5 ms·

you get hardware (most generally, also some software and services like AppleCare) from them, and you give them money in return Is it so simple? Does anyone act

you get hardware (most generally, also some software and services like AppleCare) from them, and you give them money in return Is it so simple? Does anyone actually believe that Apple considers the transaction complete when you walk away with your shiny new Apple device? They want to be your content middleman. They want to force you to shop in their store. They want to push the iAds service. I get emails from Apple pushing books and movies and iPads for universities and so on literally nightly. They have a store full of apps trying to foist smurfberries on the kids of unsuspecting parents naive enough to implement an App Store passwords. I like the general concept -- I was one of the earliest and most fervent proponents of micropayments as opposed to advertising driven sites -- but the dichotomy presented is false. Businesses don't act like that. I pay my cable company for cable and they keep sending me magazine subscriptions. I buy a $40,000 car and they try to foist services (XM Radio, OnStar) on me, and then they try to sell the data about me to interested parties. The world is a very complex place. Twitter and Google wouldn't exist without their users, and anyone who pushes the simplistic "if you aren't paying you're the product being sold" line has a position that only has merit if you don't actually think about it for long. Of course Gruber carries weight, which is why I asked about his personal "investment" in this -- he seems to essentially be putting his reputation behind something that is almost certain to fail.

reedlaw 14y ago
Who actually likes getting magazines from the cable company or car dealerships foisting other services? Isn't there room for a different kind of business model? Vimeo is a good example. Unlike Youtube, Vimeo doesn't advertise and charges users for premium service. And for a certain types of content producers that makes it a much more attractive platform. Hence you generally see artistic works with high quality standards there vs. attention-grabbing fluff.
jopt 14y ago
Okay, so it's not a dichotomy, but doesn't the comparison still makes sense? Apple is way over toward the "pay for the product" end of the spectrum, and conversely Twitter are committed to the "selling the users' attention" business model. Even if the difference is not clear cut, people who like Gruber expressly favour one side have reason to want more of the kind.

reedlaw 14y ago

Who actually likes getting magazines from the cable company or car dealerships foisting other services? Isn't there room for a different kind of business model? Vimeo is a good example. Unlike Youtube, Vimeo doesn't advertise and charges users for premium service. And for a certain types of content producers that makes it a much more attractive platform. Hence you generally see artistic works with high quality standards there vs. attention-grabbing fluff.

jopt 14y ago

Okay, so it's not a dichotomy, but doesn't the comparison still makes sense? Apple is way over toward the "pay for the product" end of the spectrum, and conversely Twitter are committed to the "selling the users' attention" business model. Even if the difference is not clear cut, people who like Gruber expressly favour one side have reason to want more of the kind.