Slashdot Mirror
Apple vs. Google, Who Will Control the iPhone?
Pieroxy writes "Theiphoneblog carries a nice article on the reason Apple rejected the Google Voice application even though it doesn't violate any terms and services. The article goes in depth over the issue of controlling the hardware (Apple) vs. controlling the software (Google & Apple so far) and how Apple doesn't want Google to take over a critical part of its phone. Just like Google is going into the OS business to make sure it never gets cut out, Apple is also building a huge data center to — they guess — take over some online cloud computing business of their own and be less dependent on Google for these services."
Probably at the end of the day it will be some 17 year old hardware hacking genius from Croatia.
The skills and resources of the hardware hacking community is far out-stepping the biggest corporations. I'm surprised at their resourcefulness every day when I read about a new hack.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
THE IPHONE BLOG
For those who dare to phone different... just like millions of others.
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
This is very important for the industry. It proves, once more, that software is more important than hardware.
It also proves that Apple follows a wrong path selling hardware. It has some nice software in its hands, and it could become an alternative to Microsoft/Google if they wanted to.
Now Google comes and stills their business - if users are accustomed to Google services, they could be tempted to buy an Android-based phone in the future, since the services would be similar to the ones they were used to.
I know who should control it, the user.
as usual
the MS of the phone era.
Make the software and see an internet portal become the end user experience.
Or they could just have a VOIP deal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8217871.stm
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
These articles crop up pretty much daily on various blogs. They all follow a very clear pattern:
1. Pick a hot IT company.
2. Pick a service they're not providing.
3. Pick something that they're spending money on.
4. Relate points 2 and 3.
There's no evidence that the two things are related. For all we know Apple might be getting back into selling time-slices on servers because Steve Jobs has hit his head and thinks it's 1983 again. These sorts of poorly researched, uninsightful articles that are absolutely nothing more than *a guess* are completely pointless.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Are cars more important than the quality of the roads they drive on?
I can see myself taking either side of this argument depending on the situation. Without quality hardware, you'll never get to this quality software. This goes beyond the box, as you must consider the infrastructure that connects us all. Quality hardware and software will work in tandem.
Let's face it, most of us are scoffers. But moments before zero hour, it does not pay to take chances.
Daring Fireball had a good piece on this:
Googleâ(TM)s dependence on hardware and carrier partners puts the final product out of their control â" and into the control of companies whose histories have shown them to be incompetent at design and hostile to users.
Iâ(TM)d be happy to be proven wrong, but my hunch is that the only way weâ(TM)ll see an iPhone-caliber Android phone is if Google does what theyâ(TM)ve said theyâ(TM)re not going to do, which is to design and ship their own reference model âoegPhoneâ. That doesnâ(TM)t mean Android wonâ(TM)t still be successful in some sense if it remains on its current course, but that I donâ(TM)t expect it to be successful in the âoeholy shit is this awesome!â sense that the iPhone is.
http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/the_android_opportunity
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
Apple should be thanking Google for implementing features that they should have included in their phone themselves.
As usual Steve Jobs is taking it the ass from the folks in the marketing department so I doubt things will change any time soon.
A phone is just a phone and we don't need it to become another computer platform to be monopolized. Stop selling me services, please, I only need a phone (that is, hardware).
IF you were trying to drop me a hint, hint taken.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
In the hipster-doofus lovefest that is for all things Apple/Google it's important to note one very key point about your benevolent dictators:
AAPL/GOOG are publicly traded companies and as such their only obligation is to make a profit for their stockholders
That means AAPL does things like heading further down it's proprietary path (yeah when Microsoft does it people scream about it) and Google does things that they have to to make a profit (like cooperating with Chinese authorities which turns "Do No Evil" into a guideline and not a rule.)
Maybe they should change their motto to "We do less evil than everyone else"
The TechCrunch rebuttal to the points of Apple's letter is spot on, but the idea that somehow Google has power over the iPhone, or that Google Voice gives it more power, is nonsense. It's hard to believe Apple really thinks this, or that TechCrunch would accept it as a valid explanation. How does having iPhone users receive calls via their Google Voice number affect the iPhone overall at all? iPhone users still have to use AT&T for their calls? It no longer ties the user strongly to their iPhone phone number, but with number portability that represents no advantage for Apple or AT&T. Having Google manage your calendar and contacts doesn't make any difference to the iPhone in general. Google Voice may give Google more power over individual iPhone users, but not over the iPhone itself.
And all Apple would have left is the browser? No, Apple would still have the industry's most advanced, user-friendly handheld OS and probably a hundred thousand apps, including--if they turn out to popular enough to be a thread--Google Voice. If Google has any power over the iPhone, it stems only from their willingness to pull a Microsoft and withdraw those apps and technologies from the iPhone at some point in the future, such as when it comes time for Apple and Google to renegotiate their license for YouTube, maps, and search. But the flip side is equally true; there's no question that its to Google's advantage to be a prominent part of the smart phone platform likely to cell hundreds of millions over the next five years.
