[mayanklahiri]

This raises the larger question about how much influence hackers and developers really have in terms of product adoption. There seem to be two schools of thought:

(1) Hackers/nerds are early adopters. Thus, they will influence "normal" people to use products that they judge to be superior.

(2) Hackers/nerds are a tiny proportion of the population with no real influence. They might push esoteric but superior technologies, but large-scale adoption will ultimately be driven by how quickly cat pictures can be shared with the largest group of people.

The author of the article clearly believes in (2), but Apple seems to be making money off (1). So which is it? Or is this some sort of false dichotomy to begin with?

[ohyes]

"Or is this some sort of false dichotomy to begin with?"

Yes.

When you are starting out, you need that first critical mass of people to get your service going. Those are the nerds looking for the next 'cool' thing.

Once you have a service going, you can ditch the nerds, they are a small segment of the population. Instead pander to the lowest common denominator. I don't see how Apple is making money off (1).

I'm a nerd and I haven't owned an Apple product recently (disclosure: I had a B&W G3 in the late 90s; it was sick, I mean, firewire and usb, man).

The iPod was not the first mp3 player. (In fact, it had worse specs and a higher price than its contemporaries back in the day...)

And with their computers, I mean, realistically, they are making money off of overpriced hardware running warmed-over BSD. Sure, its got a fancy skin, but the in terms of the substantive stuff, it is BSD.

Where they really make money is incredibly amazingly great marketing and an increasingly loyal user population. You could say that the loyal group of users is due to 'superior' something or other (tech ux, etc.).

This might be true, but i can't imagine them actually winning market capital with those. Where they really win are with the commercials that I can't friggin' get out of my head.

So sure, false dichotomy, and no one ever made money off of (1), (1) is kind of the price you pay to jumpstart your market.

[mst]

From the point of view of the majority of their users it's high end (but not these days overpriced) hardware that happens to have a reliable underpinning to a fantastic UI.

Sure, it's got some BSD underneath, but in terms of the substantive stuff, it's the fantastic UI the users care about.

Of course as an fvwm2 user for half a decare plus, I hate Aqua, but at least I'm aware there's a point there to be missed.

[pyre]

  > overpriced hardware running warmed-over BSD. Sure,
  > its got a fancy skin, but the in terms of the substantive
  > stuff, it is BSD.

If you want to get technical, it's based off of NeXT and NeXT is based off of BSD.

[jacobolus]

> but the in terms of the substantive stuff, it is BSD. Where they really make money is incredibly amazingly great marketing

This is just insulting flamebait.

[ohyes]

How so?

I'm baffled by how this is flame baiting.

They have amazing marketing! They have great stores! It looks great!

On a technical level, I don't see how the OS and hardware are better than, for example, BSD or Linux on Intel hardware (same hardware)!

I honestly want to know what exactly is better from a geek perspective.

If you can tell me, I'll go out and buy one. I've looked at them and I haven't seen anything.

[jacobolus]

It’s flamebait because your implication is that anyone who uses it or likes it is only doing so because it is well marketed/trendy. That is insulting, for obvious reasons, to anyone who uses it because they believe it is legitimately superior.

Frankly though, your argument is just wrong, on the merits. Most BSD distributions have nothing like the set of tools and APIs that Apple ships with OS X: they don’t have interface tools rivaling interface builder (at least that I’ve seen), they don’t have the APIs for sound and images, they don’t have the APIs for speech synthesis and speech recognition, they don’t have the APIs for integration with a built-in address book, they don’t have APIs for rich typographical support, or printing, or so easily connecting interfaces with a database backend, or doing 3d transformations to portions of an interface, etc. etc. etc.

Your basic claim is that there is no value added in all of the stuff described here, http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/navigation/#section=R... and that anyone who believes otherwise is just some kind of pawn of Apple’s marketing machine.

I mean, heck, it takes a 1000 page book just to describe the low-level parts of OS X: http://osxbook.com/book/toc/toc.html

The further implication is that things like well-supported hardware that comes in predictable configurations, very good technical support for developers who run into difficulty, a large ecosystem of high quality applications and discriminating users, etc. etc. are all unimportant compared to your personal opinion of whether something is sufficiently technically innovative.

To be honest there’s really not that much in any computer system, in terms of groundbreaking ideas, that wasn’t in Doug Englebart’s “mother of all demos”, or in the Smalltalk machines at PARC. So one could argue I guess that everything done since the 70s is uninteresting and derivative. But there’s a world of difference between the ideas and a solid production implementation.

[mike-cardwell]

He used the usual lazy arguments and spoke of Facebook users as if they're a type.

