4 ms·
Right, but even your example shows a reason why this approach is an issue. Apple Maps was late to the market - it came out after someone else (Google) already c
by owenwil 13y ago
Right, but even your example shows a reason why this approach is an issue. Apple Maps was late to the market - it came out after someone else (Google) already captured essentially the whole thing. Apple released a product that was maybe 25% of Google Map's feature parity and they were late to the party. They failed and now are trying to iterate out of a hole but their perception has already been set to "the inferior one" by most potential users.
- kvb 13y agoBut are there software companies that consistently deliver projects of the scale and complexity of Windows without hiccups?
- mkmkmmmmm 13y agoIsn't the point exactly that Google and Apple are doing it with few major screwups? And in the near future we'll see Canonical and Mozilla's versions of mobile OSes, and see hoe successful they are.
- gizmo686 13y agoCanonical is an interesting case. While all the others (except maybe Mozilla) do a lot of work on the systems programing, most of Canonical's system level stuff is done by many smaller, upstream, projects and Canonical is responsible for integrating them, and selecting ready for release versions. This allows them to much easier avoid to early to release problems, and direct their effort in a much more focused way on the end user experience. Also, their duel release model (long term support and 6 month short term support) gives them a nice test bed where they can try out radical re-designs before forcing it onto the users, who can continue using the LTS release.
- kvb 13y agoI don't think Apple or Google is doing anything nearly as complex as Windows 8, once you factor in the number of hardware partners and the constraints on backwards compatibility.