Google wants you. Amazon wants you. Apple wants you.(plus.google.com)
plus.google.com
Google wants you. Amazon wants you. Apple wants you.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/100899499494145896730/posts/KTvkyw4tNa4
10 comments
That explains why Apple supports customers using iDevices however they want, while Google locks down Android and asserts that it should be a federal crime to run unapproved software. Wait. Maybe it's a bit more complex.
Apple thinks (rightly or wrongly) that giving you that control will diminish the experience.
I used to hate it when people would install stupid stuff on Windows and then blame Microsoft for their bad Windows experience.
It's like buying an <insert generally reliable car make> and putting a bunch of crappy aftermarket parts in it and then getting angry with the dealership when you're stuck on the side of the road.
I used to hate it when people would install stupid stuff on Windows and then blame Microsoft for their bad Windows experience.
It's like buying an <insert generally reliable car make> and putting a bunch of crappy aftermarket parts in it and then getting angry with the dealership when you're stuck on the side of the road.
But then it is the fault of the user and not really the car dealership. Car dealership do not (cannot?) restrict you from using duplicate/fake/not-their parts, AFAIR. I do not think that anyone would hold the dealership responsible (legally and morally) for, say a mishap that happened because of a faulty fake tire.
Windows as a brand suffered greatly at the hands of OEMs and their crappy software, regardless of whose fault it was.
Actually that is a different issue. Windows doesn't restrict the user in installing softwares that they want to. Hell, it even allows user to keep using their product and subsequent MS softwares with sufficient independence even after realizing that the OS is pirated. What you are pointing out is the behaviour of OEMs which is rightly called out as obnoxious and degrading.
Yes, my first thought on reading that short argument was that it has all the logical rigor of INTERCAL.
I especially like the leap the author took from 'an iDevice is an end in itself' to 'users can see this' to 'obviously that's why it is selling so well'. Not a one of those logical leaps is even plausible IMO, let alone so obvious that it can be thrown out there without further justification.
I especially like the leap the author took from 'an iDevice is an end in itself' to 'users can see this' to 'obviously that's why it is selling so well'. Not a one of those logical leaps is even plausible IMO, let alone so obvious that it can be thrown out there without further justification.
[deleted](1)
I might be on board with this if the author even began to discuss why what Google and Amazon are doing is less than ideal for the consumer, but the main point he's trying to make remains totally unexplained, and in addition I don't agree with his argument about Apple at all.
Why is a kindle fire less than ideal - because they sell books on it? You could make the same argument about every video game system - it's less than ideal because you have to buy video games for it. This isn't because nintendo is evil or lazy, it's just how the system works. A video game system is a device for consuming other peoples' video games (and nintendo's too, if they want), and the kindle fire is a device for consuming other peoples' books.
Why is android less than ideal, because it's ad supported? You could say the same thing about facebook, twitter, and every other company out there that provides a free service supported by ads. Some people don't like this, and this leads to developments like app.net - we'll see how paid services like this do over the next couple of years. But the fact remains that if you don't realize when you sign up for a free service that people are being paid to make that they need to make money somehow, you aren't even thinking.
Then let's move on to all of apple's major devices. You get a iphone, but this relies on a contract with a service provider, which is in fact how apple makes most of their money off iphones. Oh no - immoral!
Or you may buy an ipod, apple's other big product. But what's an ipod without music on it from a third party. Hold up - third party pollution, the ipod is no good as a product.
Or perhaps you buy the only other thing they sell, a computer. But you'd better not put any software on it from a third party, because then it's just a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Overall, I understand the general idea, but this was very poorly thought out and needs more thinking and explanation, not to mention that at least to me, the statement about Apple's products all being an "end" is definitely false.
Why is a kindle fire less than ideal - because they sell books on it? You could make the same argument about every video game system - it's less than ideal because you have to buy video games for it. This isn't because nintendo is evil or lazy, it's just how the system works. A video game system is a device for consuming other peoples' video games (and nintendo's too, if they want), and the kindle fire is a device for consuming other peoples' books.
Why is android less than ideal, because it's ad supported? You could say the same thing about facebook, twitter, and every other company out there that provides a free service supported by ads. Some people don't like this, and this leads to developments like app.net - we'll see how paid services like this do over the next couple of years. But the fact remains that if you don't realize when you sign up for a free service that people are being paid to make that they need to make money somehow, you aren't even thinking.