In short, I don't think we've heard the real rationale; certainly TechCrunch didn't provide a believable one. I think it's more likely that Apple perceives Google's calendar and contacts apps as a threat to Mobile Me, which does compete directly with Google. Or that Google Voice potentially interferes with something else Apple considers a unique advantage, perhaps something that they aren't even using yet but is in development. And finally, it's possible that Apple really isn't worried about Google Voice per se, but is worried about opening the door to other challenges to their "no duplication of built-in functionality" rule.
Just like Google is going into the OS business to make sure it gets never cut out, Apple is also building a huge datacenter to â" they guess â" take over some online cloud computing business of their own and be less dependent on Google for these services.
As Ned Ryerson, the Insurance Salesman from the movie "Groundhog Day" famously exclaimed:
Bing Again!
Apple does not "control the software" with respect to their laptops and desktops as Google and other companies provide email clients, web browsers, IM, calanders, contacts, etc. which compete with Apple's offerings. Apple seems to be doing just fine here and no one is raising a fuss about it. I would have liked to seen a discussion as to why the authors feel that the iphone so different from Apple's other platforms.
To feel apple you have to live in apple's world. I can foresee the future when you have to install a Apple(r) Software and logon to it to charge the battery of Apple gadget from any computer other than the registered ones. Its up to their discretion to allow the Apple Gadget to get charged from a non Mac Computer. Software Barricade.
AT&T (for now, in the US)
Sent from your iPad.
Uh, I thought it was MY phone and I bloody well should be able to decide who takes over and how they do it. If the provider is not happy with what I send over it, that is another matter, because I RENT that. I BOUGHT the phone.
Have people become so ignorant that there is no difference in buying and renting anymore?
It is actually pretty simple. If you SELL something, the other person becomes the owner and it isn't YOURS anymore. Perhaps they should make a version of "mine" and "yours" like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H9MUWhU7Xw
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Get with Google and make the iPhone completely run on Google Voice VoIP.
Make it carrier-agnostic (duh) and make it data-only.
The iPhone would become a data only device that would have VoIP built right into the device.
It would work an any network and could even change networks with impunity.
Also, it *should* be cheaper since you're not paying for tradition phone/voicemail/SMS.
I don't understand Apple's argument that this would replace core iPhone functionality. It doesn't replace it, it simply provides another way of making calls. The user won't be confused - after all, it was them who installed Google Voice in the first place. Both Skype and the actual "Phone" app both offer me a phone keypad to make calls with and I am not confused in the slightest about the meaning of both. It's like BT not allowing a landline customer to own a mobile phone because having two handsets might confuse...
I would think a rising tide lifts all boats: Apple says it's a hardware company, so they produce the best hardware and the best interface to said hardware (OSX and the iPhone variant), period. Make the hardware absolutely bulletproof, a dream to program for, and sit back and let the $$$ roll in.
If Google come up with software that allows me to make 60-way calls while also making toast and watering the garden, then there should be no reason for Apple to stop them; "we made the best hardware and the best interface to that hardware around. That's all we care about. Go for it!"
In other words, why is there a problem in the first place? Does Apple really make enough additional money in its contracts with at&t et al to justify meddling in software developers' affairs? I own a Mac, I run OS X, and it gives me everything I want to start with. They've done their job, so now I can install the software I want to use to actually get things done, and go about my business. Why does it have to be different with the iPhone?
I personally believe the app store is a great idea insofar as it's a single place to go for everything; it was a total nightmare to find JavaMe apps for my Razr and even worse trying to get them installed. That said, I also totally disagree with Apple's heavy-handed approach; if you don't want questionable apps, don't install them, and if they turn out to be not what they purported to be, then review them out of existence.
In other words, leave me the hell alone to make my own damn choices about apps I want to run. Let Google write whatever they want; if it works for me I'll use it. If it doesn't, I won't. But let me choose for myself.
This cannot be understated. The computer industry experienced exponential growth once it became open. It all started the day Compaq produced the first IBM PC clone. That day will only come for phones/PDAs when people can use any phone, with software from any company or individual, with any telephone service provider.
We need to treat phone technology openly, just like...well... almost every other piece of hardware on earth (TVs, CD players, vacuum cleaners, hammers, baseballs, ...)
Personal preference.
In Soviet Russia iPhone control you too, sorry.
Now Google comes and stills[sic] their business -
(emphasis mine)
Was about to say, nah, spell checkers are where money is. But then I realized, steals Vs stills is an error that is not easy to catch by spell and grammar checkers and one needs a fairly sophisticated AI to do context analysis. No there is no money there.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
It also proves that Apple follows a wrong path selling hardware. It has some nice software in its hands, and it could become an alternative to Microsoft/Google if they wanted to.
How does it prove that? Apple is in the business of making money. Right now their making more than almost any software company (with one major exception) and many of their hardware competitors. While I wish they would behave a little different for my personal benefit, you can't pretend they aren't doing what's in their best interest.
