
Apple changes words in order to change the debate  - marilyn
http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2620-change-the-words-and-you-change-the-debate
======
danilocampos
It's easy to look at this cynically but it's not unreasonable to change the
conversation. Google's exploitation of "open" has been disingenuous at best.
When you try to square their high ideals against reality, you end up in an
uncomfortable spot.

The fact is, Android's openness _does not make it to the end user_. Its
openness is exploited for the benefit of the carriers to load branded crapware
onto the device, disable specific features and other nonsense. Don't like
this? Too bad. Android's openness _isn't for you_ , now that carriers and
manufacturers are getting wise to your hackery tricks. They're going to make
it as hard as possible to root your Android phone. So you'd better get used to
that awesome Blockbuster app.

In the end, iOS and Android devices are on even footing in terms of big
companies trying to control the final experience.

Which leaves us with one thing: motivations.

Carrier motivations are to _fuck you out of as much money as humanly possible
in the short term_. In the past that meant disabling device features to force
you into their ecosystem – I'm sure this will continue one way or another.
They'll load branded garbage onto your device. They'll put specific
marketplaces on your device, and maybe even remove Google's if they want to.
Their manufacturing partners will happily conspire with them on this,
including the firmware fuse that prevents rooting your device so you can make
it somewhat clean again.

Apple is no less ruthless with its control, but it exercises it for a
different purpose: To deliver the most integrated, user-friendly, clean
experience possible. (edit: and so, Apple's play is the converse: to maximize
your cheerful purchases of Apple gear in the _long term_ – thanks, matwood)

If you're a carrier, Android's openness makes it much more valuable than iOS
in the short term. In that, Google's piety will ring true. If you're an end
user, the net gain of that openness is zero, and at times it's even a loss.

I trust Apple infinitely more than I trust the carriers to make something I'll
enjoy using. And that's the key to understand. With Apple, what I buy will
always be clean. I'll always instantly understand the tradeoffs. With Android,
it's going to be a gamble. How hard has my carrier boned this device? I'll
have to research if I'm a nerd or be surprised if I'm everyone else. And there
goes the power of Android as a brand.

Android is no longer Google. Android _is_ the carriers.

When was the last time you heard someone write _those_ guys a love letter?

~~~
jsankey
Although I agree with the general point that Android is not totally open in an
absolute sense, I think you too easily ignore the ways in which it is open
relative to the iPhone.

First and foremost, I don't have to jailbreak my phone to install apps not
"approved" by Google/the carrier/whoever. I can download an APK from anywhere.

Secondly, the code is open. This does matter in practice, because there are
people who can and do take advantage of this to create modified versions (e.g.
Cyanogen). If Google decides not to take a particular direction, but enough
people want it, it can happen.

Thirdly, it's not tied to one hardware manufacturer. Apple may make great
hardware, but they attack a certain target market, which not everyone fits
into.

Finally, although your argument about carriers has some truth, it misses a
couple of points. It's not like iPhone users are exempt from all carrier
restrictions - why can I tether via my Android phone yet iPhone-owning friends
cannot? And there is nothing about Android that forces you to use a certain
carrier (ironically, in the US, it's iPhone users that have no choice of
carrier). I purchased my phone on T-Mobile in the UK, now I use it on another
carrier in Australia, no problem.

~~~
GHFigs
_I can download an APK from anywhere._

Out of curiosity, do you (or any Android users reading this) find yourself
doing this with any frequency?

~~~
slowpoison
That's how I installed Fennec.

~~~
nkassis
Same here, also couchdb and a few other apps I've found that were available as
APK and o'reilly books.

------
credo
Good point, it is in Apple's interest to reframe the debate. Theoretically,
Apple could argue that Google's core assets (search and advertising) aren't
open-sourced. Their Android apps (like Maps) aren't open-source and Apple
could say that "open" is just a marketing buzzword that Google uses to try and
beat Apple with. However, that will be an argument on turf picked by Google.

"What is best for the customer" (and also what is best for app developers) is
imo a much better argument for Apple and so it isn't surprising that Apple
would prefer to fight on this turf.

As an app developer, I develop for the iPhone/iPad (even though I wrote an
Android app with their beta SDK long before Apple launched the app store and
Google launched their first Android device). So I personally agree with the
case made by Apple.