"Facebook Messaging was built for Facebook fans. It wasn’t made for folk who are bothered about ‘privacy issues’ or the idea of oversharing"

How many hundred million users does Facebook have? It has them from all walks of life, with all sorts of opinions. Nerds and non-nerds.

From what I've seen, most people don't like Facebook. They use it because it's convenient and because other people do. They stay logged in because of the addictive nature of the status updates, so are more likely to respond quickly to messages, unlike with email.

A lot of people might use this new messaging system. It will be a bad thing if they do. Facebook has already proven numerous times that they can't be considered trusted custodians of peoples private data.

I also wouldn't like it if all my phone calls were routed through Facebook.

[nchlswu]

I don't think Apple is making a gross majority off of (1), it just happens that Apple's products can appeal to an even larger majority since they do appeal to "hackers/nerds"

I'm constantly amazed when the "hacker" types lack the ability to see the bigger picture wrt (2) you described. At least on internet comments, so many lead a very self centered viewpoint. By sheer numbers, it's clear that "hacker" types don't provide the influence that directly leads to the critical large-scale adoption that is desired by so many.

I don't think it's necessary to choose between (1) and (2) at all. "Hacker"-types and early adopters are necessary for any product to gain any traction. They hold early influence (which obviously varies depending on the product) which diminishes as the product gains a higher adoption rate.

[mayanklahiri]

> "Hacker"-types and early adopters are necessary for any product to gain any traction. They hold early influence (which obviously varies depending on the product) which diminishes as the product gains a higher adoption rate.

I guess then my question is whether "hackers" as an early-adopter group are worthwhile for targeting. Anyone have any anecdotes where a mainstream product started as a hacker niche?

[jat850]

Android, maybe. I suspect most initial Android phones went to hacker types, before it gained mainstream attention.

[timwiseman]

Personal computers?

[kyro]

It is almost always option 2. Unless it is a company offering cool new tech and/or directly targeted at hackers, I don't think I can think of even one large company that owes its success largely due to hacker/nerds as early adopters. Hackers tend to be extremely practical individuals, and in their pursuit to practical perfection, they often forget to realize that there are people out there who value practicality lower than many other factors (eg. aesthetics, social validation). I bet most hackers won't care much for Facebook's new release ("they just reinvented email folders -- really?"), but I'm sure the majority of Facebook's power-users will love it. Similarly, many hackers don't get the appeal of Apple's products as they believe they're sacrificing function for form, but Apple seems to be doing alright. Lots of opportunities arise when you realize that the majority of consumers out there are actually looking to gain a lot more than just practicality, even if that may come at a practical cost. Women don't wear high heels and emo teens don't wear overly tight jeans because they feel comfortable.

[joe_the_user]

Oddly enough, a lot of Apple Fan boys are hackers but make the (2)-style arguments "you might not like this device but it's great for my mom who knows nothing about computers"

[ary]

By and large most of those devices don't require you to hand over tons of personal (and potentially sensitive) information just to use them.

Edit: My point being that advocating on behalf of mom and dad when it comes to technology shouldn't be frowned upon if it really does make their lives easier and better.

[philwelch]

Neither does Facebook, actually. Just a name and email address.

[ary]

Oh? What about the graph of everyone that you want to connect with and much of the communication between you and your "friends" (which is only boosted by these new features)?

[philwelch]

Obviously if you want to follow your friends' activity and exchange messages with them over Facebook, you have to follow your friends' activity and exchange messages with them over Facebook. I'm not sure what the objection is here.

[pyre]

The point is that Facebook is based on trying to convince users to hand over as much private information as possible without making it seem like a bad thing (or even alerting them to the fact that everything they are doing is being recorded for the financial gain Facebook).

A lot of the 'lowest common denominator' people probably just see Facebook as a tool (or 'the internet'). They don't normally think about whether or not the hammer they are using is recording statistics on them from behind a two-way mirror, so why would they think the same thing of Facebook.

If a geek suggests that his parents should get an Apple computer because "It's 'just works' for my mom" it's not the same thing as Facebook because an Apple computer isn't monetized on the idea that Apple will coerce as much personal information out of your mom as is possible while trying to leave her as clueless as possible to the implications of doing so.

[ugh]

Facebook is used by several hundred million people. It looks as though their old messaging systems will just be replaced and extended by the new one. I don’t think they need to worry all that much about early adopters. If the average Facebook user likes the new messaging system it will be used. What nerds do doesn’t matter.

[timwiseman]

You are neglecting the fact that many hackers/nerds are highly concerned with how quickly they can share cat pictures.

[Brokenbottleboy]

I'm the author of the piece and I believe in both. 1 works initially but then 2 takes over in time. Apple isn't about "hackers", it's about people who want ease of use and style. Linux boxes and the like are hacker territory with hardware they can mess with.