Without the hardware, there is no software.
If Apple hadn't built the iPhone, I 1000% guarantee you that none of the established players would have. Just look at the track record of Nokia, Motorola, HTC and others - Apple changed the cell phone landscape forever.
On my iPhone my contacts and calendar entries all come from Google. They sync over the air. I even use a different calendar app because it syncs and displays better (CalenGoo).
But I have to use the browser to make a Google Voice call.
Apple's position on this is total BS. I think whoever gave Jobs his new liver was evil, and now Jobs is evil (or more evil than before?).
Bigtime Consulting - "We're the best because we cost the most"
This post is spot on.
This is very important for the industry. It proves, once more, that software is more important than hardware. [...] [Apple] has some nice software in its hands, and it could become an alternative to Microsoft/Google if they wanted to.
If Apple's software were so much better than Google's, Apple would have no problem in competing with Google on a level playing field. Instead, Apple is using their control over the iPhone hardware (and the iPhone hardware is pretty nice) to try to avoid face competition against Google software altogether.
So, what this really shows us is that Apple itself lacks confidence in the competitiveness of their software, because if they thought that Apple's services and software were so much better than Google's, they wouldn't worry about approving Google's applications.
It's funny you use MS as the example of a failed monopoly; I don't think we're quite there yet. MS is still using its near monopoly to push other services, including their Internet portals.
But, in any case, Apple is becoming the MS of the phone era, by trying to use one big success (phone hardware) into another big success (online services). It's not at the level of a monopoly yet, but that was exactly Microsoft's strategy: bundling and tying.
apple are very obviously engaging in illegal anticompetitive behavior here. i need them to relent on this and permit google to distribute this application, or i am going to flee immediately into the waiting arms of t-mobile the moment my contract is up. apple's management of the app store can only be described, honestly, as mentally ill.
The real reason Apple doesn't want another VOIP app is that it would have the potential to turn the iPod Touch into a viable competitor to their own iPhone.
Just strange that they let Yahoo control multiple features (Weather, stocks, search (you can opt for Yahoo instead of Google)) with no concerns for them taking over the device.
Plus Yahoo has apps for Y! Messenger, Y! Music, and another app that brings in quite a few other services.
Then on the phone technology, there's Fring which let you make calls through skype and bring in all your IM contacts, and TruPhone which I think also brings in skype and you can make soft phone calls over 3G.
Seems like their decision was based more on the corporation they were competing with than the technology conflicting on the iPhone.
I agree with your second point, actually, and that may well be something that concerns Apple. But I disagree with the assertion in the second paragraph: Apple likes to control the software on its devices, because...they really aren't a hardware company. If they were, they'd have been dead long ago.
Apple's always been a 'solutions' company; that's what they sell. The iPhone is not the flash memory and processor and screen; it's a package, where they fairly seamlessly combined software and hardware together into a complete whole.
I didn't buy my MacBook Pro because it has a 2.8 Ghz Intel processor and blah blah...all laptops on the market are essentially the same. I bought it because it runs OS X well, without hackery, and is generally well made. I don't necessarily use all of them, but iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, iWork, and so on are all very nice pieces of software in their own ways, but Apple doesn't try to profit hugely directly from them.
So the point is: Apple's always been part (and maybe mostly) software company; the difference between them and Microsoft (in most markets) is that Apple just uses the software to sell hardware, whereas Microsoft's empire was all about the software sales itself. So, I can see why Apple's threatened by Google (though as an Apple consumer, I wish they'd get over it and compete instead of trying to block everyone that's outdoing them).
gameDB
Apple DOESN'T want to. They are in a nice spot right now - they can sell fewer product, but at higher margins than the rest of the industry. They don't care that their sales volume is smaller, or their marketshare is 1/10th of their competitor. Once you start lusting after more people, it becomes a race to the bottom. It's why Apple has no computer to compete against the low-end PCs, why the mid-range Apples don't have features enthusiasts want (i.e., expandability), etc. It gets harder to meet the needs of more diverse set of people, and marginal costs to support the next customer rise faster than revenue gained from those extra customers.
The iPod is an irregularity, and while a money maker, you can tell Apple's not really liking having to sell a whole range of iPods - the line's pretty much stagnated except for the Touch. The only thing keeping them up there is that their competitors are equally stuck - unable to out-iPod the iPod.
This cannot be understated. The computer industry experienced exponential growth once it became open. It all started the day Compaq produced the first IBM PC clone. That day will only come for phones/PDAs when people can use any phone, with software from any company or individual, with any telephone service provider.
The cellphone industry already has seen this. 10 years ago, the cellphone population was nowhere near where it is now. Maybe 20 years ago if we include the rest of the world. Cellphones are everywhere. Nokia makes the vast majority of the phones sold, and thus, the vast majority of the phones sold can also run Java applets. There's very little growth left - those who want "a phone" have the low end (which is increasingly including stuff like cameras, mp3 players and such). Those who want an awesome email platform have the millions of Blackberry models out there. Those who want to surf the web have tons of phones that run WebKit. All Apple brought to the table was innovation - the only way to break into a crowded market. Even the iPhone's low marketshare makes Apple happy - they command a good chunk of industry revenues.
