[programminggeek]

iCloud is a great idea, so is Google Apps, so is Office 365. None are designed to "kill Windows".

iCloud's real purpose is to sell more Apple hardware, not kill Windows. Hurting Windows sales would simply be a side effect.

It's a smart move to put iPads and iPhones on equal footing as the Mac in that regard. If your docs, pictures, apps, and music are all on iCloud, your computers become disposable digital devices. Want a new one? Buy it, all your files are already there waiting for you.

The disposable digital device is a huge idea. Google, Apple, Amazon, and HP all benefit hugely from disposable devices because they all profit hugely from the mass distribution and churn of them. Mobile has a faster consumer turnover than PC's.

For example, my parents have had the same desktop computer running Windows XP since um, 2004 or so I think. Before that they bought a computer in 1995. Most people get a new phone every 1-2 years.

So, upgrade once every 5-10 years or every 2? Which do you think makes Apple more money?

If all your files magically move between devices, and the devices keep getting cheaper, people will naturally upgrade faster. This hurts the Windows monopoly for sure, but the point is not to kill Windows. The point is to increase their own lock-in and device sell rates.

Selling more devices increases profits. That's the point.

[soofaloofa]

Agreed. Lock-in is the real win for Apple here.

[flatulent1]

I think people are missing the point. Apple is actually moving in the direction of less lock-in as far as the consumer goes. They've basically said that in the latest generation many people won't need to buy any one device to use as a hub or to sync, and no additional device is needed to establish service. They seem to have gone as far as content providers will allow in getting away from DRM, and they support syncing music and pictures across quite a few devices, even PCs. Their being able to negotiate a deal where users can Music-Match (replace their own music rips with 256k DRM-free AAC copies that can sync to many devices) is extraordinary. It's a very smart move. It ensures excellent playback quality, and it likely will get some additional people buying from them as music customer.

Being able to view photos taken with an iPhone or iPad streamed through Apple TV is a nice added feature for those not set up to do it through a desktop or laptop.

In an environment designed for easy transmission and sharing of data lock-in just doesn't seem to apply. It's nothing like having data tied up in a proprietary format that only expensive software can read. The only lock-in I see is things being addictively simple.

[num1]

> Apple is actually moving in the direction of less lock-in as far as the consumer goes.

Do you expect that any non-Apple device will be able to use iCloud? Vendor Lock-in is what's important here, and it's definitely been made stronger by this move. Once all your data is in the cloud, do you want to go through all the effort of moving it to a different cloud (if you even can!) or do you want to cough up a few extra $100 to buy from Apple and make things easy.

[SoftwareMaven]

Do you expect that any non-Apple device will be able to use iCloud?

Given that Apple is supporting Windows for Photo Stream and iTunes Match at least, I would say the answer is closer to yes than you are intimating here.

[num1]

I hadn't heard of that thank you for pointing it out. This does make things look more optimistic. I would still define it as vendor lock-in though. The iTunes binary might be available for Windows, but Apple still claims control over your experience and your data.

While they are in control of your data, you will be faced with a question every time you upgrade your hardware. Do you want to interact with your own documents and music using a clunky interface, or do you want to use an interface that makes you feel more in control and happier?

The above question is a little contrived, but I believe that it is fairly close to the truth, Apple has always been a company based on making you feel good.

[wtallis]

The photos and music are still stored unencrypted on your hard drives, and the metadata is embedded in those files, so no, they aren't controlling your data, any more than Dropbox does.

[CJefferson]

Do you think any Android phone, or Windows mobile, will be able to use iCloud?

Apple support Windows because there would be an uproar if Windows users bought iPods and iPhones and couldn't use them. They do the bare minimum they have to however.

[lloeki]

Everyone seem to forget (or willingly ignore) that there's both iTunes and an iCloud Control Panel (for Photo Stream, Contacts, and Calendar) on Windows, while the current iDisk is using WebDAV ans is perfectly usable on Windows (and Linux too, along with the new CalDAV calendars)

So only apps remain, and you don't really expect Mac OS X or iOS apps to work on Windows.

[spenrose]

Upvoted b/c I think your rejection of Cringely is right, but the reason is different. Jobs/Apple are not in this for the money. They simply believe that iOS + cloud is a better way to compute.

[SoftwareMaven]

Your comment feels like it is giving Jobs and Apple a bit more altruism than I think they deserve. They are absolutely in it for the money, but I think you are also right that they see this as a better way of computing: a way that can make computing better and easier for many people (who, in turn will give Apple more money).

It is a win-win for Aplle and the consumer, which is a great place for a company to be.

[lukifer]

It's also true that even if you ascribe absolute altruism to Jobs and all the other stakeholders at Apple (which is a big leap), large revenues fuel their ability to do more R&D, take big risks, drive down costs to increase adoption of their cool tech, etc.

