevents rooting your device so you can make it somewhat clean again. Apple is no less ruthless with its control, but it exercises it for a different purpose: To deliver the most integrated, user-friendly, clean experience possible. (edit: and so, Apple's play is the converse: to maximize your cheerful purchases of Apple gear in the long term – thanks, matwood) If you're a carrier, Android's openness makes it much more valuable than iOS in the short term. In that, Google's piety will ring true. If you're an end user, the net gain of that openness is zero, and at times it's even a loss. I trust Apple infinitely more than I trust the carriers to make something I'll enjoy using. And that's the key to understand. With Apple, what I buy will always be clean. I'll always instantly understand the tradeoffs. With Android, it's going to be a gamble. How hard has my carrier boned this device? I'll have to research if I'm a nerd or be surprised if I'm everyone else. And there goes the power of Android as a brand. Android is no longer Google. Android is the carriers. When was the last time you heard someone write those guys a love letter?
- zmmmmm 16y ago
  > If you're an end user, the net gain of that openness is zero, and at times it's even a loss I have about 15 home screen widgets, an alternative dialer, alternative browser and a bunch of other programs that would never be allowed on iOS that beg to differ.
matt_s 16y ago
I can totally see where framing this as integrated vs. fractured can happen. A coworker has an Android based phone and the latest update from the phone manufacturer killed the app she had to get to the corporate email account. 3 months in, the problem still isn't resolved. You end up with a gaggle of vendors all pointing the finger at each other as well as the app maker. On my iPod Touch, I can get to the corporate email perfectly fine, through all of the iOS updates I've gotten. Apple can test all of their base features and their apps and know that they work on every device they ship. It just works and it is integrated.
jsm386 16y ago
There are some great reads by the cited examples. George Lakoff's (left) Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate - is a fascinating read regardless of your political beliefs. http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717 http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressive... The Frank Luntz (right) example of death tax vs. estate tax is pretty well known. What he put together for the GOP about how to frame the bailouts/Wall St/financial reform/Obama admin this year is also a fascinating political document: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23808095/Language-of-Financial-Reform http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23808095/Language-of-Financial-R...
protomyth 16y ago
For those who would like to listen to exactly what Steve Jobs said, the audio is posted at http://www.apple.com/investor/ http://www.apple.com/investor/ and will probably be there for about 10 - 15 days.
credo 16y ago
Good point, it is in Apple's interest to reframe the debate. Theoretically, Apple could argue that Google's core assets (search and advertising) aren't open-sourced. Their Android apps (like Maps) aren't open-source and Apple could say that "open" is just a marketing buzzword that Google uses to try and beat Apple with. However, that will be an argument on turf picked by Google. "What is best for the customer" (and also what is best for app developers) is imo a much better argument for Apple and so it isn't surprising that Apple would prefer to fight on this turf. As an app developer, I develop for the iPhone/iPad (even though I wrote an Android app with their beta SDK long before Apple launched the app store and Google launched their first Android device). So I personally agree with the case made by Apple. In this context, it is also worth noting that Rovio (which earned >$1M/month with their $0.99 iPhone app) recently released an Android app, but made it free. They seem to be using the "ad-supported" model for the same reason that many developers don't develop paid Android apps (and I hope I haven't offended too many Android users by pointing out that Android users download very few paid apps). Rovio has also mentioned the difficulties with Android fragmentation. Overall, I'd say that Apple's argument does resonate in the market.Google's argument (and the fact that it is available on all major US carriers) is also very effective. Overall, this is a great time for mobile devices/apps
- enjo 16y ago
  It certainly resonates with developers. Ultimately, however, that hardly matters. Apple allowed an Android toe-hold in the market and they're going to continue to pay dearly for it. Google has steadily improved the OS, and the phones reflect that. The hardware has gotten better and the overall user experience has continued to improve. Not to mention that that quality of the third party apps has continued to improve as well. We are likely to see at least one more major OS revision for Android before Apple finally brings something over to Verizon. Remember, Google has brought some serious talent to bear here with the likes of Matias Duarte (user experience for WebOS) now on the Android front. Fragmentation is a developer issue. The app-store issues are by and large developer issues (particularly since Google has finally opened up the paid app options). Get outside of the echo chamber and you'll see lots of folks happily using their Android phones and feeling pretty good about it. Jobs is getting agitated because, in my opinion, he knows this is a battle he's going to lose. Customization is right at the top of features most important to cell phone users (I can't post the citation, it's an internal study I was given access to). Android's open philosophy certainly filters down to the end user when it comes to customizing the phones. Be it with new launchers, keyboards (my iPhone toting friends are intensely jealous of Swype), or just about anything else on the phone. Remember ringtones and wall-paper after all. That was an incredibly huge market driven by the folks wanting to customize their phone. Cases are another expression of that. Android eventually wins, because for most folks, that is the driving factor. Apps are going to be a wash in the end... both platforms already have enormous breadth and precious little in the way of high quality. They won't influence the outcome. Apple will lose, simply because they insist on being Apple.
