It seems odd to me that so many blogs are commenting that Chrome being the #1 iOS download today is some kind of global indication of the need to open iOS to Android-like levels of user customization.
Not wanting nor willing to get into the merits of that idea overall, but doesn't it strike anyone other than me as obvious that it's the #1 app for iOS today because it came out yesterday with much fanfare, it's free, and it's something most everyone is aware of and would want to play with?
An unofficial poll here in my office shows that everyone who downloaded it here did so to, in so many words, "play with it and see what it's like", though nobody yet has stated that they intend to replace their browser use with it.
While it's nice that you can get as much of the Google ecosystem on your iOS device as you can, I'm really not sure that the availability of that ecosystem on iOS is any sort of indication of the necessity of opening up iOS to embrace that ecosystem.
In other words, "If you want Android, you know where to find it."
I think that the popularity of Chrome and the usage problems that occur because it can't be set to default have merely started the conversation. It isn't just Google apps. Sparrow, for example, is a top notch email client. It's tough to use exclusively because many of the email features embedded within iOS point to the Mail app instead. As third-party applications continue to increase in quality and functionality over the stock apps, users will likely prefer to change default apps. Apple's job is to make users happy.
Like I said, not really trying to stir that discussion. I didn't say it wasn't common sense, but the jist of several blog posts I've seen today all seem to imply the same thing as the one here - that the popularity of Chrome for iOS is some kind of watershed moment, when it just seems to me the popularity is more likely because... Chrome's a really popular app and iOS users tend to jump all over newly released functional apps that are free.
Apple doesn't care what icons are on the home screen as long as that home screen is on an iOS device, because the device is where they make their money. I doubt Apple is losing sleep because I don't use their mail app.
The more revealing take-away from people having iPhone home screens full of Google apps is why they aren't using an Android phone.
more specifically, Apple is Apple for shutting down apps that usurp their markets. But don't worry - Apple won't be Apple for much longer, and it has given up on all premium differentiation by being idiots.
This time it's different. This time it's failing by deciding to act as much as a beige undifferentiated manufacturer as possible. If you like I can send you a complete analysis.
Seeing as I completely and totally reject your conclusion on a fundamental level, I would like to see the analysis.
Apple has remained sexy in the face of mainstream, a feat that I'm incredibly impressed by.
Say what you will but many, many people still buy iPhones today because of the allure of it -- and if what you had said was true (that Apple was acting as as a beige undifferentiated manufacturer) than the exact opposite would be true. People wouldn't find Apple's products alluring any more.
Seems to me that the only people who don't find Apple's products alluring today are the same ones who never have -- and Apple gives as many shits about them today as they did a decade ago (none).
Notice how unlike Android phones, they don't introduce NEW phones at cheap price points? How they use old models for free and cheap models?
This is intentional -- users understand that free and cheap go along with old, and users don't mistake their old/cheap device for the new hotness.
Now, with Android, the effect you're describing happens 100%: People buy brand-new Android phones that are free/cheap and get disappointed "but I thought it was an Android, I thought it was better than iPhone" or something.
I think Apple's maneuver here is deft, because you won't see a 3GS owner claiming they have the new hotness, but you will see them still coveting the new hotness (which is 100% the point).
they very much do care. If the only button anyone clicked on the home screen was "Firefox" and then did everything from there forever, pretty soon people would realize they don't really need an iPhone and would buy a far-less premium device.
This is exactly what will happen in Apple allows Chrome. They should remove it from the app store. It's against their policies and just like flash in mobile safari (firefox on ios is exactly like flash in mobile safari): All the arguments about not being "as native" are just as true, and Apple no longer has a Safari community across its devices to corral around and for developers to target.
Tim Cook is running Apple into the ground by removing Apple's user experience differentiation. He is creating beige boxes. Samsung can do that. Asus can do that. He needs to take a look at what the fuck Apple even is.
>Tim Cook is running Apple into the ground by removing Apple's user experience differentiation. He is creating beige boxes. Samsung can do that. Asus can do that. He needs to take a look at what the fuck Apple even is.
Are we thinking of the same Apple? Because the iPad 3 and the retina Macbook Pro don't really conjure up images of beige boxes for me.
I'll tell you a story about my first time with an Android device.
I went to the store to download an app. And it failed.
Over. And over. And over again. The device emitted a cryptic error message which, thankfully, was easily Googled. The troubleshooting steps required diving into the settings application and manipulating some controls to reset a data store in a low-level component in Android's OS.
