[jedberg]

I've seen a couple of rants about Apple software here on HN the last few days. It's important to remember that Apple has never been very good at software services.

Sometimes they make something good, but usually they make "just ok".

Because they never had to be good. Their hardware was compelling enough that people just suffered through their software because they had to.

But now they're trying to make money from their software services. They're probably fooled into thinking they are doing a good job because their revenue is so high and their customer base is so large, especially compared to their competitors.

But I think that's a red herring for them. They are still benefiting from their installed hardware base. I doubt they would have even half the customer base they do if they were just selling software (like say on Windows).

If they really want to make software services a key pillar of their business, they need to step up their game. They need to interview customers and listen to their needs. They need to collect analytics on usage and then actually analyze them to improve their products.

I think if they would spend a bit more resources on their software, and give their engineers a bit more leeway to experiment and actually talk to customers, they would be far more successful than they already are.

I think their culture of secrecy is hurting them in the software space, and always has.

[pb7]

> Their hardware was compelling enough that people just suffered through their software because they had to.

I couldn’t disagree more. Apple, from my understanding, is famously successful because they make both great hardware and great software. It’s the combination of both that made their hardware products sell like hot cakes. It’s the reason that year after year people keep complaining about the “Apple tax” on comparably-specced hardware. Customers don’t care because they want Apple software on their machines. Their operating systems are well optimized and user friendly. Their core apps range from decent to really great (presumably because the teams working on them are highly independent). Many of their core apps don’t even need third party replacements because they do everything you’ll ever need them to do. I just don’t see the argument for their software being consistently bad. Are there also bad examples? Yup. But I would pick Apple over Microsoft for consumer software any day of the week despite the former being “a hardware company” and the latter being “a software company”.

[proximitysauce]

Apple makes bad internet software. It’s ok at software that runs without any services but anything that requires internet access is a disaster.

Even their “good” software is only good if you use exactly how Apple wants.

[pb7]

I would argue that iMessage is excellent. At no point have I wanted to use any of the alternatives in the many years of using it.

In any case, calling any of their services a disaster is disingenuous to begin with.

[jedberg]

> I would argue that iMessage is excellent.

I wouldn't. Interacting with people who don't use iMessage is awful. It gets very confused when you try to send group messages when some people have iMessage and some don't, for example.

Google's offerings handle this much better, especially if you're on Android, but even if you aren't.

[pb7]

What you’re describing is no longer iMessage and I would still say it works pretty well given the archaic technology involved. I don’t think contacting people on Signal via WhatsApp works too well either.

How does Google’s offering handle this situation better?

[jedberg]

iMessage suffers from the same interoperability problems that most Apple software does -- they don't really consider use cases that don't involve Apple.

Hangouts for example understands how different carriers handle different types of data differently, and accounts for that when sending messages. So when you send to a group with different capabilities, it adjusts accordingly and automatically in the background.

[jedberg]

I said software services, not software. Every example you cited was their software, not their services.

iCloud vs. Dropbox. iTunes vs. Spotify. Apple Music vs. Spotify. Calendar vs. GCal or Outlook365. Mail vs. Gmail/365.

Apple Maps vs. Google Maps.

Pretty much any service that both Apple and Google make, Google does it better.

[pb7]

I noticed that, which is why I quoted what I did. You only have to “suffer” the software that is required to be run on the hardware because you don’t have a choice. For software services, you are free to choose from the market offerings whether you are on Apple hardware or not. You may have a great point about their software service selection but I disagree with your muddying the waters bringing their core software into the mix.

[jedberg]

> For software services, you are free to choose from the market offerings whether you are on Apple hardware or not

Up until last year, if I wanted maps via CarPlay, I had to use Apple maps. Up until last year, if I wanted to sync passwords across devices, I had to use iCloud. Even today, if I click on an address, it goes to Apple maps. I have to jump through hoops to use Google Maps.

If you want to install apps, you must use the App store.

If you want to play music on your watch, you have to use Apple Music.

There are still plenty of places where Apple forces you to (or at least makes it very inconvenient not to) use their services. Most users aren't sophisticated enough to use anything but Apple Maps, Apple Music, iCloud, etc.

> You may have a great point about their software service selection but I disagree with your muddying the waters bringing their core software into the mix.

When did I bring their core software into the mix? I'm only talking about their services.