3 ms·
I would say that while you're correct about Google being faster the reasons are probably less obvious. Whereas Google is going for absolute fastest delivery of
by josh2600 13y ago
I would say that while you're correct about Google being faster the reasons are probably less obvious.
Whereas Google is going for absolute fastest delivery of content, Apple is trying to deliver a full ACID database system with guarantees their licensing vendors will sign off on. This likely means massive replication and it likely means that Apple is enforcing a lot of service guarantees to ensure these are atomic transactions.
On the other hand, Google just really wants you to have blisteringly fast load times. Different problem domain in my opinion. One is an index with few guarantees necessary, the other would not be obliged to sell you content if one of its guarantees failed. Different strokes for different folks.
Granted Apple could be faster, but I don't think it's fair to compare their propagation to Google's.
- mikeash 13y agoI don't understand. Apple needs to make a lot more guarantees about integrity and atomicity, which is why their data integrity sucks and their transactions are not atomic? I could kind of sort of understand if apps took twelve hours to show up on the store, in general. But no, they take twelve hours overall to show up after a long period of bizarre, inconsistent rollout. The speed difference is much less important than the fact that Apple presents its users with a wildly inconsistent view of their database for any recent changes for a period of hours. Of course, updating changes quickly would be one way to fix this, but the speed is not in itself the problem.