I see two fundamental issues at the heart of the problem:
* iOS allows users to install only applications approved by Apple. This makes about as much sense as a house with built-in technology that prevents the owner from using any furniture, kitchen equipment, and entertainment device that isn’t pre-approved by the home builder.
* iOS prevents users from installing and accessing other app stores. (Other proprietary mobile OSs make it difficult or impossible to install third-party app stores.) This makes about as much sense as the home builder having the legal and technological power to prevent the homeowner from visiting certain shopping malls in the area.
Installing any app you want -- and any app store you want -- on your own device ought to be an inalienable right.
--
Edit: I updated the second point to reflect that Android does allow the installation of third party app stores -- see comments below. (Thank you mokeyfacebag, stanleydrew, and ZeroGravitas for pointing this out!)
There is a fundamental difference between well written Android applications and iOS ones. iOS apps are expected to run as an island. Everything they want to do should be included into the binary. There is essentially one entry point (a main() equivalent). Think of it like a statically linked binary (which it mostly is).
Well written Android applications are structured like mashups. There is no main. There are multiple entry points for screens (aka Activities) as well as entry points for processing (Services), data (ContentProviders) and even a mechanism (BroadcastReceiver) for telling all interested apps about events (eg battery charge level changing, incoming calls, apps being installed). There is a mechanism for decoupled communication (Intents) which allow specification of a verb (eg VIEW, PICK, DIAL, EDIT) and one or more bits of accompanying data (eg text, urls, images). It is trivial to bring up/use part of another app that didn't even exist at the time yours was released and have the experience combined. (You can always tell iOS apps ported to Android because they don't do mashups or collaborate with the apps already on your system.)
This means that an iOS app will never be improved by other apps installed on the system, while Android ones can be. And because of Intents it becomes possible for a user to choose their own experience - want to use a different browser or app for viewing images? No problem. For example I installed the GitHub app on Android and it added itself to the AccountManager. Now other apps can collaborate with it (eg it supports the SEND verb which creates a Gist) or ask it to display an issue/user/commit.
The (long winded) point behind this is that app installations are far more valuable to Android users. If things were only decided on technical merit then Android will end up nailing iOS because of this. But that walled garden sure looks nice to many people, and it is rare for users to really notice what is going on and they definitely won't have both devices to continually contrast and compare.
Launching apps from file associations isn't integration. (Windows 1.0 did that.) Try sending files instead. The source app on iOS has to integrate every library it wants to support. eg to have Dropbox it would need to include a Dropbox library, and a Google library, and a Box library etc. (And ask for usernames and passwords in each app including the library.) A frequent complaint of users with other browsers installed is how often the builtin Safari comes up instead.
Try alternate dialers. On Android you just install an app that claims to handle tel:// urls. You are out of luck on iOS. Try adding another social network that can handle sharing. Again you are out of luck on iOS until every source app adds libraries. And images, contacts, calendars, and whatever some startup thinks of next week.
iOS is trivial in this regard - there is essentially no cross app integration. That fits with Apple's walled garden model, and means that apps do not change their functionality after installation which fits in with Apple's review process. Having "deterministic" app behaviour hasn't hurt Apple so far - they rake in over half of the smartphone industry profits.
> Both iOS and Android prevent users from installing and accessing other app stores.
This is not true for Android. Some OEMs might ship a version of Android that is tied to a single app store (e.g., Kindle Fire), but I'm quite certain that vanilla Android can install any old .apk from any source.
From a European perspective, that sounds really strange.
I've got mobile broadband in my laptop. Imagine if the provider of that service would have a say over what programs I could run on my laptop. Very strange.
It's a SLA, which typically don't come with laptops.
Video game consoles are similar - MS won't allow you access to the Xbox Live service if you've modded your hardware or installed different firmware.
Verizon doesn't care what you do with your phone, but they say that you can't get their cell phone service unless you run the device the way they want you to.
Completely agree. I don't mind if they lock-down the apps to be from the store only by default, like Android has done it from day one, or the new Mac OS versions have started doing, as long as you're still going to allow users to side-load any apps they want. I'll never choose a platform that doesn't at the very least give the option to install from other sources than the ones approved by the OS maker.
This is why the whole new Windows 8 direction scares me, too. For now at least, they are allowing desktop apps on Windows 8, but on Windows RT, Microsoft is just as bad as Apple with iOS. They won't allow you to sideload any apps. So if you want to use an app that wasn't approved by Microsoft, you'll have to jailbreak the Windows RT device. Sames goes for WP7/WP8.
> Installing any app you want -- and any app store you want -- on your own device ought to be an inalienable right.
What about game consoles? Calculators? Cars? Washing machines?
It's absurd to force a company to provide features and services by law. That is a huge violation of free trade and the rights of those who sell devices. You know what you can and can't do on a device before you buy it. If people cared as much about the issue as you do, they'd buy phones that allowed that. They don't. That is why your house analogy is so far off.
There's a difference between allowing users to install any app you want, and actively preventing the installation of an app or app store.
If someone creates software that runs on a game console, or calculator, and distributes it where users have a choice to install it or not, I agree with cs702, it should be up to the user/owner of the device if they want to take the risks to install it or not, the manufacture of the device shouldn't actively prevent such installation, but simply say, "If you do this, we won't support it, and it voids your warranty, but it is your device now."
They don't even after to make it easy for the users. It's not that Apple should provide another way for them to install another app store, that's a feature. It's that Apple shouldn't religiously hunt and destroy every means of jailbreaking just _because_ it allows users out of the Apple Control Sphere.
If you recall that users can be tricked into doing just about anything, you'll see that there's no difference between 'can' install alternate software and 'will' install alternate software. And that software will inevitably turn malicious.