Contrast that with an iPhone, which just works.
Apple's value, is, and shall remain, their airtight integration and reliable user experience. Putting Chrome on there touches none of that. None of my non-technical friends or family will ever touch it.
It's healthy for Apple to let third parties write whatever apps they want, so long as those apps don't impact system stability or security. Apple's industrial design makes hardware that's very difficult to successfully imitate, their content ecosystem is complete and richly integrated into their products. Their software and hardware are built in tandem.
No one is positioned to handle the whole enchilada as they are. When that changes, that will be the moment to worry. Meanwhile, they're in good shape.
I'll tell you my experience with iOS. I bought an iPod Touch, and there was no way to put music on it. Because I run GNU/Linux the only way I could do that was with a Windows virtual machine.
I click on a link on an e-mail an it opens Safari, when I want to use Opera. I have to kill all the applications living on the down thingy (multi-tasking), although I do know that they may not be using any memory, but they do feel like slowing things down. And of course, I almost lost all my apps, had problems with my iTunes and lot's of other issues when I moved country.
That's not exactly 'just works'.
Of course, YMMV. And that's why we don't use personal examples to say that something is better than the other.
EDIT: OK, not exactly better, but to say something 'just works' or is 'airtight' and things like that. Android works pretty well too.
> I'll tell you my experience with iOS. I bought an iPod Touch, and there was no way to put music on it. Because I run GNU/Linux the only way I could do that was with a Windows virtual machine.
Apple does not care about your use case. Neither do I, for any example that describes a mass-market consumer electronics product.
The iPod touch wasn't designed to work with Linux. On the other hand, the Android device in question was emphatically designed to download apps, and failed at it with cryptic, non-user friendly results.
> And that's why we don't use personal examples to say that something is better than the other.
As delightful as I have found your condescension, the comparison wasn't made in a vacuum. The story was an object lesson in the challenges Google still faces in making an airtight UX for non-technical users, especially as compared to Apple. Defensibility of such advantage, among others, was the OP's chief concern.
As a careful reading would have revealed to you, I mentioned the error was easily Googled. This meant that it was, in no way, a unique experience. A third party blog had taken the time to walk through the fix, so common was this issue for a common use case of the product.
I'm telling you what happens if Apple allows Firefox to dominate the iOS ecosystem. It's easier to target, it's easier to get right as a single app on an android device, and it crushes Apple's ecosystem and differnetiation. They've fucked up letting chrome in and they need to remove it to set things right. It's that simple.
Maybe I need to spell it out for you, but if Apple allows Chrome it has to allow Firefox. Any and every argument that would apply to one applies to the other.
Why would you consider it fragmentation even if (and that's a big if...not going to happen) Apple allowed Chrome for iOS to use its own version of WebKit (and V8!) instead of UIWebView? That doesn't make any sense.
I don't see why Apple is so reticent on this. They wouldn't lose anything by letting users replace most default apps.
Of course, they can't allow the replacement of the App Store and continue with their current model but a user that already owns an iPhone and replaces the Mail app or web browser doesn't hurt Apple in any way. They'd probably even have more people buy iPhones (and make 30% on the sale of paid replacement apps). I fear it's because of their compulsion to control the experience from A to Z.
(disclaimer: I own an iPhone 4, iPad 2 and MacBook Pro)
I'd wager that some sort of (limited) "intent"-like mechanism is coming in a future iOS down the road, although not 6 and probably not 7.
Does anyone know how Apple is able to get away with this, when Microsoft was under so much antitrust litigation in the late 90s for simply bundling their internet browser?
This is what I thought. Somebody in Congress should hire another Princeton professor for a few million to figure out if a browser is, in fact, a crucial piece of a mobile operating system. After grueling research, I bet I can predict the answer to that.
Not wanting nor willing to get into the merits of that idea overall, but doesn't it strike anyone other than me as obvious that it's the #1 app for iOS today because it came out yesterday with much fanfare, it's free, and it's something most everyone is aware of and would want to play with?
An unofficial poll here in my office shows that everyone who downloaded it here did so to, in so many words, "play with it and see what it's like", though nobody yet has stated that they intend to replace their browser use with it.
While it's nice that you can get as much of the Google ecosystem on your iOS device as you can, I'm really not sure that the availability of that ecosystem on iOS is any sort of indication of the necessity of opening up iOS to embrace that ecosystem.
In other words, "If you want Android, you know where to find it."