
Google wants you. Amazon wants you. Apple wants you. - shawndumas
https://plus.google.com/u/0/100899499494145896730/posts/KTvkyw4tNa4
======
orangecat
That explains why Apple supports customers using iDevices however they want,
while Google locks down Android and asserts that it should be a federal crime
to run unapproved software. Wait. Maybe it's a bit more complex.

~~~
shawndumas
Apple thinks (rightly or wrongly) that giving you that control will diminish
the experience.

I used to hate it when people would install stupid stuff on Windows and then
blame Microsoft for their bad Windows experience.

It's like buying an <insert generally reliable car make> and putting a bunch
of crappy aftermarket parts in it and then getting angry with the dealership
when you're stuck on the side of the road.

~~~
mayanksinghal
But then it is the fault of the user and not really the car dealership. Car
dealership do not (cannot?) restrict you from using duplicate/fake/not-their
parts, AFAIR. I do not think that anyone would hold the dealership responsible
(legally and morally) for, say a mishap that happened because of a faulty fake
tire.

~~~
shawndumas
Windows as a brand suffered greatly at the hands of OEMs and their crappy
software, regardless of whose fault it was.

~~~
mayanksinghal
Actually that is a different issue. Windows doesn't restrict the user in
installing softwares that they want to. Hell, it even allows user to keep
using their product and subsequent MS softwares with sufficient independence
even after realizing that the OS is pirated. What you are pointing out is the
behaviour of OEMs which is rightly called out as obnoxious and degrading.

------
jenius
I might be on board with this if the author even began to discuss why what
Google and Amazon are doing is less than ideal for the consumer, but the main
point he's trying to make remains totally unexplained, and in addition I don't
agree with his argument about Apple at all.

Why is a kindle fire less than ideal - because they sell books on it? You
could make the same argument about every video game system - it's less than
ideal because you have to buy video games for it. This isn't because nintendo
is evil or lazy, it's just how the system works. A video game system is a
device for consuming other peoples' video games (and nintendo's too, if they
want), and the kindle fire is a device for consuming other peoples' books.

Why is android less than ideal, because it's ad supported? You could say the
same thing about facebook, twitter, and every other company out there that
provides a free service supported by ads. Some people don't like this, and
this leads to developments like app.net - we'll see how paid services like
this do over the next couple of years. But the fact remains that if you don't
realize when you sign up for a free service that people are being paid to make
that they need to make money somehow, you aren't even thinking.

Then let's move on to all of apple's major devices. You get a iphone, but this
relies on a contract with a service provider, which is in fact how apple makes
most of their money off iphones. Oh no - immoral!

Or you may buy an ipod, apple's other big product. But what's an ipod without
music on it from a third party. Hold up - third party pollution, the ipod is
no good as a product.

Or perhaps you buy the only other thing they sell, a computer. But you'd
better not put any software on it from a third party, because then it's just a
means to an end, not an end in itself.

Overall, I understand the general idea, but this was very poorly thought out
and needs more thinking and explanation, not to mention that at least to me,
the statement about Apple's products all being an "end" is definitely false.

~~~
shawndumas
I buy a video game console to play games. Most of the people I know bought a
Fire to get a tablet.

Look, everyone, naturally, caters to the one who's paying the bills.
Advertisers are paying the bill. They make money on the ads/books/goods not
the device. Therefore the device is secondary.

~~~
jenius
So you just look at the tablet and don't consume any content on it? I buy a
tablet not to get a tablet, but to do things with it, just like you buy a
console to play video games.

Of course everyone caters to who's paying the bills, if not you're out of
business. I figure this is more or less common knowledge.

But you have to realize that deciding who pays the bills is hardly ever only
your company. In Apple's case especially, there are often 3rd parties paying
their bills. Like I mentioned, cell providers pay a huge chunk of their
revenue to get the iphone, app developers pay them to create apps on their
devices, etc. They do not pay all the bills without third parties.

And even though this is the case, I don't think there's anything wrong with
3rd parties being involved. And if you did (which it seems you do), you should
have mentioned this in your post - not just that you generically think there's
something wrong with it, but what _exactly is_ wrong with it. Then talk about
how consumers would be totally ok with massive price increases on these
products and what benefits that would be traded for.

