11 ms·

Demoted

125 points by joao 15y ago

jsavimbi 15y ago
What Apple didn't really address is the growing socializing of data and in what context it is consumed, not just by the data's owner, but by their social graph. Without enabling native apps to do this, cross-platform apps will have a lot of room to grow.
- rimantas 15y ago
  1 in 4 iOS app is a game. Game Center just got some social oriented enchantments.
praxxis 15y ago
I'd phrase it as "Apple 's frame is their screen" - those native apps run in a lot of places, but they don't run everywhere.
sc68cal 15y ago
Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen. That’s what we’ll remember about today’s keynote ten years from now. Yes, but for some reason I don't interpret that as an advantage for Apple. There will always be more ways to access a web page or web app, than devices/form factors that Apple will produce.
jerrya 15y ago
Apple’s is about native apps you run on devices. Apple is as committed to native apps — on the desktop, tablet, and handheld — as it has ever been. Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen. I don't see this conclusion following from his premise. Perhaps there was more in the keynote that he didn't include. Or maybe I am unimaginative and think installing native apps on all of the devices I use regardless of who owns them, or where they are located, or where my discs are is harder than installing a browser based web app or using an HTML5 website.
- cageface 15y ago
  I don't think this follows either. Google provides many native apps on Android. The real difference is that cloud-based computing is natural for Google but a fundamental shift for Apple.
  - esrauch 15y ago
    Except that Android app sales don't pay out to Google, they pay out to Verizon whereas iPhone app sales pay out to Apple. Google does support a ton of native apps (GMail, Calendar, Places, Goggles, Latitude, Maps, etc) but their strategy going forward seems to try to push these things from apps into the browser, spending a ton of time supporting the mobile browser version of all of these things (except for Goggles).
    - hexix 15y ago
      I've never heard that before. I think Google gets the money. Verizon probably gets a cut just for the carrier billing option when used. I just did a search and couldn't find anything saying Verizon gets the money for android app payments. Also I can't think of a single Google Android app that has been discontinued and replaced with a web version. I think you're getting confused about google also offering mobile web versions for platforms they can't get their apps on. They've even said they'd like to offer a better maps app for iPhone but can't.
      - ralfd 15y ago
        This was in October 2008: http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/10/android-market-now-available-for-users.html http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/10/android-marke... -------------------------------- "Developers will get 70% of the revenue from each purchase; the remaining amount goes to carriers and billing settlement fees — Google does not take a percentage. We believe this revenue model creates a fair and positive experience for users, developers, and carriers," notes Eric Chu. -------------------------------- This statement was at that time interpreted, that Google is buying marketshare from the carriers. I don't know if the sentence "Google does not take a persentage" still stands and how the transactions fee is splitted today.
jlees 15y ago
So, if the next fight will be apps vs web (or screen vs browser), what does this mean for us hackers? And what about Facebook? Already we create a web app, a mobile version, an API, a Chrome extension, a Firefox extension, a Facebook app, not to mention mobile and tablet apps for anywhere between 1 and 6 platforms. Isn't this all getting particularly spaghetti-like? Weren't we supposed to have platform convergence, not platform divergence? There's a good opportunity here for "write once, deploy everywhere" code/platforms, and methodologies that maximise DRY while playing to each platform's strengths.
- amirnathoo 15y ago
  There's a good opportunity here for "write once, deploy everywhere" code/platforms Working on it... http://www.webmynd.com http://www.webmynd.com
- melvinram 15y ago
  The various platforms you mention really serve different purposes and users use them with very different intentions.
- RyanMcGreal 15y ago
  Divergence = competition = innovation. The worst thing that could happen is One Platform To Rule Them All, if that platform is controlled by a company for its own interests.
  - patrickaljord 15y ago
    > The worst thing that could happen is One Platform To Rule Them All, if that platform is controlled by a company for its own interests. The web is not controlled by one company. Edit: For the downvoters, the html5 APIs are made of contributions from mozilla, microsoft, opera, yahoo, apple, google and many more. How many companies participate in writing the iOS API?
    - billybob 15y ago
      Exactly. Web standards - or standards in general - are not a player in a competition; they are a field upon which to play. We want everyone playing on that field.
