11 ms·

Daring Fireball: Pound the Quality

52 points by unalone 17y ago

martythemaniak 17y ago
Grubber misses the simple fact that at the time of it's debut, the App Store was the best overall environment for writing mobile apps. Single device/platform, central and easy distribution etc. Today, both Android and BlackBerry have app stores, and Android is a far better platform from a developers perspective (all apps are 1st class apps, immensely powerful SDK, more mainstream language etc, easier distribution etc). So while Apple may have initially attracted developers because of quality, they continue to attract them because they are popular and because their app store focuses on payments more. With the coming onslaught of Android devices its very likely that Android devices will outnumber iPhones, all Apple will have left is a store that is more geared towards payment, and even there Android might catch up. Regardless, 2010 will be an interesting year in the mobile space. I'm working on p a cross-platform app (iPhone/Android/BlackBerry), so I think it'll be interesting to compare downloads, sales, rate of adoption, feedback etc across all three.
- unalone 17y ago
  Neither Android nor Blackberry has hardware or software as well-designed as the iPhone's. One of Apple's major draws has always been its anal attention to detail, which RIM and Google don't share. Google has one of the worst track records regarding design, period. Neither Android nor the Blackberry has a unified product. When I design for the iPhone I know the exact product dimensions, I know exactly how the user will be interacting with my program, and I know it will be the exact same a year or two from now. I can make one app that any iPhone owner can use and it will be used exactly as I want it used. With Android and Blackberry, that's not the case. all apps are 1st class apps Pardon my poor French, but what the fuck does that mean? I've seen Android apps and iPhone apps, and the Android apps are uglier and less elegant.
  - durin42 17y ago
    What he means by all apps being first class is that it's really a dogfooded API and platform. Apple is pretty far from the "we build our own apps in the same sandbox you do" state that Android is in. As an example: Twidroid (and most other Android apps) can run in the background, and use data in the background without a custom push server. Apple's Mail app, on the other hand, isn't buildable (for the iPhone) with the public APIs. You'd need to run in the background for that, which isn't available. Don't judge the API based on the quality of apps you're seeing - I've seen some well-polished Android apps, and some legendarily horrible iPhone ones.
  - dstorrs 17y ago
    Most likely he means that Android developers don't need to deal with their apps being 2nd class citizens the way iPhone developers do. Unless you work for Apple: 1) You are restricted as to which parts of the SDK you can use. 2) Your app may be rejected for any reason, no reason, or whatever reason. The reason may or may not be explained, and may or may not make sense. 3) Even if it isn't rejected, it will still take weeks or months to get your app into the hands of customers. None of this applies to Apple apps, of course. Therefore, independent developers are 2nd class citizens of the iPhone.
    - unalone 17y ago
      Gotcha. I'd misinterpreted the remark. Thanks!
  - thwarted 17y ago
    first class means that there is no priority in which apps can do what. Apps can be written for Android that completely replace core functionality, like the dialer or the contact list, or even the home screen. With the iPhone, there are multiple classes of apps, and anything not sanctioned by Apple takes a backseat to those apps provided or sanctioned by Apple. This is evidenced by the "duplicates functionality" limitation of the Apple vetted App store.
  - theBobMcCormick 17y ago
    Have you seen some of the upcoming Android phones? As much as I hate Verizon, the Verizon Droid from Motorola looks like it'll be every bit as good hardware-wise as the current gen iPhones. See here for a comparison of the Droid and the iPhone 3GS (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/101909-droid-vs-iphone.html?fsrc=netflash-rss http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/101909-droid-vs-iphone...)
    - ptomato 17y ago
      Which is great and all, but the fact that you only need to develop for (effectively) one piece of hardware is still a huge competitive advantage for the iPhone vs. anything else. (Except the Pre, but the Pre has other problems.)
      - theBobMcCormick 17y ago
        If you look at the way the Android SDK handles device differences, it's really much less of an issue that most people seem to make it out to be. Accommodating different resolutions, for example, is pretty trivial for an Android app developer. The only (IMHO) that might be an issue is the differences in input capabilities (ie, hardware keyboard or no hardware keyboard, trackball or no trackball, etc). That should no be an issue at all for productivity apps, but I do see how it could be an issue for games. It's hard to balance your level difficulties and design your play mechanics if you're not sure what kind of input device your players will be using.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- megaduck 17y ago
