
Another Way Apple's Fight With Google Is Hurting Users - tdgrnwld
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/another-way-apples-fight-with-google-is-hurting-users.php
======
cs702
I see two fundamental issues at the heart of the problem:

* iOS allows users to install only applications approved by Apple. This makes about as much sense as a house with built-in technology that prevents the owner from using any furniture, kitchen equipment, and entertainment device that isn’t pre-approved by the home builder.

* iOS prevents users from installing and accessing other app stores. (Other proprietary mobile OSs make it difficult or impossible to install third-party app stores.) This makes about as much sense as the home builder having the legal and technological power to prevent the homeowner from visiting certain shopping malls in the area.

Installing any app you want -- and any app store you want -- _on your own
device_ ought to be an inalienable right.

\--

Edit: I updated the second point to reflect that Android does allow the
installation of third party app stores -- see comments below. (Thank you
mokeyfacebag, stanleydrew, and ZeroGravitas for pointing this out!)

~~~
monkeyfacebag
> Both iOS and Android prevent users from installing and accessing other app
> stores.

This is _not_ true for Android. Some OEMs might ship a version of Android that
is tied to a single app store (e.g., Kindle Fire), but I'm quite certain that
vanilla Android can install any old .apk from any source.

~~~
bduerst
The carriers can threaten lawsuits to app providers if they allow the
application to work on their network.

Case in point: Google Wallet.

~~~
halvsjur
From a European perspective, that sounds really strange.

I've got mobile broadband in my laptop. Imagine if the provider of that
service would have a say over what programs I could run on my laptop. Very
strange.

~~~
bduerst
It's a SLA, which typically don't come with laptops.

Video game consoles are similar - MS won't allow you access to the Xbox Live
service if you've modded your hardware or installed different firmware.

Verizon doesn't care what you do with your phone, but they say that you can't
get their cell phone service unless you run the device the way they want you
to.

------
adriand
The actual title of this article is "Another Way Apple's Fight With Google Is
Hurting Users", which casts less blame than the modified title here on HN,
"Another Way Apple's Fight Against Google Is Hurting Users".

It is unfair to present this ongoing situation as a war on Google by Apple. It
is a competition _between_ the two companies. Not to beat a long dead horse,
but the war between the two companies started when Google entered the mobile
device space.

~~~
capo
It hurts Apple's customers because they are blocking a superior free product
for no apparent reason but to kill competition.

As for: _Not to beat a long dead horse, but the war between the two companies
started when Google entered the mobile device space._

Was entering the mobile market a bad thing? was it not allowed? is it for
Apple alone and no one else's? that statement doesn't make any sense. I'm sure
there was a time when Apple entered the mobile business and Nokia wasn't none
too pleased.

~~~
betterth
>It hurts Apple's customers because they are blocking a superior free product
for no apparent reason but to kill competition.

Misinformation. Apple isn't BLOCKING anything!

Apple released, in iOS1, Apple Maps powered by Google Maps API Data.

Google, wanting to monetize Google Maps API access, began charging expensive
rates for their heavy users, of which Apple was the heaviest user of all.

In response to Google asking Apple for millions of dollars for a service they
provide for free on every other platform, Apple decide to change the data
source in Apple Maps.

Google has yet to provide their own app on iOS for mapping, as they're likely
pissed that their million-dollar-lunch just ended and now they have to provide
a service for FREE.

I'm so tired of this blatantly anti-Apple bias.

~~~
eco
You do not know how much (if anything) Google was charging Apple for API
access or if it increased when they generally increased the pricing. They
almost certainly got a better deal than general users of the API because they
are Apple and have a massive user base. We do know that Apple and Google had a
contract in place but beyond that we don't know anything.

Furthermore, Apple does not get their data from "Apple Maps". They pay to
license it from TomTom and other companies (though they do, of course, also
produce data of their own that gets combined with the third-party sources to
produce the aggregation that is Apple Maps).

I don't know how much you meant by "millions of dollars" but it was probably
substantially less than the $267 million Apple paid to acquire C3 Technologies
to add 3D maps to their offering.

Apple's decision was a great long term decision for them but it did hurt users
in the short term (hence Cook's apology).

------
VengefulCynic
Much as I find anti-competitive behavior contemptible, this article makes a
glaring, uncorroborated assumption that Google's voice-to-speech functionality
is currently being held up by Apple.

Looking closer, it's not even clear that ReadWriteWeb asked either party for a
comment... note: "Google’s PR response to questions like this is that “we’re
working closely with Apple” on getting it released." and "Well, Apple doesn’t
talk about these things, so all we know is that it isn’t out."

