

Demoted - joao
http://daringfireball.net/2011/06/demoted

======
kenjackson
Gruber is repeating the obvious, but in a convoluted way.

Apple is about selling HW. Google is about selling ads.

That's it. Everything else falls from that.

Google's goal is to commodotize HW, and I this is, at least theoretically,
doable. Apple can't really commodotize ads, at least in no way I can think of.

~~~
ChrisLTD
Exactly. A lot of Apple's big announcements today were about features that
create lock-in. Your music is tied to a $25 iTunes subscriptions; your reading
list, email, calendar, to do list, and office documents are tied to iCloud;
they even want your text messaging tied to your iOS devices. Then there's all
those apps you bought on the Mac and iOS App Stores that you'll never be able
to transfer to another system.

If you start using enough of these new features, switching away to Android,
WebOS or Windows will be a nightmare.

~~~
thought_alarm

        > A lot of Apple's big announcements today were
        > about features that create lock-in.
    

Nonsense. It's only lock-in in that the user is locked into a feature that's
really great and useful. In other words, no lock-in at all.

Their music and their content hasn't gone anywhere. Their contacts and
calendar events are easily shared and exported via standard formats. They only
thing they lose by leaving is the great software.

~~~
sesqu

      It's only lock-in in that the user is locked in [--] In other words, no lock-in at all.
    

I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. Vendor lock-in
doesn't only apply when you don't like the product. Now, if there were no
other products you could switch to, that would invalidate lock-in, but it's
reasonable to assume that the product being initially good is _essential_ for
lock-in to work at all.

~~~
swombat
No one is forcing you to use Apple's messaging platform. You can pay for SMS
instead, if you feel that's the "free" option.

No one is forcing you to upload your music to the iCloud. You can keep syncing
it the same way you always have (afaict, anyway).

No one is forcing you to buy an iPhone, iPad, or any other Apple product. What
kind of lock-in are you on about?

No one is even forcing you to upgrade to Lion. Keep running Snow Leopard if
you want.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. There are plenty of other vendors. The
only way in which you could claim that Apple was "locking people in" is that
they offer an integrated experience, so that if you go all-Apple, things work
better.

Well, damn them, they should be shot! How dare they try to offer an integrated
user experience to their paying customers? What bastards!

~~~
sesqu

      If you don't like it, don't buy it.
    

That's not what vendor lock-in is about. Lock-in means that after you bought
it, you can't reasonably switch to something better, something that commonly
you didn't know about or that didn't exist when you made the initial buy. For
example, when offering integrated services, lock-in might mean that they won't
allow a third party to integrate with their suite.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in>

~~~
swombat
Well, I just bought car X, but then car Y came out and I like it better, but
they won't allow me to switch without buying a whole new car!

I guess car makers practice vendor lock-in too by your definition.

In fact, almost anyone who sells something practices some form of lock-in.

~~~
sesqu
No. For the car example, lock-in means you aren't able to use off-brand
accessories, or service your car in an unlicensed shop. However, cars are
mostly self-contained, so this mostly only comes up with aftermarket stereo
systems and membership programs.

And yes, mild lock-in is very common. That doesn't make it a good practice
from the consumer's point of view.

~~~
swombat
Considering how hard it is to get people to agree on interoperability
standards even if they want to agree, I think lock-in is simply inevitable.

------
sc68cal
_Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen. That’s
what we’ll remember about today’s keynote ten years from now._

Yes, but for some reason I don't interpret that as an advantage for Apple.
There will always be more ways to access a web page or web app, than
devices/form factors that Apple will produce.

------
niels_olson
having used the Cr48 and a 3g iPad for several months in the US and Japan, I
think Apple's vision is more robust, ultimately better for me, the end user.
When I'm mobile, whether I'm doing sysadmin, reading, listening to music, I
can do more of it, in more locations (especially offline), with better, more
reliable apps, on an iPad.

edit: reposted here from a comment on the webian group:

===

I wrote this a few weeks ago, seems relevant as the mobile space heats up with
WWDC announcements.

<http://wherein.posterous.com/i-review-the-cr48>

bottom line: don't forget about international travelers, spartan environments,
and that whole, whacky "offline" idea. You want to be relevant 50 years from
now on Mars, where the light speed round-trip to earth takes minutes, offline
use remains fundamental.

~~~
paulirish
> offline use remains fundamental

Absolutely agree. The ChromeOS platform is absolutely focused on offline
capability as well. A huge number of apps within the Chrome Web Store work
offline without any connectivity. Many regular web apps work offline. All of
Google Apps will within a few months.

I think many people forget that you can take web apps offline, perhaps because
launching a mobile browser while you have no connectivity feels so awkward.
Anyway it's just a myth to be dispelled, and some remaining evangelism work to
be done. (Disclaimer: I work on the Chrome team or whatever.)

~~~
niels_olson
> A huge number of apps within the Chrome Web Store work offline without any
> connectivity. Many regular web apps work offline.