I really can't agree with this. Most users are not going to dig down into the Android settings panel and manually enable app side loading and that's the only way to install alternate software.
This is exactly how things work on Macs now and Mac users aren't exactly swimming in malware.
Your second point is not accurate. I have the Amazon app store installed on my Galaxy Nexus.
Edit: now that you have completely changed your second point, my comment is not a valid response. Please refrain from substantially changing your comments once posted.
There is however a precedent of this model that has worked well and as far as I know never been successfully challenged, game consoles. Game consoles could be general purpose computing devices if it where not for the manufactures limiting the applications to just games and going to great lengths to discourage side loading.
Apples App store and approval process is basically an online version of the classic game console model with much cheaper entry fees for developers and must less restrictive rules.
All the reasons why game consoles have been successful vs PC gaming apply to Apples success, lower piracy, less problems for users, less complexity for developer because of controlled hardware and software platform. All the same limitations apply as well.
I think the analogy is apt, but it's worth pointing out that most consoles are crippled against sideloading as an anti-piracy measure. They don't want you to be able to rip a game DVD, burn copies for your friends, and let them all play the game for free.
Apple prevents sideloading simply to have greater control over the platform.
Apple prevention side loading has the same effect and console manufacturers also gain "greater control" as a result.
What information do you have the confirms Apples doing it only for "greater control"? Would they also not want to prevent piracy in order to make their platform more attractive to developers?
What is the difference between a Nintendo DS and a iPod touch other than Apple has a wider range of apps other than games?
I don't know about that. Consoles tend to have strict certification requirements, and presumably the manufacturer gets a cut of game sales, both of which are reasons to prevent sideloading unrelated to piracy.
Your comment claimed (up until a moment ago) that Android prevents users from installing and accessing other apps. Now it says 'proprietary mobile OSes', which from certain angles Android is. Yet my Android phone has multiple app stores on it.
Have you heard of, for instance, UL? The electronics in your home have almost assuredly been tested and certified. Large retailers won't sell you non-certified electronics.
Apple has every right to vet the apps it sells in its app store. And it makes sense to do so.
But I agree with your second point, that consumers should have the option to obtain apps from other stores.
> Installing any app you want -- and any app store you want -- on your own device ought to be an inalienable right.
You're acting like:
1. Jailbreaking doesn't exist.
2. Apple is actively working to prevent people from jailbreaking their devices.
This is simply not the case. Apple is neither technically nor legally hindering anyone's ability to jailbreak their devices.
Your problem is analogous to complaining you ought to have the inalienable right to go outside, but you were born in a home with doors. But once you open the door, the world is yours for the taking. No one is stopping you.
Apple has stated publicly that they consider jailbreaking illegal and void your warranty if you do it. It's only still possible because people keep finding holes in their code.
Your analogy doesn't work because the only way to open the door on your Apple house is to pick the lock.
Well, if the phone still works and you need something replaced under warranty, you can always factory reset it.
If the phone DOESNT work, then there is no way for them to tell that it's jailbroken in the store...
But keep things in perspective. Apple chooses to sell appliances, not platforms. Apple products are more like toasters than houses. I agree that I should certainly have the right to modify my toaster, but I don't begrudge the designers for making it difficult for me to do so.
Of course now that MS is tying Metro style apps to their proprietary app store in the next version of Windows, the distinction between appliance and platform is starting to blur.
I think that's a bit of hyperbole. Game consoles are decidedly a smaller market, but dying? Come on. The latest game consoles will always be much more powerful than the latest phones just as the latest PCs will always be more powerful than the latest consoles. The console market might shrink a bit due to casual gamers being able to use mobile devices but die?
The actual title of this article is "Another Way Apple's Fight With Google Is Hurting Users", which casts less blame than the modified title here on HN, "Another Way Apple's Fight Against Google Is Hurting Users".
It is unfair to present this ongoing situation as a war on Google by Apple. It is a competition between the two companies. Not to beat a long dead horse, but the war between the two companies started when Google entered the mobile device space.
* Apple began developing the iPhone in 2004 and released it in June 2007.
* Android was founded in 2003 and Google bought the company in 2005. Google and partners announced the Open Handset Alliance in November 2007 and the first Android phone was released in October 2008.
So far, so good. Two companies that did not start out in mobile telephony/computing both began developing products and entering the space around the same time, competing with the existing smartphone manufacturers, particularly RIM and Nokia.
Google's competitive practices have consisted mainly in developing and iterating a solid product, partnering with a variety of hardware providers to develop a large ecosystem and market share, and occasionally releasing flagship devices to raise the state of the art.
Google has borrowed some innovations from its competitors and developed some innovations of its own.
Apple's competitive practices have consisted mainly in developing and iterating a solid product, partnering with developers via an app store to develop a large ecosystem, and maintaining control of the design and manufacture of devices to maintain standards of quality.
Apple has borrowed some innovations from its competitors and developed some innovations of its own.
Apple has also pledged "thermonuclear war" to "destroy Android", launched a patent war of attrition against Android hardware vendors, and is now, apparently, hobbling the functionality of its own device in an attempt to marginalize Google.
There's competition, and then there's anti-competitive behaviour. Apple would do better to stick with the former, since the company is obviously very good at designing, building and marketing highly competitive products.
That's correct but not particularly important to the discussion. Jobs set the direction for the company, a direction the company continues to take after his untimely passing.
Sure, Jobs set the direction. He also passed less than a year ago, months after the Samsung case began. Nothing changes that fast, so it's not clear at all that Apple's management wants to continue down that path in the future.