~~~
Matt_Cutts
During the search breakfast back in early August, Google did say that they'd
submitted the app. Here's a CNET article that covered the search breakfast:
[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57489395-93/google-
exposes-...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57489395-93/google-exposes-
smart-results-in-search/) The relevant part is "The update to the Google
Search app has been submitted to Apple, and Google expects it to be approved
in the next few days, Huffman said."

If anyone wants to watch Scott Huffman's demo of natural language voice search
from the search breakfast, the relevant section of the video is on the web:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a2VmxqFg8A#t=10m43s>

~~~
blhack
...wow.

Gee whiz, I wonder why apple suddenly has a bitter taste towards apple? This
makes siri look embarrassing.

------
robomartin
You can look at this at least two ways:

1- Apple you S.O.B's, why won't you let me do as I wish with my phone

2- Apple, this is your product and I understand that you have the absolute
right to do with it as you wish.

I actually find myself in both camps.

Sometimes I wish Apple would let go and treat this like selling Windows or
OSX: They provide the OS and let others integrate apps as deep and wide as
they wish. Yes, this would mean things like providing developers full access
to all resources as opposed to the restrictions we work under today.

On the other hand, I also find myself in a position from which I respect the
quality and stability the platform has offered since day one. It's almost like
this is a benevolent totalitarian regime.

Until iOS 6 and Maps.

What I see now is a company that might not be making the right decisions for
it's customers and users. You could argue this has happened with OSX as well.
By releasing a substandard Maps application Apple has proven that it is now
willing to make decisions that do not include quality, stability and the
users' best interest in the process. I cannot, in any way, imagine that this
would have been approved by Steve Jobs. Maybe I think too much of the man, but
I don't think I am wrong.

Apple cannot make all the right decisions for this platform. No company can.
Not in the long run. At one point you have to let go and allow others to help
evolve the platform in ways a single company could not possibly imagine. Not
doing so has the potential to tilt the scales and have users eventually vote
with their purchases and move to other platforms.

~~~
cageface
This is exactly my issue with Apple. Once you've handed over all control to a
benevolent dictator you're powerless if that dictator becomes less benevolent
or competent in the future.

Until Apple allows opt-in sideloading of apps I'm done with iOS.

~~~
wutbrodo
Except for the fact that Apple has NEVER been benevolent. My first brush with
Apple was choosing to buy a Creative mp3 player (despite literally everyone I
know having an iPod as their player) because of the absolutely ridiculous
restrictions that Apple put on copying files from the device to a computer.
This wasn't a "hacker" problem that "typical" users didn't face; I've lost
count of the number of people who asked me how to do exactly that with their
iPods over the following few years. I've always been baffled at the
characterization of Apple as focused on the user; user satisfaction has always
seemed like a side effect of their main goal, which is profitability.
Obviously in the ideal case, these two goals should be one and the same, but
it's pretty obvious that very, very often, they are not. There are always
things a company can do to help their market position that hurt their users,
and Apple is practically a pioneer in coming up with and implementing them.

------
brudgers
_"I am a devoted Apple customer"_

Not only is this the reason the author percieves the situation as harmful, but
avoiding the harm is entirely within the author's control. Just purchase
different devices.

~~~
w1ntermute
After all these years purchasing only iDevices, it can actually be pretty
difficult for many of these people (particularly journalists) to even
_envision_ purchasing and using a non-Apple device. They've just been drinking
the Kool-aid for far too long.

~~~
untog
Well, there are rational reasons, too. At this point people have spent five
years building up a collection of apps- if you switch to Android, you lose the
whole lot.