kenjackson 15y ago
Gruber is repeating the obvious, but in a convoluted way. Apple is about selling HW. Google is about selling ads. That's it. Everything else falls from that. Google's goal is to commodotize HW, and I this is, at least theoretically, doable. Apple can't really commodotize ads, at least in no way I can think of.
- sshumaker 15y ago
  Apple's goal isn't to commoditize ads, but to commoditize the software that runs on their hardware. And they've done an excellent job of that with the app store - with hundreds of thousands of apps available.
  - pyre 15y ago
    I think that the point was that Google's revenue stream doesn't seem to be easily commodotizable, while Apple's (at least theoretically) is. update: Downvotes? In my HN? I was just clarifying what I thought the original author was getting at, which wasn't what the parent post to mine was arguing against. If you have a disagreement with what I say, then argue against it, rather than just down-voting. Then maybe we can both learn something, instead of "I disagree with you, and I want to let people know that, but I don't want to expose my ideas to possible ridicule so I'll lurk in the background."
    - othermaciej 15y ago
      The point of commoditization is to commoditize your complements. It's clear that hardware and software are a complement to ads, and software is a complement to hardware. Are ads a complement to hardware?
      - pyre 15y ago
        It's not necessarily a comparison of how Apple and Google will 'attack' each other. Just a statement of their situations. Apple's primary goal could be commoditized out from under it, while Google's is less likely to see that happen.
niels_olson 15y ago
having used the Cr48 and a 3g iPad for several months in the US and Japan, I think Apple's vision is more robust, ultimately better for me, the end user. When I'm mobile, whether I'm doing sysadmin, reading, listening to music, I can do more of it, in more locations (especially offline), with better, more reliable apps, on an iPad. edit: reposted here from a comment on the webian group: === I wrote this a few weeks ago, seems relevant as the mobile space heats up with WWDC announcements. http://wherein.posterous.com/i-review-the-cr48 http://wherein.posterous.com/i-review-the-cr48 bottom line: don't forget about international travelers, spartan environments, and that whole, whacky "offline" idea. You want to be relevant 50 years from now on Mars, where the light speed round-trip to earth takes minutes, offline use remains fundamental.
- powerje 15y ago
  Apple's vision is more robust in the framework presented by Daring Fireball, but is that really correct? Comparing iOS to ChromeOS, yes - but shouldn't he be comparing iOS to Android, which also focusses on native applications for mobile devices?
- paulirish 15y ago
  > offline use remains fundamental Absolutely agree. The ChromeOS platform is absolutely focused on offline capability as well. A huge number of apps within the Chrome Web Store work offline without any connectivity. Many regular web apps work offline. All of Google Apps will within a few months. I think many people forget that you can take web apps offline, perhaps because launching a mobile browser while you have no connectivity feels so awkward. Anyway it's just a myth to be dispelled, and some remaining evangelism work to be done. (Disclaimer: I work on the Chrome team or whatever.)
  - niels_olson 15y ago
    I tested this for four days at a local orthopedics convention ( well, local for me). With 30,000 users in a convention center, no wireless was truly reliable. I lost a lot of notes before turning to qemacs.
  - 15y ago
mkramlich 15y ago
native vs web is a false choice: it's not like one wins and the other loses. they're both better in different ways. do native for some things where it's a net win, and do web for others where web is a net win. And in terms of capabilities, the line is blurring further, esp from the web side.
napierzaza 15y ago
"That’s what we’ll remember about today’s keynote ten years from now." Classic Gruber. I really hope that no one that I know ever mentions a WWDC presentation from a decade before.
- matthew-wegner 15y ago
  Oh, I don't know. The 2001 Macworld keynote that outlines the "digital hub" is still fascinating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9046oXrm7f8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9046oXrm7f8 It's remarkably prescient in a lot of ways. Take this quote: Digital cameras now constitute 15% of all cameras sold in the US. 15% percent. It'll be 50% in a few years. He also makes the point that a hub is necessary because of all these various devices can't talk to the Internet.
  - patrickaljord 15y ago
    > Digital cameras now constitute 15% of all cameras sold in the US. 15% percent. It'll be 50% in a few years. Really? That's the same thought I had the first time I saw a usable digital camera 10 years ago, and I don't think I'm special or that I was the only one...
    - sunchild 15y ago
