8 ms·

This absolutely captures their strategy. They are clearly building a walled garden for their own benefit, while selling it as the user's benefit. I can't imag

by johnrob 13y ago

This absolutely captures their strategy. They are clearly building a walled garden for their own benefit, while selling it as the user's benefit. I can't imagine users complaining about having the option to switch to android.

_yields 13y ago
> while selling it as the user's benefit I disagree. Facebook, Google, Microsoft have a walled garden, in-fact every company on earth thinks on how to keep customers from leaving. The difference between Apple and others is that Apple products are far superior, i can't imagine myself using any Microsoft product if Apple provides it.
- Oletros 13y ago
  "The difference between Apple and others is that Apple products are far superior" Really? How are superior?
  - _yields 13y ago
    I hope this is a joke, but.. Go a head, take OSX and Windows 7 and compare between them, see how much it takes Windows 7 to crash and tell you: "do you want to send us a report?". The report should be sent automatically and analyzed by computers before it reaches humans.
    - TheLegace 13y ago
      As much as I hate to say it, your right. As I type into my girlfriend's macbook, I feel ashamed, but at the same time I cannot get myself to buy a laptop because they all suck.
    - estel 13y ago
      I take it you don't use xcode then...? But seriously, what are you demonstrating here by providing an anecdote? I've got some of my own: I use osx and windows 7/8 extensively every day, and (except xcode!) neither of them crashes with even the slightest degree of regularity: they're both great operating systems. But of course, neither are evidence of any form to support the claim "x is better than y". Which is good, because it's a stupid debate anyway.
    - larrik 13y ago
      Okay, XCode crashes on me about every hour of use or so on my Mac Mini (especially when I leave it and come back). None of my Windows 7 programs have crashed on me in over a month. Btw, once XCode crashes, Apple offers to let me send in a technical report. *Sent from my Linux Mint machine.
      - lostlogin 13y ago
        In terms of consumer experience, XCodes performance is hardly relevant. Use iTunes as an example. That god awful abomination gives me rage like few other programs manage.
    - Oletros 13y ago
      I'm writing this in my Macbook Air and I use Windows 7 and Windows 8. I have not seen a OS crash since years. If you're talking about app crashing I see more less the same on both oses
- inkandstick 13y ago
  > i can't imagine myself using any Microsoft product if Apple provides it. I can say that you are in the minority, people use apple now because they are cool and with subsidies cheap. I see a larger amount of android phones now than I did 2 years ago when everyone and their mother had an iPhone and now the Android phones are starting to look cool with there gimmicks like the phone pausing video when you look away. People bought iPads because they were a cheapish replacement for a computer and they were cool, I think Apple has everyone beat on the tablet market at the moment, while more people might know what a Galaxy S4 is they probably don't know the name of a Tablet that isn't iPad. But for computers cheap Windows laptops still reign supreme.
  - myko 13y ago
    > I think Apple has everyone beat on the tablet market at the moment At 10" yes, but at the 7" range the Nexus 7 is really superior to me as a user - I don't know the sales numbers though, maybe the iPad Mini is doing better there too.
- eloisant 13y ago
  Well, no. Google releases pretty much all of its products on iPhone. Apple doesn't releases anything on other platforms and when they do because they have no choice (iTunes on Windows), they do it poorly.
  - deveac 13y ago
    Well, Google certainly builds walls for its garden. Looking at things like nuking Reader in favor of G+, nerfing its applications on iOS compared to Android (funny how quickly iOS got turn by turn Google Maps once Apple released its own map application), and even initiatives like Free Zone in developing nations that provide free internet only for checking G+, gmail, and sites opened directly from a Google search). Just look at the shenanigans Google is pulling right now with Microsoft and getting Youtube on mobile there. All of these companies throw walls up for the sake of profits and strategic benefit. Different heights, different locations, some hard walls, some soft, -but they all build them. The entire free Android operating systems itself is just vendor lock-in for Google, which is an advertising (not search) company.
    - cromwellian 13y ago
      Actually, you're wrong, sometimes the iOS apps have features that Android doesn't have yet, for example, iOS Maps actually had the new Maps interface before Android. Also, Google has Google Takeout, which lets you leave Google and take everything with you. Android is not vendor lock in, because Google isn't the vendor in this scenario, Samsung, Amazon, Sony, etc are. For example, Amazon doesn't include Google's services, and Samsung is clearly moving in the direction of pushing their own stuff in front of Google's.
      - deveac 13y ago