In fact, you don't have to look far to find "industry insiders" who claim just the opposite. Current CEO Tim Cook publicly stated that he hates litigation (his words) and he met with Larry Page recently to discuss ways to "live peaceably together" and avoid unnecessary litigation. Is this sincere or just lip service? I don't know, but if we're playing the game of predicting Apple's future, it's important to the discussion.
> and is now, apparently, hobbling the functionality of its own device in an attempt to marginalize Google.
...while we're basing points on pure speculation, I'd like to posit that Google is using the price and availability of its Maps service as a weapon in this iOS vs. Android fight. They're well within their rights to do this, and absent knowledge of what happened it's more reasonable than "Apple is hurting their users in a misguided attempt to compete with Android".
Both examples from the article (maps, Google's iOS app) are examples where the author claims/implies Apple is at fault. So I don't think the title slip is particularly misleading.
Also, who cares who started it? Usually, competition is good for consumers--in this case, if Apple approved this app, competition would mean we have two natural language search apps on iOS. The problem is that Apple is "competing" by hurting their users, not by improving their products. And Google does this too (see: lack of turn-by-turn navigation on iOS), but my sense is they do it less.
As the article does, it's more helpful to focus on how the competition takes place than on casting blame for starting the "competition," which is fundamentally a good thing.
So, Apple's anti-competitive actions are justified as a counter measure to Google entering it's mobile device space? Since when did Apple own the mobile device "turf", isn't this a suppose to be a free market society? No market is sacred, companies should be making better products to compete and hold on to it's market share, not killing them and stifling innovation to keep a monopoly it no longer has.
Since when have anti-competitive actions been bad things in the absence of a monopoly, which Apple most assuredly does not have in the mobile space? We're all for competition and its benefits, except when we're not?
I agree the title should be changed to match the original. But it was probably just an honest mistake.
Also I think you are being a little disingenuous. When you have the CEO of one company saying it will wage thermonuclear war on a product, that is clearly a statement of intent to destroy said product that goes beyond competition in the marketplace.
> ...the war between the two companies started when Google entered the mobile device space.
Entering a market isn't usually equated with starting a war.
> When you have the CEO of one company saying it will wage thermonuclear war on a product, that is clearly a statement of intent to destroy said product that goes beyond competition in the marketplace.
It's been said that the Hohenzollern family had a specific policy: Never start a war unless victory is assured. War is a "two edged sword." It has the potential to do both sides serious harm.
Apple needs to do some soul searching. They need to be looking out for their customer's best interests. Somehow they've lost the way, and empirically, this is no longer the case. Maps is just the biggest symptom. The article points out another.
The precipitating event was Apple's blocking of a Google Voice app from iTunes. I suspect that this had something to do with the disruption of Apple's relative positioning of the iPod Touch and iPhone within it's product line. The ability to text and talk across the garden wall with an iPod would have likely had a negative impact on iPhone sales.
It hurts Apple's customers because they are blocking a superior free product for no apparent reason but to kill competition.
As for: Not to beat a long dead horse, but the war between the two companies started when Google entered the mobile device space.
Was entering the mobile market a bad thing? was it not allowed? is it for Apple alone and no one else's? that statement doesn't make any sense. I'm sure there was a time when Apple entered the mobile business and Nokia wasn't none too pleased.
It hurts Apple's customers because they are blocking a superior free product for no apparent reason but to kill competition.
Seems like a hell of a good reason to me.
Was entering the mobile market a bad thing? was it not allowed? is it for Apple alone and no one else's?
Google and Apple had a symbiotic partnership, like WinTel, which dominated for the better part of two decades. Microsoft stayed out of chips, Intel stayed out of doing an OS. If one decided to take 100% and get into the market of the other, it would create a nasty situation where both were forced out of their comfort zones to make crappy stuff. It would break trust. And yet that's exactly what Google did with Android: it had a partner that didn't have search or web in its DNA—and thus an ideal partner—and decided it could take the partner's market. Pardon the teen parlance here, but that's a little backstabby. Apple's indignation, in my view, is entirely justified.
I think everybody would agree that all is fair in love and war. Any company is free to go after any market, any adversely impacted existing relationships are tactical losses. What's important is how all parties move forwards after the event. You say that Apple is justified to feel indignant. Well maybe so, but the key question here is is Apple's reaction in their own long term interests? Poisoning their brand by releasing crappy software, moving into spaces were they are non-expert, and degrading the experiences of paying customers is at the very least a questionable reaction. Indignation, feeling like you've been backstabbed, retaliation etc. are all words that should not enter the vocabulary of a corporate entity where you want only a highly rational and logical assessment of a situation. I'd argue that Apple's brand would be much stronger (and their products much better) right now if they'd stuck to their core values and brought Google in to power the parts of iOS that they do best (i.e. maps and voice etc.).
Apple either sends users and data to the belly of the beast that decided to complete head-on with them (making Android better, by the way) or figures out how to do this stuff themselves and offers beta products. I would say that Apple doing the latter given Google's aggression makes a lot more sense than Google's aggression in the first place.
Google made a mobile OS because no other company had the software expertise to even remotely challenge Apple. Before Android the OS software from Nokia, Samsung etc. looked like bad jokes compared to iOS. Google created an open source platform that any manufacturer was welcome to use and in doing so blew open a previously monopolised smartphone market. Google's market is selling advertising, it doesn't care if it sells ads off Android phones, or iPhones. The health of the entire internet connected ecosystem is in Google's interest. In what way could you define Google's move to get involved in mobile as "nonsensical aggression"? The aggression at play here is Apple's, voice-search and maps are low hanging fruit for easy monetization, Apple don't want Google anywhere near them and they're willing to screw users to get there.
Google made a mobile OS because no other company had the software expertise to even remotely challenge Apple.