In this context, it is also worth noting that Rovio (which earned >$1M/month
with their $0.99 iPhone app) recently released an Android app, but made it
free. They seem to be using the "ad-supported" model for the same reason that
many developers don't develop paid Android apps (and I hope I haven't offended
too many Android users by pointing out that Android users download very few
paid apps). Rovio has also mentioned the difficulties with Android
fragmentation. Overall, I'd say that Apple's argument does resonate in the
market.Google's argument (and the fact that it is available on all major US
carriers) is also very effective. Overall, this is a great time for mobile
devices/apps

~~~
enjo
It certainly resonates with developers. Ultimately, however, that hardly
matters.

Apple allowed an Android toe-hold in the market and they're going to continue
to pay dearly for it. Google has steadily improved the OS, and the phones
reflect that. The hardware has gotten better and the overall user experience
has continued to improve. Not to mention that that quality of the third party
apps has continued to improve as well.

We are likely to see at least one more major OS revision for Android before
Apple finally brings something over to Verizon. Remember, Google has brought
some serious talent to bear here with the likes of Matias Duarte (user
experience for WebOS) now on the Android front.

Fragmentation is a developer issue. The app-store issues are by and large
developer issues (particularly since Google has finally opened up the paid app
options). Get outside of the echo chamber and you'll see lots of folks happily
using their Android phones and feeling pretty good about it.

Jobs is getting agitated because, in my opinion, he knows this is a battle
he's going to lose. Customization is right at the top of features most
important to cell phone users (I can't post the citation, it's an internal
study I was given access to). Android's open philosophy certainly filters down
to the end user when it comes to customizing the phones. Be it with new
launchers, keyboards (my iPhone toting friends are intensely jealous of
Swype), or just about anything else on the phone.

Remember ringtones and wall-paper after all. That was an incredibly huge
market driven by the folks wanting to customize their phone. Cases are another
expression of that. Android eventually wins, because for most folks, that is
the driving factor. Apps are going to be a wash in the end... both platforms
already have enormous breadth and precious little in the way of high quality.
They won't influence the outcome. Apple will lose, simply because they insist
on being Apple.

~~~
tealtan
I don't think fragmentation is only a developer issue. It breaks up the target
market into silos, which means it will require more effort from a developer
for less potential revenue. If this results in fewer and lower-quality apps on
the Android Market, this will impact the perceived value from the viewpoint of
the customer.

If I were to buy a phone, I don't want to have to worry about whether the apps
on my friend's Android phone will work on mine. It's one more thing for me to
worry about, and it may be just the thing to stop me from buying it.

------
ugh
Framing is powerful and fascinating game every spokesperson worth its money
plays.

Steve Jobs talked a lot about fragmentation and brushed openness aside. Why
then did Andy Rubin not talk about fragmentation but emphasize openness?
Because he is not stupid, that’s why.

That’s what makes many of those public fights very frustrating to watch. In a
perfect world humans wouldn’t get distracted by frames. They would be able to
recognize that there is nearly always more than one aspect to a story.

It absolutely drives me crazy when, for example, so many advocates of nuclear
power can only ever talk about CO2 and so many adversaries of nuclear power
can only ever talk about safety and waste.

~~~
xenophanes
It's not really relevant to your point, but I happen to be a nuclear power
advocate who thinks it's safe, clean, and efficient.

------
steveklabnik
Another "great" example of this: the Corn Refiner's Association has applied to
rebrand HFCS into "corn sugar."

[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100914/ap_on_bi_ge/us_corn_syru...](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100914/ap_on_bi_ge/us_corn_syrup_image)

~~~
gxti
It's a very interesting situation because while it's clearly a "typical evil
corporation" move, it's one that's objectively justifiable given the evidence.
Because I am anti-putting-sugar-in-everything (HFCS or otherwise), I hope that
this _will_ result in more people associating corn syrup with sugar. All the
campaigns against HFCS should really have been campaigning against all forms
of sugar all along and the association will (perhaps inadvertently) make
people more averse of products with too much sugar.

------
matt_s
I can totally see where framing this as integrated vs. fractured can happen. A
coworker has an Android based phone and the latest update from the phone
manufacturer killed the app she had to get to the corporate email account. 3
months in, the problem still isn't resolved. You end up with a gaggle of
vendors all pointing the finger at each other as well as the app maker.

On my iPod Touch, I can get to the corporate email perfectly fine, through all
of the iOS updates I've gotten.