        >Actually, you're wrong, sometimes the iOS apps have features that Android doesn't have yet... I didn't say they didn't, nor did I even imply it. Understand that this doesn't change the fact that Google witheld app features from other OEMs and kept enhanced versions for its own partners for competitive reasons. Just because Apple did it too doesn't mean Google didn't (as I already pointed out). >Android is not vendor lock in, because Google isn't the vendor in this scenario, Samsung, Amazon, Sony, etc are. I was talking about walled gardens, and wasn't making an arbitrary distinction of "vendor" lock-in. As I was saying though, from the standpoint of a walled garden, Android as a free operating system has been remarkably successful as a soft wall for Google, getting their advertisements on more handsets more quickly than any other method. Instead of risking consumers switching, they are eliminating competitors before consumers even get the option to switch. OEMs have been keen to adopt an OS that cost them next to nothing and played nice with branding and in house apps. Clearly Amazon and Samsung modifying the OS is a concern of Google's, and they are combating this with native apps, web apps, and their own competitive offerings (hardware included).
- ernesth 13y ago
  > i can't imagine myself using any Microsoft product if Apple provides it. Did you try microsoft mice?
- mistercow 13y ago
  Are you really suggesting that Apple products are superior in every case? Are you going to tell me that Safari is superior to either Firefox or Chrome?
Terretta 13y ago
> They are clearly building a walled garden for their own benefit, while selling it as the user's benefit. On the contrary, I think this highlights that Jobs thinks, "They want to compare? Great, let's force them to really compare." Jobs: "If they want to compare us to Android, let’s force them to use our far superior payment system." It's one thing to build a walled garden that's crap but users get stuck with it. It's another to build something you believe is truly superior for users, then forcibly rub people's noses in it.
- oarevalo 13y ago
  actually it's not just forcing a real comparison, it's about directing what will the comparison be about. In this case Jobs doesn't shy away from the problem, he actually proposes to meet it head on, but on a battle field of his own choosing.
- jkn 13y ago
  Phil Shiller: While the primary message is that there are Kindle apps on lots of mobile devices, the secondary message that can’t be missed is that it is easy to switch from iPhone to Android. Not fun to watch. Steve Jobs: What do you recommend we do? [then suggests as first step to show how better the payment experience is on iOS] The conversation is about a problem identified by Phil Shiller. The problem is that switching from iOS to Android seems easy. Jobs proposes (as a first step) to show how the iOS payment system is superior. This is a nice response to a threat from the competition, but it does not change the basic fact: Apple considers that easy switching to Android is a problem, and something must be done about it. This is consistent with Apple not supporting Android (no Apple app to access iTunes content, etc). Google on the other hand makes apps for iOS, e.g. the books app[1]. When an iOS app is not available (e.g. for music where the app is in the works[2]) users can still use the Web services. [1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google-play-books/id400989007 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google-play-books/id40098900... [2] http://www.imore.com/google-play-music-all-access-officially-launching-ios http://www.imore.com/google-play-music-all-access-officially...
baddox 13y ago
> They are clearly building a walled garden for their own benefit, while selling it as the user's benefit. Unless violence is being used to force people to buy things, there doesn't have to be a big difference between "the company's benefit" and "the user's benefit."
subdane 13y ago
Exactly. They aren't giving users real choice. If Apple's payment system (or any other part of their platform) is really superior, why not let users choose and make up their own minds? Because they want to make it painful or impossible to switch and they don't want their platform to be considered a commodity reader for Amazon's content.
noloqy 13y ago
They might be selling it as a users' benefit, but in the case of the Amazon app, users are at a loss. As long as the developers submit themselves to Apple's authority, Apple and its related products could offer superior service. Most developers are still accepting the "Apple way", even in cases where it hurts their own business proposition. The reason Apple has such a strong supplier power is that they have a very strong market share. However, Apple's arrogance will one day contribute to their downfall. Developers choose to develop first and foremost for the platform that offers the greatest benefits; as Apple's market shares are falling, the userbase is less of a reason to choose to develop for Apple first. Also, because alternatives are strengthening on various fronts, developers will be less likely to swallow Apple's authoritative terms if those terms hurt their own business model - even if that means offering a suboptimal service to Apple's customers.

by johnrob 13y ago

_yields 13y ago

> while selling it as the user's benefit I disagree. Facebook, Google, Microsoft have a walled garden, in-fact every company on earth thinks on how to keep customers from leaving. The difference between Apple and others is that Apple products are far superior, i can't imagine myself using any Microsoft product if Apple provides it.