B doesn't follow from A. First off, it's untrue that nobody else had the software expertise to challenge Apple: there's Microsoft, RIM, Palm, plenty others in 2007. Apple had 1% of the market and no monopoly. But let's pretend that none of that is true and that Apple did come to dominate the market. The dependence was mutual, and Apple would have every reason to fear dependence on Google as visa versa. This should have rationally encouraged cooperation. Apple's only alternative for search and web services would have been Microsoft, even more of a direct competitor (then, in 2007), and one to both Apple and Google at that! Undesirable.
Second, Google's handing out bullets to its competitors like candy and is hurting its ability to lock down mobile. In China, Baidu has ripped out core Google services from Android and has replaced it with Baidu services. Amazon has done the same thing for Fire and replaced Google with Bing. If Facebook were to ever build a phone, it wouldn't have to look much farther than Android. And of course Google on iOS isn't long for this world.
Third, the dependence on a single dominant player still exists. Samsung owns the Android space and can hold Google integration hostage for all kinds of goodies. It's pretty much back to square one re: Apple, except Samsung has OS alternatives (including forking Android [hey, who made S Voice?]), where Apple didn't have Google alternatives. HTC is in the dumps and Google is in a tough spot with privileging Motorola, its new baby, for fear of angering aforementioned Samsung.
So no, in short, it's not clear at all to me that this was a rational move.
Apple is the largest company in the world so no, their “indignation” over having a competitor is never justified.
You are also assuming that only Google benefited from that relationship which is wrong.
Google is a software and services company and in an iPhone world Apple would decide how and when these services are presented to users, if they are presented at all. That is an unacceptable amount of risk as Apple had a disproportionate amount of leverage in that arrangement.
Actually what Apple's (relative) size is should have no bearing on whether they have a right to be indignant by a breach of trust.
And I disagree with you about what the balance of power would have been in a hypothetical Apple-Google cooperative partnership. What were Apple's alternatives if Google were to withdraw as a backend services partner--perhaps a direct competitor in phones? That doesn't seem too palatable. Doing their own backend services? How's that working out for Apple today?
Pretend you are Ford Motor Company. You've had a great, mutually beneficial relationship with Firestone Tires for many years. But Firestone Tires decides to get into the car making business. Now they design cars in direct competition with yours, they give away designs for free, and occasionally they even have their designs manufactured and sell the cars for profit.
Now would you expect Ford to continue to buy tires from Firestone?
I don't see why not if Firestone is still making the best tires for the price and the tires you have in development inexplicably blowout occasionally. Switching to your own tires (if you can make them competitive and meet your needs) is a good decision but one that shouldn't be done before they are ready.
Samsung is Apple's biggest competitor in the phone space but Apple still buys a large number of the parts used in their phones from them. Apple has been steadily replacing things like processors with their own designs but this certainly isn't because of some petty offense they've taken to Samsung entering their market. It's because it's in their best interest to design their own parts (especially long term). Apple does come off as being emotional about Android with the decisions they've made (especially Maps) but implementing their own Maps and other features of their phones themselves is a good long term business plan. In the case of Maps, they launched too soon but working on their own mapping solution was a good decision.
Except that Firestone isn't selling you as good a tire as they are putting on their own Firestone cars. In order to get those tires, they want your customer's usage data and to sell advertisement space on the tires...
Both parties are acting in what they believe to be their best interests. I don't fault either. (and btw I completely agree with your second paragraph)
>It hurts Apple's customers because they are blocking a superior free product for no apparent reason but to kill competition.
Misinformation. Apple isn't BLOCKING anything!
Apple released, in iOS1, Apple Maps powered by Google Maps API Data.
Google, wanting to monetize Google Maps API access, began charging expensive rates for their heavy users, of which Apple was the heaviest user of all.
In response to Google asking Apple for millions of dollars for a service they provide for free on every other platform, Apple decide to change the data source in Apple Maps.
Google has yet to provide their own app on iOS for mapping, as they're likely pissed that their million-dollar-lunch just ended and now they have to provide a service for FREE.
You do not know how much (if anything) Google was charging Apple for API access or if it increased when they generally increased the pricing. They almost certainly got a better deal than general users of the API because they are Apple and have a massive user base. We do know that Apple and Google had a contract in place but beyond that we don't know anything.
Furthermore, Apple does not get their data from "Apple Maps". They pay to license it from TomTom and other companies (though they do, of course, also produce data of their own that gets combined with the third-party sources to produce the aggregation that is Apple Maps).
I don't know how much you meant by "millions of dollars" but it was probably substantially less than the $267 million Apple paid to acquire C3 Technologies to add 3D maps to their offering.
Apple's decision was a great long term decision for them but it did hurt users in the short term (hence Cook's apology).
Do you actually know anything at all about the terms of agreement between the 2 companies regarding maps or are you just guessing here? Because as far as I know, the terms of agreement between them are not public.
Paying millions of dollars for maps is a tiny drop in the bucket for Apple and a tiny drop in the bucket for Google. Whatever disagreement they had over maps it almost certainly was not because Google charged too much. Providing additional ads/services to iOS users is significantly more valuable to Google than whatever paltry millions they could have made by licensing their maps.
You think Apple was paying for the Maps API through the Google API console?!
Large companies do business through special contracts that have their own terms, and the maps contract reportedly is still valid for another year or so.
Much as I find anti-competitive behavior contemptible, this article makes a glaring, uncorroborated assumption that Google's voice-to-speech functionality is currently being held up by Apple.
Looking closer, it's not even clear that ReadWriteWeb asked either party for a comment... note: "Google’s PR response to questions like this is that “we’re working closely with Apple” on getting it released." and "Well, Apple doesn’t talk about these things, so all we know is that it isn’t out."