And we won't see open hardware and open OS distributions anytime soon - phones are embedded devices and highly customized to their hardware. Take a look at DD-WRT for open hardware and open OS, and see how many different binaries you need to support all those routers. And that's just because they all are based off similar hardware designs, but still there's no "install this software package and it'll configure itself" distribution.
As for the "any service provider" - we're already there. It's called GSM (or UMTS/LTE... 3GPP anyhow). Buy an unlocked phone. Buy a SIM card. Put latter into former. Make calls. Go to another country. Buy a new SIM card. Replace existing SIM. Make calls.
10 years from now people won't know what an IPhone is, because closed software phones won't exist.
Right track, wrong analogy.
Which sells more cars? The latest and most bleeding edge engine, or the curves and colours of the body? The accuracy of the speedometer, or the layout of the dashboard? The effectiveness of the airbags, or the fact the seats are heated? The range on a single tank of gas, or the ipod interface to the radio?
The fact is that though we really *should* care more about the former, society generally seems to care more about the latter. We assume the former works, so all advancement is assumed in the latter. We assume the basics (e.g., hardware) are all covered and are perfect, and it's only software that has the problems (or, in the car analogy above, the niceties and extras that are optional and thus distinguishing between vehicles).
What Apple showed was that our old cell phone hardware could be shown as drastically out of date. What they're getting hurt by is the apps: everyone is just assuming their hardware now. Its value has been commoditised, even if the price tag hasn't been. Google, RIM, and any other competitors in this space are out to show that the hardware really is commodity. Google just has an interesting take on that tactic: by providing a user-interface that is phone-independant, they really are making the hardware commodity.
Seems pretty short sighted to think that no other company would have thought of an "iPhone" like devise.
Of course, myself not beign a fan of touch screens, I think that could have been a good thing.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
It also proves that Apple follows a wrong path selling hardware. It has some nice software in its hands, and it could become an alternative to Microsoft/Google if they wanted to.
Now, where to start with this...
I don't really use either Apple or Microsoft (my iBook gathers dust and my Windows partition is there for games) but I don't really hate either even though it seems to be fashionable, especially with Ms).
Microsoft and Google really can't be lumped together. The Venn diagrams for their areas of operation don't intersect that much. They do compete for mindshare though.
Microsoft makes :
Google makes :
Apple makes :
Granted, Apple *could* just sell its system openly for any intel system (meaning anything that has an x86 instruction set or x86_64). And then what ?
Then Apple would end up where Linux or BSD is. With way less people to fix it. Currently, you certainly can run Mac OS on pretty much any x86 system. You'll probably have lots of fun finding drivers for your stuff if my experience with my Mac is anything to go by but I'm sure that for the most part it'll run.
And then what ? Do you think there's money in selling CDs with 0s and 1s on them ?
Apple makes money moving boxes (mostly small boxes with little music players in them at the moment). Selling operating systems is the best way to kill a company. Ask Be Inc. At the time they were so far ahead of Apple (or of Microsoft for that matter) technologically (ok, Apple was 5 or 10 years behind at the time so it was quite easy) that it wasn't even funny. Of course nobody cared.
Or look at NeXT when it tried to gulp a few lungfuls of air before going under when it was selling its system for generic PCs. That was under the direction of Jesus^H^H^H^H^HSteve Jobs BTW.
You may be fond of Apple products, which is something you'll have to deal with on your own, and isn't a serious condition anyway, but it doesn't mean they are fit to take over the computing world. I'm glad it works for you and if it's important to you you'll probably be able to switch over a number of casual users.
However, remember that if the best product at a given time took over the market, we'd have all run Amiga computers for quite a while. In any market, quality doesn't have a lot (if anything) to do with its success on the marketplace. There are *a lot* of factors in play. And currently, while the play field isn't as varied as it was in the 8 bit days, we're still lucky to have 3 fairly active players, none of which can ignore the others. This is a good thing for all involved. It probably would be beneficial to lower a bit the influence of the major player, but to remove any of them certainly would hurt the whole ecosystem.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
I guess the Mac Mini is just a figment of my imagination, then?
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Apple has ALWAYS followed the hardware path.
When IBM tried to lock down their hardware and failed, Apple succeeded.
IBM tried to regain control with the PS/2 using the same tricks apple did--but it failed for exactly that reason, most people rejected a single vendor system.
If Apple were to try to replace Google's services, I'd probably ignore Apple's offerings (Ever notice that Apple tries to charge for every little thing? I have some icon in my toolbar that I can't get rid of that's linked to a pay apple service, why aren't they being sued for this--Microsoft sure would be!).
If I couldn't replace them, I'd look at Android. I really like my Mac but at this point Google is much more important to me.