      Do you have a link to your keynote speech? The one where you committed your publicly-traded company to this strategy?
    - hammerdr 15y ago
      It's truly remarkable that a $60B company is able to make these sort of bets and execute on them. It's easy for smart individuals to make off hand remarks but it is different for a company to rally and gather around a single idea like this. To be fair, Apple isn't the only company that does this. Google is remarkable, as well. Virgin is another. I'm sure there are many others in many other industries that take big gambles for 'game-changing' or earth shattering results.
    - cubicle67 15y ago
olalonde 15y ago
Sometimes I wonder how much Apple is paying this Gruber guy.
- j_baker 15y ago
  Is it too much to ask to have a Gruber article without the token "If Gruber loves Apple so much, why doesn't he marry it?" comment? We get it. Gruber is pro-Apple. Can we focus on what Gruber is actually saying now?
  - code_duck 15y ago
    I'd like to focus on that, but it's so lost in his over-the-top attitude of adulation that it's difficult to discern what the actual message might be. Google makes apps for browsers, Apple makes native apps... so what? Can you explain it?
- eik3_de 15y ago
  You don't have to give the preacher money to evangelize, there is a "greater" motivation involved.
51Cards 15y ago
"Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen." So by extension Google's applications are more cross platform, and Apple's aren't?
- jarin 15y ago
  In theory this is restrictive and bad, but when every platform you want to use is Apple's it's a different story. When Apple stops making what I consider to be the best computers, the best phones, the best tablets, and the best way to monetize my coding skills, then I'll probably be just as upset as all of the "openness" advocates.
  - Alterlife 15y ago
    I think the argument goes more like: When somebody else starts making better phones, computers, blah blah... You, and many other users will be so far locked in, you won't be able to switch. Remember Microsoft?
    - rimantas 15y ago
      > When somebody else starts making better phones, > computers, blah blah... What would be your guess, when will be the time when you can start editing your document on Windows machine at work, tweak some on your tablet at home, and then show to someone on your phone without hitting "save" and "export" at all? Even is Dell starts to make better computers than Apple, HTC—better phones, and HP—better tablets Apple would have an huge advantage of seamless experience.
      - Tichy 15y ago
        This is already possible, try Etherpad.
      - adambyrtek 15y ago
        This has been possible for a long time with Google Docs. Saving is not necessary, updates are almost real-time, and it works on all modern platforms.
stcredzero 15y ago
I don't think Apple is about native so much as Apple is about making the best integrated services for devices and selling those devices. Apple isn't native-oriented so much as device oriented. It's just that native apps fill a large and indispensable niche right now.
Alterlife 15y ago
"Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen." I don't think it's going to matter. Google is putting a lot of work into 'promoting' the browser frame to the whole screen.
- code_duck 15y ago
  You've been able to do that forever with full screen browser modes, of course. Flash can do full screen, too. And then of course Google has done the ultimate, with an OS that only fits a browser window.
code_duck 15y ago
"Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen. That’s what we’ll remember about today’s keynote ten years from now." So... what happens when you maximize the browser window? The actual issue is Google wants to be accessible from any device, Apple wants to sell you their custom hardware. "But Google’s vision is about software you run in a web browser. Apple’s is about native apps you run on devices." Other than that Apple wants to sell you hardware, there are only technical differences between those two things.
- ralfd 15y ago
  > So... what happens when you maximize the browser window? And what happens when you minimize it? That is Grubers point. Google wants to make the (their) browser to be the OS. Apple likes native applications. At least from John Grubers larger narrative. According to him (and I agree) ChromeOS and the Chromebook are feeling more Google-y than Android.
Tichy 15y ago
I seem to have a lot of native apps on my Google phone. Could somebody point to a summary of Google's cloud strategy? I don't know which services are supposed to be limited to browser windows.
norswap 15y ago
This feels wrong. Why wouldn't you want to have to have your programs and data stored locally (with eventually a cloud backup) ? This reminded me of http://jacquesmattheij.com/No+User+Serviceable+Parts+Inside http://jacquesmattheij.com/No+User+Serviceable+Parts+Inside , only now it applies to data and software as all.
sktrdie 15y ago
> Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen. No, Apple's frame is Apple's screen. That makes a huge difference.
jvi 15y ago
placeholder