------
jarrettcoggin
Captain Obvious here.

Amazon wants you (to buy through them, because they are like Walmart, getting
a sliver of each transaction, but making an enormous amount of transactions).
You get liberality with content.

Google wants you (to view their ads, because every time they display an
ad/make a conversion, they get a sliver). You get liberality with
hardware/software.

Apple wants you (to buy an iDevice, because every time you buy an iDevice, you
just gave them a 30%-50% of the product price as straight profit, in addition
to being locked into their marketplace, which they get a hunk of each sale, in
addition to ads being run through free apps and them getting a sliver for the
view/conversion). You get a well-done, end-to-end experience.

~~~
shawndumas
I agree it is obvious -- to you and I. how do you explain all the disagreement
though...

------
Derbasti
I think there is a lot of truth to the argument that the customer is best
served by a product that is created for the customer.

However, I think both Amazon and Google and Apple and Microsoft are in this
for the long haul. They probably figure that they are best served by customers
who love their products.

So while it might be true that in the end, Google wants to sell ads, Amazon
wants to sell content and Apple wants to sell hardware, all of them can only
do so by satisfying customers.

Actually, the difference is rather that since Amazon and Google only use the
hardware as a means to another end, they need to exert less control over it
and thus offer a wider range of different products.

------
Tyrannosaurs
So in summary, there are different business models which benefit (and
penalise) the consumer in different ways. I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.

The real issue here is whether people understand what they're buying in to
when they buy the various products.

* Do they understand that Apple are going to restrict you in certain ways? Do you understand what those ways are and what the consequences are?

* Do they understand Google's (financial) interest in your personal data and what that means?

* Do they understand that Amazon are only selling you this stuff as cheaply as they are because it's a down payment on more stuff?

As technology changes, business models change and the nature of the deals
you're entering into is becoming more complex with greater consequences than
you might have understood.

There's nothing wrong with any of these models and I think the OP is wrong in
implying that Apple are in some way "better". The issue is that I don't think
that the typical consumer is keeping pace with the changes and, as a result,
is potentially entering into deals they don't understand and making choices
that don't reflect what they really want or need.

~~~
shawndumas
So, is it fair to say that you agree with everything except that Apple's way
is better for the consumer?

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
No.

My point is that the issue is that in many cases individuals don't understand
the nature of the relationship that they're entering in to and therefore are
restricted in their ability to make a good decision on their own behalf.

Contrast this with what you're saying which is that they don't understand and
_therefore are making a mistake in choosing Goole or Amazon_.

With respect you don't know me and you have no idea what is ideal for me. You
don't know my wife or what's ideal for her. You don't know my dad and what's
ideal for him. It would be very, very odd if the same of many diverse and well
made products was right for all of us.

Being an end in itself isn't better, it's just simpler to understand.

------
debacle
This dude works at Yahoo and can't spell bait. I'm not really sure he deserves
a respected opinion.

Also, note the last name. Is this a troll?

~~~
mayanksinghal
Troll or not, I would suggest him to not use '✓ Verified Authentic' as a
tagline. I was confused if that was a Google+ verification for identities.

Edit: Reason for downvote? The person's infobox looks like [1]. For a person
not so active on G+ to realize that the first line is a user defined string
and not system generated tag, it is confusing. [1]:
<http://i.imgur.com/zvaDq.png>

------
ImprovedSilence
I think Amazon is an end unto itself, I LOVE buying goods from Amazon, and
anything that lets me do it easier is fantastic. Everyone understands Amazon
is a marketplace, no deception here. Google is a slightly different story.

~~~
shawndumas
Yes, Amazon's content is the ends. But if it is so obvious to you and I why
not everyone here arguing against the idea?

------
uummuu5
wow! Fanboys are getting desperate for attention. Google does just as much of
a bait and switch as Apple does. Google does in the form of Ads; Apple does it
in the form of "oh, you bought this device! Cool here it is... Oh you wanted
MP4's and other media for it? That'll cost you!" You think you're getting a
great device but you're just getting something to interact with the media they
lease to you.

------
jeremyjh
Upvoted for comedy value?

------
apoorvsaxena
Facebook already has you..