  If Apple remains tied to AT&T, then Android might very well become the dominant platform by gobbling up marketshare from WinMo, Symbian, and BlackBerry. Android will probably also gain share by moving down-market into "feature phones". As successful as the iPhone is, it's still a miniscule fraction of overall phone sales. This battle feels hauntingly familiar. Back in the 1980s, Apple made a boatload of money by pushing an elegant, easy-to-use 'sealed box' platform. They eventually got clobbered by cheaper hardware running more open software. If Apple isn't careful, that's going to play out all over again.
  - unalone 17y ago
    It's not a competition. The iPhone offers things Android does not and can not offer. It will always have a market. Meanwhile, Android is appearing on dozens of phones, none of which individually will rival the iPhone. They both have a spot in the market. This isn't the same as the PC market was back then. Apple's in a much more dominant position, it's making more money than any of its competitors, it's got the world's most renowned design team, it's the most trusted brand on the planet in key demographics as of 2009. It's got no competition in its particular field, which isn't necessarily that of "phone".
    - megaduck 17y ago
      I'm sorry, but you just described Apple in 1985. Thanks to the Mac and the Apple II, they were making money hand-over-fist. They also had the best designers, and were an incredibly trusted brand with both professionals and the education market. To top it all off, they had a giant technology lead over any of their competitors (except Commodore). The Mac was considered far more than a "computer" at the time. The IBM PC never matched the Macintosh for sales. However, the combined fleet of clones reached such a high volume that the PC clone market became the primary target for developers. Android has similar potential. You're probably right that the iPhone will stick around indefinitely. The Macintosh, in a similar position, has increased its total unit sales, year over year, every year since the initial release. However, it would be hard to argue that Apple was competitive during the 1990s for mindshare or developers. The real risk to Apple is not that they'll crash and burn and go out of business. The risk is that they'll lose their current lead in developer mindshare, and that's a real risk indeed. *For historical marketshare context, check out http://www.jeremyreimer.com/total_share.html http://www.jeremyreimer.com/total_share.html .
- vessenes 17y ago
  I agree -- I think Grubber is missing the boat on the overall trends. Android OS devices will, guaranteed, outsell total number of iPhones in the not too distant future. Will it be 12 or 24 months? I don't know, but right now Google is knocking the ball out of the park on distribution deals: Apple and AT&T market the iPhone and its OS. Sprint, T-mobile, Verizon, Barnes & Noble (through the Nook), HTC, etc. etc. all market Android OS and phones right now. Which group do you think will win? Eventually the developers will come, especially because developing for Android is frankly easier for developers: significantly more open platform, and broader developer skills for Android's app SDK. Right now, Android's Market app sucks (1.6's update is a bit better). Android Devices will vary more in terms of hardware, although Apple's are starting to differentiate as well. Apple had a pretty good Store app from the get-go, a single platform to develop for, a beautiful UI and almost no competition in the paid app space. Apple pulled out in front, and they'll probably always have an arguably better product, if Steve keeps up his perfectionist ways with successor products. It might even be that the most you could make as a successful developer would be having a 'hit app' on the Apple Store. But, the market conditions will almost certainly generate far more value, in aggregate, for Android developers than iPhone developers; it's going to be a more democratized, far broader market for Android devices really soon now.
buugs 17y ago
It is obvious that gruber is an avid mac user from his posts and generally dislikes windows as many mac users due but this: But Windows is proof that popularity doesn’t guarantee market-leading quality. Makes me wonder what market he is speaking of, if it is something along the lines of graphic design (both OS and for uses) sure the mac ranks pretty high up but what about corporate environments, average home users, aging adults, engineering software (civil,electrical,mechanical) these are all things that windows ranks pretty high for market quality. Windows may be a pain in the ass for some power users or home end users but I bet if the market shares were reversed mac would be heckled as much as windows by average users and certain power users.
- lupin_sansei 17y ago