kvs 16y ago
We can also look at it as Apple viewing this from customer perspective (fragmented vs. integrated) and Google viewing this from production and development philosophy point of view. Which view is more relevant to a customer? (where a customer is your regular Joe/Jane)
dasil003 16y ago
They stole my comment from earlier today: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1807530 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1807530
qjz 16y ago
Except the debate isn't open vs. closed. It's iOS vs. Android. Since Jobs is trying to strengthen Apple's position in that debate, where's the foul?
sssparkkk 16y ago
How about Jobs misinterpreting a blog-post bij the makers of TweetDeck, by using it as an example of how terribly difficult it is for developers to write for the 'fragmented' android platform. Just a little later the CEO of TweetDeck (@iaindodsworth) tweets this: "Did we at any point say it was a nightmare developing on Android? Errr nope, no we didn't. It wasn't." Help me out, is this a typical case of 'FUD'?
lsc 16y ago
Growing up, my stepmother was very big on the power of words, and how you can change people's minds based on how you say a thing. She was right, of course... but to my mind, that seemed like protecting myself from this manipulation was more important (and more ethical) than using this knowledge to manipulate other people. For a long time, I'd practice re-writing everything I heard using words with the most negative connotations I could without changing the meaning of the sentence. "I gave him a job, and his skills and abilities are helping my business do well." vs. "I am profitably exploiting his skills and abilities." the meaning is essentially the same, but don't say the second one in public. (in my teenage years I tried that, too.. it ended badly.) Anyhow, I don't spend as much effort on it as I did, but I still think being aware of this sort of thing is an important part of everyone's mental self-defense.
prbuckley 16y ago
How about "integrating" a phone that works into your phone.
dannyr 16y ago
I still remember how the Bush administration carefully worded some bills. Healthy Forest Initiative - opens up more parks to the timber industry Patriot Act - Who would dare say they are against Patriotism?
- loewenskind 16y ago
  I'm strongly against patriotism actually but I see your point.
hnal943 16y ago
We think the open versus closed argument is just a smokescreen to try and hide the real issue, which is, “What’s best for the customer – fragmented versus integrated?” Sounds awfully familiar. Didn't they learn anything from the desktop wars in the 90's?
meelash 16y ago
I really think the comparison with politicians is (probably unintentionally) disingenuous. The thing that would make reframing an argument in different terms dishonest is (a) when it is done without telling you- politicians don't say, look we don't like such and such term, we're going to call it this instead and (b) when the terms that it is reframed in have undue intrinsic positive or negative value. When Steve did it, he clearly stated what he was doing and justified reframing the argument in that way. In that case, reframing a debate using more appropriate terms to really approach the core of what is different is an honest tactic that is often necessary to really compare two things objectively. Secondly, the terms fragmented vs. integrated appear to have less intrinsic value than open (good) and closed (bad). As such, you can argue with which is the most relevant framework to compare the two systems (and actually, this is going to be different for different user groups- manufacturers care about different things than developers, or end users), but I don't like the implicit characterization of his reframing the argument as somehow dishonest. That seems close-minded.
apotheon 16y ago
There's a term for the kind of rephrasing used by Apple: "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" There's another term: "propaganda" I could probably rephrase the matter endlessly if I really wanted to.
avk 16y ago
George Lakoff's class, "The Mind, Language, and Politics" (Cognitive Science C104) was my absolute favorite class at UC Berkeley. We read plenty of his work and Frank Luntz. I'm glad to see these ideas again!
biafra 16y ago
Apple could be much more open with iOS and at the same time be not less integrated. How does the whole AppStore policy make iOS more integrated? When I am criticizing Apple for iOS not being open I mean it is not open to run any application that works on the device. The Problem with iOS is that only Apple-Signed applications are allowed. Because of that, Apple has the power to keep the competition and the content they do not approve of out.
stretchwithme 16y ago
The "real" real problem is not the carriers. Its the way the government manages the spectrum. We could have a dynamic marketplace where devices, users, networks could buy spectrum in advance or real time and even resell it. We need incentives for making the most use of spectrum, for making more spectrum with faster clocks. Seems we have incentives for controlling and inhibiting innovation. Instead we've sold spectrum to the highest bidder who can then control access to it and have no real open competition. Maybe Google's bid last year will change that a bit (http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9910932-7.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9910932-7.html). You ought to be able to create your own network by buying spectrum in a fluid marketplace. Or just be one guy buying spectrum as you need it for some device you made yourself. Don't if that all makes sense, but I think you may at least see what I mean by the problem behind the problem.

