

Apple is professional, the web is amateur - davidbalbert
http://dave.is/apple.html

======
simonsarris
I think you're correct that Apple is going to have to do things differently
get some of their web properties to catch on, but I disagree heavily on your
premise.

For a counterexample, Facebook is professional-looking and very structured
compared to MySpace, which in turn is very amateurish-feeling.

There isn't any question which is preferred.

Forums are amateurish. Stackoverflow is professional. I know where I'm going
for Q&A.

I think there's a lot more to Apple's problems than professionalism vs
amateurism, to the point where it is a minor point, if one at all.

I'm very wary against sayings like "the web is about amateur content." The web
is about _a lot of things,_ and while a lot of the web is about amateur
content, a lot of the web is also about providing good structure, order, and
execution to that content. In general, it even seems to be that the company
that can put the most order unto the all of the content reaps the greatest
success.

~~~
davidbalbert
My point wasn't that less professional looking websites succeed over more
professional looking sites. It's Apple's focus on professional content (the
select few) vs amateur content (all of us).

I didn't mean to use amateur in a derogative sense. Amateurs are just people
who don't get paid for their work.

Re: Facebook/MySpace, I think this was a different dynamic. The thing facebook
did right was tone down the design significantly so that everyone's content
became the only important thing on the page. It's still amateur content
though.

If Apple had done Stack Overflow, I bet they would have had a team of
certified experts to answer the questions and I don't think it would have
worked very well. In Stack Overflow, there's no separation between who can ask
and answer questions (besides a few karma points). That kind of chaos Apple
doesn't excel at.

~~~
jdq
It's this part that's going to get people disagreeing with you:

 _"No more pixel perfect web apps that feel like desktop apps, no more sites
that look like glossy brochures, and embracing chaos and amateurism over order
and professionalism. It is going to be very hard."_

~~~
ctdonath
I just don't see his point. Why go ugly/messy when elegant/perfect is working
so well?

OK, so Ping isn't doing well. Seemed a "me too!" gesture in a market saturated
with social networking apps, a messy application for a slick product.

No point in changing a paradigm that works, only to garner greater market
coverage with subsequent much less penetration. If Apple's gonna "go ugly",
they have to compete with "ugly" at 10% the price they're used to.

Why be worse, when you're famous for best?

~~~
noahth
I'd also attribute Ping's failure to 1) Failing to get an agreement for
Facebook Connect in time for the launch and 2) Largely ignoring the portion of
your music library not purchased from Apple.

In this day and age, when I join a new network I want it to be easy to find my
existing "friends" on said network. SC2 nailed this - I was playing with
friends within minutes of my first login. Ping, on the other hand... I saw a
couple updates from friends and a lot of more-or-less fluff from Yo-Yo Ma. OH!
and the spam. Sweet monkey jesus there was a lot of spam the first week. Not
exactly a compelling social experience.

------
bluekeybox
> If Apple's going to succeed at the web, they have to unlearn a lot of what
> makes them Apple. No more pixel perfect web apps that feel like desktop
> apps, no more sites that look like glossy brochures, and embracing chaos and
> amateurism over order and professionalism

Here is yet another argument based on the premise that, in order for Apple to
succeed, it must do the same thing as everyone else. We have heard the same
argument about desktop computers (license Mac OS; be like Microsoft), mobile
(make cheap phones; be like Nokia), and now with the web.

In a sea of amateurs, being professional is not exactly a bad thing.

~~~
davidbalbert
I don't think these situations are parallels.

Clones were a bad idea because they diluted Apple's brand and cut way into
their margins (Apple is a hardware company and makes money from that).

As for cheap phones, Apple now sells the 3GS for $49. I don't think this is an
example of the naysayers being right, it's just Apple having their cake and
eating it too.

The point is not that Apple should do the same thing as everyone else to
succeed at the web. It's just that they've been trying one thing over and over
again with no success. They have to change something.

~~~
bluekeybox
> Clones were a bad idea because they diluted Apple's brand and cut way into
> their margins (Apple is a hardware company and makes money from that).

Well Apple's embracing amateur content may turn out to be a bad idea for all I
know -- it would certainly dilute a few things. I stand by my claim that there
is a parallel.

> As for cheap phones, Apple now sells the 3GS for $49

Disregarding the actual device cost, I suppose Apple has achieved the goal of
having several price tiers, however it did not do so in the way that was
recommended by a number of pundits, about whose view (that Apple _must_ design
cheap phones otherwise it is dead in the water) I was complaining.

