6 ms·

He's definitely correct in this. Good thing Chrome also disables Flash by default. Between this and the Honeycomb source I just checked out through git, Google

He's definitely correct in this. Good thing Chrome also disables Flash by default. Between this and the Honeycomb source I just checked out through git, Google has really hooked me up with the mad openness. edit: Really, though, this is a bullshit argument that's been cooked up. These are two companies trying to preserve their ability to make money. That's it. The thing I admire about Apple, though, is that they're not making any bones about it. They go with what works better for them, and, as they see it, what works better for users. No silly holy wars or sanctimonious proclamations. I trust the guy who is honest about his self-interest a whole lot more than phony altruists.

bogomips 16y ago
No silly holy wars or sanctimonious proclamations. I'm really torn trying to figure out which parts of your post is sarcasm. Because if you're really claiming that Apple hasn't pursued almost every initiative with "sanctimonious proclamations", you must not be paying attention. Gruber echos the Apple talk points, and they all revolve around "just trying to do right by the customer" (instead of "just trying to ensure massive profit margins aided by complete control and industry domination).
- danilocampos 16y ago
  You suggest a dichotomy that doesn't exist. Apple makes massive profit margins by doing right by the customer (as they see it).
  - bogomips 16y ago
    Apple makes massive profit margins by doing right by the customer (as they see it). Sure, and so does Microsoft. That argument works for any company. The problem is that many of Apple's transparent positions aren't held on their merit, but instead are shrouded behind layers of sanctimonious bullshit. See the anti-Flash screeds as an example of this. That you would claim that insult about Google, in this case, is quite laughable. Though I see that HN is once again a bastion of pro-Apple delusion as the more enlightened fled.
    - danilocampos 16y ago
      > Sure, and so does Microsoft. That argument works for any company. I wish I could agree with you. In fact, for many companies, the customer is the last consideration. Especially in the case you've brought up here. Microsoft's financial might in the 90's was all about strategic relationships, three dimensional chess and out-maneuvering their competition through ethically dubious tactics, definitely not creating value for users. "Primarily in the 1990s, critics contend Microsoft used monopolistic business practices and anti-competitive strategies including refusal to deal and tying, put unreasonable restrictions in the use of its software, and used misrepresentative marketing tactics; both the U.S. Department of Justice and European Commission found the company in violation of antitrust laws" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft
      - bogomips 16y ago
        Especially in the case you've brought up here. Microsoft's financial might in the 90's was all about strategic relationships, three dimensional chess and out-maneuvering their competition, definitely not creating value for users. Microsoft and Apple both engage in identical behaviors. Many Microsoft boosters used the identical "for the consumer" arguments in defending Microsoft activities. Forcing IE while prohibiting competitive browser installations, for instance, simplified and created a cleaner, more user-accessible platform that would just work, blah blah blah. Same sort of nonsense you hear today. That you would link to the anti-trust decree is bizarre. Do you think I or anyone else don't know about that? Do you think Apple's actions are so different, or is Apple simply not in control as much market as Microsoft (yet). Then again, they've already drawn anti-trust attention, so ten years from now some booster of the then-big-dog will point back at the DOJ-vs-Apple lawsuit as proof of....something.
        danilocampos 16y ago
        > Do you think I or anyone else don't know about that? Kinda. > Many Microsoft boosters used the identical "for the consumer" arguments in defending Microsoft activities. I think the big difference here is that Apple is actually right. Flash on mobile is terrible for battery life and its implementations, so far, are shoddy. There's a big difference on imposing your will over 25% of the market of rich people with fancy phones versus 96% of the market of everyone who needed a computer to get anything useful done. Apple has nowhere near the power Microsoft did.
  - cooldeal 16y ago
    >Apple makes massive profit margins by doing right by the customer (as they see it). What's right for the consumer about the compulsory 30% cut of iOS subscriptions for things like Readability, Kindle and Netflix? The uniform 43% increase for ALL customers while lining Apple's pockets for contributing basically nothing (unlike apps where they atleast provide hosting). Edit: I am sure Android is bad for Apple's customers, no wonder they don't want it to be seen. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2373502,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2373502,00.asp
jordan0day 16y ago
I think Apple's anti-Flash position was justified using some pretty "sanctimonious proclamations", though, wasn't it?
- danilocampos 16y ago
  I went back and read it. My dictionary defines sanctimonious as "making a show of being morally superior to other people." All I saw from Apple in that essay was boiled down as: This shit works better than this other shit, and as a result, it is our preference. And we think it'll be better for users, too. We control all aspects of our products' user experience, so this position will be reflected there. I'd like you to contrast that with "If Google didn’t act, it faced a draconian future where one man, one phone, one carrier were our choice. That’s a future we don’t want. [...] If you believe in openness, if you believe in choice, if you believe in innovation from everyone, then welcome to Android. "