(I was already called a Microsoft "Secret" marketing droid on /. once this year, going for Google now. After that I'll take on Mac for the trifecta)
..so I can answer that. Bling and shiny sell cars. Heck, I have sold cars where they never even looked at the engine or drove it, once I sold a car that had a dead engine but a very nice shiny body and decent non trashed interior (these were all used cars). After the sale agreement, and the customer didn't know it had a dead engine, he never asked to drive it, or I would have told him, I made the mechs go through their pile of stuff and build an engine. the customer just went over, looked at it sitting there and walked over to me and said "how much"? that was it, the total transaction. So he leaves, says he is coming back in the morning wih the check, I told the mechanics then they had to stay there as late as it took and get an engine built and installed because in the morning the dude was coming by to pick up the car. They did it, too. But that bling and shiny, it was the sharpest looking ride on the lot, did the sale. Now ME, I couldn't care less, I look for fluid leaks, the pattern of wear on the tires, the sound of it starting, all that stuff, check out everything mechanical before I even think about the bodywork or shiny-ness.
"steals their business"? What?!? Explain first how Apple profits from their included free apps. They're providing a platform, and if Google on their device as a free alternate option inticed more customers to buy it, what is Apple to care? Including google means more iPhone buyers and more money.
Next: Apple profits more than Dell, HP, Acer, and any other competitor off their hardware. Not just in terms of per unit, but Apple actually profited more than the SUM TOTAL of Dell last year of 25% of the shipped PCs (not counting iTunes store, ipods, and phones). Apple is proof positive of how profitable and successful a hardware company can be. They're a model to the industry!!! Apple has never been on the "wrong path" selling hardware.
No, the real reson I'm sure is pressure not even so much from AT&T, but T-Mobile and Verizon regarding the ability, using Google Voice, to bypass having to pay for airtime minutes, and to be able to bypass SMS charges.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
That is the exaggeration of the decade. Cell phones have evolved fairly rapidly, and will continue to do that for the foreseeable future. The iPhone is just another step in that evolution.
Nokia lineup is a good example, take a look at this (large) phone collection pic. The huge amount of copies of the generic models hides the fact that overall there has been a huge evolution in 20 years.
If you look at the software, the change is even more pronounced.
But, as a software person myself, if you don't control the hardware you sell your software on, you risk having hardware issues blamed on your software. Like it or not, someone's going to license your perfectly good software to use on their crappy hardware and users are going to associate the two. Apple deals with this one way, Google the other.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
If this is Apple's reasoning (and yes, I believe it very well be) then it reveals something we've known all along: you can pay money for an iPhone, but you can never own one.
Blockbuster doesn't have Netflix kiosks in their stores, but they do not refuse to rent or sell movies to people who happen to also be Netflix customers. You might not rent a room in your house (especially if you still live in that house) to "too many" people, but if you were selling your house, you probably wouldn't give a damn how many people move in.
If you sell a phone, you don't give a damn what software somebody runs on it.
If you take money for a phone but still consider that physical object to be YOURS then, of course, you still have a stake in what software gets loaded onto "your" phone.
So, sure, it makes sense. And it's yet another clue to users, that you have to be a damned fool to "buy" an iPhone.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Sorry, but you can certainly get much more computing power out of $599.00USD than buying a Mac Mini.
Apple has very respectable workstations in the mid/high end, but the mini is just not competitive (outside the fact that it is the cheapest way to have legal MacOS X).
No sig for the moment.
Nope, but let me help you out with perspective. The Inspiron 537 slim is entry-level at $269 including a DVD+/-RW, 2GB RAM, etc. Like the Mini, it doesn't include a monitor, but with the recommended 18.5" flat panel, it becomes just $499, still $100 cheaper than the Mini (and comes in multiple colours).
Apple's cheapest offerings are still a lot more expensive than the cheapest PCs out there.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
I think that is the more important question here. ;)
Apple's hype machine will end at some point.
Google will start doing evil at some point.
It's nature at work.
The only thing I fear, will be when... ...saving us.
Linux will be a sick mutation of its former self at some point.
And Microsoft will become a nice open-source company at some point.
I think then my head might literally explode. ;)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
The old Hewlett-Packard, perhaps?
Those who have actually lived by the HP way can attest to this fact.
----
The point is that you cannot have that ideal world where no major company does not hold the reigns to your PC experience. We lost that as soon as the PC went mainstream. For, when you are out in the real world no one actually gives a damn except for us /.ers how closed is a platform. They want chic devices that do what they want without giving them a headache. Apple does that and that is why they have had their renaissance.
Now, why is that so hard to understand? Sure, Apple's mask has slipped, but as long as they stay true to that one thing no one will bat an eyelid.
Its a bet the company strategy, in a context in which its not clear that they need to bet the company. The bet is that they can tie together a monolithic offering, where people will buy into the whole thing because of the excellence of the individual bits. So you buy into iTunes, iPod, the store, the PC software, then that gets tied into the iPhone via the app store...and so on. They have been trying to do this for many years, e-world, running only on Macs, was an early example.