> The point is not that Apple should do the same thing as everyone else to
> succeed at the web. It's just that they've been trying one thing over and
> over again with no success. They have to change something.

That may be your personal point (and I would agree with it), but it does not
seem to be the point of the author of the article who was more specific about
what, in the author's opinion, needs to be changed.

~~~
davidbalbert
I am the author :). It's possible I didn't make my point as clearly as I could
have in my post though.

Also re: phone prices, I agree with you. I think the pundits were wrong and
pre-judged Apple's path to success on little evidence. I think there's plenty
of evidence that their current path on the web is the wrong one.

~~~
bluekeybox
Ha, I'm in my usual cycle: code, code, code, refresh HN, read some article
with an interesting headline as quickly as I possibly can (being at work and
all), completely disregard who is who, post my opinion, code, code, code,
refresh HN.

------
ramy_d

        "But wait a second," you say. "What about iLife? Isn't that all about amateur content?" Not quite. iLife helps normal people create things that feel professional.
    

This is the definition of amateur. Notably, you can spot things done in their
software, Keynote being a glaring example. It has made a template of what a
presentation is supposed to look like on a mac.

See when Jobs gives a keynote using Keynote wearing a black turtleneck, we
recognize this signature. When your boss holds a meeting with a presentation
in keynote with that same or similarly light faded colour background and bold
white text, you recognize this as imitation.

Apple have fantastic engineers and fantastic designers and their products
reflect a culture that prides craftsmanship, detail and perfection. But to say
the web is amateur is to deny the wealth of originality and expression that
spreads from it. Youtube has a direct cam to site, record and upload thing
going because it enables people to be expressive. They keyword here is
"enable" and it's in their advantage to promote the creating of original
content by focusing on the enabling factors.

I think the article addresses the problem in a flawed perspective. Facebook
being a good counter example. The problem with Apple is probably better tied
with their culture. Apple is not social, and until they socialize they will
not know what it takes to enable socializing.

A lot of people here are pointing out that MySpace was the amateur failure of
the social web, further getting away from idea that social success == amateur,
but let's not forget that MySpace was once, many years ago, "the shit" and
only got its pedestal kicked out from under it when other sites offered better
enabling factors (read: features) to socialize between friends. Sure, MySpace
was fuck ugly, because not everyone's creativity is equal! but to say everyone
switched to facebook solely because facebook looked more professional? I don't
take that. (eh, i guess it was built better to - damn myspace always had
fucking down time - whatever)

~~~
mikecane
The devolution of MySpace has many factors, one of which was forcing people
with older and less expensive (which, for the targeted audience, could have
meant hand-me-down from parents) computers to upgrade their browsers, which
just slowed everything down and ruined the aura of excitement it once had.
Another factor was the intrusion of commerce-like Bulletins from "friends,"
asking you to leave the site to vote for them in some contest or other. There
was a lot less social there than people give it credit for.

~~~
ramy_d
true enough, but i also think that we say that myspace had a lot of social at
the time was because it did _at the time_. There was no facebook back then so
myspace was really the best at offering social features even though, by
comparison against today's players, it didn't have much.

------
r00fus
The salient point in this article aside (I agree with the author that Apple
doesn't get the P2P nature of the web), I think Ping failed for a different
reason:

I don't trust Apple knowing what music I have (ripped). They are too close to
the recording industry which has spent years suing everyday folks like me to
prop up their dying business model.

Sure, I know Apple won't "turn me in" (would be bad for business) for my shady
music collection (most of which is NOT available in the US, btw) but I don't
want to take the chance.

The fact that Apple seems to segregate the "professionals/industry" from the
"amatuers/consumers" only adds to the dilemma that Ping has yet to resolve.

------
juiceandjuice
Apple is driven by a philosophy of _design_ , like industrial design and
graphic design, but not necessarily craftsmanship, although craftsmanship
often goes into design.

As long as Steve Jobs is alive, Apple won't give up on design. Design is what
sets Apple apart, not craftsmanship. It's why you see the Macintosh in the
MoMA but not a Compaq.

~~~
robotomir
Make that a philosophy of purely visual design. OMG, aluminum, round corners,
and animations. MacOS did not have a defining part in the digital revolution
of the 90s, their market capitalization is their biggest success and that is
mainly due to the US market--think old people and people with significant
disposable income.

I know, I know, but I love to hate. And don't start me on Facebook.