  - Kylekramer 16y ago
    If I boiled down Google's statement: If we didn't do shit, one company could run shit. We think that is bad and we believe that you agree. And if I were to quote Steve directly: "We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers. [...] We cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms [...] Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications." It cuts both ways.
    - danilocampos 16y ago
      I'm afraid, Kyle, it's not even remotely the same. The paragraph you quoted is 100% self-interest, not morality. No loaded words making value judgments about others ("draconian"). Their concern is that they will lose control of their platform to a party that doesn't care about its future. Apple has already been down that road with Adobe on the Mac and they're making clear it sucks for their goals. Making the best apps the world has ever seen isn't idealism – it's a bunch of cash in Apple's pocket. This strikes me as pragmatic, not moralizing. They're worried for themselves, not for you or me, except inasmuch as we might be users who will cease giving them money if they ship crap. That's just not the same as FUDding about "one man" and all this, I'm sorry.
Kylekramer 16y ago
I'll give you pre-edit, but Apple does plenty of phony altruism and silly holy wars cloaked to hide their true profit based intentions. How we all agree that every company works in their self interest and tries to spin it as best they can for the public's interest? Or this will just quickly devolve into point scoring nit picking.
- tvon 16y ago
  HN needs collapsable threads. I toyed with a greasemonkey script that would do this but the somewhat "super pragmatic" layout makes it less than simple.
  - AndyKelley 16y ago
    just looked at the source. man that really is bad. I dunno why you would use tables when divs are actually the right paradigm for a layout like this.
    - tvon 16y ago
      I once saw pg comment that it was the simplest solution that worked. Granted, pg's primary role is not as a web developer, hence his simplest solution is not what mine would be.
  - joel_ms 16y ago
    Bookmarklet: https://github.com/niyazpk/Collapsible-comments-for-Hacker-News https://github.com/niyazpk/Collapsible-comments-for-Hacker-N... and Chrome extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hockhafcdegocajmjhafgjncjpodihkd https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hockhafcdegocajmjh... (I've only tested the Chrome extension, but it's based on the bookmarklet so that one should work to.)
    - tvon 16y ago
      Ahaaa, bookmarklet works great. Thanks!
hyperbovine 16y ago
> I trust the guy who is honest about his self-interest a whole lot more than phony altruists. You must love the startup scene then...
ootachi 16y ago
But QuickTime doesn't work better for users. The technology is dated and does nothing that HTML5 doesn't do better. In fact, Flash is actually far better for consumers than QuickTime; at least it's updated regularly, unlike QT. This cuts both ways. Why doesn't Apple discontinue and disable the QuickTime plugin, if they really have the users' interests at heart?
- cooldeal 16y ago
  And not to mention the annoying way the updater tries to sneak in Safari and other Apple software. http://i.imgur.com/oq0i2.png http://i.imgur.com/oq0i2.png It was far worse earlier http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1289538~04d191d10d05dfdb6369e49206336f96/apple_updater.jpg http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1289538~04d191d10d05df... Just as a thought exercise: Can't Apple be sued for monopoly abuse? They have a monopoly on portable music players, for which you need iTunes to load music on, and then they default to installing Safari trying to leverage their monopoly in music players to win over the browser market.
  - dailyrorschach 16y ago
    I'm sorry, how do they have a monopoly on portable music players? They have a very popular player, of which they are the sole manufacturer, and require you to use their software. The free market has plenty of alternatives, though not as good if you ask me, if you do not like their solution you are free to purchase another. There's nothing monopolistic about having a hugely successful product.
    - metageek 16y ago
      I don't think "monopoly" requires 100% market share. Apple has over 75% market share, which may be enough to qualify.
      - Wientje 16y ago
        You're allowed to have a monopoly, you're not allowed to abuse it. If Apple ordered mp3hardware stores to stop selling other brands or Apple would raise it prizes, that would be abuse.
cleshmd 16y ago
> Between this and the Honeycomb source I just checked out through git... I guess you were being sarcastic, but did you know that the Honeycomb source was released by ASUS a few days ago? See: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2042581/asus-releases-google-android-honeycomb-source-code http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2042581/asus-releas...
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  And most of that source was already available direct from Google git anyway. But to be clear it's Asus fulfilling their GPL requirements for Linux, not the Google originated Android stuff.
- wtallis 16y ago
  That's just the kernel source, which has been available for quite a while. It's the userspace code that people are clamoring for.