Apple can test all of their base features and their apps and know that they
work on every device they ship. It just works and it is integrated.

------
jsm386
There are some great reads by the cited examples.

George Lakoff's (left) Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame
the Debate - is a fascinating read regardless of your political beliefs.
[http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-
Progressive...](http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-
Progressives/dp/1931498717)

The Frank Luntz (right) example of death tax vs. estate tax is pretty well
known. What he put together for the GOP about how to frame the bailouts/Wall
St/financial reform/Obama admin this year is also a fascinating political
document: [http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23808095/Language-of-
Financial-R...](http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23808095/Language-of-Financial-
Reform)

------
meelash
I really think the comparison with politicians is (probably unintentionally)
disingenuous. The thing that would make reframing an argument in different
terms dishonest is (a) when it is done without telling you- politicians don't
say, look we don't like such and such term, we're going to call it this
instead and (b) when the terms that it is reframed in have undue intrinsic
positive or negative value.

When Steve did it, he clearly stated what he was doing and justified reframing
the argument in that way. In that case, reframing a debate using more
appropriate terms to really approach the core of what is different is an
honest tactic that is often necessary to really compare two things
objectively.

Secondly, the terms fragmented vs. integrated appear to have less intrinsic
value than open (good) and closed (bad).

As such, you can argue with which is the most relevant framework to compare
the two systems (and actually, this is going to be different for different
user groups- manufacturers care about different things than developers, or end
users), but I don't like the implicit characterization of his reframing the
argument as somehow dishonest. That seems close-minded.

------
qjz
Except the debate isn't _open_ vs. _closed_. It's _iOS_ vs. _Android_. Since
Jobs is trying to strengthen Apple's position in _that_ debate, where's the
foul?

------
kvs
We can also look at it as Apple viewing this from customer perspective
(fragmented vs. integrated) and Google viewing this from production and
development philosophy point of view. Which view is more relevant to a
customer? (where a customer is your regular Joe/Jane)

------
burgerbrain
Oldest trick in the book. It's good to see the tech industry catch up with
what politicians discovered centuries ago.

~~~
SlyShy
Why would be it good to see an industry take cues from the least honest
profession?

~~~
burgerbrain
I wrote that with sarcasm dripping from my words, but I suppose it didn't
translate.

------
mikeryan
Open and closed can mean so many things in this context. The whole debate
really _needs_ to be more semantically focused on what they mean to really
make any sense.

------
stretchwithme
The "real" real problem is not the carriers. Its the way the government
manages the spectrum.

We could have a dynamic marketplace where devices, users, networks could buy
spectrum in advance or real time and even resell it.

We need incentives for making the most use of spectrum, for making more
spectrum with faster clocks. Seems we have incentives for controlling and
inhibiting innovation.

Instead we've sold spectrum to the highest bidder who can then control access
to it and have no real open competition. Maybe Google's bid last year will
change that a bit (<http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9910932-7.html>).

You ought to be able to create your own network by buying spectrum in a fluid
marketplace. Or just be one guy buying spectrum as you need it for some device
you made yourself.

Don't if that all makes sense, but I think you may at least see what I mean by
the problem behind the problem.

------
lsc
Growing up, my stepmother was very big on the power of words, and how you can
change people's minds based on how you say a thing. She was right, of
course... but to my mind, that seemed like protecting myself from this
manipulation was more important (and more ethical) than using this knowledge
to manipulate other people. For a long time, I'd practice re-writing
everything I heard using words with the most negative connotations I could
without changing the meaning of the sentence.

"I gave him a job, and his skills and abilities are helping my business do
well." vs. "I am profitably exploiting his skills and abilities."

the meaning is essentially the same, but don't say the second one in public.
(in my teenage years I tried that, too.. it ended badly.)

Anyhow, I don't spend as much effort on it as I did, but I still think being
aware of this sort of thing is an important part of everyone's mental self-
defense.

------
protomyth
For those who would like to listen to exactly what Steve Jobs said, the audio
is posted at <http://www.apple.com/investor/> and will probably be there for
about 10 - 15 days.

------
dannyr
I still remember how the Bush administration carefully worded some bills.