~~~
thiderman
That really depends on how flexible you are as a user. Maybe you cannot get
the exact stack of apps that you currently have, but I'm quite sure you can
find the same kinds of functionality on both sides of the app store fences.

~~~
untog
Sure. But you have to pay for all of them again.

------
mycodebreaks
This clearly shows how laggard Siri is when compared to Google search. This is
how things are at present. Google clearly has an edge in this area. I agree
that Apple will keep working and improving Siri, but there are many problems
in the road which Google can solve much better than Siri can.

When Apple doesn't allow Google search because it is competing with
Siri(Ssshh.. actually, it's a lot better than Siri), I am losing as a user.

I wish both companies can work together. In an ideal world for users, the
backend technology is powered by Google and the interface and interaction is
designed by Apple. That will make a groundbreaking product for sure.

------
saurik
You can't have it both ways: people absolutely _love_ to trot out the
platitude "competition is good" about all sorts of situations--even when open
source projects are rewritten from scratch when the other project would have
happily accepted patches, people are still all "competition is good"--but now,
suddenly, it is all about "cooperation"? Why isn't this another "competition
is good"?

Apple is not playing unfairly here (as you might argue in other battles, such
as with Samsung), and neither is Google. They are competitors, and both Maps
and Voice/Siri are key functionality for these mobile devices: Google spent a
bunch of time building their technologies, and if Apple wants to use it on
their highly profitable hardware maybe they should have to pay a _lot_ for it;
example: half their margin.

This is, then, what competition is: it is two people/companies duplicating
effort to get a similar result, purposely putting each other down whenever
possible, and setting up situations where they have whatever advantages the
system allows over the other. The customer _often_ loses in these situations,
because so much blood and sweat has to be lost to the "fight".

The alternative, "cooperation", normally is frowned on in these circles. Even
in the aforementioned cases of open source projects, such as the with web
browsers (where the cost is painful fragmentation caused by some vendors
misunderstanding or not disliking specifications enough to not bother
implementing them) or compilers (the gcc/clang split has been brutal: clang
doesn't really compile things correctly, and yet is now the only compiler from
Apple for Mac OS X), people are again all "competition is good, deal with it".

Well, sometimes, often, possibly always (yes, even for the restricted domain
of "prices" and even when cooperation includes "trusts", at least apparently
according to Judge Posner; however you certainly needent go that far with this
argument): "cooperation is better, yielding a more powerful result for less
development cost"; this is, after all, the premise of open source
collaboration.

------
tsmith
Yet another reason why the iPhone 5 is the worst iPhone ever produced. Not
because it is bad - objectively it is in all ways better than previous iPhones
- but because it is comparatively worse than the current state of the art
(Galaxy Nexus). Maps are horrible, voice search not as good, no NFC, less
radio bands, etc etc.

The iPhone 5 marks the first time in the product line's history that it was
not advancing the state of the art.

------
Tycho
Seems like quite a short-sighted perspective. In the long-run, it will be a
great benefit to users to have two companies with billions of dollars to spare
competing head-on to build big-data services driven by machine-learning and
crowd sourcing, plus AI services, search engines, knowledge bases...

------
capo
It's beyond vindictive at this point, this is a flat out anti-competitive move
by Apple.

~~~
swalsh
Its true, I'm amazed they are able to get away with it too. Microsoft simply
bundled software, but never did it outright prevent competition on its OS.
Apples closed garden is outright blocking competition... How is no one looking
into this?

~~~
melling
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish>

Apple has 25% mobile market share. Android has 50%. Microsoft has about 90%
desktop market share for over a decade. DirectX was made to kill off OpenGL.
C# was made to kill off Java and keep software running on Windows. Microsoft
killed of Netscape and a decade later IE6 isn't completely dead.

<http://www.ie6countdown.com/>

Android isn't going away and by my estimate it will always have more market
share than iOS.

Btw, Microsoft completely killed of all other PC operating systems when they
required PC vendors to pay for shipping DOS, regardless of the OS they
actually shipped.

~~~
duiker101
C# was made to kill Java as Apple maps were made to Kill Google Maps but they
did not prevent Java from being installed, which is what apple is doing. If
they want to win by keeping the loyalty of the users they should not cut off
all competition but just release a better product than the competition. Apple
successed in this in the last years but the more time passes the more I see
they are struggling with it, the prefer to kill off any other opportunity, but
this will enrage users(at least those who were not brainwashed)

~~~
melling
That analogy is completely wrong.

When companies write apps in C# for the Microsoft platform, they are going to
pretty much stay on the Microsoft platform. Those apps, for the most part,
aren't ported to the Mac and Linux (please skip the Mono discussion, it's not
a 100% solution). Fortune 500 companies and commercial companies are locking
consumers into Windows. Maps is one product. There are thousands of C#,
Windows only apps.