~~~
r00fus
You've never taken apart a PowerMac G5. It was simply elegant for it's time...
the innards are more beautiful than the exterior.

Apple is famous for lots of serious attention to detail that involve not just
visual/glitz but usability.

Design is _definitely_ the correct word.

------
MatthewPhillips
Spot on about Ping. It should have been a service where anyone can be an
artist, and everyone is a listener. Artists could share their content for
free. And there should have been a web based application.

------
gburt
Its common knowledge that Apple doesn't understand the web?

------
jonprins
"Blemish free" .... guy obviously has never used iTunes.

~~~
Splines
Well, it _looks_ pretty. Poke it the wrong way and it explodes horribly. Sort
of like the Hindenburg.

------
basseq
Beneath the cruft (i.e., Apple products should have less polish, Apple hates
amateurs), I think there's a kernel of truth, especially related to their
approach to social networking. Can we expect Kayne West to use Ping like
Twitter? Probably not, but it's an interesting thought.

Do remember that many of Apple's products (e.g., iMovie, iWeb) are _designed_
for everyday people to create content that is fairly professional-looking. I'd
argue that, to a certain degree, Apple has done more to raise the bar of
content quality than Instagram or YouTube (which have lowered the bar to
entry). Those aren't exclusive approaches, merely different value
propositions.

------
feck
Apple has tried amateur. The were very early out the gate with the podcast
directory through iTunes. I think they were hoping that Podcasts + AppleTV
would be an end-run around the cable companies and content providers.

Turns out, not enough people wanted amateur podcasts. I'd wager that the
easily availability of paid Hollywood content drives far more people to the
iTunes ecosystem than the free and easily availability of podcasts.

So I think their experience indicates their customers value professionalism.

~~~
mikecane
Oh, that's an interesting point re: podcasts. I tried them and fled, even when
they were done by people I liked. Just because you're doing something for
_free_ doesn't mean you can ignore basic things:

1) Have your material already prepared and organized 2) Clear your damn throat
so you're not going to cough 3) If you do cough or burp, edit the damn thing
out 4) Um, um, um is like nails on a blackboard, see #1

And there are people who disagree, but I found the "bandwidth" of podcasts to
be lower than that of just reading. In the twenty minutes of talk time, there
would be about 1/5th the amount of content I could have read in the same time
span. Some people might have had visions they were doing the next talk radio,
but none of them turned out to ever be as dramatic as the worst talk radio
host.