183 points by marilyn 16y ago

zacharypinter 16y ago

Say what you may about Jobs, but you have to admire how he plays the game.

recoiledsnake 16y ago
I would prefer that he let his products do the talking - which they do. That's what makes all of this even stranger.

burgerbrain 16y ago

Oldest trick in the book. It's good to see the tech industry catch up with what politicians discovered centuries ago.

pohl 16y ago
The use of framing the debate like this in the tech industry is pretty old. One of the most notable examples that comes to mind is how the fledgling open-systems community (the loose collection of competing Unix vendors back in the 80s) kept pounding the pulpit of "standards", and Microsoft countered by propagating the phrase "de facto standard" in the trade rags. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
SlyShy 16y ago
Why would be it good to see an industry take cues from the least honest profession?
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  I wrote that with sarcasm dripping from my words, but I suppose it didn't translate.

steveklabnik 16y ago

Another "great" example of this: the Corn Refiner's Association has applied to rebrand HFCS into "corn sugar." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100914/ap_on_bi_ge/us_corn_syrup_image http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100914/ap_on_bi_ge/us_corn_syru...

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
fleitz 16y ago
The only difference between HFCS 55 and 'sugar' (meaning cane sugar refined to purely fructose/glucose) is the glycosidic bond between the fructose and glucose. In your gut sucrase will snap this bond and sugar becomes identical to HFCS 55 in your gut. In this sense HFCS has gotten an unfairly bad rap because HFCS 55 is equally as unhealthy as sugar. If anyone thinks sugar is more healthy than HFCS 55 they are sorrily mistaken. If you're eating HFCS 90 then perhaps it is more toxic, but for the most part they are on equal footing.
j_b_f 16y ago
Wow, that's fascinating. My gut reaction to the term "corn sugar" is "that doesn't sound too bad."
gxti 16y ago
It's a very interesting situation because while it's clearly a "typical evil corporation" move, it's one that's objectively justifiable given the evidence. Because I am anti-putting-sugar-in-everything (HFCS or otherwise), I hope that this will result in more people associating corn syrup with sugar. All the campaigns against HFCS should really have been campaigning against all forms of sugar all along and the association will (perhaps inadvertently) make people more averse of products with too much sugar.

cahooon 16y ago

Their previous argument—"yes, it's open, but it sucks"—was less effective than this. It also said pretty much the same thing.

mikeryan 16y ago

Open and closed can mean so many things in this context. The whole debate really needs to be more semantically focused on what they mean to really make any sense.

zacharydanger 16y ago

Jobs begs the question: Are the users actually the system integrators? What does that even mean anyway?

catch23 16y ago
I think he means that it is up to the users to decide how to sync their android device with whatever future devices they'll own. With the iPhone, you'll just buy the next generation device and your settings will easily migrate over. With android, you might switch from droid to htc desire and it will be up to you to migrate your data & settings. With fragmentation it makes this harder simply because carriers can prevent OTA updates and force stuff like the sense ui on their customers.
guelo 16y ago
Exactly. And what does fragmented and integrated mean in the context of a consumer? I've heard fragmented as far as developers go but consumers just get a device and normally keep it for at least 2 years. How is fragmentation hurting them and what integration is it that they're doing?
- awakeasleep 16y ago
  One way this 'fragmentation' can hurt users is by removing some developer's incentive to build on the platform. I believe that is what the Tweetdeck quote was about, anyway.
  - snotrockets 16y ago
    Except it wasn't a real quote. @iaindodsworth (TweetDeck's CEO) wrote today it wasn't: http://twitter.com/#!/iaindodsworth/statuses/27813412620 http://twitter.com/#!/iaindodsworth/statuses/27813412620
- GHFigs 16y ago
  The fragmentation problem for users is that they must be conscious of the deviations of the particular handset/carrier/version/store fragment they are buying in to or potentially suffer the consequences of their ignorance. That is, the Android phone you buy may be a very different experience than the Android phone I buy, and that creates a lot of opportunity for dissatisfaction internal to the platform which simply would not be there with a strong first-party stance on how things ought to be done.