125 points by joao 15y ago

What Apple didn't really address is the growing socializing of data and in what context it is consumed, not just by the data's owner, but by their social graph. Without enabling native apps to do this, cross-platform apps will have a lot of room to grow.

rimantas 15y ago
1 in 4 iOS app is a game. Game Center just got some social oriented enchantments.

praxxis 15y ago

I'd phrase it as "Apple 's frame is their screen" - those native apps run in a lot of places, but they don't run everywhere.

sc68cal 15y ago

Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen. That’s what we’ll remember about today’s keynote ten years from now. Yes, but for some reason I don't interpret that as an advantage for Apple. There will always be more ways to access a web page or web app, than devices/form factors that Apple will produce.

jerrya 15y ago

Apple’s is about native apps you run on devices. Apple is as committed to native apps — on the desktop, tablet, and handheld — as it has ever been. Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen. I don't see this conclusion following from his premise. Perhaps there was more in the keynote that he didn't include. Or maybe I am unimaginative and think installing native apps on all of the devices I use regardless of who owns them, or where they are located, or where my discs are is harder than installing a browser based web app or using an HTML5 website.

cageface 15y ago
I don't think this follows either. Google provides many native apps on Android. The real difference is that cloud-based computing is natural for Google but a fundamental shift for Apple.
- esrauch 15y ago
  Except that Android app sales don't pay out to Google, they pay out to Verizon whereas iPhone app sales pay out to Apple. Google does support a ton of native apps (GMail, Calendar, Places, Goggles, Latitude, Maps, etc) but their strategy going forward seems to try to push these things from apps into the browser, spending a ton of time supporting the mobile browser version of all of these things (except for Goggles).
  - hexix 15y ago
    I've never heard that before. I think Google gets the money. Verizon probably gets a cut just for the carrier billing option when used. I just did a search and couldn't find anything saying Verizon gets the money for android app payments. Also I can't think of a single Google Android app that has been discontinued and replaced with a web version. I think you're getting confused about google also offering mobile web versions for platforms they can't get their apps on. They've even said they'd like to offer a better maps app for iPhone but can't.
    - ralfd 15y ago
      This was in October 2008: http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/10/android-market-now-available-for-users.html http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/10/android-marke... -------------------------------- "Developers will get 70% of the revenue from each purchase; the remaining amount goes to carriers and billing settlement fees — Google does not take a percentage. We believe this revenue model creates a fair and positive experience for users, developers, and carriers," notes Eric Chu. -------------------------------- This statement was at that time interpreted, that Google is buying marketshare from the carriers. I don't know if the sentence "Google does not take a persentage" still stands and how the transactions fee is splitted today.

jlees 15y ago

So, if the next fight will be apps vs web (or screen vs browser), what does this mean for us hackers? And what about Facebook? Already we create a web app, a mobile version, an API, a Chrome extension, a Firefox extension, a Facebook app, not to mention mobile and tablet apps for anywhere between 1 and 6 platforms. Isn't this all getting particularly spaghetti-like? Weren't we supposed to have platform convergence, not platform divergence? There's a good opportunity here for "write once, deploy everywhere" code/platforms, and methodologies that maximise DRY while playing to each platform's strengths.

amirnathoo 15y ago
There's a good opportunity here for "write once, deploy everywhere" code/platforms Working on it... http://www.webmynd.com http://www.webmynd.com
melvinram 15y ago
The various platforms you mention really serve different purposes and users use them with very different intentions.
RyanMcGreal 15y ago
Divergence = competition = innovation. The worst thing that could happen is One Platform To Rule Them All, if that platform is controlled by a company for its own interests.
- patrickaljord 15y ago
  > The worst thing that could happen is One Platform To Rule Them All, if that platform is controlled by a company for its own interests. The web is not controlled by one company. Edit: For the downvoters, the html5 APIs are made of contributions from mozilla, microsoft, opera, yahoo, apple, google and many more. How many companies participate in writing the iOS API?
  - billybob 15y ago
    Exactly. Web standards - or standards in general - are not a player in a competition; they are a field upon which to play. We want everyone playing on that field.