~~~
dpark
When companies write apps in Objective-C for the Mac or iOS platforms, they
are going to pretty much stay on the Apple platforms. Those apps, for the most
part, aren't ported to the Windows and Linux (please skip the GCC discussion,
it's not a 100% solution). Fortune 500 companies and commercial companies are
locking consumers into Apple. There are thousands of Objective-C, Apple only
apps.

~~~
melling
That's is correct and obvious, so I thought it went without saying. Btw, there
are hundreds of thousands of little iOS only apps.

If Apple had a monopoly, or even close to one, in phones then we would have a
problem. However, Android leads by a wide margin and since they sell better in
the rest of the world, Apple's little walled garden doesn't really matter.

~~~
dpark
My point is that creating a custom language is not necessarily a move intended
to create or preserve a monopoly. Microsoft felt that the best way to innovate
in the developer space was to produce a modern framework with a core set of
modern languages (and to open that framework up for 3rd party integration,
such as Delphi). It's unreasonable to expect that Microsoft should be limited
to C++ (a non-managed and non-modern language) and Java (a language a
competitor controls) for development.

~~~
melling
Microsoft writes most of its software in C++. They love C++. If C# wasn't the
only case then it might be acceptable. DirectX, for example, was done to kill
off OpenGL. Microsoft hired away Borland's language team, including the Delphi
developer and proceeded to build a better Java that only ran well on Windows,
and some might say that they accomplished this. :-)

Objective C was developed before Steve Jobs and he simply adopted it, or his
engineers did at NeXT. Personally, I'd like open languages/platforms that
offer a little more reuse.

~~~
dpark
> _Microsoft writes most of its software in C++. They love C++._

Microsoft writes most of its _systems-level_ software in C++. Microsoft also
writes a lot of C#. WCF and WPF are both built on the .Net stack. Bing runs on
ASP.NET. Lots of stuff at Microsoft is build in C#, for the same reasons lots
of stuff outside of Microsoft is build in C#: it's modern, safe, fast, and
pleasant to work in.

> _If C# wasn't the only case then it might be acceptable. DirectX, for
> example, was done to kill off OpenGL._

No, DirectX was written to replace WinG, which is what most games for Windows
were written in prior to DirectX. I don't believe OpenGL had any traction on
Windows at that time.

> _Microsoft hired away Borland's language team, including the Delphi
> developer and proceeded to build a better Java that only ran well on
> Windows, and some might say that they accomplished this. :-)_

This might be interesting if Microsoft had hired James Gosling away from Sun
to work on C#, but that's not what happened. They hired staff away from
Borland, who didn't design Java at all. You're conflating unrelated things.

> _Objective C was developed before Steve Jobs and he simply adopted it, or
> his engineers did at NeXT. Personally, I'd like open languages/platforms
> that offer a little more reuse._

I fail to see the relevance here. The Objective-C used by Apple today is by no
means the same as the Objective-C that NeXT started with. NeXT and Apple
extended Objective-C significantly at both the language and the library level.
This the the "embrace, extend, extinguish" cycle you accuse Microsoft of.

~~~
melling
Sorry you fail to see the relevance. Objective-C isn't owned by Apple in any
way, shape or form. Of course, they are going to try to improve the language.
They sort of have to make it modern since they built their systems around it.
Apple's compiler an open source project: <http://clang.llvm.org/> Will
Microsoft ever open source their C# compiler? That would be a great boon for
making the language cross platform.

~~~
dpark
Objective-C isn't owned by Apple? Who else is using it? Of the few other
people who are using it, how many are using it without Apple's extensions?
Apple does indeed de facto own Objective-C. They control it. They have
embraced it, extended it, and extinguished anyone else who might have had a
claim on it.

It's strange too that you have a problem with C# being proprietary, but you
don't have a problem with Java being proprietary. Oracle owns both the
language and the implementations that everyone uses. That it's part of their
business plan to maintain it for Linux does not change its fundamental nature.

And just so you know, Microsoft did open the source for C# under admittedly
restrictive terms. Look up Rotor. And they have issued a Community Promise
that protects projects like Mono. And yes, Mono counts, just as surely as GCC
counts, unless Microsoft also owns C++.

~~~
melling
Objective-C is an open source project, like the webkit browser. Google adopted
webkit for Chrome, for example. There is nothing prevent anyone else from
adopting Objective C. Your logic is pretty flawed. Just because Objective C
has not gained wide adoption doesn't mean that it's not open to be adopted.
Google uses "Java" for Android. Java is open source. You can download the
source and build it.

Mono is fine but it's not nearly as good as Microsoft's compiler. C# is a
great language. It would be great if Microsoft simply open sourced it.