Could you name some for me? SourceKit died so many times at that conference I
felt physically ill. Switching to qemacs was an easy decision. MagicScroll for
my books never really worked.

Seriously, I would like to know because the Cr48 form factor, battery life,
weight, temperature and speed would be great in Japan, but for me it was a
paperweight, while my roommate brought his iPad2 and was loving life by
comparison. I'm not talking about being offline for a few hours. Try weeks.
Sure, the military provides me plenty of wired network access, for ports 80
and 443, for sites they believe are appropriate (like Fox News, but not NPR).
But if I'm in the field, not at headquarters unit or near a WiFi hotspot, the
Cr48 has only been truly useful for qemacs. In my experience.

------
jlees
So, if the next fight will be apps vs web (or screen vs browser), what does
this mean for us hackers? And what about Facebook?

Already we create a web app, a mobile version, an API, a Chrome extension, a
Firefox extension, a Facebook app, not to mention mobile and tablet apps for
anywhere between 1 and 6 platforms.

Isn't this all getting particularly spaghetti-like? Weren't we supposed to
have platform convergence, not platform _divergence_? There's a good
opportunity here for "write once, deploy everywhere" code/platforms, and
methodologies that maximise DRY while playing to each platform's strengths.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
Divergence = competition = innovation.

The worst thing that could happen is One Platform To Rule Them All, if that
platform is controlled by a company for its own interests.

~~~
patrickaljord
> The worst thing that could happen is One Platform To Rule Them All, if that
> platform is controlled by a company for its own interests.

The web is not controlled by one company.

Edit: For the downvoters, the html5 APIs are made of contributions from
mozilla, microsoft, opera, yahoo, apple, google and many more. How many
companies participate in writing the iOS API?

~~~
billybob
Exactly. Web standards - or standards in general - are not a player in a
competition; they are a field upon which to play. We want everyone playing on
that field.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
Thank you. I couldn't have stated it better.

------
jerrya
_Apple’s is about native apps you run on devices. Apple is as committed to
native apps — on the desktop, tablet, and handheld — as it has ever been.

Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen._

I don't see this conclusion following from his premise. Perhaps there was more
in the keynote that he didn't include.

Or maybe I am unimaginative and think installing native apps on all of the
devices I use regardless of who owns them, or where they are located, or where
my discs are is harder than installing a browser based web app or using an
HTML5 website.

~~~
cageface
I don't think this follows either. Google provides many native apps on
Android. The real difference is that cloud-based computing is natural for
Google but a fundamental shift for Apple.

~~~
esrauch
Except that Android app sales don't pay out to Google, they pay out to Verizon
whereas iPhone app sales pay out to Apple.

Google does support a ton of native apps (GMail, Calendar, Places, Goggles,
Latitude, Maps, etc) but their strategy going forward seems to try to push
these things from apps into the browser, spending a ton of time supporting the
mobile browser version of all of these things (except for Goggles).

~~~
hexix
I've never heard that before. I think Google gets the money. Verizon probably
gets a cut just for the carrier billing option when used.

I just did a search and couldn't find anything saying Verizon gets the money
for android app payments.

Also I can't think of a single Google Android app that has been discontinued
and replaced with a web version. I think you're getting confused about google
also offering mobile web versions for platforms they can't get their apps on.
They've even said they'd like to offer a better maps app for iPhone but can't.

~~~
ralfd
This was in October 2008:

[http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/10/android-
marke...](http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/10/android-market-now-
available-for-users.html)

\--------------------------------

"Developers will get 70% of the revenue from each purchase; the remaining
amount goes to carriers and billing settlement fees — Google does not take a
percentage. We believe this revenue model creates a fair and positive
experience for users, developers, and carriers," notes Eric Chu.

\--------------------------------

This statement was at that time interpreted, that Google is buying marketshare
from the carriers.

I don't know if the sentence "Google does not take a persentage" still stands
and how the transactions fee is splitted today.

~~~
esrauch
An issue of wired I think 2 months ago claimed that the current payout was 30%
to Verizon and 70% to the developer with Google getting no cut from app sales.
Obviously their information could have been dated as well.

------
praxxis
I'd phrase it as "Apple 's frame is their screen" - those native apps run in a
lot of places, but they don't run everywhere.

------
51Cards
"Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen."

So by extension Google's applications are more cross platform, and Apple's
aren't?

~~~
jarin
In theory this is restrictive and bad, but when every platform you want to use
is Apple's it's a different story.

When Apple stops making what I consider to be the best computers, the best
phones, the best tablets, and the best way to monetize my coding skills, then
I'll probably be just as upset as all of the "openness" advocates.

~~~
Alterlife
I think the argument goes more like: When somebody else starts making better
phones, computers, blah blah... You, and many other users will be so far
locked in, you won't be able to switch.

Remember Microsoft?

~~~
rimantas

      > When somebody else starts making better phones,
      > computers, blah blah...
    

What would be your guess, when will be the time when you can start editing
your document on Windows machine at work, tweak some on your tablet at home,
and then show to someone on your phone without hitting "save" and "export" at
all?