napierzaza 16y ago

Debating 101: Frame the argument. Both sides of any argument do this. Google by calling it "open" which means more than it really does. Apple doesn't debate it's not open, it just debates that the results aren't any good because of the confusion of choices. "Open" is supposed to be a good thing, Apple doesn't believe it is. But the fact is that Apple is crying about it, they're explaining why they made the decisions they made. They need to justify this to their investors. Google needs PR to make Android look good. That's why people are "Pro Life" not anti-abortion. Do these guys read the news, maybe they just started?

noilly 16y ago
Exactly. An old, old technique. Do people still study rhetoric in school, grumble grumble?
endtime 16y ago
>That's why people are "Pro Life" not anti-abortion. That's a pretty touchy example. Honestly, I've always thought that "pro-choice" was stretching the truth more than "pro-life".
- wtallis 16y ago
  If you want to see where "pro-life" may be stretching the truth, consider that not all "pro-life"-ers are vegans. When they say "pro-life", they're trying to imply that embryos are people, which is really the crux of the debate.
  - jpwagner 16y ago
    "pro embryo life" doesnt have the same ring to it
    - wtallis 16y ago
      And neither does "pro abortion choice". Basically everyone involved prefers oversimplification to accuracy, which is one of the top two reasons why the "debate" can't go anywhere.

ugh 16y ago

Framing is powerful and fascinating game every spokesperson worth its money plays. Steve Jobs talked a lot about fragmentation and brushed openness aside. Why then did Andy Rubin not talk about fragmentation but emphasize openness? Because he is not stupid, that’s why. That’s what makes many of those public fights very frustrating to watch. In a perfect world humans wouldn’t get distracted by frames. They would be able to recognize that there is nearly always more than one aspect to a story. It absolutely drives me crazy when, for example, so many advocates of nuclear power can only ever talk about CO2 and so many adversaries of nuclear power can only ever talk about safety and waste.

xenophanes 16y ago
It's not really relevant to your point, but I happen to be a nuclear power advocate who thinks it's safe, clean, and efficient.

danilocampos 16y ago

It's easy to look at this cynically but it's not unreasonable to change the conversation. Google's exploitation of "open" has been disingenuous at best. When you try to square their high ideals against reality, you end up in an uncomfortable spot. The fact is, Android's openness does not make it to the end user. Its openness is exploited for the benefit of the carriers to load branded crapware onto the device, disable specific features and other nonsense. Don't like this? Too bad. Android's openness isn't for you, now that carriers and manufacturers are getting wise to your hackery tricks. They're going to make it as hard as possible to root your Android phone. So you'd better get used to that awesome Blockbuster app. In the end, iOS and Android devices are on even footing in terms of big companies trying to control the final experience. Which leaves us with one thing: motivations. Carrier motivations are to fuck you out of as much money as humanly possible in the short term. In the past that meant disabling device features to force you into their ecosystem – I'm sure this will continue one way or another. They'll load branded garbage onto your device. They'll put specific marketplaces on your device, and maybe even remove Google's if they want to. Their manufacturing partners will happily conspire with them on this, including the firmware fuse that prevents rooting your device so you can make it somewhat clean again. Apple is no less ruthless with its control, but it exercises it for a different purpose: To deliver the most integrated, user-friendly, clean experience possible. (edit: and so, Apple's play is the converse: to maximize your cheerful purchases of Apple gear in the long term – thanks, matwood) If you're a carrier, Android's openness makes it much more valuable than iOS in the short term. In that, Google's piety will ring true. If you're an end user, the net gain of that openness is zero, and at times it's even a loss. I trust Apple infinitely more than I trust the carriers to make something I'll enjoy using. And that's the key to understand. With Apple, what I buy will always be clean. I'll always instantly understand the tradeoffs. With Android, it's going to be a gamble. How hard has my carrier boned this device? I'll have to research if I'm a nerd or be surprised if I'm everyone else. And there goes the power of Android as a brand. Android is no longer Google. Android is the carriers. When was the last time you heard someone write those guys a love letter?