During the search breakfast back in early August, Google did say that they'd submitted the app. Here's a CNET article that covered the search breakfast: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57489395-93/google-exposes-... The relevant part is "The update to the Google Search app has been submitted to Apple, and Google expects it to be approved in the next few days, Huffman said."
If anyone wants to watch Scott Huffman's demo of natural language voice search from the search breakfast, the relevant section of the video is on the web: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a2VmxqFg8A#t=10m43s
Fact, you can search how much you want, you will not get a word more than that. With apple is hard to know anything about your apps let alone the app of another huge competitor.
1- Apple you S.O.B's, why won't you let me do as I wish with my phone
2- Apple, this is your product and I understand that you have the absolute right to do with it as you wish.
I actually find myself in both camps.
Sometimes I wish Apple would let go and treat this like selling Windows or OSX: They provide the OS and let others integrate apps as deep and wide as they wish. Yes, this would mean things like providing developers full access to all resources as opposed to the restrictions we work under today.
On the other hand, I also find myself in a position from which I respect the quality and stability the platform has offered since day one. It's almost like this is a benevolent totalitarian regime.
Until iOS 6 and Maps.
What I see now is a company that might not be making the right decisions for it's customers and users. You could argue this has happened with OSX as well. By releasing a substandard Maps application Apple has proven that it is now willing to make decisions that do not include quality, stability and the users' best interest in the process. I cannot, in any way, imagine that this would have been approved by Steve Jobs. Maybe I think too much of the man, but I don't think I am wrong.
Apple cannot make all the right decisions for this platform. No company can. Not in the long run. At one point you have to let go and allow others to help evolve the platform in ways a single company could not possibly imagine. Not doing so has the potential to tilt the scales and have users eventually vote with their purchases and move to other platforms.
This is exactly my issue with Apple. Once you've handed over all control to a benevolent dictator you're powerless if that dictator becomes less benevolent or competent in the future.
Until Apple allows opt-in sideloading of apps I'm done with iOS.
Except for the fact that Apple has NEVER been benevolent. My first brush with Apple was choosing to buy a Creative mp3 player (despite literally everyone I know having an iPod as their player) because of the absolutely ridiculous restrictions that Apple put on copying files from the device to a computer. This wasn't a "hacker" problem that "typical" users didn't face; I've lost count of the number of people who asked me how to do exactly that with their iPods over the following few years.
I've always been baffled at the characterization of Apple as focused on the user; user satisfaction has always seemed like a side effect of their main goal, which is profitability. Obviously in the ideal case, these two goals should be one and the same, but it's pretty obvious that very, very often, they are not. There are always things a company can do to help their market position that hurt their users, and Apple is practically a pioneer in coming up with and implementing them.
Not only is this the reason the author percieves the situation as harmful, but avoiding the harm is entirely within the author's control. Just purchase different devices.
After all these years purchasing only iDevices, it can actually be pretty difficult for many of these people (particularly journalists) to even envision purchasing and using a non-Apple device. They've just been drinking the Kool-aid for far too long.
Well, there are rational reasons, too. At this point people have spent five years building up a collection of apps- if you switch to Android, you lose the whole lot.
That really depends on how flexible you are as a user. Maybe you cannot get the exact stack of apps that you currently have, but I'm quite sure you can find the same kinds of functionality on both sides of the app store fences.
This clearly shows how laggard Siri is when compared to Google search. This is how things are at present. Google clearly has an edge in this area. I agree that Apple will keep working and improving Siri, but there are many problems in the road which Google can solve much better than Siri can.
When Apple doesn't allow Google search because it is competing with Siri(Ssshh.. actually, it's a lot better than Siri), I am losing as a user.
I wish both companies can work together. In an ideal world for users, the backend technology is powered by Google and the interface and interaction is designed by Apple. That will make a groundbreaking product for sure.
You can't have it both ways: people absolutely love to trot out the platitude "competition is good" about all sorts of situations--even when open source projects are rewritten from scratch when the other project would have happily accepted patches, people are still all "competition is good"--but now, suddenly, it is all about "cooperation"? Why isn't this another "competition is good"?
Apple is not playing unfairly here (as you might argue in other battles, such as with Samsung), and neither is Google. They are competitors, and both Maps and Voice/Siri are key functionality for these mobile devices: Google spent a bunch of time building their technologies, and if Apple wants to use it on their highly profitable hardware maybe they should have to pay a lot for it; example: half their margin.
This is, then, what competition is: it is two people/companies duplicating effort to get a similar result, purposely putting each other down whenever possible, and setting up situations where they have whatever advantages the system allows over the other. The customer often loses in these situations, because so much blood and sweat has to be lost to the "fight".
The alternative, "cooperation", normally is frowned on in these circles. Even in the aforementioned cases of open source projects, such as the with web browsers (where the cost is painful fragmentation caused by some vendors misunderstanding or not disliking specifications enough to not bother implementing them) or compilers (the gcc/clang split has been brutal: clang doesn't really compile things correctly, and yet is now the only compiler from Apple for Mac OS X), people are again all "competition is good, deal with it".
Well, sometimes, often, possibly always (yes, even for the restricted domain of "prices" and even when cooperation includes "trusts", at least apparently according to Judge Posner; however you certainly needent go that far with this argument): "cooperation is better, yielding a more powerful result for less development cost"; this is, after all, the premise of open source collaboration.
Yet another reason why the iPhone 5 is the worst iPhone ever produced. Not because it is bad - objectively it is in all ways better than previous iPhones - but because it is comparatively worse than the current state of the art (Galaxy Nexus). Maps are horrible, voice search not as good, no NFC, less radio bands, etc etc.