This is one part of it, but it also has a flip side: the need to exclude apps. The problem is that you are trying to tie apps to hardware to services, to construct a closed little world that your customers never leave. But if they do leave? Then you lose the service revenue, or the app revenue, or the hardware revenue. So you end up with coercion in one way or another, and the immortal line, which probably really reflects what Cupertino has brainwashed itself into, the view that being able to run Google Voice on your iPhone - being able to, notice - detracts from the user experience. They probably really believe this stuff by now, they say it to each other every day, and they get their shills to post it all over the net.
You see tje risk of course. If it comes about that there is a must have service (like maybe Google Voice, or something in the cloud) or a must have bit of hardware or a must have non-Apple peripheral, all of a sudden they are in the position of having the model break, or else being feature deficient. This is basically what happened to the other monoliths of the 80s and 90s of the last century.
The puzzling thing is that the vast investments required to keep this thing going, whether in legal fees, in huge data centers, in new product and market entries, are very risky. You cannot afford to have one big loss. But one big loss is inevitable sooner or later. Meanwhile, there is an alternative almost totally risk free strategy, sit on your laurels and pay dividends, and gradually open up all the platforms, and try to maximize returns from each one individually.
The difficulty is that there is a real tension here. The OS would sell far more free from the tie to the hardware. But the hardware would also sell far more freed from the tie to the OS. The same will happen with the app store as mobile apps develop. You'd have a more viable store if it sold apps for more phones, and you'd sell more iPhones if it would run more apps. Not yet, but that day will come. The same thing will happen with services. The only way, for instance, to make a success out of e-world was to have it run on any OS at all. The only way to make the Mac a success online was to have it support the ISP and online service of your choice.
So this is what they are targeting, and what they are running headlong into. And it will end in tears. In a few years, but it will end in tears. As it did last time. Learning and repeating history.
You forget that Apple users measure performance in cubic centimeters. I'm sure your inspiron slim is huge compared to the mini. :)
I wouldn't say it really directly competes with something like this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883103221
but I could be wrong.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Posting anon for modding, but the dell item you list has the celeron processor. To get it up to Mini core duo, the starting price is $499, and that is with Vista Home. To get it with XP (for grins let's say that XP compares with OS-X) then you are paying another $120. In my opinion you're better off with the Mini, but they are at that point comperable in terms of performance and price. I will gladly pay $100 more to get OS-X over Vista. But really I wish that it would come from dell with MythBuntu already installed and set up. Then the $499 is a decent deal, and something I can use with my 32" 1020p LCD TV. Ashtangiman
Apple's probably fairly happy selling a whole range of iPods. Don't mistake the lack of innovation for lack of desire... they're just saving money.
They put their engineering efforts where they can get market luster... the iPod Touch. That's also a much larger money maker, since it can tap all that Apple has to sell them online: video, music, and apps.
The lesser iPods are intentionally lesser... they're an entre into the iTunes world, nothing more or less. They don't change often because they don't have to... Apple doesn't want too much competition going up, and they don't acknowledge competition with other manufacturers. Sure, the iPod "Shuffle" is kind of silly, and for less money, you can get a pretty nice Sandisk player with a screen, voice recorder, and more memory.
That's not the point... the point is, the iPod brings you into the iTunes world... something you're supposed to crave, as an end-user, and something Apple's making big money on. Keep in mind, Apple topped the music retailer's list first time last year, and that wasn't build on the backs of just the iPhone and Touch users.
This is typical Apple behavior... they can't quite deal with being software only. They could easily open iTunes (particularly with DRM being dead and buried, at least on music) and let all these better low-end players earn them money, but that would be a loss of power, and a distraction from the upgrade path they want you to follow. So they very much care about the low-end product, just not AS a competitive low-end product. It's a taste of something better, and a gateway drug.
-Dave Haynie
"It also proves that Apple follows a wrong path selling hardware. It has some nice software in its hands, and it could become an alternative to Microsoft/Google if they wanted to." This old chestnut is marked 5 insightful? The usual estimate is that 50% of Windows installations worldwide are pirated. That represents a demand (for a free product). It is easier to pirate Mac OS X. It is not protected by a serial number or internet authentication. There is a site offering information on how to do it and a name has been coined: Hackintosh. Now, according to you, Apple's going down the wrong path, selling to the subsection of the computer market interested in an 'It Just Works' box, because were Apple to sell Mac OS X alone more people would pay for it than are currently interested in stealing it... unpoliced as it is. hmmm... OS 2 failed, Next failed, Linux failed, Free BSD... they all failed to gain significant market share(yes Next OS = Free BSD = Mac OS X... but these all represent attempts to popularise OSs independent of hardware). Apple succeeded because, when faced with the herd mentality one has to take attention away from the fact that you aren't following the herd... it's just a box... forget what flavour it is... It Just Works. That way you enter to market as white goods, just like buying a toaster... and, if the OS is good enough, you get the a few sales to the discerning too.