kenjackson 15y ago

Gruber is repeating the obvious, but in a convoluted way. Apple is about selling HW. Google is about selling ads. That's it. Everything else falls from that. Google's goal is to commodotize HW, and I this is, at least theoretically, doable. Apple can't really commodotize ads, at least in no way I can think of.

sshumaker 15y ago
Apple's goal isn't to commoditize ads, but to commoditize the software that runs on their hardware. And they've done an excellent job of that with the app store - with hundreds of thousands of apps available.
- pyre 15y ago
  I think that the point was that Google's revenue stream doesn't seem to be easily commodotizable, while Apple's (at least theoretically) is. update: Downvotes? In my HN? I was just clarifying what I thought the original author was getting at, which wasn't what the parent post to mine was arguing against. If you have a disagreement with what I say, then argue against it, rather than just down-voting. Then maybe we can both learn something, instead of "I disagree with you, and I want to let people know that, but I don't want to expose my ideas to possible ridicule so I'll lurk in the background."
  - othermaciej 15y ago
    The point of commoditization is to commoditize your complements. It's clear that hardware and software are a complement to ads, and software is a complement to hardware. Are ads a complement to hardware?
    - pyre 15y ago
      It's not necessarily a comparison of how Apple and Google will 'attack' each other. Just a statement of their situations. Apple's primary goal could be commoditized out from under it, while Google's is less likely to see that happen.

niels_olson 15y ago

having used the Cr48 and a 3g iPad for several months in the US and Japan, I think Apple's vision is more robust, ultimately better for me, the end user. When I'm mobile, whether I'm doing sysadmin, reading, listening to music, I can do more of it, in more locations (especially offline), with better, more reliable apps, on an iPad. edit: reposted here from a comment on the webian group: === I wrote this a few weeks ago, seems relevant as the mobile space heats up with WWDC announcements. http://wherein.posterous.com/i-review-the-cr48 http://wherein.posterous.com/i-review-the-cr48 bottom line: don't forget about international travelers, spartan environments, and that whole, whacky "offline" idea. You want to be relevant 50 years from now on Mars, where the light speed round-trip to earth takes minutes, offline use remains fundamental.

powerje 15y ago
Apple's vision is more robust in the framework presented by Daring Fireball, but is that really correct? Comparing iOS to ChromeOS, yes - but shouldn't he be comparing iOS to Android, which also focusses on native applications for mobile devices?
paulirish 15y ago
> offline use remains fundamental Absolutely agree. The ChromeOS platform is absolutely focused on offline capability as well. A huge number of apps within the Chrome Web Store work offline without any connectivity. Many regular web apps work offline. All of Google Apps will within a few months. I think many people forget that you can take web apps offline, perhaps because launching a mobile browser while you have no connectivity feels so awkward. Anyway it's just a myth to be dispelled, and some remaining evangelism work to be done. (Disclaimer: I work on the Chrome team or whatever.)
- niels_olson 15y ago
  I tested this for four days at a local orthopedics convention ( well, local for me). With 30,000 users in a convention center, no wireless was truly reliable. I lost a lot of notes before turning to qemacs.
- 15y ago

mkramlich 15y ago

native vs web is a false choice: it's not like one wins and the other loses. they're both better in different ways. do native for some things where it's a net win, and do web for others where web is a net win. And in terms of capabilities, the line is blurring further, esp from the web side.

napierzaza 15y ago

"That’s what we’ll remember about today’s keynote ten years from now." Classic Gruber. I really hope that no one that I know ever mentions a WWDC presentation from a decade before.

matthew-wegner 15y ago
Oh, I don't know. The 2001 Macworld keynote that outlines the "digital hub" is still fascinating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9046oXrm7f8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9046oXrm7f8 It's remarkably prescient in a lot of ways. Take this quote: Digital cameras now constitute 15% of all cameras sold in the US. 15% percent. It'll be 50% in a few years. He also makes the point that a hub is necessary because of all these various devices can't talk to the Internet.
- patrickaljord 15y ago
  > Digital cameras now constitute 15% of all cameras sold in the US. 15% percent. It'll be 50% in a few years. Really? That's the same thought I had the first time I saw a usable digital camera 10 years ago, and I don't think I'm special or that I was the only one...
  - sunchild 15y ago
    Do you have a link to your keynote speech? The one where you committed your publicly-traded company to this strategy?
  - hammerdr 15y ago
    It's truly remarkable that a $60B company is able to make these sort of bets and execute on them. It's easy for smart individuals to make off hand remarks but it is different for a company to rally and gather around a single idea like this. To be fair, Apple isn't the only company that does this. Google is remarkable, as well. Virgin is another. I'm sure there are many others in many other industries that take big gambles for 'game-changing' or earth shattering results.
  - cubicle67 15y ago

olalonde 15y ago

Sometimes I wonder how much Apple is paying this Gruber guy.

