4 ms·

I find it hard to argue with any of the points he makes. I'm sure someone here will, but I found myself doing the mental "gulp of air and raising a finger" then

by sscalia 12y ago

I find it hard to argue with any of the points he makes. I'm sure someone here will, but I found myself doing the mental "gulp of air and raising a finger" then getting silenced again. I really wish Microsoft had pulled off Windows Phone; it arguably had a much better user experience than Android did (and still does) -- and interesting Nokia hardware. I simply don't believe Google has the best interests of anyone at heart except themselves and advertisers. The next 10 years are going to be very interesting indeed.

markdown 12y ago
> I simply don't believe Google has the best interests of anyone at heart except themselves and advertisers. You think Apple has your interests at heart? Or Microsoft? Like Google, they have your cash at heart. Not a thing more.
- sscalia 12y ago
  Yes, my cash - the end user. Not other companies looking to get my "attention"
  - patrickaljord 12y ago
    The fact that apple apps such as itunes do not work on android only serves apple and their lockin strategy, not you or your cash.
    - gress 12y ago
      No, it just means that Android is not a good environment for companies that want to charge money for what they do. Apple is far from the only company that experiences this.
- seiji 12y ago
  To march out some old tropes: Apple makes money by delighting users so they will continue to buy products. Google makes money by tracking users, forcefully if necessary, and abusing their advertisers. Microsoft makes money out of legacy ties these days—they don't deserve to continue existing.
  - thrownaway2424 12y ago
    Yeah I remember the time Google walked up to me on the street and shoved my face into a billboard. Those assholes.
  - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
    That comment is just ridiculously biased - you might have a good point, but it's hidden behind the opinion. For example, one could just as legitimately counter with "Apple makes money by developing a desirable brand and overcharging on hardware" but that wouldn't fit your spin, would it?
    - tomp 12y ago
      How is it overcharging? It's true, their devices are more expensive than the rest of the market, but nothing on the market comes close to Apple's quality and usability. Simply said, they have no competition, so they can set their own price - and while the customers are paying it, it's not overcharging.
      - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
        RAM?
    - mstolpm 12y ago
      The Apple lock-in only works as long as the users are happy with their (maybe limited) choice. Apple needs their customers to upgrade to new devices every few years.
    - caycep 12y ago
      Everytime I configure a dell to something equivalent to the analogous Apple product, it comes out about even or about 10% more...and in a hideous plastic casing.
  - vacri 12y ago
    Some rebuttal tropes: Apple makes money by making toys for the wealthy. You have to be middle-class or higher in an advanced economy to use their system, in real terms. In comparison, Google lets anyone use basically all of their stuff for free. As long as you can get online in some form, Google welcomes you, no matter how poor you are or where in the world you might be or what hardware you use. Google also doesn't force you to relinquish control of your environment, whereas Apple has a big ruler it smacks your knuckles with if you don't do things The Apple Way. Microsoft doesn't deserve to continue existing? Perhaps you should talk to large businesses, then. What are they going to use, because it's only Microsoft that's talking to them. Unix has a love affair with the backend in business, but it's really only Microsoft that's giving them what they want in the full stack. Compare to Apple, who points at the laptops and says "Hey everyone, look how cool we are", at which point business says "oo, cool. So what enterprise tools do you have?"... at which point Apple runs off into traffic, giggling like a mad four-year-old.
- webwielder 12y ago
