3 ms·
Schiller comes across as needy and with a very low confidence in their own product. Some other company shows that their product works equally well on both Andro
by sorenjan 5y ago
Schiller comes across as needy and with a very low confidence in their own product. Some other company shows that their product works equally well on both Android and iPhone, and his response is that it's not fun to watch?
Also, this should be shown to everyone that says they prefer the Apple ecosystem because "it just works". You really can't get more user hostile than this, where you care more about extracting money from transactions that you're not a part of than making life easier for your paying customers.
Apple let Amazon sell books using their own payment system because Amazon sold a lot of books on their own Kindle platform that Apple wanted users to be able to read on iPhones, but as soon as Apple's platform was the biggest one they altered the deal to squeeze more money out of it. Like a monopoly would do.
- jonny_eh 5y agoExactly, this was all about leverage, not about the user.
- azinman2 5y ago> his response is that it's not fun to watch I read that in reference to it being easy to switch from an iPhone to an Android device.
- sorenjan 5y agoYes, me too. Is that all he thought it would take to switch? Wasn't Apple's offering good enough that such an insignificant action was all it took for him to get nervous about user flight? I get that he wants his users to be locked in as tightly as possible, but again, it comes across as very low confidence in their own product.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- lern_too_spel 5y agoIronically, the experience of using the Kindle app on Android has been superior to the experience of using the Kindle app on iOS devices ever since this email thread.
- Valkhyr 5y agoFrankly, anybody who thinks that Apple is out for anybody but themselves is living in a dream.
- dev_tty01 5y agoPlease inform us of any for-profit publicly held companies that are not "out for themselves." Presumably by "themselves" you mean the stockholders. All companies are legally bound to make decisions to benefit the company. Apple is like every other company in this regard.
- Valkhyr 5y agoCongratulations for restating my point in different words. However, many people who are into Apple tend to ascribe some kind of benevolent or even altruistic motives to the company and its actions.
- silexia 5y agoGoogle in the early 2000s genuinely cared about users. Now it is full of dark patterns especially in Google ads. This is what happens when you lose your founders.
- CharlesW 5y ago> Schiller comes across as needy and with a very low confidence in their own product. He was definitely neither in my experience, but in 2010 he is (justifiably?) paranoid about dependencies and competitors ganging up on them. You probably don't remember this era, but here's a representative article from just a month before this email thread: https://www.wired.com/2010/10/microsoft-adobe-apple/ https://www.wired.com/2010/10/microsoft-adobe-apple/ This kind of paranoia became part of Apple's DNA in the late 90s, when Microsoft asked Apple to "knife the baby"[1], when Adobe was threatening Apple with killing their Mac apps, etc. [1] https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Microsoft-Asked-Apple-to-Knife-the-Baby-Court-2980345.php https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Microsoft-Asked-Appl...