[Gilpo]

"They are absolutely in it for the money"

Not so sure about that.

This is what I think motivates Steve Jobs: His insane passion for consumer computer electronics. Juicy and illuminating supporting fact: Jobs's first job was at the HP factory in Palo Alto at age 12. <http://www.playboy.com/articles/playboy-interview-steven-job...;

"I remember my first day, expressing my complete enthusiasm and bliss at being at Hewlett-Packard for the summer to my supervisor, a guy named Chris, telling him that my favorite thing in the whole world was electronics. I asked him what his favorite thing to do was and he looked at me and said, "To fuck!" [Laughs] I learned a lot that summer."

Every day he works, he energizes that little kid inside him. Not a bad life.

[mturmon]

This quote rings true:

http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2813-do-you-want-to-sell-suga...

[stcredzero]

They simply believe that iOS + cloud is a better way to compute.

At WWDC. I won't say anything specific, but I'm beginning to think that Apple's business model is/has been to take all the awesome stuff that people developed in research labs since the 60's, and they're implementing it when/where it makes sense.

Basically, Apple has been in the business of arbitrage of R&D awesomeness. (As opposed to the most common use of R&D as a corporate epeen.) Considering there's decades of unimplemented (or badly implemented) good ideas, this seems like a sustainable model.

[JonnieCache]

>take all the awesome stuff that people developed in research labs since the 60's, and they're implementing it when/where it makes sense.

If this is true, then that is also google's model, except they're doing it with server-side algorithms as opposed to UI implementations/hardware form factors.

You don't think google invented MapReduce, their translation algos, their vision algos, their concurrency models and so on? They get them out of research papers from years gone by. Then they implement them at real-world scale, and iterate them until they're suitably awesome, just like apple does with the ideas they resurrect from academia.

This is analogous to how every perceived leap forward in programming paradigms always seems to end up dating back to 1956.

[SoftwareMaven]

I think you would see this pattern with every hugely successful company. Microsoft took the work that happened in the 70s to make personal computing possible and developed a business around it at the point it was ready for huge growth.

It is rarely good for a startup to be on the absolute bleeding edge of an industry, but if you can catch the tipping point[0] (and execute well), you have pretty much guaranteed success.

[0] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316346624/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...

[jamesaguilar]

I think they believe it is best for consumers. But I also think that they understand that what is best for consumers is also best for their bottom line. It's naive to believe that the impact on the bottom line did not factor in.

[recoiledsnake]

Wow just wow. Maybe that's why they started paying Foxconn employees a few cents extra per iDevice so that they won't violate their employee agreement to not commit suicide? At least they have a job unlike non-employees, right?

There are a lot of examples of Apple's moneymindedness like margins on hardawre, upgrades cost, 30% of app cost etc. but the the most egregious is the 30% tithe on all in-app purchases and subscription content. The fact that they rejected Readability's app for the iPhone and iPad AFTER taking their FOSS code to implement the readability feature is Safari is one of the biggest examples of how Apple is squeezing the last bit of money. http://blog.readability.com/2011/02/an-open-letter-to-apple/

How altruistic is that?

[rimantas]

Oh, so now Apple pays salary for Foxconn employees? That's an interesting piece of news. How about HP, Cisco, Intel, Acer, Asus, Dell, Nokia, etc? How is suicide rate among Foxconn employees compared to average?

[flatulent1]

Foxconn has had some problems, but didn't rank that poorly. It seems to be more a case of what life is like in China.

"In a survey published in 2010 by Oxfam Hong Kong, Foxconn ranked sixth for corporate social responsibility out of the 42 companies that then made up the Hang Seng index."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13624798

[recoiledsnake]

Yes they did provide a raise. Here's your interesting news. http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadi...

You can find other references to that raise by using a search engine.

You mean you have no control over a factory that you're the primary(or only) customer of?

>How about HP, Cisco, Intel, Acer, Asus, Dell, Nokia, etc?

I was replying to your GP post that stated that Apple and Jobs weren't after profit margins only. So you mean Apple is as mindlessly profit driven(if not more) as all those other companies you just listed? Thanks for proving my point. http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2010/06/02/foxconn-pay-rai...

Oh, and sorry downvoters for insulting your religion with facts. I should have known better, I will toe in line so that I don't get banned due to bad karma. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-19/tech/apple.religion_1_app...

[rimantas]

  > So you mean Apple is as mindlessly profit driven(if not
  > more) as all those other companies you just listed?

No. Foxconn makes products not only for Apple, but for those and other companies too. Hence my question, why should Apple be responsible for the pay. And Jobs' desire is not to improve experience for those making the products, but for those using them.

[cooldeal]

Sad to see people downvoting valid arguments without replying why.

[bingaman]

Hahahaha