Even is Dell starts to make better computers than Apple, HTC—better phones,
and HP—better tablets Apple would have an huge advantage of seamless
experience.

~~~
adambyrtek
This has been possible for a long time with Google Docs. Saving is not
necessary, updates are almost real-time, and it works on all modern platforms.

------
mkramlich
native vs web is a false choice: it's not like one wins and the other loses.
they're both better in different ways. do native for some things where it's a
net win, and do web for others where web is a net win. And in terms of
capabilities, the line is blurring further, esp from the web side.

------
Alterlife
"Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen."

I don't think it's going to matter. Google is putting a lot of work into
'promoting' the browser frame to the whole screen.

~~~
code_duck
You've been able to do that forever with full screen browser modes, of course.
Flash can do full screen, too. And then of course Google has done the
ultimate, with an OS that only fits a browser window.

------
sktrdie

        > Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen.
    

No, Apple's frame is Apple's screen. That makes a huge difference.

------
code_duck
"Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen. That’s
what we’ll remember about today’s keynote ten years from now."

So... what happens when you maximize the browser window?

The actual issue is Google wants to be accessible from any device, Apple wants
to sell you their custom hardware.

"But Google’s vision is about software you run in a web browser. Apple’s is
about native apps you run on devices."

Other than that Apple wants to sell you hardware, there are only technical
differences between those two things.

~~~
ralfd
> So... what happens when you maximize the browser window?

And what happens when you minimize it?

That is Grubers point. Google wants to make the (their) browser to be the OS.
Apple likes native applications. At least from John Grubers larger narrative.
According to him (and I agree) ChromeOS and the Chromebook are feeling more
Google-y than Android.

------
stcredzero
I don't think Apple is about native so much as Apple is about making the best
integrated services for devices and selling those devices. Apple isn't native-
oriented so much as device oriented. It's just that native apps fill a large
and indispensable niche right now.

------
norswap
This feels wrong. Why wouldn't you want to have to have your programs and data
stored locally (with eventually a cloud backup) ? This reminded me of
<http://jacquesmattheij.com/No+User+Serviceable+Parts+Inside> , only now it
applies to data and software as all.

------
Tichy
I seem to have a lot of native apps on my Google phone.

Could somebody point to a summary of Google's cloud strategy? I don't know
which services are supposed to be limited to browser windows.

------
olalonde
Sometimes I wonder how much Apple is paying this Gruber guy.

~~~
j_baker
Is it too much to ask to have a Gruber article without the token "If Gruber
loves Apple so much, why doesn't he _marry_ it?" comment?

We get it. Gruber is pro-Apple. Can we focus on what Gruber is actually
_saying_ now?

~~~
code_duck
I'd like to focus on that, but it's so lost in his over-the-top attitude of
adulation that it's difficult to discern what the actual message might be.
Google makes apps for browsers, Apple makes native apps... so what? Can you
explain it?

------
napierzaza
"That’s what we’ll remember about today’s keynote ten years from now."

Classic Gruber. I really hope that no one that I know ever mentions a WWDC
presentation from a decade before.

~~~
matthew-wegner
Oh, I don't know. The 2001 Macworld keynote that outlines the "digital hub" is
still fascinating:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9046oXrm7f8>

It's remarkably prescient in a lot of ways. Take this quote:

 _Digital cameras now constitute 15% of all cameras sold in the US. 15%
percent. It'll be 50% in a few years._

He also makes the point that a hub is necessary because of all these various
devices can't talk to the Internet.

~~~
patrickaljord
> Digital cameras now constitute 15% of all cameras sold in the US. 15%
> percent. It'll be 50% in a few years.

Really? That's the same thought I had the first time I saw a usable digital
camera 10 years ago, and I don't think I'm special or that I was the only
one...

~~~
cubicle67
go and read photography magazines from that era. There's was much heated and
vehement objection to including articles pertaining to digital photography and
cameras. Many photographers at that time were convinced digital cameras were
just toys and had no part in 'professional' magazines.

of course, some thought the opposite

~~~
6ren
Classic disruption. When the new tech isn't very good and gets a foothold in
new markets, the professional users (correctly) view it as inferior, rubbish,
a toy. The big picture question is whether it _could_ improve enough to be
usable by professional users. It's kind of odd that many are oblivious to the
obvious trajectory of improvement.

 _EDIT_ e.g.1 (from Worse is Better) could AI become good enough? A tricky
one, since they aren't competing with another product, but with us. OTOH,
computers are constantly replacing people for simple tasks - the history of
computation is the history of mental automation. e.g.2 could PHP become good
enough to replace Java in the Enterprise (apparently their target)?

Something that can stall the trajectory is the next wave of disruption
breathing on their heels.

------
jsavimbi
What Apple didn't really address is the growing socializing of data and in
what context it is consumed, not just by the data's owner, but by their social
graph. Without enabling native apps to do this, cross-platform apps will have
a lot of room to grow.

~~~
rimantas
1 in 4 iOS app is a game. Game Center just got some social oriented
enchantments.