The iPhone 5 marks the first time in the product line's history that it was not advancing the state of the art.
Seems like quite a short-sighted perspective. In the long-run, it will be a great benefit to users to have two companies with billions of dollars to spare competing head-on to build big-data services driven by machine-learning and crowd sourcing, plus AI services, search engines, knowledge bases...
Its true, I'm amazed they are able to get away with it too. Microsoft simply bundled software, but never did it outright prevent competition on its OS. Apples closed garden is outright blocking competition... How is no one looking into this?
As pointed out below 1) they don't have a monopoly.
2) It wasn't just the bundling of IE, but also the use of APIs to prefer and favor IE over third party browsers, and restrictive agreements with OEMs.
Also part of the finding of fact in the case was the nature of how web browsers were obtained in that time period, long, slow downloads. Giving the bundled option a serious advantage. But again before we even get into the anticompetitive-ness of Apple, which no doubt many of their practices are, without a monopoly, it's fair play.
IANAL either, but I have looked into this quite a bit. There are other ways anticompetitive behavior can be prosecuted, but they don't seem to apply to what Apple is doing here: http://www.ftc.gov/bc/edu/pubs/consumer/general/zgen01.pdf
That PDF provides a pretty good summary of the FTCs scope, and under the current mobile market, it doesn't seem like they'd have any reason to involve themselves, especially when alternatives readily exist.
Apple has 25% mobile market share. Android has 50%. Microsoft has about 90% desktop market share for over a decade. DirectX was made to kill off OpenGL. C# was made to kill off Java and keep software running on Windows. Microsoft killed of Netscape and a decade later IE6 isn't completely dead.
Android isn't going away and by my estimate it will always have more market share than iOS.
Btw, Microsoft completely killed of all other PC operating systems when they required PC vendors to pay for shipping DOS, regardless of the OS they actually shipped.
C# was made to kill Java as Apple maps were made to Kill Google Maps but they did not prevent Java from being installed, which is what apple is doing. If they want to win by keeping the loyalty of the users they should not cut off all competition but just release a better product than the competition. Apple successed in this in the last years but the more time passes the more I see they are struggling with it, the prefer to kill off any other opportunity, but this will enrage users(at least those who were not brainwashed)
When companies write apps in C# for the Microsoft platform, they are going to pretty much stay on the Microsoft platform. Those apps, for the most part, aren't ported to the Mac and Linux (please skip the Mono discussion, it's not a 100% solution). Fortune 500 companies and commercial companies are locking consumers into Windows. Maps is one product. There are thousands of C#, Windows only apps.
When companies write apps in Objective-C for the Mac or iOS platforms, they are going to pretty much stay on the Apple platforms. Those apps, for the most part, aren't ported to the Windows and Linux (please skip the GCC discussion, it's not a 100% solution). Fortune 500 companies and commercial companies are locking consumers into Apple. There are thousands of Objective-C, Apple only apps.
That's is correct and obvious, so I thought it went without saying. Btw, there are hundreds of thousands of little iOS only apps.
If Apple had a monopoly, or even close to one, in phones then we would have a problem. However, Android leads by a wide margin and since they sell better in the rest of the world, Apple's little walled garden doesn't really matter.
My point is that creating a custom language is not necessarily a move intended to create or preserve a monopoly. Microsoft felt that the best way to innovate in the developer space was to produce a modern framework with a core set of modern languages (and to open that framework up for 3rd party integration, such as Delphi). It's unreasonable to expect that Microsoft should be limited to C++ (a non-managed and non-modern language) and Java (a language a competitor controls) for development.
Microsoft writes most of its software in C++. They love C++. If C# wasn't the only case then it might be acceptable. DirectX, for example, was done to kill off OpenGL. Microsoft hired away Borland's language team, including the Delphi developer and proceeded to build a better Java that only ran well on Windows, and some might say that they accomplished this. :-)
Objective C was developed before Steve Jobs and he simply adopted it, or his engineers did at NeXT. Personally, I'd like open languages/platforms that offer a little more reuse.
> Microsoft writes most of its software in C++. They love C++.
Microsoft writes most of its systems-level software in C++. Microsoft also writes a lot of C#. WCF and WPF are both built on the .Net stack. Bing runs on ASP.NET. Lots of stuff at Microsoft is build in C#, for the same reasons lots of stuff outside of Microsoft is build in C#: it's modern, safe, fast, and pleasant to work in.
> If C# wasn't the only case then it might be acceptable. DirectX, for example, was done to kill off OpenGL.
No, DirectX was written to replace WinG, which is what most games for Windows were written in prior to DirectX. I don't believe OpenGL had any traction on Windows at that time.
> Microsoft hired away Borland's language team, including the Delphi developer and proceeded to build a better Java that only ran well on Windows, and some might say that they accomplished this. :-)
This might be interesting if Microsoft had hired James Gosling away from Sun to work on C#, but that's not what happened. They hired staff away from Borland, who didn't design Java at all. You're conflating unrelated things.
> Objective C was developed before Steve Jobs and he simply adopted it, or his engineers did at NeXT. Personally, I'd like open languages/platforms that offer a little more reuse.
I fail to see the relevance here. The Objective-C used by Apple today is by no means the same as the Objective-C that NeXT started with. NeXT and Apple extended Objective-C significantly at both the language and the library level. This the the "embrace, extend, extinguish" cycle you accuse Microsoft of.
Sorry you fail to see the relevance. Objective-C isn't owned by Apple in any way, shape or form. Of course, they are going to try to improve the language. They sort of have to make it modern since they built their systems around it. Apple's compiler an open source project: http://clang.llvm.org/ Will Microsoft ever open source their C# compiler? That would be a great boon for making the language cross platform.