  Windows is simply the only OS widely available to run on the vast majority of the machines that people own (PCs) and that's compatible with most software than people want to run. Windows basically has no competitors in the PC OS field. Linux is a fine OS, which I run myself, but it's not widely available in shops/preinstalled and doesn't run the majority of apps that people want MYOB, Quickbooks, iTunes, Microsoft Office etc.
- unalone 17y ago
  His emphasis in that sentence is on quality, not on market-leading. The quality of application design on Windows is dreadful. The best applications are the ones that create an entirely separate interface and run in full screen, and even then you don't have very many that are attractive or appealing. I think the only real stand-out I've seen is Google Chrome, which was better-designed when it came out on Windows than any browser on the Mac, and which still holds a slight edge over Safari 4 in terms of pure elegance. Everything else ranges from mediocre to terrible. Office 2008: Mediocre. And I liked Office 2008 because I had a Mac. For whatever reason, Apple's hardware attracts brilliant software design. I can name ten Mac-only apps off the top of my head that blow away their Windows/Linux rivals for design superiority. I could name several dozen for the iPhone that are of a similar make. I couldn't name one for any other platform. The difference is staggering. Windows may be a pain in the ass for some power users or home end users but I bet if the market shares were reversed mac would be heckled as much as windows by average users and certain power users. I'd take that challenge. Last year I went to a college with computer diversity. This year I'm at a Mac-only college. Last year everybody bitched about their computers; this year, there's literally no comment about computer usage, because everything just works within the sphere of my acquaintances.
ansonparker 17y ago
"But my interest remains ... in the quality of the apps, not the quantity. Let’s say ... Android winds up with far fewer total apps than iPhone OS, but they’re of generally higher quality. That would make Android the Mac to the iPhone’s Windows. I would switch to that platform." This is a poorly thought out sentiment -- or maybe just poorly expressed. He's saying if the quality of Android apps is "generally higher" he'll switch. Who cares about the average quality? Any healthy app store is going to have a couple dozen iFart variants -- who gives a shit. As long as I can find the good stuff (which, by and large, you can with Apple's app store) and as long as there IS good stuff then I'm happy. To this point I can see the application ecosystem going the way of consoles and relying on marquee titles to succeed. Halo had a huge role in legitimizing Xbox as a gaming platform and you'd hope MS might learn from this with handsets. Actually, it's amazing Microsoft doesn't seem to apply the lessons it has learned from its gaming console success more often. Maybe that's just big company politics though.
- mikedouglas 17y ago
  Average matters in the sense that I don't know which new application I might be using in six months. Usually my computing experience is dictated by the worse interaction that day. If I have to deal with a text editor that uses tabs when I want spaces, or a note application that won't sync, it doesn't matter how nice the web browser is. My experience on the mac has been that, generally, the developers of third party software focus on the UI. It sounds like an odd version of the "broken windows" theory, but it seems to be true. Because the average quality is so high, applications with bad user experience just don't survive. This means I can pickup the most popular task management app, and expect a certain level of polish. That is why average matters.
- pieter 17y ago
  He's saying 'generally higher quality', not average. Generally might mean all sorts of things, for example 'if the most used/most popular/most visible applications are of higher quality'
ryanwaggoner 17y ago
The situation is so at odds with Microsoft’s view of the computing universe that Steve Ballmer came up with this cockamamie explanation: “The Internet was designed for the PC. The Internet is not designed for the iPhone. That’s why they’ve got 75,000 applications — they’re all trying to make the Internet look decent on the iPhone.” Pound the table, indeed. Actually, I'm not entirely sure that he's wrong. I personally use apps on the iPhone not because I want a dedicated app for that thing, but because it's less usable or not available in the browser. On my computer, 95% of the apps I use live in the browser. On the iPhone, it's the opposite. Maybe Ballmer is on to something...
- padmanabhan01 17y ago
  One good thing however is that there is less clutter in apps than their corresponding websites. In some cases, I find using the app more convenient than going to the site in computer browser. Lack of screen space maybe forced them to include just the important part and skip the clutter and made the whole thing better, in my opinion.
ErrantX 17y ago
The quote he opens with: If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table. Is probably one of the best I've seen for a while. It probably applies as much to people here as the rest of the post alone.