Then let's move on to all of apple's major devices. You get a iphone, but this relies on a contract with a service provider, which is in fact how apple makes most of their money off iphones. Oh no - immoral!
Or you may buy an ipod, apple's other big product. But what's an ipod without music on it from a third party. Hold up - third party pollution, the ipod is no good as a product.
Or perhaps you buy the only other thing they sell, a computer. But you'd better not put any software on it from a third party, because then it's just a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Overall, I understand the general idea, but this was very poorly thought out and needs more thinking and explanation, not to mention that at least to me, the statement about Apple's products all being an "end" is definitely false.
I buy a video game console to play games. Most of the people I know bought a Fire to get a tablet.
Look, everyone, naturally, caters to the one who's paying the bills. Advertisers are paying the bill. They make money on the ads/books/goods not the device. Therefore the device is secondary.
Look, everyone, naturally, caters to the one who's paying the bills. Advertisers are paying the bill. They make money on the ads/books/goods not the device. Therefore the device is secondary.
So you just look at the tablet and don't consume any content on it? I buy a tablet not to get a tablet, but to do things with it, just like you buy a console to play video games.
Of course everyone caters to who's paying the bills, if not you're out of business. I figure this is more or less common knowledge.
But you have to realize that deciding who pays the bills is hardly ever only your company. In Apple's case especially, there are often 3rd parties paying their bills. Like I mentioned, cell providers pay a huge chunk of their revenue to get the iphone, app developers pay them to create apps on their devices, etc. They do not pay all the bills without third parties.
And even though this is the case, I don't think there's anything wrong with 3rd parties being involved. And if you did (which it seems you do), you should have mentioned this in your post - not just that you generically think there's something wrong with it, but what exactly is wrong with it. Then talk about how consumers would be totally ok with massive price increases on these products and what benefits that would be traded for.
Of course everyone caters to who's paying the bills, if not you're out of business. I figure this is more or less common knowledge.
But you have to realize that deciding who pays the bills is hardly ever only your company. In Apple's case especially, there are often 3rd parties paying their bills. Like I mentioned, cell providers pay a huge chunk of their revenue to get the iphone, app developers pay them to create apps on their devices, etc. They do not pay all the bills without third parties.
And even though this is the case, I don't think there's anything wrong with 3rd parties being involved. And if you did (which it seems you do), you should have mentioned this in your post - not just that you generically think there's something wrong with it, but what exactly is wrong with it. Then talk about how consumers would be totally ok with massive price increases on these products and what benefits that would be traded for.
Captain Obvious here.
Amazon wants you (to buy through them, because they are like Walmart, getting a sliver of each transaction, but making an enormous amount of transactions). You get liberality with content.
Google wants you (to view their ads, because every time they display an ad/make a conversion, they get a sliver). You get liberality with hardware/software.
Apple wants you (to buy an iDevice, because every time you buy an iDevice, you just gave them a 30%-50% of the product price as straight profit, in addition to being locked into their marketplace, which they get a hunk of each sale, in addition to ads being run through free apps and them getting a sliver for the view/conversion). You get a well-done, end-to-end experience.
Amazon wants you (to buy through them, because they are like Walmart, getting a sliver of each transaction, but making an enormous amount of transactions). You get liberality with content.
Google wants you (to view their ads, because every time they display an ad/make a conversion, they get a sliver). You get liberality with hardware/software.
Apple wants you (to buy an iDevice, because every time you buy an iDevice, you just gave them a 30%-50% of the product price as straight profit, in addition to being locked into their marketplace, which they get a hunk of each sale, in addition to ads being run through free apps and them getting a sliver for the view/conversion). You get a well-done, end-to-end experience.
I agree it is obvious -- to you and I. how do you explain all the disagreement though...
I think there is a lot of truth to the argument that the customer is best served by a product that is created for the customer.
However, I think both Amazon and Google and Apple and Microsoft are in this for the long haul. They probably figure that they are best served by customers who love their products.
So while it might be true that in the end, Google wants to sell ads, Amazon wants to sell content and Apple wants to sell hardware, all of them can only do so by satisfying customers.
Actually, the difference is rather that since Amazon and Google only use the hardware as a means to another end, they need to exert less control over it and thus offer a wider range of different products.
However, I think both Amazon and Google and Apple and Microsoft are in this for the long haul. They probably figure that they are best served by customers who love their products.