bogomips 16y ago

No silly holy wars or sanctimonious proclamations. I'm really torn trying to figure out which parts of your post is sarcasm. Because if you're really claiming that Apple hasn't pursued almost every initiative with "sanctimonious proclamations", you must not be paying attention. Gruber echos the Apple talk points, and they all revolve around "just trying to do right by the customer" (instead of "just trying to ensure massive profit margins aided by complete control and industry domination).

danilocampos 16y ago
You suggest a dichotomy that doesn't exist. Apple makes massive profit margins by doing right by the customer (as they see it).
- bogomips 16y ago
  Apple makes massive profit margins by doing right by the customer (as they see it). Sure, and so does Microsoft. That argument works for any company. The problem is that many of Apple's transparent positions aren't held on their merit, but instead are shrouded behind layers of sanctimonious bullshit. See the anti-Flash screeds as an example of this. That you would claim that insult about Google, in this case, is quite laughable. Though I see that HN is once again a bastion of pro-Apple delusion as the more enlightened fled.
  - danilocampos 16y ago
    > Sure, and so does Microsoft. That argument works for any company. I wish I could agree with you. In fact, for many companies, the customer is the last consideration. Especially in the case you've brought up here. Microsoft's financial might in the 90's was all about strategic relationships, three dimensional chess and out-maneuvering their competition through ethically dubious tactics, definitely not creating value for users. "Primarily in the 1990s, critics contend Microsoft used monopolistic business practices and anti-competitive strategies including refusal to deal and tying, put unreasonable restrictions in the use of its software, and used misrepresentative marketing tactics; both the U.S. Department of Justice and European Commission found the company in violation of antitrust laws" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft
    - bogomips 16y ago
      Especially in the case you've brought up here. Microsoft's financial might in the 90's was all about strategic relationships, three dimensional chess and out-maneuvering their competition, definitely not creating value for users. Microsoft and Apple both engage in identical behaviors. Many Microsoft boosters used the identical "for the consumer" arguments in defending Microsoft activities. Forcing IE while prohibiting competitive browser installations, for instance, simplified and created a cleaner, more user-accessible platform that would just work, blah blah blah. Same sort of nonsense you hear today. That you would link to the anti-trust decree is bizarre. Do you think I or anyone else don't know about that? Do you think Apple's actions are so different, or is Apple simply not in control as much market as Microsoft (yet). Then again, they've already drawn anti-trust attention, so ten years from now some booster of the then-big-dog will point back at the DOJ-vs-Apple lawsuit as proof of....something.
      - danilocampos 16y ago
        > Do you think I or anyone else don't know about that? Kinda. > Many Microsoft boosters used the identical "for the consumer" arguments in defending Microsoft activities. I think the big difference here is that Apple is actually right. Flash on mobile is terrible for battery life and its implementations, so far, are shoddy. There's a big difference on imposing your will over 25% of the market of rich people with fancy phones versus 96% of the market of everyone who needed a computer to get anything useful done. Apple has nowhere near the power Microsoft did.
- cooldeal 16y ago
  >Apple makes massive profit margins by doing right by the customer (as they see it). What's right for the consumer about the compulsory 30% cut of iOS subscriptions for things like Readability, Kindle and Netflix? The uniform 43% increase for ALL customers while lining Apple's pockets for contributing basically nothing (unlike apps where they atleast provide hosting). Edit: I am sure Android is bad for Apple's customers, no wonder they don't want it to be seen. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2373502,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2373502,00.asp

jordan0day 16y ago

I think Apple's anti-Flash position was justified using some pretty "sanctimonious proclamations", though, wasn't it?