- iron_ball 17y ago
  If by "here" you mean "everywhere, ever, for all time," you are very right.
StrawberryFrog 17y ago
Past a certain point, numbers don't matter. People stopped caring how many videos are on YouTube a while back.
RyanMcGreal 17y ago
>The Internet was designed for the PC. The Internet is not designed for the iPhone. That’s why they’ve got 75,000 applications - they’re all trying to make the Internet look decent on the iPhone. Ballmer has a point. The internet is an open platform with a relatively simple set of open protocols and formats for transferring data, providing services, and so on. Applications built on top of the internet stack are accessible to any device that can read HTML, XML, JSON, YAML, and so on. Even the browser makers are doing a good job of coalescing around the standards. The iPhone, by contrast, is a narrow, closed, proprietary system built on top of the open internet. If you don't have an iPhone, you can't use any of the applications built for it. Similarly, if you want to develop an iPhone app, you have no choice but to go out and buy a Mac to get the development framework. Heck, you can't even distribute an iPhone app without going through Apple's App Store and conforming with its fuzzy terms of service. That's the very opposite of the open internet. It's easy to hate on Microsoft for being closed and proprietary, but Apple is at least as bad.
- unalone 17y ago
  You just made an argument by completely ignoring what Ballmer said. Ballmer was making an insult to the effect of, every application on the iPhone is trying to make the Internet look good, which is a fucking bizarre insult. The iPhone makes the Internet look really good, it loads pages much faster than any phone Microsoft supplies the OS for, and half the Internet redesigned itself to work better for the iPhone. I browse HN on my iPhone without a special interface and it works perfectly. So Ballmer's just really throwing out bullshit with that comment. I disagree with your comment. Microsoft wasn't bad for being closed, it was bad for attempting to use its monopoly to force its competitors out of business. Apple's closed, but they have plenty of competition, so it's all right. As for the Internet being open, I'd like to see you download the source code for a 37signals application. You can't, because it's closed. But you can use APIs to export data? Well, good news! You can export your iPhone's data also, and they give you APIs to do so! But it doesn't matter that I disagree with your comment, because my actual point is that Ballmer doesn't have a point, is a terrible executive, and should have been fired two years ago for his riotous incompetence as a businessman and a marketer.
  - 17y ago
10ren 17y ago
(1) If Apple pursues massive mainstream success, it will alienate its traditional supporters, because not everyone in the mainstream values design so highly - some value cheap, performance, convenience or utility etc at the cost of design. Sure, sometimes you can have everything, and sometimes there's a trade-off (fast-cheap-good-pick-two). (2) Ballmer is right that the iPhone cannot handle all webpages as well as a desktop - it's just impossible to shrink the power of a desktop into such a small, light and elegant form-factor (today, anyway). This is not a fault of the iPhone, but a shortcoming of the web with its layers of inefficiency (esp javascript, flash, java). Apple's genius was to strip those layers away, by integrating the hardware and software to work well together. Only Apple has enough expertise and market clout to do both, and to do it brilliantly. But the above foreshadows dark days ahead: what will happen to the iPhone when it is possible to have a desktop in that form-factor? When ingenious integration is no longer required, and an open market is favoured, with mix and match, and webapps and so on? I see two ways for Apple to win: i. Apple uses the new technology to move ahead to the next frontier (because that's where they like to be). Perhaps an even tinier form-factor? ii. Apple has become so established as the leader in this category, that no one can catch up. This is within Apple's grasp, but I believe they will not take it, because taking it would involve pleasing the mainstream (if you leave major market segments unsatisfied, a competitor fills them), and, as Mr Fireball implies, if Apple did so, it would no longer be Apple. But Microsoft.
- TetOn 17y ago
  I think you're leaving out the fact that an iPhone sized device with desktop capabilities is still going to require exquisite integration and interface, the very qualities iTouch devices have today in excess. Raw processing power doesn't change that, it only adds to the advantage. Everyone gets distracted by the phone. The phone is just an app (and some extra electronics). The platform is the thing, and Apple is light years ahead of the competition at this point. Use a Kindle. Then use an iPod Touch.
  - 10ren 17y ago
    Yes, interface is important. The Macintosh also had a great GUI... which was copied... why couldn't the iPhone UI be copied? notwithstanding working around patents etc.

