3 ms·

So you've got to choose one and he's chosen apple. The previous article chose google. I've chosen google but what would make an interesting article for me is o

by Fuzzwah 13y ago

So you've got to choose one and he's chosen apple. The previous article chose google. I've chosen google but what would make an interesting article for me is one which explained whether iOS or android was better if / when I want to cut myself off from either apple or google's online services and replace them with self hosted email / calendar / etc.

veemjeem 13y ago
I think one of the core differences according to his article is that the "data" for google calendar/contacts/etc are only stored on the cloud. You don't have physical copies of these on your desktop. Apple's products have historically been on the desktop so your calendar & contacts would mostly reside on your home computer and the only thing you would lack is the cloud syncing if apple were to go kaput.
- bdcravens 13y ago
  Yes, the data is on your computer. I use Google for calendar, email, and contacts. Guess what? That data is also on my desktop if cloud syncing goes kaput. If you only use your phone and your cloud service of choice (whether Google or iCloud), then yes, you're in a world of hurt, but the scenario you described is pretty common amongst Google users as well.
madoublet 13y ago
I would argue that you do not have to choose one. In fact, it is probably better if you don't.
- Fuzzwah 13y ago
  My 1st line was a poorly worded TL;DR of the article. I agree with your point.
- greedo 13y ago
  And that's the point Marco makes; that relying solely on one vendor (Apple/Google/Facebook/Twitter/MS) is foolish.
sveme 13y ago
That's not what the article says. Rather, keep away from ecosystems at all. If a company tries to bind you to its ecosystem, stay away, as you are bound to be the one suffering from it in the long run. It's a shame that the internet seems to be on day four of groundhog day, seeing the same story played out over and over. 1. a dominating ecosystem or a couple of ecosystems exist (e.g., AOL in the early days) 2. increased lock-in makes people yearn for alternatives 3. open alternatives spring up, gain momentum and overcome the dominating ecosystem 4. the previous alternative is now successful and starts to diversify its offerings 5. with increasing adoption and an increased market share, the company tries to connect services, for the convenience of its users (that's what they say) or for increased lock-in (that's what they don't say) 6. over time, now this former upstart becomes the dominant ecosystem, increasingly removing the openness from its services and connecting its offerings so that you don't have to leave them ever (we are back at 1.) 7. users start to feel the pain of being locked-in and yearn for open alternatives... The only way to break this cycle is by actively pursuing alternatives, by diversifying its providers and by making a conscious decision to forgo immediate convenience gains by using the same provider for different services.
npsimons 13y ago
An answer in one link: http://www.dataliberation.org/ http://www.dataliberation.org/

by Fuzzwah 13y ago

veemjeem 13y ago

I think one of the core differences according to his article is that the "data" for google calendar/contacts/etc are only stored on the cloud. You don't have physical copies of these on your desktop. Apple's products have historically been on the desktop so your calendar & contacts would mostly reside on your home computer and the only thing you would lack is the cloud syncing if apple were to go kaput.

bdcravens 13y ago
Yes, the data is on your computer. I use Google for calendar, email, and contacts. Guess what? That data is also on my desktop if cloud syncing goes kaput. If you only use your phone and your cloud service of choice (whether Google or iCloud), then yes, you're in a world of hurt, but the scenario you described is pretty common amongst Google users as well.

madoublet 13y ago

I would argue that you do not have to choose one. In fact, it is probably better if you don't.

Fuzzwah 13y ago
My 1st line was a poorly worded TL;DR of the article. I agree with your point.
greedo 13y ago
And that's the point Marco makes; that relying solely on one vendor (Apple/Google/Facebook/Twitter/MS) is foolish.

sveme 13y ago

That's not what the article says. Rather, keep away from ecosystems at all. If a company tries to bind you to its ecosystem, stay away, as you are bound to be the one suffering from it in the long run. It's a shame that the internet seems to be on day four of groundhog day, seeing the same story played out over and over. 1. a dominating ecosystem or a couple of ecosystems exist (e.g., AOL in the early days) 2. increased lock-in makes people yearn for alternatives 3. open alternatives spring up, gain momentum and overcome the dominating ecosystem 4. the previous alternative is now successful and starts to diversify its offerings 5. with increasing adoption and an increased market share, the company tries to connect services, for the convenience of its users (that's what they say) or for increased lock-in (that's what they don't say) 6. over time, now this former upstart becomes the dominant ecosystem, increasingly removing the openness from its services and connecting its offerings so that you don't have to leave them ever (we are back at 1.) 7. users start to feel the pain of being locked-in and yearn for open alternatives... The only way to break this cycle is by actively pursuing alternatives, by diversifying its providers and by making a conscious decision to forgo immediate convenience gains by using the same provider for different services.

npsimons 13y ago

An answer in one link: http://www.dataliberation.org/ http://www.dataliberation.org/