2 ms·

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 prob

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
      >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. What about HTML5 and Apple's promises? It's been a while since Jobs wrote that and still Apple's HTML5 implementation is not up to par. http://blog.millermedeiros.com/2011/01/ipad-is-the-new-ie6/ http://blog.millermedeiros.com/2011/01/ipad-is-the-new-ie6/ On top of that, Apple is in no hurry to bring the speed improvements of their Nitro JS engine to apps pinned to the homescreen. After all, they prefer devs to make native apps so that there is a lockin. >There's a big difference on imposing your will over 25% of the market versus 96% of the market. Apple has nowhere near the power Microsoft did What about tablets where Apple is deemed to have 94% of the market?
      - danilocampos 16y ago
        > On top of that, Apple is in no hurry to bring the speed improvements of their Nitro JS engine to apps pinned to the homescreen. After all, they prefer devs to make native apps so that there is a lockin. I think minds smarter than I have put this particular notion to bed. > Apple can't turn on the ability to do executable, dynamically written to memory pages just for their library: they'd have to turn it on for the entire process, at which point you could also do crazy things like download native code and execute it, bypassing the entire concept of their "codesign" mechanism. Says saurik, of Cydia fame, in that and other comments. It's a security concern for Apple, not necessarily a strategic one. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2338338 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2338338 Apple controls the tablet market only because they invented it as it currently exists a year ago. That's not really a useful comparison to the 90's, as desktop computers as a category had existed for a couple of decades. Moreover, tablets aren't currently essential to doing work, so the true power Apple has over others is negligible.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  But MS would argue, as Apple does, that they did this in the interest of the customer. Frankly, some of the things they were accused of, such as bundling IE, were absurd. Sure MS should have been more open about the fact that it really wasn't necessary, but bundling a browser is a requirement for a modern OS -- even as of 1998. In any case, these are all religious as this point, and me proving your God is wrong is something one can't easily win.
bigfudge 16y ago
In addition to the comments re: Microsoft below, it's also worth remembering that for google you are the product (clicks) as well as the customer. Their loyalties are thus divided, and hence the shilly-shallying around with sort of but not quite banning link farms.
- bogomips 16y ago
  it's also worth remembering that for google you are the product (clicks) as well as the customer. There aren't many exceptions to this. It is certainly true of Apple, where you are a consumer of their platform, and a conduit of their payment system, as much as you're a consumer of a specific product. There's a reason Apple locks down their platform, and it isn't because they're looking out for your financial or competitive choice interests. That you bought an iPhone is simply the first step, and that consumer-capture will be exploited for years. Apple wants to be your conduit of music and movies, applications, information and subscriptions, etc. They have no interest in selling you a device just to bid you adieu.
tvon 16y ago
> Though I see that HN is once again a bastion of pro-Apple delusion as the more enlightened fled. It's good to know you can just fall back on calling people fanboys if you don't agree with their opinions.
WiseWeasel 15y ago
The difference is that Apple's customers are for the most part individual consumers, while Microsoft's are hardware OEMs and Google's are advertising partners. Thus, the interests of Apple's customers align much more with public interest than those of Microsoft or Google.

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
    >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. What about HTML5 and Apple's promises? It's been a while since Jobs wrote that and still Apple's HTML5 implementation is not up to par. http://blog.millermedeiros.com/2011/01/ipad-is-the-new-ie6/ http://blog.millermedeiros.com/2011/01/ipad-is-the-new-ie6/ On top of that, Apple is in no hurry to bring the speed improvements of their Nitro JS engine to apps pinned to the homescreen. After all, they prefer devs to make native apps so that there is a lockin. >There's a big difference on imposing your will over 25% of the market versus 96% of the market. Apple has nowhere near the power Microsoft did What about tablets where Apple is deemed to have 94% of the market?
    - danilocampos 16y ago
      > On top of that, Apple is in no hurry to bring the speed improvements of their Nitro JS engine to apps pinned to the homescreen. After all, they prefer devs to make native apps so that there is a lockin. I think minds smarter than I have put this particular notion to bed. > Apple can't turn on the ability to do executable, dynamically written to memory pages just for their library: they'd have to turn it on for the entire process, at which point you could also do crazy things like download native code and execute it, bypassing the entire concept of their "codesign" mechanism. Says saurik, of Cydia fame, in that and other comments. It's a security concern for Apple, not necessarily a strategic one. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2338338 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2338338 Apple controls the tablet market only because they invented it as it currently exists a year ago. That's not really a useful comparison to the 90's, as desktop computers as a category had existed for a couple of decades. Moreover, tablets aren't currently essential to doing work, so the true power Apple has over others is negligible.
kenjackson 16y ago
But MS would argue, as Apple does, that they did this in the interest of the customer. Frankly, some of the things they were accused of, such as bundling IE, were absurd. Sure MS should have been more open about the fact that it really wasn't necessary, but bundling a browser is a requirement for a modern OS -- even as of 1998. In any case, these are all religious as this point, and me proving your God is wrong is something one can't easily win.

bigfudge 16y ago

In addition to the comments re: Microsoft below, it's also worth remembering that for google you are the product (clicks) as well as the customer. Their loyalties are thus divided, and hence the shilly-shallying around with sort of but not quite banning link farms.

bogomips 16y ago
it's also worth remembering that for google you are the product (clicks) as well as the customer. There aren't many exceptions to this. It is certainly true of Apple, where you are a consumer of their platform, and a conduit of their payment system, as much as you're a consumer of a specific product. There's a reason Apple locks down their platform, and it isn't because they're looking out for your financial or competitive choice interests. That you bought an iPhone is simply the first step, and that consumer-capture will be exploited for years. Apple wants to be your conduit of music and movies, applications, information and subscriptions, etc. They have no interest in selling you a device just to bid you adieu.

tvon 16y ago

> Though I see that HN is once again a bastion of pro-Apple delusion as the more enlightened fled. It's good to know you can just fall back on calling people fanboys if you don't agree with their opinions.

WiseWeasel 15y ago

The difference is that Apple's customers are for the most part individual consumers, while Microsoft's are hardware OEMs and Google's are advertising partners. Thus, the interests of Apple's customers align much more with public interest than those of Microsoft or Google.