52 points by unalone 17y ago

Grubber misses the simple fact that at the time of it's debut, the App Store was the best overall environment for writing mobile apps. Single device/platform, central and easy distribution etc. Today, both Android and BlackBerry have app stores, and Android is a far better platform from a developers perspective (all apps are 1st class apps, immensely powerful SDK, more mainstream language etc, easier distribution etc). So while Apple may have initially attracted developers because of quality, they continue to attract them because they are popular and because their app store focuses on payments more. With the coming onslaught of Android devices its very likely that Android devices will outnumber iPhones, all Apple will have left is a store that is more geared towards payment, and even there Android might catch up. Regardless, 2010 will be an interesting year in the mobile space. I'm working on p a cross-platform app (iPhone/Android/BlackBerry), so I think it'll be interesting to compare downloads, sales, rate of adoption, feedback etc across all three.

unalone 17y ago
Neither Android nor Blackberry has hardware or software as well-designed as the iPhone's. One of Apple's major draws has always been its anal attention to detail, which RIM and Google don't share. Google has one of the worst track records regarding design, period. Neither Android nor the Blackberry has a unified product. When I design for the iPhone I know the exact product dimensions, I know exactly how the user will be interacting with my program, and I know it will be the exact same a year or two from now. I can make one app that any iPhone owner can use and it will be used exactly as I want it used. With Android and Blackberry, that's not the case. all apps are 1st class apps Pardon my poor French, but what the fuck does that mean? I've seen Android apps and iPhone apps, and the Android apps are uglier and less elegant.
- durin42 17y ago
  What he means by all apps being first class is that it's really a dogfooded API and platform. Apple is pretty far from the "we build our own apps in the same sandbox you do" state that Android is in. As an example: Twidroid (and most other Android apps) can run in the background, and use data in the background without a custom push server. Apple's Mail app, on the other hand, isn't buildable (for the iPhone) with the public APIs. You'd need to run in the background for that, which isn't available. Don't judge the API based on the quality of apps you're seeing - I've seen some well-polished Android apps, and some legendarily horrible iPhone ones.
- dstorrs 17y ago
  Most likely he means that Android developers don't need to deal with their apps being 2nd class citizens the way iPhone developers do. Unless you work for Apple: 1) You are restricted as to which parts of the SDK you can use. 2) Your app may be rejected for any reason, no reason, or whatever reason. The reason may or may not be explained, and may or may not make sense. 3) Even if it isn't rejected, it will still take weeks or months to get your app into the hands of customers. None of this applies to Apple apps, of course. Therefore, independent developers are 2nd class citizens of the iPhone.
  - unalone 17y ago
    Gotcha. I'd misinterpreted the remark. Thanks!
- thwarted 17y ago
  first class means that there is no priority in which apps can do what. Apps can be written for Android that completely replace core functionality, like the dialer or the contact list, or even the home screen. With the iPhone, there are multiple classes of apps, and anything not sanctioned by Apple takes a backseat to those apps provided or sanctioned by Apple. This is evidenced by the "duplicates functionality" limitation of the Apple vetted App store.
- theBobMcCormick 17y ago
  Have you seen some of the upcoming Android phones? As much as I hate Verizon, the Verizon Droid from Motorola looks like it'll be every bit as good hardware-wise as the current gen iPhones. See here for a comparison of the Droid and the iPhone 3GS (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/101909-droid-vs-iphone.html?fsrc=netflash-rss http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/101909-droid-vs-iphone...)
  - ptomato 17y ago
    Which is great and all, but the fact that you only need to develop for (effectively) one piece of hardware is still a huge competitive advantage for the iPhone vs. anything else. (Except the Pre, but the Pre has other problems.)
    - theBobMcCormick 17y ago
      If you look at the way the Android SDK handles device differences, it's really much less of an issue that most people seem to make it out to be. Accommodating different resolutions, for example, is pretty trivial for an Android app developer. The only (IMHO) that might be an issue is the differences in input capabilities (ie, hardware keyboard or no hardware keyboard, trackball or no trackball, etc). That should no be an issue at all for productivity apps, but I do see how it could be an issue for games. It's hard to balance your level difficulties and design your play mechanics if you're not sure what kind of input device your players will be using.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
