3 ms·

Good questions. I can only point at [1] and say that this has always been the case with domestic computing. The parking lot giving away tanks for free never di

Good questions. I can only point at [1] and say that this has always been the case with domestic computing. The parking lot giving away tanks for free never did as much business as the slick salesman selling the badly-engineered sedans with the easy UI. And that was 1999. I guess people really like European luxury cars. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Beginning..._Was_the_Command_Line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Beginning..._Was_the_Co...

tpmoney 2y ago
So ultimately, I guess the conclusion is despite the amount of chatter it gets in tech circles and among high profile software developers like facebook and epic, the answer is Apple is in the position its in because it's selling what people actually want and care about. Which then leads us to ask, why can't the open platforms sell the same thing? Unfortunately, I can only think of 2 answers to that: 1) They are technically unable to. It would appear Apple is right about the security and technical challenges, and making the trade offs they have is the only way to sell what they're selling. And no one can make enough money to fund developing both a fully open OS along with all the other benefits (security, streamlined payment systems, streamlined sync, tight platform integrations, whatever other things you think are part of Apple's "secret sauce"). Fundamentally "open platform" and "everything adheres to a single standard" are incompatible goals that can not be accomplished simultaneously. 2) They are unwilling to. Either none of the developers care, or they don't want to do the hard dirty grunt work, or none of the other players are willing to "share the glory" so to speak with their competition.
- marcus_holmes 2y ago
  I think it's similar to what I describe as my "Kardashian Problem" - that I don't understand why the Kardashians are famous. Not their problem, obviously; they are wildly successful, rich, famous, etc. They clearly understand their market very well and know how to address it. I have no idea why their market likes them, and that means I should never try to build a mass-market product. Tech geeks (of which I am one) don't understand what's important to non-tech-geeks. And we don't care. We're building Linux for us, and what we care about is choice, transparency, privacy, ease of configuration, etc. Clearly the general public don't give a shit about any of that, and have other priorities (e.g. does it look pretty?). So they look at Linux and see a shitshow of nasty tech, and look at Apple and see a beautiful shiny product. While we look at Linux and see a happy playground, and look at Apple and see a prison.

tpmoney 2y ago

So ultimately, I guess the conclusion is despite the amount of chatter it gets in tech circles and among high profile software developers like facebook and epic, the answer is Apple is in the position its in because it's selling what people actually want and care about. Which then leads us to ask, why can't the open platforms sell the same thing? Unfortunately, I can only think of 2 answers to that: 1) They are technically unable to. It would appear Apple is right about the security and technical challenges, and making the trade offs they have is the only way to sell what they're selling. And no one can make enough money to fund developing both a fully open OS along with all the other benefits (security, streamlined payment systems, streamlined sync, tight platform integrations, whatever other things you think are part of Apple's "secret sauce"). Fundamentally "open platform" and "everything adheres to a single standard" are incompatible goals that can not be accomplished simultaneously. 2) They are unwilling to. Either none of the developers care, or they don't want to do the hard dirty grunt work, or none of the other players are willing to "share the glory" so to speak with their competition.

marcus_holmes 2y ago
I think it's similar to what I describe as my "Kardashian Problem" - that I don't understand why the Kardashians are famous. Not their problem, obviously; they are wildly successful, rich, famous, etc. They clearly understand their market very well and know how to address it. I have no idea why their market likes them, and that means I should never try to build a mass-market product. Tech geeks (of which I am one) don't understand what's important to non-tech-geeks. And we don't care. We're building Linux for us, and what we care about is choice, transparency, privacy, ease of configuration, etc. Clearly the general public don't give a shit about any of that, and have other priorities (e.g. does it look pretty?). So they look at Linux and see a shitshow of nasty tech, and look at Apple and see a beautiful shiny product. While we look at Linux and see a happy playground, and look at Apple and see a prison.