j_baker 15y ago
Is it too much to ask to have a Gruber article without the token "If Gruber loves Apple so much, why doesn't he marry it?" comment? We get it. Gruber is pro-Apple. Can we focus on what Gruber is actually saying now?
- code_duck 15y ago
  I'd like to focus on that, but it's so lost in his over-the-top attitude of adulation that it's difficult to discern what the actual message might be. Google makes apps for browsers, Apple makes native apps... so what? Can you explain it?
eik3_de 15y ago
You don't have to give the preacher money to evangelize, there is a "greater" motivation involved.

51Cards 15y ago

"Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen." So by extension Google's applications are more cross platform, and Apple's aren't?

jarin 15y ago
In theory this is restrictive and bad, but when every platform you want to use is Apple's it's a different story. When Apple stops making what I consider to be the best computers, the best phones, the best tablets, and the best way to monetize my coding skills, then I'll probably be just as upset as all of the "openness" advocates.
- Alterlife 15y ago
  I think the argument goes more like: When somebody else starts making better phones, computers, blah blah... You, and many other users will be so far locked in, you won't be able to switch. Remember Microsoft?
  - rimantas 15y ago
    > When somebody else starts making better phones, > computers, blah blah... What would be your guess, when will be the time when you can start editing your document on Windows machine at work, tweak some on your tablet at home, and then show to someone on your phone without hitting "save" and "export" at all? Even is Dell starts to make better computers than Apple, HTC—better phones, and HP—better tablets Apple would have an huge advantage of seamless experience.
    - Tichy 15y ago
      This is already possible, try Etherpad.
    - adambyrtek 15y ago
      This has been possible for a long time with Google Docs. Saving is not necessary, updates are almost real-time, and it works on all modern platforms.

stcredzero 15y ago

I don't think Apple is about native so much as Apple is about making the best integrated services for devices and selling those devices. Apple isn't native-oriented so much as device oriented. It's just that native apps fill a large and indispensable niche right now.

Alterlife 15y ago

"Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen." I don't think it's going to matter. Google is putting a lot of work into 'promoting' the browser frame to the whole screen.

code_duck 15y ago
You've been able to do that forever with full screen browser modes, of course. Flash can do full screen, too. And then of course Google has done the ultimate, with an OS that only fits a browser window.

code_duck 15y ago

"Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen. That’s what we’ll remember about today’s keynote ten years from now." So... what happens when you maximize the browser window? The actual issue is Google wants to be accessible from any device, Apple wants to sell you their custom hardware. "But Google’s vision is about software you run in a web browser. Apple’s is about native apps you run on devices." Other than that Apple wants to sell you hardware, there are only technical differences between those two things.

ralfd 15y ago
> So... what happens when you maximize the browser window? And what happens when you minimize it? That is Grubers point. Google wants to make the (their) browser to be the OS. Apple likes native applications. At least from John Grubers larger narrative. According to him (and I agree) ChromeOS and the Chromebook are feeling more Google-y than Android.

Tichy 15y ago

I seem to have a lot of native apps on my Google phone. Could somebody point to a summary of Google's cloud strategy? I don't know which services are supposed to be limited to browser windows.

norswap 15y ago

This feels wrong. Why wouldn't you want to have to have your programs and data stored locally (with eventually a cloud backup) ? This reminded me of http://jacquesmattheij.com/No+User+Serviceable+Parts+Inside http://jacquesmattheij.com/No+User+Serviceable+Parts+Inside , only now it applies to data and software as all.

sktrdie 15y ago

> Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen. No, Apple's frame is Apple's screen. That makes a huge difference.

jvi 15y ago

placeholder