Objective-C isn't owned by Apple? Who else is using it? Of the few other people who are using it, how many are using it without Apple's extensions? Apple does indeed de facto own Objective-C. They control it. They have embraced it, extended it, and extinguished anyone else who might have had a claim on it.
It's strange too that you have a problem with C# being proprietary, but you don't have a problem with Java being proprietary. Oracle owns both the language and the implementations that everyone uses. That it's part of their business plan to maintain it for Linux does not change its fundamental nature.
And just so you know, Microsoft did open the source for C# under admittedly restrictive terms. Look up Rotor. And they have issued a Community Promise that protects projects like Mono. And yes, Mono counts, just as surely as GCC counts, unless Microsoft also owns C++.
Objective-C is an open source project, like the webkit browser. Google adopted webkit for Chrome, for example. There is nothing prevent anyone else from adopting Objective C. Your logic is pretty flawed. Just because Objective C has not gained wide adoption doesn't mean that it's not open to be adopted. Google uses "Java" for Android. Java is open source. You can download the source and build it.
Mono is fine but it's not nearly as good as Microsoft's compiler. C# is a great language. It would be great if Microsoft simply open sourced it.
It really doesn't matter if it owns 25% or 90% of the OS space. Anti-competitive practices are business or government practices that prevent or reduce competition in a market. That is exactly what Apple is doing.
Of course it matters. Buy an Android or Microsoft phone; leave iOS behind. There's plenty of choice. If you don't like Apple's practices, buy from the competition. If you don't like Microsoft's monopoly, you'll find that it's a lot harder to ignore them. Many software companies only have Windows version because that's 90% of the market.
You picked some really strange examples if you want to show that Microsoft follows the EEE pattern.
DirectX was made to kill off OpenGL. - DirectX was never compatible with OpenGL. It was created to provide a Windows-95 replacement for WinG which was being deprecated. OpenGL wasn't even originally intended for gaming, which is why it had software emulation for missing hardware features.
C# was made to kill off Java and keep software running on Windows. - C# was also never compatible with Java. Calling it an extension of Java is like calling Ruby an extension of Perl. C# was created to fill a gaping hole in the Windows development world: building native apps in a modern language. Java is ill-suited to building applications that feel native on Windows. It doesn't have easy interop, the UI looks wrong, and it requires installing a huge JRE. On top of that, Java progress at the language level was pretty stagnant. Lambdas, delegates, generics? Sun wasn't interested in any significant new features until C# appeared.
Microsoft killed of Netscape and a decade later IE6 isn't completely dead. Can't argue that one.
The difference between Microsoft and Apple is that Microsoft was controlling (or trying to control) the whole ecosystem of PC makers. Apple doesn't want to do this, exactly because they don't want to open their platform for other players the way Microsoft used to do. What they want is to maintain tight control over their closed systems (iOS/MacOS X). And this is not really news, Apple always played by these rules and their customers know how it works.
This way of operating is what most tech commentators don't really understand. I think the beauty of this strategy is that you don't need to have a monopoly to make the most profits. At any time, there will be a majority of the market using other products, but since Apple is optimizing their platform for quality and high profit margin, they will command the leadership in profits (if they continue doing good products that maintain their customers happy, I mean).
You're looking at the wrong market. The problematic market isn't mobile operating systems, it's the distribution of apps to iOS devices. By excluding other app stores from iOS, Apple has created itself a monopoly on the distribution of apps to its existing base of mobile device customers.
"Apple does not have a monopoly in the mobile OS space."
That's not necessarily correct. To determine if they have a monopoly you need to look at the amount of software sold on each platform, not just the number of total devices for each OS.
If there was a competitive market then Apple would release Google's search app to the App Store and allow iPhone users to choose which one to use. The author or the article suggests that Apple is intentionally delaying approval of the app to force iPhone users to use Siri. The author (and others) argue that this is anti-competitive.
I don’t see it. I think no one is arguing that the App Store is a free market – but I’m not sure how it’s possible to jump from that to Apple being anti-competitve. Why has the App Store be a free market for Apple to not be anti-competitive?
Because this is like a child that cries and scream that he is the best. A competitive behaviour would be releasing an actually decent app and let the users choose what to use.
Maybe it's an issue of meaning. "Anti-competitive practices are business or government practices that prevent or reduce competition in a market"
I think, the app store is a market. I also think, blocking, or even just delaying, entry to the market is anti competitive.
Google appears to be ready to go. Maybe their app violates the app store agreement somehow, and it's bouncing through the review process. Nonetheless, as an external observer, it looks like apple is dragging its feet. A review takes about two weeks, right? Four+ iterations seems like a lot.
I think "A market is one of many varieties of systems, institutions, procedures, social relations and infrastructures whereby parties engage in exchange. While parties may exchange goods and services by barter, most markets rely on sellers offering their goods or services (including labor) in exchange for money from buyers."
It seems to me there are many buyers and sellers in the app store.
I'm pretty sure you're just trolling at this point, but i'd be interested in you explaining your point of view. Hopefully, you would be kind enough to use more than 10 syllables.
I’m not trolling. Of course the App Store is technically a market – just like my local supermarket is a market – but both are not free markets and no one would ever have the crazy idea of calling my local supermarket anti-competetive.
That’s the connection you are missing. You have to explain why, in your view, every market has to be a free market (or, at least, why the App Store should be a free market).
I think your view that the App Store has to be a free market is pretty crazy. I cannot understand it. I really do not understand how anti-competitveness figures into this.
Apple is one of many players in the mobile space, far from the largest. In light of that I really don’t see why they have to offer a free and open market. Why shouldn’t they be free to sell or not sell whatever they want?