danilocampos 16y ago
I went back and read it. My dictionary defines sanctimonious as "making a show of being morally superior to other people." All I saw from Apple in that essay was boiled down as: This shit works better than this other shit, and as a result, it is our preference. And we think it'll be better for users, too. We control all aspects of our products' user experience, so this position will be reflected there. I'd like you to contrast that with "If Google didn’t act, it faced a draconian future where one man, one phone, one carrier were our choice. That’s a future we don’t want. [...] If you believe in openness, if you believe in choice, if you believe in innovation from everyone, then welcome to Android. "
- Kylekramer 16y ago
  If I boiled down Google's statement: If we didn't do shit, one company could run shit. We think that is bad and we believe that you agree. And if I were to quote Steve directly: "We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers. [...] We cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms [...] Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications." It cuts both ways.
  - danilocampos 16y ago
    I'm afraid, Kyle, it's not even remotely the same. The paragraph you quoted is 100% self-interest, not morality. No loaded words making value judgments about others ("draconian"). Their concern is that they will lose control of their platform to a party that doesn't care about its future. Apple has already been down that road with Adobe on the Mac and they're making clear it sucks for their goals. Making the best apps the world has ever seen isn't idealism – it's a bunch of cash in Apple's pocket. This strikes me as pragmatic, not moralizing. They're worried for themselves, not for you or me, except inasmuch as we might be users who will cease giving them money if they ship crap. That's just not the same as FUDding about "one man" and all this, I'm sorry.

Kylekramer 16y ago

I'll give you pre-edit, but Apple does plenty of phony altruism and silly holy wars cloaked to hide their true profit based intentions. How we all agree that every company works in their self interest and tries to spin it as best they can for the public's interest? Or this will just quickly devolve into point scoring nit picking.

tvon 16y ago
HN needs collapsable threads. I toyed with a greasemonkey script that would do this but the somewhat "super pragmatic" layout makes it less than simple.
- AndyKelley 16y ago
  just looked at the source. man that really is bad. I dunno why you would use tables when divs are actually the right paradigm for a layout like this.
  - tvon 16y ago
    I once saw pg comment that it was the simplest solution that worked. Granted, pg's primary role is not as a web developer, hence his simplest solution is not what mine would be.
- joel_ms 16y ago
  Bookmarklet: https://github.com/niyazpk/Collapsible-comments-for-Hacker-News https://github.com/niyazpk/Collapsible-comments-for-Hacker-N... and Chrome extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hockhafcdegocajmjhafgjncjpodihkd https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hockhafcdegocajmjh... (I've only tested the Chrome extension, but it's based on the bookmarklet so that one should work to.)
  - tvon 16y ago
    Ahaaa, bookmarklet works great. Thanks!

hyperbovine 16y ago

> I trust the guy who is honest about his self-interest a whole lot more than phony altruists. You must love the startup scene then...

ootachi 16y ago

But QuickTime doesn't work better for users. The technology is dated and does nothing that HTML5 doesn't do better. In fact, Flash is actually far better for consumers than QuickTime; at least it's updated regularly, unlike QT. This cuts both ways. Why doesn't Apple discontinue and disable the QuickTime plugin, if they really have the users' interests at heart?

cooldeal 16y ago
And not to mention the annoying way the updater tries to sneak in Safari and other Apple software. http://i.imgur.com/oq0i2.png http://i.imgur.com/oq0i2.png It was far worse earlier http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1289538~04d191d10d05dfdb6369e49206336f96/apple_updater.jpg http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1289538~04d191d10d05df... Just as a thought exercise: Can't Apple be sued for monopoly abuse? They have a monopoly on portable music players, for which you need iTunes to load music on, and then they default to installing Safari trying to leverage their monopoly in music players to win over the browser market.
- dailyrorschach 16y ago
  I'm sorry, how do they have a monopoly on portable music players? They have a very popular player, of which they are the sole manufacturer, and require you to use their software. The free market has plenty of alternatives, though not as good if you ask me, if you do not like their solution you are free to purchase another. There's nothing monopolistic about having a hugely successful product.
  - metageek 16y ago
    I don't think "monopoly" requires 100% market share. Apple has over 75% market share, which may be enough to qualify.
    - Wientje 16y ago
      You're allowed to have a monopoly, you're not allowed to abuse it. If Apple ordered mp3hardware stores to stop selling other brands or Apple would raise it prizes, that would be abuse.

cleshmd 16y ago

> Between this and the Honeycomb source I just checked out through git... I guess you were being sarcastic, but did you know that the Honeycomb source was released by ASUS a few days ago? See: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2042581/asus-releases-google-android-honeycomb-source-code http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2042581/asus-releas...

ZeroGravitas 16y ago
And most of that source was already available direct from Google git anyway. But to be clear it's Asus fulfilling their GPL requirements for Linux, not the Google originated Android stuff.
wtallis 16y ago
That's just the kernel source, which has been available for quite a while. It's the userspace code that people are clamoring for.