zmmmmm 16y ago
> If you're an end user, the net gain of that openness is zero, and at times it's even a loss I have about 15 home screen widgets, an alternative dialer, alternative browser and a bunch of other programs that would never be allowed on iOS that beg to differ.

matt_s 16y ago

I can totally see where framing this as integrated vs. fractured can happen. A coworker has an Android based phone and the latest update from the phone manufacturer killed the app she had to get to the corporate email account. 3 months in, the problem still isn't resolved. You end up with a gaggle of vendors all pointing the finger at each other as well as the app maker. On my iPod Touch, I can get to the corporate email perfectly fine, through all of the iOS updates I've gotten. Apple can test all of their base features and their apps and know that they work on every device they ship. It just works and it is integrated.

jsm386 16y ago

There are some great reads by the cited examples. George Lakoff's (left) Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate - is a fascinating read regardless of your political beliefs. http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717 http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressive... The Frank Luntz (right) example of death tax vs. estate tax is pretty well known. What he put together for the GOP about how to frame the bailouts/Wall St/financial reform/Obama admin this year is also a fascinating political document: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23808095/Language-of-Financial-Reform http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23808095/Language-of-Financial-R...

protomyth 16y ago

For those who would like to listen to exactly what Steve Jobs said, the audio is posted at http://www.apple.com/investor/ http://www.apple.com/investor/ and will probably be there for about 10 - 15 days.

credo 16y ago

Good point, it is in Apple's interest to reframe the debate. Theoretically, Apple could argue that Google's core assets (search and advertising) aren't open-sourced. Their Android apps (like Maps) aren't open-source and Apple could say that "open" is just a marketing buzzword that Google uses to try and beat Apple with. However, that will be an argument on turf picked by Google. "What is best for the customer" (and also what is best for app developers) is imo a much better argument for Apple and so it isn't surprising that Apple would prefer to fight on this turf. As an app developer, I develop for the iPhone/iPad (even though I wrote an Android app with their beta SDK long before Apple launched the app store and Google launched their first Android device). So I personally agree with the case made by Apple. In this context, it is also worth noting that Rovio (which earned >$1M/month with their $0.99 iPhone app) recently released an Android app, but made it free. They seem to be using the "ad-supported" model for the same reason that many developers don't develop paid Android apps (and I hope I haven't offended too many Android users by pointing out that Android users download very few paid apps). Rovio has also mentioned the difficulties with Android fragmentation. Overall, I'd say that Apple's argument does resonate in the market.Google's argument (and the fact that it is available on all major US carriers) is also very effective. Overall, this is a great time for mobile devices/apps

enjo 16y ago
It certainly resonates with developers. Ultimately, however, that hardly matters. Apple allowed an Android toe-hold in the market and they're going to continue to pay dearly for it. Google has steadily improved the OS, and the phones reflect that. The hardware has gotten better and the overall user experience has continued to improve. Not to mention that that quality of the third party apps has continued to improve as well. We are likely to see at least one more major OS revision for Android before Apple finally brings something over to Verizon. Remember, Google has brought some serious talent to bear here with the likes of Matias Duarte (user experience for WebOS) now on the Android front. Fragmentation is a developer issue. The app-store issues are by and large developer issues (particularly since Google has finally opened up the paid app options). Get outside of the echo chamber and you'll see lots of folks happily using their Android phones and feeling pretty good about it. Jobs is getting agitated because, in my opinion, he knows this is a battle he's going to lose. Customization is right at the top of features most important to cell phone users (I can't post the citation, it's an internal study I was given access to). Android's open philosophy certainly filters down to the end user when it comes to customizing the phones. Be it with new launchers, keyboards (my iPhone toting friends are intensely jealous of Swype), or just about anything else on the phone. Remember ringtones and wall-paper after all. That was an incredibly huge market driven by the folks wanting to customize their phone. Cases are another expression of that. Android eventually wins, because for most folks, that is the driving factor. Apps are going to be a wash in the end... both platforms already have enormous breadth and precious little in the way of high quality. They won't influence the outcome. Apple will lose, simply because they insist on being Apple.