–
P.S. I hate it when people say that someone is trolling just because they do not agree. That is so lazy and cheap.
Reading back over the thread, i think you're conflating market with free market. By definition, Apple has a market.
Apple can do whatever they want - it's their toy store. I'm not saying it must be a free market. There are two possibilities regarding the delay of the google app. 1, it's taking a long time to actually review the app. 2, Apple is delaying approval, hoping siri will get more market share.
The more time passes, the more it looks like 2 is the case.
Now, this is my speculation about how our thinking differs. You seem to think Apple would only ever do #2. That, because it is their toy store, they will actively quash competing apps, even apps that don't violate the terms of service. Or, at the very least, pay far more attention to threatening apps than a random fart app.
I'm more nieve than you, so I'm willing to allocate some probability to #1.
You keep saying that what I say is wrong but you do not explain why. So it's not like you are exposing a view on which someone can agree. And this is also the reason why you are being called a troll. Your comments were not an addition to the discussion but just a wall for an open mind.
No. This is not hurting users in the long run. What will hurt is having tens of apps, all having separate voice recognition software. It is correct to have only one. Like it is correct to have only one keyboard. Not tens of different keyborads with every app having his own.
Yes, clearly having choice is confusing and anti-user. That is why the internet with multiple places to buy shoes, multiple place to get news, and multiple place to talk about technical topics is so unsuccessful.
So how many pair of shoes you wear? Two pairs? Really? One the right size and the others, really big ones over them? Really?
The point was, which you clearly missed - there can not currently be two voice assistanst AT THE SAME TIME in use. Googles thing does not replace Siri. If Google had something to replace Siri and Apple blocked it, then yes, that would be anti.
Different shoes have different capabilities. I wouldn't wear hiking shoes to a job interview, but would wear them hiking. Same with apps. Siri might be good at some kinds of voice assistance and Google's offering at others.
So far my previous comment and parent have received in total 8 downvotes.
Were my comments:
1) derogatory or offensive?
2) factually incorrect?
3) off topic and/or did not add to the conversation?
4) without any meaningful content. Ex: "Yes!", "Nice post!", "LOL!", etc?
Really? Really?? What is f..ing wrong with you people?
I beg to disagree. Android allows you to easily install additional keyboards, for people who want to switch to, say, Swype, or to use a different input method for their non-Latin alphabet.
Fair enough, i'd love to only have one keyboard. But if my choice is between a keyboard with 26 letters + num pad, and a keyboard with simply a num pad. I'm more interested in the former. The point is, Apple has a market dominance right now, and is using that advantage to block innovative products from competing with them.
Besides, if the better search is an app, but you desire unification more there is no reason to download the app.
Because I see this article as the continuation of a discussion about Apple v Google products, here is my macro view of the entire thing:
I honestly don't understand. People act as if Apple is entirely incapable of creating a superior product down the road from Google's. I think that there are obvious competitive advantages to replacing Google's Maps with Apple's Maps in iOS6.
But it seems that everyone just makes the baseline, "duh" assumption that clearly their only possible motive is to screw Google.
Is it not possible that Apple also -actually- believes that version 1 of iOS6 Maps is just the precursor to a product that they will eventually make far superior to Google Maps?? These are not mutually exclusive concepts.
So this hand-wringing about how Apple is screwing users... Call me naive, but I amk completely open to the idea that this is a short-term issue that actually has the possibility to -benefit- users in the long-term, as Apple takes it's lumps and learns what users want in a Maps application, and then eventually deliver things users didn't even know they wanted in a Maps application.
I've really yet to see anyone acknowledge this thought.
edit: You know, I'd at least appreciate a counter-point with the downvotes to my argument. Honestly interested in why I am incorrect. Just saying. shrugs
Eventual hypothetical superiority in the future doesn't help user experience in the present. Why not allow people to choose which app they want to use?
>>> "You begin by talking about your macro view of things and all you do is whine and cry about Google Maps when the article is about voice? How can you have a macro view of things and mention a single app? Try and stay on topic at least?"
I am talking about Maps because that is the only thing we have concrete facts on. We have no idea the real reasons the Voice app is not in the App store right now. We simply don't. So I feel it's silly to ascribe motives to something we know nothing about. Obviously, if you have some sort of vendetta against Apple as a company, in a vacuum of information, you will automatically ascribe motives.
I do find it funny that I'm the one "whining" when all I am doing is pointing out is that perhaps the hand-wringing and whining of users about Maps is #1) a touch overwrought and #2 potentially beneficial for users in the long-run. That's all.. And I use the new iOS maps every day and haven't experienced a single problem yet. I'm not saying they don't exist, but living in a large city and using maps to navigate on my bike every day... Nary an issue.
You don't understand his point because you don't understand your own post.
You begin by talking about your macro view of things and all you do is whine and cry about Google Maps when the article is about voice? How can you have a macro view of things and mention a single app? Try and stay on topic at least?
* iOS allows users to install only applications approved by Apple. This makes about as much sense as a house with built-in technology that prevents the owner from using any furniture, kitchen equipment, and entertainment device that isn’t pre-approved by the home builder.
* iOS prevents users from installing and accessing other app stores. (Other proprietary mobile OSs make it difficult or impossible to install third-party app stores.) This makes about as much sense as the home builder having the legal and technological power to prevent the homeowner from visiting certain shopping malls in the area.
Installing any app you want -- and any app store you want -- on your own device ought to be an inalienable right.
--
Edit: I updated the second point to reflect that Android does allow the installation of third party app stores -- see comments below. (Thank you mokeyfacebag, stanleydrew, and ZeroGravitas for pointing this out!)