megaduck 17y ago
If Apple remains tied to AT&T, then Android might very well become the dominant platform by gobbling up marketshare from WinMo, Symbian, and BlackBerry. Android will probably also gain share by moving down-market into "feature phones". As successful as the iPhone is, it's still a miniscule fraction of overall phone sales. This battle feels hauntingly familiar. Back in the 1980s, Apple made a boatload of money by pushing an elegant, easy-to-use 'sealed box' platform. They eventually got clobbered by cheaper hardware running more open software. If Apple isn't careful, that's going to play out all over again.
- unalone 17y ago
  It's not a competition. The iPhone offers things Android does not and can not offer. It will always have a market. Meanwhile, Android is appearing on dozens of phones, none of which individually will rival the iPhone. They both have a spot in the market. This isn't the same as the PC market was back then. Apple's in a much more dominant position, it's making more money than any of its competitors, it's got the world's most renowned design team, it's the most trusted brand on the planet in key demographics as of 2009. It's got no competition in its particular field, which isn't necessarily that of "phone".
  - megaduck 17y ago
    I'm sorry, but you just described Apple in 1985. Thanks to the Mac and the Apple II, they were making money hand-over-fist. They also had the best designers, and were an incredibly trusted brand with both professionals and the education market. To top it all off, they had a giant technology lead over any of their competitors (except Commodore). The Mac was considered far more than a "computer" at the time. The IBM PC never matched the Macintosh for sales. However, the combined fleet of clones reached such a high volume that the PC clone market became the primary target for developers. Android has similar potential. You're probably right that the iPhone will stick around indefinitely. The Macintosh, in a similar position, has increased its total unit sales, year over year, every year since the initial release. However, it would be hard to argue that Apple was competitive during the 1990s for mindshare or developers. The real risk to Apple is not that they'll crash and burn and go out of business. The risk is that they'll lose their current lead in developer mindshare, and that's a real risk indeed. *For historical marketshare context, check out http://www.jeremyreimer.com/total_share.html http://www.jeremyreimer.com/total_share.html .
vessenes 17y ago
I agree -- I think Grubber is missing the boat on the overall trends. Android OS devices will, guaranteed, outsell total number of iPhones in the not too distant future. Will it be 12 or 24 months? I don't know, but right now Google is knocking the ball out of the park on distribution deals: Apple and AT&T market the iPhone and its OS. Sprint, T-mobile, Verizon, Barnes & Noble (through the Nook), HTC, etc. etc. all market Android OS and phones right now. Which group do you think will win? Eventually the developers will come, especially because developing for Android is frankly easier for developers: significantly more open platform, and broader developer skills for Android's app SDK. Right now, Android's Market app sucks (1.6's update is a bit better). Android Devices will vary more in terms of hardware, although Apple's are starting to differentiate as well. Apple had a pretty good Store app from the get-go, a single platform to develop for, a beautiful UI and almost no competition in the paid app space. Apple pulled out in front, and they'll probably always have an arguably better product, if Steve keeps up his perfectionist ways with successor products. It might even be that the most you could make as a successful developer would be having a 'hit app' on the Apple Store. But, the market conditions will almost certainly generate far more value, in aggregate, for Android developers than iPhone developers; it's going to be a more democratized, far broader market for Android devices really soon now.

buugs 17y ago

It is obvious that gruber is an avid mac user from his posts and generally dislikes windows as many mac users due but this: But Windows is proof that popularity doesn’t guarantee market-leading quality. Makes me wonder what market he is speaking of, if it is something along the lines of graphic design (both OS and for uses) sure the mac ranks pretty high up but what about corporate environments, average home users, aging adults, engineering software (civil,electrical,mechanical) these are all things that windows ranks pretty high for market quality. Windows may be a pain in the ass for some power users or home end users but I bet if the market shares were reversed mac would be heckled as much as windows by average users and certain power users.