  Not everyone is as cynical as you. I believe the people at Apple genuinely want to make great hardware and software that enhances people's lives. Their world-class accessibility support is proof enough of that.
  - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
    Come on, you don't get to be the highest valued company in the world by being altruistic. Apple produce great products (I happen to be using one now) but they charge prices that many cannot afford in order to make more money for themselves. That's not being cynical, just realistic.
    - poolpool 12y ago
      No they just ignore the lower end of the market that makes 0 money and leaves everyone else fighting over the scraps. There is a reason Dell bought Quest for billions of dollars. It is not because they see a bright future for the consumer pc market.
  - euank 12y ago
    >the people at Apple genuinely want ... to enhance people's lives I believe that too. However, I think that's generally true. You could replace Apple by Google or Microsoft there. People on a whole are generally good (or at least I believe so). If what you meant to say was "Apple cares about people and wouldn't let profit motives let them make questionable decisions, like including ads or adding DRM to software " then carry on. If you indeed said what you meant to in your second sentence, then I think it was essentially meaningless since it's so generally true.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  It is a question of whose interests align with yours. Do your interests align with advertisers? Mine sure as hell don't.
  - thrownaway2424 12y ago
    Do you live in a world where it is impossible for two parties to both benefit from the same thing?
    - happyscrappy 12y ago
      Life is probably easier and cheaper if you embrace advertisers but I can't stand them.
- caycep 12y ago
  That being said, I think they've learned that getting your cash depends on you being satisfied, and their interests tend to align/dovetail with yours better than MS or Google. With MS/Google, you don't pay them, the advertisers or corporate buyers do and they don't care as much.
- curun1r 12y ago
  No, it's very much different than Google. Google doesn't have your cash at heart. They've largely been uninterested in your cash. The cash they do care about is that of the advertisers that use their platform. Apple is unapologetically interested in your money and less interested in impinging on people's privacy. We can argue over which model is preferable to users, with may preferring to pay and others preferring the sponsored option, but you can't really say that Apple and Google are equivalent. People like to frame the Apple vs Google battle as one of openness vs closed-ness, of an ecosystem with many participants vs a walled garden with just Apple. But I see it far more as a battle over how we choose to pay for technology...directly or indirectly.
  - MAGZine 12y ago
    I like to think Google gives you a choice of how you're being advertised to, product depending. Lots of times they give you the option to limit the data you send to marketing firms, or outright limit the data they collect (i.e. location history, search history, etc)
- coldtea 12y ago
  >Like Google, they have your cash at heart. Not a thing more. For one, they could get the same or even more cash with far more crappier products (marketed more, altered to satisfy pundits, relax design and build requirements to cash-in on the Apple brand, etc). Nobody would have taken offense if they built a heavier, bulkier, plastic MacBook Air, with a DVD drive even and VGA ports and visible seams -- but they wanted to do things their was. Second, wanting my cash is good. Because I get to be the judge when to give my cash, and I give it when I see things I want and like ("shut up and take my money"). Google, on the other hand, wants the advertisers' cash, which means they could not care less about me in lots of areas (except the area of seeing their ads). So Apple might not have "my interests" at heart, but they are allowed by their management to take more pride in what they build than other companies, where the bottom line dictates more decisions.