Healthy Forest Initiative - opens up more parks to the timber industry

Patriot Act - Who would dare say they are against Patriotism?

~~~
loewenskind
I'm strongly against patriotism actually but I see your point.

------
biafra
Apple could be much more open with iOS and at the same time be not less
integrated. How does the whole AppStore policy make iOS more integrated?

When I am criticizing Apple for iOS not being open I mean it is not open to
run any application that works on the device.

The Problem with iOS is that only Apple-Signed applications are allowed.
Because of that, Apple has the power to keep the competition and the content
they do not approve of out.

------
cahooon
Their previous argument—"yes, it's open, but it sucks"—was less effective than
this. It also said pretty much the same thing.

------
hnal943
_We think the open versus closed argument is just a smokescreen to try and
hide the real issue, which is, “What’s best for the customer – fragmented
versus integrated?”_

Sounds awfully familiar. Didn't they learn anything from the desktop wars in
the 90's?

------
avk
George Lakoff's class, "The Mind, Language, and Politics" (Cognitive Science
C104) was my absolute favorite class at UC Berkeley. We read plenty of his
work and Frank Luntz. I'm glad to see these ideas again!

------
zacharypinter
Say what you may about Jobs, but you have to admire how he plays the game.

~~~
recoiledsnake
I would prefer that he let his products do the talking - which they do. That's
what makes all of this even stranger.

------
dasil003
They stole my comment from earlier today:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1807530>

------
zacharydanger
Jobs begs the question: Are the users actually the system integrators?

What does that even mean anyway?

~~~
guelo
Exactly. And what does fragmented and integrated mean in the context of a
consumer? I've heard fragmented as far as developers go but consumers just get
a device and normally keep it for at least 2 years. How is fragmentation
hurting them and what integration is it that they're doing?

~~~
awakeasleep
One way this 'fragmentation' can hurt users is by removing some developer's
incentive to build on the platform.

I believe that is what the Tweetdeck quote was about, anyway.

~~~
snotrockets
Except it wasn't a real quote. @iaindodsworth (TweetDeck's CEO) wrote today it
wasn't: <http://twitter.com/#!/iaindodsworth/statuses/27813412620>

------
napierzaza
Debating 101: Frame the argument.

Both sides of any argument do this. Google by calling it "open" which means
more than it really does. Apple doesn't debate it's not open, it just debates
that the results aren't any good because of the confusion of choices. "Open"
is supposed to be a good thing, Apple doesn't believe it is.

But the fact is that Apple is crying about it, they're explaining why they
made the decisions they made. They need to justify this to their investors.
Google needs PR to make Android look good.

That's why people are "Pro Life" not anti-abortion. Do these guys read the
news, maybe they just started?

~~~
endtime
>That's why people are "Pro Life" not anti-abortion.

That's a pretty touchy example. Honestly, I've always thought that "pro-
choice" was stretching the truth more than "pro-life".

~~~
wtallis
If you want to see where "pro-life" may be stretching the truth, consider that
not all "pro-life"-ers are vegans. When they say "pro-life", they're trying to
imply that embryos are people, which is really the crux of the debate.

~~~
endtime
I'm actually okay with "pro-life" as shorthand for "pro-sentient life". I
think that's obviously implied - the debate isn't about whether cows should be
able to get abortions.

~~~
wtallis
But whether an embryo is sentient or if its life has more value than that of a
dog or cow is a debatable point for people who don't derive their opinions
from their dogma. If you take "pro-life" to be short for "pro- sentient life",
then you've shifted focus away from the issue over to what's pretty much a
tautology.

~~~
endtime
I agree with you that an embryo isn't sentient - however, they believe it is,
or at least that it has a "soul" (which, in their minds, is the same thing).
Their position is that wrong to kill something with a soul. You can (and
should) be scientific about whether or not an embryo meets that qualification,
but that's a question of their poor science, not their motive nor the position
they think they're arguing...which I do think is reasonably accurately
captured by "pro-life".

------
prbuckley
How about "integrating" a phone that works into your phone.

------
apotheon
There's a term for the kind of rephrasing used by Apple: "fear, uncertainty,
and doubt"

There's another term: "propaganda"

I could probably rephrase the matter endlessly if I really wanted to.

------
sssparkkk
How about Jobs misinterpreting a blog-post bij the makers of TweetDeck, by
using it as an example of how terribly difficult it is for developers to write
for the 'fragmented' android platform.

Just a little later the CEO of TweetDeck (@iaindodsworth) tweets this: "Did we
at any point say it was a nightmare developing on Android? Errr nope, no we
didn't. It wasn't."

Help me out, is this a typical case of 'FUD'?