Apple's entire business model is based on hardware/software integration. It won't survive without the hardware.
Apple is like Sun in the consumer market. Sun sells both hardware and software, and it went down to the toilet (although an expensive one: 7 billion dollars!) when their hardware could no longer compete with the cheap PCs.
Even on a normal performance metric, I can't tell you the slim I cited is a better deal than the Apple Mini. My problem is with people who think that the entry point in PC hardware isn't as low as it is.
FYI the Slim is 37.79cm x 10.6cm x 43.31cm at 7.3kg and the Mini is only 5.08 cm x 16.51 cm x 16.51 cm at 1.31 kg. Personally though, I'm tempted by one of these.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
....instead of trying to block everyone ...
If someone wants to play in my garden, they have to play according to my rules or play in some other garden. If Google wants to have a certain user experience, they can design their own platform or cooperate with others who already make phones. This has nothing to do with competition, but Brand protection. Apple has every right and obligation to protect their own brand from whatever competition may be brought to it by third parties. It seems that most /.ers forget that Apple is a for-profit company and is entitled to make any and all moves that protect its profitability. They are not a monopoly like Microsoft and that there are plenty of competitive phones, music players, computers and other devices that Apple sells.
All theory is gray
What I find great is that Apple rejects Google Voice, but there's a great alternative that Apple does endorse which is YouMail (www.youmail.com)'s visual voicemail app. So it's either because Google IS Google, or some of the extra features that encroach on Apple's turf like the way they do SMS.
Steve Jobs on multiple occasions has said that Apple is at heart a software company, then quotes Alan Kay saying that "people who are really serious about software do their own hardware." The implication (right or wrong, you decide) is that they can't do the best software unless they control the hardware too.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
That day will only come for phones/PDAs when people can use any phone, with software from any company or individual, with any telephone service provider.
I can already do that here in the UK, I can buy any phone I like, with any Mobile provider; if I don't like the provider, I can just change the SIM and get my number ported. I've never had problems installing things on previous phones (mostly from Nokia) or my current Phone. The only phone that tries to restrict what I can install on it is the iPhone, hence why I don't have one.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Probably aren't any King Missile fans here, but they made the song "Detachable Penis".
"It's Saturday"
I want to be different, like everybody else I want to be like.
I want to be just like all of the different people.
I have no further interest in being the same,
because I have seen difference all around,
and now I know that that's what I want.
I don't want to blend in and be indistinguishable.
I want to be a part of the different crowd,
and assert my individuality along with others
who are different like me.
I don't want to be identical to anyone or anything.
I don't even want to be identical to myself.
I want to look in the mirror and wonder,
"Who is that person? I've never seen that person before.
I've never seen anyone like that before."
I want to call into question the very idea that
identity can be attached.
I want a floating, shifting, ever changing persona.
Invisibility and obscurity,
detachment from the ego and all of it's pursuits.
Unity is useless, conformity is competitive and divisive and leads only to stagnation and death.
If what I'm saying doesn't make any sense,
that's because sense can not be made
It's something that must be sensed
And I, for one, am incensed by all this complacency.
Why oppose war only when there's a war?
Why defend the clinics only when they're attacked?
Why support the squats in the parks only when the police come to close them down?
Why are we always reactive?
Let's activate something.
Let's fuck shit up.
Whatever happened to revolution for the hell of it?
Whatever happened to protesting nothing in particular?
Just protesting, cause it's Saturday and there's nothing else to do.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
I agree. You could build a half decent gaming computer for that much money!
They've always been control freaks. Really, I have ZERO sympathy for people who buy Apple then don't like it when Apple exercises control over them. It's not like this is a sudden change in behavior from Apple. This is pretty consistent with the way they have done business since, I dunno, 1984(?) or whenever the original Mac came out.
Also, don't forget that even though you might own the phone, Apple owns the App Store, and Apple owns the software on it (software is [almost] never sold - the software is 'owned' by the copyright holder, and is licensed to end users). When you buy an Apple iPhone, you *know* up front that the software is designed to only allow you to obtain new software via the Apple App Store, and Apple has control of the App Store. It is definitely *their* App Store. If they don't want to offer Google's software via the App Store, they have no legal obligation to offer it. If that makes it so that *you* can't get Google's app on *your* iPhone, maybe you shouldn't have gotten an iPhone to begin with.
Get a phone from a provider that either, A) offers a completely open 'App Store', or B) the phone allows you to download software from any website, like BlackBerries do.
I cannot stress this enough - buyers are responsible for making informed purchases. If you are considering buying an Apple iPhone, and don't like the way the iPhone works (in this case, that you can only get software through the 'official' Apple App Store), DON'T BUY THE iPhone.
I have not, and do not plan to, buy an iPhone because, frankly, it just isn't what I want. It's too much of an Apple product, with the 'hood welded shut'. I don't like products like that, but some people do.