Oletros 13y ago
"The difference between Apple and others is that Apple products are far superior" Really? How are superior?
- _yields 13y ago
  I hope this is a joke, but.. Go a head, take OSX and Windows 7 and compare between them, see how much it takes Windows 7 to crash and tell you: "do you want to send us a report?". The report should be sent automatically and analyzed by computers before it reaches humans.
  - TheLegace 13y ago
    As much as I hate to say it, your right. As I type into my girlfriend's macbook, I feel ashamed, but at the same time I cannot get myself to buy a laptop because they all suck.
  - estel 13y ago
    I take it you don't use xcode then...? But seriously, what are you demonstrating here by providing an anecdote? I've got some of my own: I use osx and windows 7/8 extensively every day, and (except xcode!) neither of them crashes with even the slightest degree of regularity: they're both great operating systems. But of course, neither are evidence of any form to support the claim "x is better than y". Which is good, because it's a stupid debate anyway.
  - larrik 13y ago
    Okay, XCode crashes on me about every hour of use or so on my Mac Mini (especially when I leave it and come back). None of my Windows 7 programs have crashed on me in over a month. Btw, once XCode crashes, Apple offers to let me send in a technical report. *Sent from my Linux Mint machine.
    - lostlogin 13y ago
      In terms of consumer experience, XCodes performance is hardly relevant. Use iTunes as an example. That god awful abomination gives me rage like few other programs manage.
  - Oletros 13y ago
    I'm writing this in my Macbook Air and I use Windows 7 and Windows 8. I have not seen a OS crash since years. If you're talking about app crashing I see more less the same on both oses
inkandstick 13y ago
> i can't imagine myself using any Microsoft product if Apple provides it. I can say that you are in the minority, people use apple now because they are cool and with subsidies cheap. I see a larger amount of android phones now than I did 2 years ago when everyone and their mother had an iPhone and now the Android phones are starting to look cool with there gimmicks like the phone pausing video when you look away. People bought iPads because they were a cheapish replacement for a computer and they were cool, I think Apple has everyone beat on the tablet market at the moment, while more people might know what a Galaxy S4 is they probably don't know the name of a Tablet that isn't iPad. But for computers cheap Windows laptops still reign supreme.
- myko 13y ago
  > I think Apple has everyone beat on the tablet market at the moment At 10" yes, but at the 7" range the Nexus 7 is really superior to me as a user - I don't know the sales numbers though, maybe the iPad Mini is doing better there too.
eloisant 13y ago
Well, no. Google releases pretty much all of its products on iPhone. Apple doesn't releases anything on other platforms and when they do because they have no choice (iTunes on Windows), they do it poorly.
- deveac 13y ago
  Well, Google certainly builds walls for its garden. Looking at things like nuking Reader in favor of G+, nerfing its applications on iOS compared to Android (funny how quickly iOS got turn by turn Google Maps once Apple released its own map application), and even initiatives like Free Zone in developing nations that provide free internet only for checking G+, gmail, and sites opened directly from a Google search). Just look at the shenanigans Google is pulling right now with Microsoft and getting Youtube on mobile there. All of these companies throw walls up for the sake of profits and strategic benefit. Different heights, different locations, some hard walls, some soft, -but they all build them. The entire free Android operating systems itself is just vendor lock-in for Google, which is an advertising (not search) company.
  - cromwellian 13y ago
    Actually, you're wrong, sometimes the iOS apps have features that Android doesn't have yet, for example, iOS Maps actually had the new Maps interface before Android. Also, Google has Google Takeout, which lets you leave Google and take everything with you. Android is not vendor lock in, because Google isn't the vendor in this scenario, Samsung, Amazon, Sony, etc are. For example, Amazon doesn't include Google's services, and Samsung is clearly moving in the direction of pushing their own stuff in front of Google's.
    - deveac 13y ago
      >Actually, you're wrong, sometimes the iOS apps have features that Android doesn't have yet... I didn't say they didn't, nor did I even imply it. Understand that this doesn't change the fact that Google witheld app features from other OEMs and kept enhanced versions for its own partners for competitive reasons. Just because Apple did it too doesn't mean Google didn't (as I already pointed out). >Android is not vendor lock in, because Google isn't the vendor in this scenario, Samsung, Amazon, Sony, etc are. I was talking about walled gardens, and wasn't making an arbitrary distinction of "vendor" lock-in. As I was saying though, from the standpoint of a walled garden, Android as a free operating system has been remarkably successful as a soft wall for Google, getting their advertisements on more handsets more quickly than any other method. Instead of risking consumers switching, they are eliminating competitors before consumers even get the option to switch. OEMs have been keen to adopt an OS that cost them next to nothing and played nice with branding and in house apps. Clearly Amazon and Samsung modifying the OS is a concern of Google's, and they are combating this with native apps, web apps, and their own competitive offerings (hardware included).
ernesth 13y ago
> i can't imagine myself using any Microsoft product if Apple provides it. Did you try microsoft mice?
mistercow 13y ago
Are you really suggesting that Apple products are superior in every case? Are you going to tell me that Safari is superior to either Firefox or Chrome?