So while it might be true that in the end, Google wants to sell ads, Amazon wants to sell content and Apple wants to sell hardware, all of them can only do so by satisfying customers.
Actually, the difference is rather that since Amazon and Google only use the hardware as a means to another end, they need to exert less control over it and thus offer a wider range of different products.
So in summary, there are different business models which benefit (and penalise) the consumer in different ways. I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.
The real issue here is whether people understand what they're buying in to when they buy the various products.
* Do they understand that Apple are going to restrict you in certain ways? Do you understand what those ways are and what the consequences are?
* Do they understand Google's (financial) interest in your personal data and what that means?
* Do they understand that Amazon are only selling you this stuff as cheaply as they are because it's a down payment on more stuff?
As technology changes, business models change and the nature of the deals you're entering into is becoming more complex with greater consequences than you might have understood.
There's nothing wrong with any of these models and I think the OP is wrong in implying that Apple are in some way "better". The issue is that I don't think that the typical consumer is keeping pace with the changes and, as a result, is potentially entering into deals they don't understand and making choices that don't reflect what they really want or need.
The real issue here is whether people understand what they're buying in to when they buy the various products.
* Do they understand that Apple are going to restrict you in certain ways? Do you understand what those ways are and what the consequences are?
* Do they understand Google's (financial) interest in your personal data and what that means?
* Do they understand that Amazon are only selling you this stuff as cheaply as they are because it's a down payment on more stuff?
As technology changes, business models change and the nature of the deals you're entering into is becoming more complex with greater consequences than you might have understood.
There's nothing wrong with any of these models and I think the OP is wrong in implying that Apple are in some way "better". The issue is that I don't think that the typical consumer is keeping pace with the changes and, as a result, is potentially entering into deals they don't understand and making choices that don't reflect what they really want or need.
So, is it fair to say that you agree with everything except that Apple's way is better for the consumer?
No.
My point is that the issue is that in many cases individuals don't understand the nature of the relationship that they're entering in to and therefore are restricted in their ability to make a good decision on their own behalf.
Contrast this with what you're saying which is that they don't understand and therefore are making a mistake in choosing Goole or Amazon.
With respect you don't know me and you have no idea what is ideal for me. You don't know my wife or what's ideal for her. You don't know my dad and what's ideal for him. It would be very, very odd if the same of many diverse and well made products was right for all of us.
Being an end in itself isn't better, it's just simpler to understand.
My point is that the issue is that in many cases individuals don't understand the nature of the relationship that they're entering in to and therefore are restricted in their ability to make a good decision on their own behalf.
Contrast this with what you're saying which is that they don't understand and therefore are making a mistake in choosing Goole or Amazon.
With respect you don't know me and you have no idea what is ideal for me. You don't know my wife or what's ideal for her. You don't know my dad and what's ideal for him. It would be very, very odd if the same of many diverse and well made products was right for all of us.
Being an end in itself isn't better, it's just simpler to understand.
This dude works at Yahoo and can't spell bait. I'm not really sure he deserves a respected opinion.
Also, note the last name. Is this a troll?
Also, note the last name. Is this a troll?
Troll or not, I would suggest him to not use '✓ Verified Authentic' as a tagline. I was confused if that was a Google+ verification for identities.
Edit: Reason for downvote? The person's infobox looks like [1]. For a person not so active on G+ to realize that the first line is a user defined string and not system generated tag, it is confusing. [1]: http://i.imgur.com/zvaDq.png
Edit: Reason for downvote? The person's infobox looks like [1]. For a person not so active on G+ to realize that the first line is a user defined string and not system generated tag, it is confusing. [1]: http://i.imgur.com/zvaDq.png
they didn't give me a spelling test. (thank God)
but thanks for making fun of my name...
but thanks for making fun of my name...
I think Amazon is an end unto itself, I LOVE buying goods from Amazon, and anything that lets me do it easier is fantastic. Everyone understands Amazon is a marketplace, no deception here. Google is a slightly different story.
Yes, Amazon's content is the ends. But if it is so obvious to you and I why not everyone here arguing against the idea?
wow! Fanboys are getting desperate for attention. Google does just as much of a bait and switch as Apple does. Google does in the form of Ads; Apple does it in the form of "oh, you bought this device! Cool here it is... Oh you wanted MP4's and other media for it? That'll cost you!" You think you're getting a great device but you're just getting something to interact with the media they lease to you.
Upvoted for comedy value?
Facebook already has you..