That only leaves the problem of people mod'ing the phones so they can load software from anywhere. While I think, from a personal opinion standpoint, that should be perfectly OK, it might not actually be legal to modify the software on the phone, because of possible DMCA complications. What is right, and what is legal, is often quite different.
exactly! it's obviously cheaper if they waste all of that space on a screen... it just shows inferior engineering skills at dell, adding useless features to fill a marketing bullet list.
A phone is just a phone and we don't need it to become another computer platform to be monopolized. Stop selling me services, please, I only need a phone (that is, hardware).
I disagree. To a large extent, the phone stopped being interesting a few years ago, and increasingly the phone is simply a commodity that's built into your PDA/mobile computing platform. If you didn't want that, then you wouldn't need an iPhone or any other smart phone. You'd just be using a bargain free-with-plan phone.
No, the vast majority of people buying iPhones are looking for a portable entertainment device with mapping, Web browsing, email and number of other critical features that have nothing to do with the fact that the device happens to have a phone built into it.
Nope, but let me help you out with perspective. The Inspiron 537 slim is entry-level at $269 including a DVD+/-RW, 2GB RAM, etc.
But if you spec it with similar processor to the Mac mini the price starts at $664. (As stated at the same link.)
Yeah, true, and I bet you could get 500 cans of baked beans at sams club, for the same price as my steak.
Go ahead, but I am not sure that is worth bragging over.
This is off-topic.
You must be new here.
Karma fed to this user will be promptly burnt. Be warned; be wary.
I think it is a two developer shop, actually. I also tried MythTV for a year but the WAF factor was so low that it damn near tanked my HTPC project. Compared to the price of cable, the $100 or so for a SageTV license is a bargain.
It seems to me that profitability is enhanced by releasing top-tier software products for the platform rather than not and fiduciary obligation to shareholders is violated by any other policy.
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods
Wouldn't it be nice if we could control our own damned hardware?
Your example show exactly the opposite of your point. Apple has brought as much evolution with ONE phone, than Nokia did with a thousand!
Nokia is evolution, Apple is closer to revolution. Because let's be serious, smartphones were close to being unusable before Apple stepped in.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
of course Apple will control the iPhone. Google is a search engine company that has written some web apps and a shaky mobile OS, and may have a full OS sometime soon. But they won't control the iPhone. And Apple has every right to make sure of that.
btw, you mods need to learn how to use the offtopic button a little more.
The comment had nothing to do with comparable pricing for comparable hardware, but where 'entry level' begins.
That Mac may be a very good deal for what's included, but my point was that there is an entry level even lower than that.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Reading all the comments people are writing about developing for Android vs iPhone makes me sad. So much is about getting paid. Ok, I am a programmer for a living, it's my 9 to 5. But what happened to all the open source people who used to be on Slashdot? I want a phone with a software community behind it. just like my Linux desktop. Yes, I'd be happy to contribute some code myself... that is to a platform which includes CDMA and is getting enough use that I am confident it will not be forgotten tomorrow. While I see nothing wrong with someone making some money off an app they wrote I am concerned that I don't see the drive to create an oss software suite for cellphones like there was on the desktop. I think it's creepy that people actually look at a phone platform's store as a feature rather than an artificial limitation imposed by the developer. It's like the desktop from some alternate reality where the OSS movement never happened.
In the case of apps like the Google Voice-related apps, iPod Touch users get completely screwed despite not having ANY phone capability whatsoever. There is no duplication of function because the function doesn't exist. There is not user confusion about functionality because Apple doesn't provide this functionality. There is simply no lost revenue. And many may not realize it, but there are developer settings provided by Apple that can control which devices apps can be installed on, yet Apple screws iPod Touch users because they are worried about losing money from iPhone users.
Apple could care less what app is installed as long as the app doesn't move focus from their revenue-generating apps. You'll find countless Datebook, Contacts, Calculator, Stock Tracking, Weather, and Photo apps that completely duplicate functionality, but by God, submit ANYTHING that resembles iTunes (which Apple gets direct revenue) and the Phone app (which Apple gets revenue indirectly from AT&T) and it'll never see the light of day.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
This cannot be understated. The computer industry experienced exponential growth once it became open. It all started the day Compaq produced the first IBM PC clone. That day will only come for phones/PDAs when people can use any phone, with software from any company or individual, with any telephone service provider.
We need to treat phone technology openly, just like...well... almost every other piece of hardware on earth (TVs, CD players, vacuum cleaners, hammers, baseballs, ...)
Right, which is precisely what Google is doing with Android. Or at least very, very close to it. If they were a hardware manufacturer allowing open firmware flashing, they'd be doing precisely what you suggest. I'm confident Google will win this battle for precisely these reasons.
Also, I've only been beta testing Google Voice for a month, but I'm going to buy the first Android phone I can that gets good coverage in my area (T-Mobile doesn't, and I refuse to buy AT&T) precisely because of how awesome Google Voice has been for me. I want it properly integrated with my phone, and I want my contacts properly updated, and I'm very upset about the way Apple abuses its customers.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling