This hardly captures Apple's strategy. It appears to offer an insight into one step in their strategic thinking for one issue, but the title of the post is quite misleading.
This absolutely captures their strategy. They are clearly building a walled garden for their own benefit, while selling it as the user's benefit. I can't imagine users complaining about having the option to switch to android.
> They are clearly building a walled garden for their own benefit, while selling it as the user's benefit.
On the contrary, I think this highlights that Jobs thinks, "They want to compare? Great, let's force them to really compare."
Jobs: "If they want to compare us to Android, let’s force them to use our far superior payment system."
It's one thing to build a walled garden that's crap but users get stuck with it. It's another to build something you believe is truly superior for users, then forcibly rub people's noses in it.
While the primary message is that there are Kindle apps on lots of mobile devices, the secondary message that can’t be missed is that it is easy to switch from iPhone to Android. Not fun to watch.
Steve Jobs:
What do you recommend we do? [then suggests as first step to show how better the payment experience is on iOS]
The conversation is about a problem identified by Phil Shiller. The problem is that switching from iOS to Android seems easy.
Jobs proposes (as a first step) to show how the iOS payment system is superior. This is a nice response to a threat from the competition, but it does not change the basic fact: Apple considers that easy switching to Android is a problem, and something must be done about it.
This is consistent with Apple not supporting Android (no Apple app to access iTunes content, etc). Google on the other hand makes apps for iOS, e.g. the books app[1]. When an iOS app is not available (e.g. for music where the app is in the works[2]) users can still use the Web services.
actually it's not just forcing a real comparison, it's about directing what will the comparison be about. In this case Jobs doesn't shy away from the problem, he actually proposes to meet it head on, but on a battle field of his own choosing.
Exactly. They aren't giving users real choice. If Apple's payment system (or any other part of their platform) is really superior, why not let users choose and make up their own minds? Because they want to make it painful or impossible to switch and they don't want their platform to be considered a commodity reader for Amazon's content.
Facebook, Google, Microsoft have a walled garden, in-fact every company on earth thinks on how to keep customers from leaving.
The difference between Apple and others is that Apple products are far superior, i can't imagine myself using any Microsoft product if Apple provides it.
Google releases pretty much all of its products on iPhone. Apple doesn't releases anything on other platforms and when they do because they have no choice (iTunes on Windows), they do it poorly.
Well, Google certainly builds walls for its garden. Looking at things like nuking Reader in favor of G+, nerfing its applications on iOS compared to Android (funny how quickly iOS got turn by turn Google Maps once Apple released its own map application), and even initiatives like Free Zone in developing nations that provide free internet only for checking G+, gmail, and sites opened directly from a Google search). Just look at the shenanigans Google is pulling right now with Microsoft and getting Youtube on mobile there.
All of these companies throw walls up for the sake of profits and strategic benefit. Different heights, different locations, some hard walls, some soft, -but they all build them.
The entire free Android operating systems itself is just vendor lock-in for Google, which is an advertising (not search) company.
Actually, you're wrong, sometimes the iOS apps have features that Android doesn't have yet, for example, iOS Maps actually had the new Maps interface before Android. Also, Google has Google Takeout, which lets you leave Google and take everything with you.
Android is not vendor lock in, because Google isn't the vendor in this scenario, Samsung, Amazon, Sony, etc are. For example, Amazon doesn't include Google's services, and Samsung is clearly moving in the direction of pushing their own stuff in front of Google's.
>Actually, you're wrong, sometimes the iOS apps have features that Android doesn't have yet...
I didn't say they didn't, nor did I even imply it. Understand that this doesn't change the fact that Google witheld app features from other OEMs and kept enhanced versions for its own partners for competitive reasons. Just because Apple did it too doesn't mean Google didn't (as I already pointed out).
>Android is not vendor lock in, because Google isn't the vendor in this scenario, Samsung, Amazon, Sony, etc are.
I was talking about walled gardens, and wasn't making an arbitrary distinction of "vendor" lock-in.
As I was saying though, from the standpoint of a walled garden, Android as a free operating system has been remarkably successful as a soft wall for Google, getting their advertisements on more handsets more quickly than any other method. Instead of risking consumers switching, they are eliminating competitors before consumers even get the option to switch. OEMs have been keen to adopt an OS that cost them next to nothing and played nice with branding and in house apps.
Clearly Amazon and Samsung modifying the OS is a concern of Google's, and they are combating this with native apps, web apps, and their own competitive offerings (hardware included).
What you're basically saying is that Google used open source to create a protective ecosystem that prevents other vendors from taking over with their own moats.
Chrome serves the same function. It ensures Google is not blocked by browser default search engine changing, it prevents other people's walls. But would you claim Chrome is "vendor lock in"?
Android is primarily a defense mechanism. If Apple and Microsoft together had nearly 100% of the market for the mobile web, they could change the default search engine to Bing and sink Google overnight.
Android if anything, preserves choice and prevents lock-in, because unlike iOS, it is an open OS, and vendors can always change the defaults.
Apple is a hardware as software company. Google is an advertising company. Apple wants the dollars in your pocket, Google wants your eyes. Discussing things in terms of open, closed access to competitors platforms etc is missing the point of each company.
> i can't imagine myself using any Microsoft product if Apple provides it.
I can say that you are in the minority, people use apple now because they are cool and with subsidies cheap. I see a larger amount of android phones now than I did 2 years ago when everyone and their mother had an iPhone and now the Android phones are starting to look cool with there gimmicks like the phone pausing video when you look away.
People bought iPads because they were a cheapish replacement for a computer and they were cool, I think Apple has everyone beat on the tablet market at the moment, while more people might know what a Galaxy S4 is they probably don't know the name of a Tablet that isn't iPad.
But for computers cheap Windows laptops still reign supreme.
> I think Apple has everyone beat on the tablet market at the moment
At 10" yes, but at the 7" range the Nexus 7 is really superior to me as a user - I don't know the sales numbers though, maybe the iPad Mini is doing better there too.
Are you really suggesting that Apple products are superior in every case? Are you going to tell me that Safari is superior to either Firefox or Chrome?
But seriously, what are you demonstrating here by providing an anecdote? I've got some of my own: I use osx and windows 7/8 extensively every day, and (except xcode!) neither of them crashes with even the slightest degree of regularity: they're both great operating systems.
But of course, neither are evidence of any form to support the claim "x is better than y". Which is good, because it's a stupid debate anyway.
Okay, XCode crashes on me about every hour of use or so on my Mac Mini (especially when I leave it and come back). None of my Windows 7 programs have crashed on me in over a month. Btw, once XCode crashes, Apple offers to let me send in a technical report.
In terms of consumer experience, XCodes performance is hardly relevant. Use iTunes as an example. That god awful abomination gives me rage like few other programs manage.
They might be selling it as a users' benefit, but in the case of the Amazon app, users are at a loss.
As long as the developers submit themselves to Apple's authority, Apple and its related products could offer superior service. Most developers are still accepting the "Apple way", even in cases where it hurts their own business proposition. The reason Apple has such a strong supplier power is that they have a very strong market share. However, Apple's arrogance will one day contribute to their downfall. Developers choose to develop first and foremost for the platform that offers the greatest benefits; as Apple's market shares are falling, the userbase is less of a reason to choose to develop for Apple first. Also, because alternatives are strengthening on various fronts, developers will be less likely to swallow Apple's authoritative terms if those terms hurt their own business model - even if that means offering a suboptimal service to Apple's customers.
> They are clearly building a walled garden for their own benefit, while selling it as the user's benefit.
Unless violence is being used to force people to buy things, there doesn't have to be a big difference between "the company's benefit" and "the user's benefit."
i think it captures apple's strategy pretty well, and the flaw in their thinking. They see a commercial promoting kindle books on the kindle tablet and an iPhone and see "it's easy to switch", not "you can own devices from two different brands and they will work together". Amazon doesn't make a phone, nobody is going to switch from an iPhone to a kindle, but the concept of owning two devices that aren't from the same brand is totally foreign to apple. Their entire strategy is focused on every apple user owning nothing but apple devices. an iPhone user buying an other-brand tablet is a threat to apple as a whole, not just to their tablet business. Their strategy is to control everything and not allow anything to happen out-of-ecosystem. Playing nice with others doesn't even occur to them.
it quite does. if the apple kool-aid everyone here drink was true, his reply would be "let's do better devices at more competitive pricing and nobody would have a reason to change"
but no, they still make a laptop that you can't close the lid while downloading a large file... and try to lock you in with lock-in tactics on the media YOU BUY.
See how well that worked for sony betamax/lasedisc/minidics... blueray... oh, wait.
It's a large reason why I won't touch any of Apple's media offerings. If they're not running the Netflix/Amazon model, where they've committed to making it available on all the major platforms, it's a non-starter for me. I really like a lot of Apple's products at the moment. It hasn't always been like that. It seems naive to believe it will stay that way forever either.
This touches on one of the big issues with the agency model, Apple's 30% cut of IAP, and the rule requiring all digital goods purchases go Apple IAP made Apple the only bookstore on apple iDevices, outside the browser.
IMHO, when the iPhone was the leading smartphone in the US, that wasn't a walled garden, that was a market leader leveraging that power to take another market in an anti-competitive way.
I've always believed it's time for Apple to embrace running some of their software on other platforms. Not only would it take the competitive advantage away from other companies providing multi-platform products, but it would also show confidence in their products that users will ultimately use their products for the best experience. Sure, some products may not make sense on other platforms (e.g., Mac OS X), but many others do make sense.
In many ways, history is repeating itself here with Microsoft and Apple 20 years ago.
Out of curiosity, why did he think Apple had far superior payment system? I personally think Apple's payment gateways no better than Amazon Checkout or Google Checkout experience.
On an iOS device they already have your payment details due to the inability to use the device with out providing a credit card. 9/10 times the user is already signed in to that AppStore/iTunes account and thus just needs to enter their password.
Thus when buying on iOS it's always easier to use Apple's system because you're already half signed-in and they already have your credit card.
But yes, if you re-enter your credit card details then they are pretty much the same except for having to re-enter your details.
Yes, if Apple required you to enter payment details for Amazon and Google, and remember your Amazon/Google accounts to use an iOS device, then it would be the same. But since they don't it isn't.
Have you ever thought that Android in app purchases are lower because they allow developers to use Paypal to buy stuff, and don't require a credit card to use the device?
I would argue that Amazon and Google are better because I can use their payment system on things other than my phone as well. Whenever I'm on a new site that's selling something, I'm very relieved when I see the amazon or google checkout logo. Other than having to sign up once (which there's a good chance you already have if you've ever bought anything on amazon, and google wallet is spreading more), I don't see how apple's system is better at all, let alone "far superior".
1) Apple has more active credit cards than Amazon.
2) If someone were to purchase a book on an iOS device it is more likely they have an active credit card on their account than an Amazon account with an active credit card.
3) One payment system is easier for customers to understand and trust.
Steve's wording here may have indicated better technology in his mind, but I doubt that is true, given amazons incredible focus on taking credit card payments accurately and quickly. Reasonably though the reasons outlined above would be good reasons it was better overall, even if it really wasn't consumer friendly in the end because of the lock-in.
#1 #2 state the same thing, and although it may be true, I can't think of any way this makes the payment system "far superior". Is Amazon something you only use once and it's a hassle to have to enter in your credit card?
#3 is not something anyone believes, even you.
I'd counter with iTunes hysterically bad receipt notifications. Typically you get a receipt between 3 days to 2 weeks after you buy something. Every time I receive an iTunes receipt I have to strain to remember way back when I bought the thing the receipt is for.
iTunes is a horrible store front, so I had to vote you up. Maybe it was acceptable for what was available when it launched but it's coming up on 10 years later and basic features that would aid discovery are still missing.
It says a lot about their attitude, but I wouldn't say Apple's strategy is 100% predicated on switching costs. Not even close. They entered the phone market as an underdog, for one thing.
As for attitude though, it does perfectly capture what they consider "superior", i.e. stuff Apple does (platform-mediated payments), not necessarily stuff that benefits users (portability).