Terretta 13y ago

> They are clearly building a walled garden for their own benefit, while selling it as the user's benefit. On the contrary, I think this highlights that Jobs thinks, "They want to compare? Great, let's force them to really compare." Jobs: "If they want to compare us to Android, let’s force them to use our far superior payment system." It's one thing to build a walled garden that's crap but users get stuck with it. It's another to build something you believe is truly superior for users, then forcibly rub people's noses in it.

oarevalo 13y ago
actually it's not just forcing a real comparison, it's about directing what will the comparison be about. In this case Jobs doesn't shy away from the problem, he actually proposes to meet it head on, but on a battle field of his own choosing.
jkn 13y ago
Phil Shiller: While the primary message is that there are Kindle apps on lots of mobile devices, the secondary message that can’t be missed is that it is easy to switch from iPhone to Android. Not fun to watch. Steve Jobs: What do you recommend we do? [then suggests as first step to show how better the payment experience is on iOS] The conversation is about a problem identified by Phil Shiller. The problem is that switching from iOS to Android seems easy. Jobs proposes (as a first step) to show how the iOS payment system is superior. This is a nice response to a threat from the competition, but it does not change the basic fact: Apple considers that easy switching to Android is a problem, and something must be done about it. This is consistent with Apple not supporting Android (no Apple app to access iTunes content, etc). Google on the other hand makes apps for iOS, e.g. the books app[1]. When an iOS app is not available (e.g. for music where the app is in the works[2]) users can still use the Web services. [1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google-play-books/id400989007 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google-play-books/id40098900... [2] http://www.imore.com/google-play-music-all-access-officially-launching-ios http://www.imore.com/google-play-music-all-access-officially...

baddox 13y ago

> They are clearly building a walled garden for their own benefit, while selling it as the user's benefit. Unless violence is being used to force people to buy things, there doesn't have to be a big difference between "the company's benefit" and "the user's benefit."

subdane 13y ago

Exactly. They aren't giving users real choice. If Apple's payment system (or any other part of their platform) is really superior, why not let users choose and make up their own minds? Because they want to make it painful or impossible to switch and they don't want their platform to be considered a commodity reader for Amazon's content.

noloqy 13y ago

They might be selling it as a users' benefit, but in the case of the Amazon app, users are at a loss. As long as the developers submit themselves to Apple's authority, Apple and its related products could offer superior service. Most developers are still accepting the "Apple way", even in cases where it hurts their own business proposition. The reason Apple has such a strong supplier power is that they have a very strong market share. However, Apple's arrogance will one day contribute to their downfall. Developers choose to develop first and foremost for the platform that offers the greatest benefits; as Apple's market shares are falling, the userbase is less of a reason to choose to develop for Apple first. Also, because alternatives are strengthening on various fronts, developers will be less likely to swallow Apple's authoritative terms if those terms hurt their own business model - even if that means offering a suboptimal service to Apple's customers.