lupin_sansei 17y ago
Windows is simply the only OS widely available to run on the vast majority of the machines that people own (PCs) and that's compatible with most software than people want to run. Windows basically has no competitors in the PC OS field. Linux is a fine OS, which I run myself, but it's not widely available in shops/preinstalled and doesn't run the majority of apps that people want MYOB, Quickbooks, iTunes, Microsoft Office etc.
unalone 17y ago
His emphasis in that sentence is on quality, not on market-leading. The quality of application design on Windows is dreadful. The best applications are the ones that create an entirely separate interface and run in full screen, and even then you don't have very many that are attractive or appealing. I think the only real stand-out I've seen is Google Chrome, which was better-designed when it came out on Windows than any browser on the Mac, and which still holds a slight edge over Safari 4 in terms of pure elegance. Everything else ranges from mediocre to terrible. Office 2008: Mediocre. And I liked Office 2008 because I had a Mac. For whatever reason, Apple's hardware attracts brilliant software design. I can name ten Mac-only apps off the top of my head that blow away their Windows/Linux rivals for design superiority. I could name several dozen for the iPhone that are of a similar make. I couldn't name one for any other platform. The difference is staggering. Windows may be a pain in the ass for some power users or home end users but I bet if the market shares were reversed mac would be heckled as much as windows by average users and certain power users. I'd take that challenge. Last year I went to a college with computer diversity. This year I'm at a Mac-only college. Last year everybody bitched about their computers; this year, there's literally no comment about computer usage, because everything just works within the sphere of my acquaintances.

ansonparker 17y ago

"But my interest remains ... in the quality of the apps, not the quantity. Let’s say ... Android winds up with far fewer total apps than iPhone OS, but they’re of generally higher quality. That would make Android the Mac to the iPhone’s Windows. I would switch to that platform." This is a poorly thought out sentiment -- or maybe just poorly expressed. He's saying if the quality of Android apps is "generally higher" he'll switch. Who cares about the average quality? Any healthy app store is going to have a couple dozen iFart variants -- who gives a shit. As long as I can find the good stuff (which, by and large, you can with Apple's app store) and as long as there IS good stuff then I'm happy. To this point I can see the application ecosystem going the way of consoles and relying on marquee titles to succeed. Halo had a huge role in legitimizing Xbox as a gaming platform and you'd hope MS might learn from this with handsets. Actually, it's amazing Microsoft doesn't seem to apply the lessons it has learned from its gaming console success more often. Maybe that's just big company politics though.

mikedouglas 17y ago
Average matters in the sense that I don't know which new application I might be using in six months. Usually my computing experience is dictated by the worse interaction that day. If I have to deal with a text editor that uses tabs when I want spaces, or a note application that won't sync, it doesn't matter how nice the web browser is. My experience on the mac has been that, generally, the developers of third party software focus on the UI. It sounds like an odd version of the "broken windows" theory, but it seems to be true. Because the average quality is so high, applications with bad user experience just don't survive. This means I can pickup the most popular task management app, and expect a certain level of polish. That is why average matters.
pieter 17y ago
He's saying 'generally higher quality', not average. Generally might mean all sorts of things, for example 'if the most used/most popular/most visible applications are of higher quality'

ryanwaggoner 17y ago

The situation is so at odds with Microsoft’s view of the computing universe that Steve Ballmer came up with this cockamamie explanation: “The Internet was designed for the PC. The Internet is not designed for the iPhone. That’s why they’ve got 75,000 applications — they’re all trying to make the Internet look decent on the iPhone.” Pound the table, indeed. Actually, I'm not entirely sure that he's wrong. I personally use apps on the iPhone not because I want a dedicated app for that thing, but because it's less usable or not available in the browser. On my computer, 95% of the apps I use live in the browser. On the iPhone, it's the opposite. Maybe Ballmer is on to something...

padmanabhan01 17y ago
One good thing however is that there is less clutter in apps than their corresponding websites. In some cases, I find using the app more convenient than going to the site in computer browser. Lack of screen space maybe forced them to include just the important part and skip the clutter and made the whole thing better, in my opinion.

ErrantX 17y ago

The quote he opens with: If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table. Is probably one of the best I've seen for a while. It probably applies as much to people here as the rest of the post alone.

iron_ball 17y ago
If by "here" you mean "everywhere, ever, for all time," you are very right.