kvs 16y ago

We can also look at it as Apple viewing this from customer perspective (fragmented vs. integrated) and Google viewing this from production and development philosophy point of view. Which view is more relevant to a customer? (where a customer is your regular Joe/Jane)

dasil003 16y ago

They stole my comment from earlier today: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1807530 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1807530

qjz 16y ago

Except the debate isn't open vs. closed. It's iOS vs. Android. Since Jobs is trying to strengthen Apple's position in that debate, where's the foul?

sssparkkk 16y ago

How about Jobs misinterpreting a blog-post bij the makers of TweetDeck, by using it as an example of how terribly difficult it is for developers to write for the 'fragmented' android platform. Just a little later the CEO of TweetDeck (@iaindodsworth) tweets this: "Did we at any point say it was a nightmare developing on Android? Errr nope, no we didn't. It wasn't." Help me out, is this a typical case of 'FUD'?

lsc 16y ago

Growing up, my stepmother was very big on the power of words, and how you can change people's minds based on how you say a thing. She was right, of course... but to my mind, that seemed like protecting myself from this manipulation was more important (and more ethical) than using this knowledge to manipulate other people. For a long time, I'd practice re-writing everything I heard using words with the most negative connotations I could without changing the meaning of the sentence. "I gave him a job, and his skills and abilities are helping my business do well." vs. "I am profitably exploiting his skills and abilities." the meaning is essentially the same, but don't say the second one in public. (in my teenage years I tried that, too.. it ended badly.) Anyhow, I don't spend as much effort on it as I did, but I still think being aware of this sort of thing is an important part of everyone's mental self-defense.

prbuckley 16y ago

How about "integrating" a phone that works into your phone.

dannyr 16y ago

I still remember how the Bush administration carefully worded some bills. Healthy Forest Initiative - opens up more parks to the timber industry Patriot Act - Who would dare say they are against Patriotism?

loewenskind 16y ago
I'm strongly against patriotism actually but I see your point.

hnal943 16y ago

We think the open versus closed argument is just a smokescreen to try and hide the real issue, which is, “What’s best for the customer – fragmented versus integrated?” Sounds awfully familiar. Didn't they learn anything from the desktop wars in the 90's?

meelash 16y ago

I really think the comparison with politicians is (probably unintentionally) disingenuous. The thing that would make reframing an argument in different terms dishonest is (a) when it is done without telling you- politicians don't say, look we don't like such and such term, we're going to call it this instead and (b) when the terms that it is reframed in have undue intrinsic positive or negative value. When Steve did it, he clearly stated what he was doing and justified reframing the argument in that way. In that case, reframing a debate using more appropriate terms to really approach the core of what is different is an honest tactic that is often necessary to really compare two things objectively. Secondly, the terms fragmented vs. integrated appear to have less intrinsic value than open (good) and closed (bad). As such, you can argue with which is the most relevant framework to compare the two systems (and actually, this is going to be different for different user groups- manufacturers care about different things than developers, or end users), but I don't like the implicit characterization of his reframing the argument as somehow dishonest. That seems close-minded.

apotheon 16y ago

There's a term for the kind of rephrasing used by Apple: "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" There's another term: "propaganda" I could probably rephrase the matter endlessly if I really wanted to.

avk 16y ago

George Lakoff's class, "The Mind, Language, and Politics" (Cognitive Science C104) was my absolute favorite class at UC Berkeley. We read plenty of his work and Frank Luntz. I'm glad to see these ideas again!

biafra 16y ago

Apple could be much more open with iOS and at the same time be not less integrated. How does the whole AppStore policy make iOS more integrated? When I am criticizing Apple for iOS not being open I mean it is not open to run any application that works on the device. The Problem with iOS is that only Apple-Signed applications are allowed. Because of that, Apple has the power to keep the competition and the content they do not approve of out.

stretchwithme 16y ago

The "real" real problem is not the carriers. Its the way the government manages the spectrum. We could have a dynamic marketplace where devices, users, networks could buy spectrum in advance or real time and even resell it. We need incentives for making the most use of spectrum, for making more spectrum with faster clocks. Seems we have incentives for controlling and inhibiting innovation. Instead we've sold spectrum to the highest bidder who can then control access to it and have no real open competition. Maybe Google's bid last year will change that a bit (http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9910932-7.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9910932-7.html). You ought to be able to create your own network by buying spectrum in a fluid marketplace. Or just be one guy buying spectrum as you need it for some device you made yourself. Don't if that all makes sense, but I think you may at least see what I mean by the problem behind the problem.