------
tobylane
The one downside to this difference - low quantity. It's not so noticeable
with Apple, but someone else with constantly high quality, Daft Punk, have
done so little, five albums by my count.

~~~
masklinn
> Daft Punk, have done so little, five albums by my count.

3 studio albums, 1 soundtrack, 2 live albums and 3 remixes. But they also have
17 singles, as many music videos, 2 full-length movies (Interstella 5555 as
part of Discovery, and Daft Punk's Electroma which is a bona-fide movie
directed by the duo) and they have toured _a lot_. I don't think Daft Punk is
a good example of "doing so little" quantity-wise.

------
rglover
I was buying this article until I read the line about Apple dropping
everything that constitutes why Apple is "Apple." Pixel-perfect design and a
professional ethic are exactly why Apple is recognized as one of the most
prolific companies (and brands) in the world. If I want to see loose, ragged,
amateur content, I know where to go. There's nothing wrong with sterility if
it's done properly and given purpose. In this case, to promote a more
professional existence (not a bad thing).

------
rbarooah
And yet if you zoom out just a little, people seem to be buying more and more
equipment from Apple to produce and consume the "amateur" content of the web.

------
guscost
On the web, PHP is professional. iWeb makes it easy to imitate professional
trends (you said it yourself: just like Apple's website). Likewise, GarageBand
is mostly used as a quick and dirty way to imitate professionally produced
music, although there is a lot more truth to the "Apple = professional" boast
in that industry.

------
nimblegorilla
I don't agree that youtube is about amateur content. Sometimes my friends
upload interesting videos to youtube or someone links to a mildly amusing clip
like MyDrunkKitchen. However, most of the youtube links I see go to
professionally produced content such as music videos, news clips, or comedy
shows.

------
zyb09
Apple is too professional to get the amateurish web.. pfff what kind of non
scene is that? As if web companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. were a
bunch of disorganized slackers and that is somehow more successful on the net.
Weird associations like that remind me of arguing with high people.

------
lwhi
This dichotomy is incorrect. We shouldn't be focusing on professionals vs.
amateurs.

I think it's more useful to realise that Apple is controlling .. the web is
(largely) open. Or to put it another way; Apple want to set norms .. the web
wants crowds to set norms.

------
hsmyers
I'm glad I actually read the article. Given the title I was all set to either
ignore or flag. As it stands, I agree whole-heartedly with the message. Yes,
there are things to quibble about, but overall it provides food for thought.

------
pookiesbutt
technology is amateur. technology probably shouldn't be analyzed by analog
methodologies either.

how apple(substitute any company) 'catches on' can be derived from
<http://ow.ly/59Maa>. our perception isn't as important as the ubiquity of
that which is available to perceive.

apple properties will catch on as long as they don't go out of business or
lose the power to shout about their products(though this probably sits under
the former).

------
xster
iMovie and iPhoto are professional? Woooooooooooooooooooooooow

------
bonch
> It's common knowledge that Apple doesn't get the web in general and social
> in particular.

It is?

> In iMovie, you can take your professional looking photos and stitch them
> together with the Ken Burns effect. The name says it all right there.

So you acknowledge that iLife is a counter to your point, and your only
refutation is that there is a Ken Burns effect? I don't get it.

The premise of this very short article seems to be that, because Apple
includes some professionally-made templates and used stock photos in a
keynote, they don't get amateur content. iLife is the biggest counter to this
argument. Apple does try to make sure that amateur content doesn't look or
sound too shitty, but how does that mean they don't understand amateur content
at all? It just means they're removing the boring work for the average user
who doesn't want to spend an hour making a theme look good. Apple totally gets
amateur content. They want every kid with an iPad to be recording music in
Garageband.

The amateur content argument is weak and doesn't support the social argument.
As for Ping, I never understood the hatred for it as it was always clearly
just a way to see the music people were buying and not some major social
network competitor. I've used it to browse a few people and found new albums I
liked. It did its job in my case.

Facebook was the clean, professional-looking, easier-to-use alternative to the
chaotic and amateurish MySpace. The idea that Apple must embrace amateur chaos
just doesn't make sense to me and seems like it would be the wrong thing to
do. Apple is the kind of company that is often a few years behind but
eventually releases something so polished and easy to use that it's successful
anyway.

~~~
ghurlman
I don't think there was ever a hatred for Ping -- a hatred would infer that
people cared about it. Nobody cared at all... logged in once, and then never
went back to that part of iTunes again.

~~~
bonch
Fair point, but a lot of people freak out over Ping for some reason.

~~~
mikecane
I think people freak out over Ping because it has a lameness to it that people
would have expected to originate from Microsoft or even Google -- but not from
Apple.

Its entire approach is actually anti-social. It's not web-based, it's locked
into iTunes and is meant for customers. Customers are busy buying, they want
"Give it to me and let me go enjoy it now." They connect with other people on
the Internet, outside of a commercial setting.

Apple's own support forums are more social even though the purpose is to solve
customer problems. You don't need iTunes to use them.

~~~
cageface
_This_ is the problem. iTunes may have been an acceptable interface five years
ago but compared to the better "HTML5" web sites of today it feels slow,
clunky, awkward and, most crucially, arbitrarily fenced in. Apple's challenge
going forward will be to make interfaces that maintain their quality standards
but with fuzzier boundaries with the rest of the web.

------
chrisjsmith
I only have one thing to say: me.com

------
trollResponse
More trolling on HN I see! The Web is professional, it's the developer who
blogged about this story that is an amateur.

Just because he doesn't know what he's doing, now the web is amateurish? These
nerd-rage blog posts are just noobs venting that 'they don't get it'.

~~~
cosmic
very little depth, the only thing that is to learn here, is that the write is
an apple fanboy.

~~~
recoiledsnake
And so are many of the most active people of this site. Thats why the article
gets so many upvotes for such shallow nonsense excuses about Apple failing at
the social web etc. (Not necessarily a bad thing, a company is good at some
and not great at others). This post is for and by fanboys who take Apple's
weaknesses personally and have to spin it as if Apple is too good for the web.
(bye bye karma).