StrawberryFrog 17y ago

Past a certain point, numbers don't matter. People stopped caring how many videos are on YouTube a while back.

RyanMcGreal 17y ago

>The Internet was designed for the PC. The Internet is not designed for the iPhone. That’s why they’ve got 75,000 applications - they’re all trying to make the Internet look decent on the iPhone. Ballmer has a point. The internet is an open platform with a relatively simple set of open protocols and formats for transferring data, providing services, and so on. Applications built on top of the internet stack are accessible to any device that can read HTML, XML, JSON, YAML, and so on. Even the browser makers are doing a good job of coalescing around the standards. The iPhone, by contrast, is a narrow, closed, proprietary system built on top of the open internet. If you don't have an iPhone, you can't use any of the applications built for it. Similarly, if you want to develop an iPhone app, you have no choice but to go out and buy a Mac to get the development framework. Heck, you can't even distribute an iPhone app without going through Apple's App Store and conforming with its fuzzy terms of service. That's the very opposite of the open internet. It's easy to hate on Microsoft for being closed and proprietary, but Apple is at least as bad.

unalone 17y ago
You just made an argument by completely ignoring what Ballmer said. Ballmer was making an insult to the effect of, every application on the iPhone is trying to make the Internet look good, which is a fucking bizarre insult. The iPhone makes the Internet look really good, it loads pages much faster than any phone Microsoft supplies the OS for, and half the Internet redesigned itself to work better for the iPhone. I browse HN on my iPhone without a special interface and it works perfectly. So Ballmer's just really throwing out bullshit with that comment. I disagree with your comment. Microsoft wasn't bad for being closed, it was bad for attempting to use its monopoly to force its competitors out of business. Apple's closed, but they have plenty of competition, so it's all right. As for the Internet being open, I'd like to see you download the source code for a 37signals application. You can't, because it's closed. But you can use APIs to export data? Well, good news! You can export your iPhone's data also, and they give you APIs to do so! But it doesn't matter that I disagree with your comment, because my actual point is that Ballmer doesn't have a point, is a terrible executive, and should have been fired two years ago for his riotous incompetence as a businessman and a marketer.
- 17y ago

10ren 17y ago

(1) If Apple pursues massive mainstream success, it will alienate its traditional supporters, because not everyone in the mainstream values design so highly - some value cheap, performance, convenience or utility etc at the cost of design. Sure, sometimes you can have everything, and sometimes there's a trade-off (fast-cheap-good-pick-two). (2) Ballmer is right that the iPhone cannot handle all webpages as well as a desktop - it's just impossible to shrink the power of a desktop into such a small, light and elegant form-factor (today, anyway). This is not a fault of the iPhone, but a shortcoming of the web with its layers of inefficiency (esp javascript, flash, java). Apple's genius was to strip those layers away, by integrating the hardware and software to work well together. Only Apple has enough expertise and market clout to do both, and to do it brilliantly. But the above foreshadows dark days ahead: what will happen to the iPhone when it is possible to have a desktop in that form-factor? When ingenious integration is no longer required, and an open market is favoured, with mix and match, and webapps and so on? I see two ways for Apple to win: i. Apple uses the new technology to move ahead to the next frontier (because that's where they like to be). Perhaps an even tinier form-factor? ii. Apple has become so established as the leader in this category, that no one can catch up. This is within Apple's grasp, but I believe they will not take it, because taking it would involve pleasing the mainstream (if you leave major market segments unsatisfied, a competitor fills them), and, as Mr Fireball implies, if Apple did so, it would no longer be Apple. But Microsoft.

TetOn 17y ago
I think you're leaving out the fact that an iPhone sized device with desktop capabilities is still going to require exquisite integration and interface, the very qualities iTouch devices have today in excess. Raw processing power doesn't change that, it only adds to the advantage. Everyone gets distracted by the phone. The phone is just an app (and some extra electronics). The platform is the thing, and Apple is light years ahead of the competition at this point. Use a Kindle. Then use an iPod Touch.
- 10ren 17y ago
  Yes, interface is important. The Macintosh also had a great GUI... which was copied... why couldn't the iPhone UI be copied? notwithstanding working around patents etc.