~~~
dpark
> _There is nothing prevent anyone else from adopting Objective C._

There's nothing preventing anyone else from adopting C# via Mono, is there?
Also nothing stopping other companies from improving Mono.

> _Google uses "Java" for Android._

Got them sued, too. I think they were within their rights, but this shows that
"openness" is not synonymous with safety.

> _It would be great if Microsoft simply open sourced it._ No arguments from
> me. I'd love that as well, though I don't see it happening any time soon.

~~~
melling
The quality of Mono isn't nearly as good as the alternatives. Why bother using
it? Just to say that you aren't locked into Windows with C#?

------
spitx
Elevation Partners Managing Director Roger McNamee on Apple lately:

Apple is "already doing what you'd expect a dumb monopolist to do."

Source:
[http://bloom.bg/OXP5Ad#ooid=Q5azF4NTq51l-7YDNIS84TWeSqfF0SQv...](http://bloom.bg/OXP5Ad#ooid=Q5azF4NTq51l-7YDNIS84TWeSqfF0SQv&ootime=02m59s)

------
atirip
No. This is not hurting users in the long run. What will hurt is having tens
of apps, all having separate voice recognition software. It is correct to have
only one. Like it is correct to have only one keyboard. Not tens of different
keyborads with every app having his own.

~~~
outside1234
Yes, clearly having choice is confusing and anti-user. That is why the
internet with multiple places to buy shoes, multiple place to get news, and
multiple place to talk about technical topics is so unsuccessful.

~~~
atirip
So how many pair of shoes you wear? Two pairs? Really? One the right size and
the others, really big ones over them? Really?

The point was, which you clearly missed - there can not currently be two voice
assistanst AT THE SAME TIME in use. Googles thing does not replace Siri. If
Google had something to replace Siri and Apple blocked it, then yes, that
would be anti.

~~~
mcantelon
Different shoes have different capabilities. I wouldn't wear hiking shoes to a
job interview, but would wear them hiking. Same with apps. Siri might be good
at some kinds of voice assistance and Google's offering at others.

------
gavinlynch
Because I see this article as the continuation of a discussion about Apple v
Google products, here is my macro view of the entire thing:

I honestly don't understand. People act as if Apple is entirely incapable of
creating a superior product down the road from Google's. I think that there
are obvious competitive advantages to replacing Google's Maps with Apple's
Maps in iOS6.

But it seems that everyone just makes the baseline, "duh" assumption that
clearly their only possible motive is to screw Google.

Is it not possible that Apple also -actually- believes that version 1 of iOS6
Maps is just the precursor to a product that they will eventually make far
superior to Google Maps?? These are not mutually exclusive concepts.

So this hand-wringing about how Apple is screwing users... Call me naive, but
I amk completely open to the idea that this is a short-term issue that
actually has the possibility to -benefit- users in the long-term, as Apple
takes it's lumps and learns what users want in a Maps application, and then
eventually deliver things users didn't even know they wanted in a Maps
application.

I've really yet to see anyone acknowledge this thought.

edit: You know, I'd at least appreciate a counter-point with the downvotes to
my argument. Honestly interested in why I am incorrect. Just saying. _shrugs_

~~~
mcantelon
Eventual hypothetical superiority in the future doesn't help user experience
in the present. Why not allow people to choose which app they want to use?

~~~
gavinlynch
I don't understand your point. Google is free to create a stand-alone version
of Maps for the iPhone. They have not done so.

~~~
gavinlynch
>>> "You begin by talking about your macro view of things and all you do is
whine and cry about Google Maps when the article is about voice? How can you
have a macro view of things and mention a single app? Try and stay on topic at
least?"

I am talking about Maps because that is the only thing we have concrete facts
on. We have no idea the real reasons the Voice app is not in the App store
right now. We simply don't. So I feel it's silly to ascribe motives to
something we know nothing about. Obviously, if you have some sort of vendetta
against Apple as a company, in a vacuum of information, you will automatically
ascribe motives.

I do find it funny that I'm the one "whining" when all I am doing is pointing
out is that perhaps the hand-wringing and whining of users about Maps is #1) a
touch overwrought and #2 potentially beneficial for users in the long-run.
That's all.. And I use the new iOS maps every day and haven't experienced a
single problem yet. I'm not saying they don't exist, but living in a large
city and using maps to navigate on my bike every day... Nary an issue.