by sscalia 12y ago

markdown 12y ago

> I simply don't believe Google has the best interests of anyone at heart except themselves and advertisers. You think Apple has your interests at heart? Or Microsoft? Like Google, they have your cash at heart. Not a thing more.

sscalia 12y ago
Yes, my cash - the end user. Not other companies looking to get my "attention"
- patrickaljord 12y ago
  The fact that apple apps such as itunes do not work on android only serves apple and their lockin strategy, not you or your cash.
  - gress 12y ago
    No, it just means that Android is not a good environment for companies that want to charge money for what they do. Apple is far from the only company that experiences this.
seiji 12y ago
To march out some old tropes: Apple makes money by delighting users so they will continue to buy products. Google makes money by tracking users, forcefully if necessary, and abusing their advertisers. Microsoft makes money out of legacy ties these days—they don't deserve to continue existing.
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  Yeah I remember the time Google walked up to me on the street and shoved my face into a billboard. Those assholes.
- oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
  That comment is just ridiculously biased - you might have a good point, but it's hidden behind the opinion. For example, one could just as legitimately counter with "Apple makes money by developing a desirable brand and overcharging on hardware" but that wouldn't fit your spin, would it?
  - tomp 12y ago
    How is it overcharging? It's true, their devices are more expensive than the rest of the market, but nothing on the market comes close to Apple's quality and usability. Simply said, they have no competition, so they can set their own price - and while the customers are paying it, it's not overcharging.
    - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
      RAM?
  - mstolpm 12y ago
    The Apple lock-in only works as long as the users are happy with their (maybe limited) choice. Apple needs their customers to upgrade to new devices every few years.
  - caycep 12y ago
    Everytime I configure a dell to something equivalent to the analogous Apple product, it comes out about even or about 10% more...and in a hideous plastic casing.
- vacri 12y ago
  Some rebuttal tropes: Apple makes money by making toys for the wealthy. You have to be middle-class or higher in an advanced economy to use their system, in real terms. In comparison, Google lets anyone use basically all of their stuff for free. As long as you can get online in some form, Google welcomes you, no matter how poor you are or where in the world you might be or what hardware you use. Google also doesn't force you to relinquish control of your environment, whereas Apple has a big ruler it smacks your knuckles with if you don't do things The Apple Way. Microsoft doesn't deserve to continue existing? Perhaps you should talk to large businesses, then. What are they going to use, because it's only Microsoft that's talking to them. Unix has a love affair with the backend in business, but it's really only Microsoft that's giving them what they want in the full stack. Compare to Apple, who points at the laptops and says "Hey everyone, look how cool we are", at which point business says "oo, cool. So what enterprise tools do you have?"... at which point Apple runs off into traffic, giggling like a mad four-year-old.
webwielder 12y ago
Not everyone is as cynical as you. I believe the people at Apple genuinely want to make great hardware and software that enhances people's lives. Their world-class accessibility support is proof enough of that.
- oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
  Come on, you don't get to be the highest valued company in the world by being altruistic. Apple produce great products (I happen to be using one now) but they charge prices that many cannot afford in order to make more money for themselves. That's not being cynical, just realistic.
  - poolpool 12y ago
    No they just ignore the lower end of the market that makes 0 money and leaves everyone else fighting over the scraps. There is a reason Dell bought Quest for billions of dollars. It is not because they see a bright future for the consumer pc market.
- euank 12y ago
  >the people at Apple genuinely want ... to enhance people's lives I believe that too. However, I think that's generally true. You could replace Apple by Google or Microsoft there. People on a whole are generally good (or at least I believe so). If what you meant to say was "Apple cares about people and wouldn't let profit motives let them make questionable decisions, like including ads or adding DRM to software " then carry on. If you indeed said what you meant to in your second sentence, then I think it was essentially meaningless since it's so generally true.
happyscrappy 12y ago
It is a question of whose interests align with yours. Do your interests align with advertisers? Mine sure as hell don't.
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  Do you live in a world where it is impossible for two parties to both benefit from the same thing?
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    Life is probably easier and cheaper if you embrace advertisers but I can't stand them.
caycep 12y ago
That being said, I think they've learned that getting your cash depends on you being satisfied, and their interests tend to align/dovetail with yours better than MS or Google. With MS/Google, you don't pay them, the advertisers or corporate buyers do and they don't care as much.
curun1r 12y ago
No, it's very much different than Google. Google doesn't have your cash at heart. They've largely been uninterested in your cash. The cash they do care about is that of the advertisers that use their platform. Apple is unapologetically interested in your money and less interested in impinging on people's privacy. We can argue over which model is preferable to users, with may preferring to pay and others preferring the sponsored option, but you can't really say that Apple and Google are equivalent. People like to frame the Apple vs Google battle as one of openness vs closed-ness, of an ecosystem with many participants vs a walled garden with just Apple. But I see it far more as a battle over how we choose to pay for technology...directly or indirectly.
- MAGZine 12y ago
  I like to think Google gives you a choice of how you're being advertised to, product depending. Lots of times they give you the option to limit the data you send to marketing firms, or outright limit the data they collect (i.e. location history, search history, etc)
coldtea 12y ago
>Like Google, they have your cash at heart. Not a thing more. For one, they could get the same or even more cash with far more crappier products (marketed more, altered to satisfy pundits, relax design and build requirements to cash-in on the Apple brand, etc). Nobody would have taken offense if they built a heavier, bulkier, plastic MacBook Air, with a DVD drive even and VGA ports and visible seams -- but they wanted to do things their was. Second, wanting my cash is good. Because I get to be the judge when to give my cash, and I give it when I see things I want and like ("shut up and take my money"). Google, on the other hand, wants the advertisers' cash, which means they could not care less about me in lots of areas (except the area of seeing their ads). So Apple might not have "my interests" at heart, but they are allowed by their management to take more pride in what they build than other companies, where the bottom line dictates more decisions.