[YooLi]

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.

[Zikes]

Isn't Apple notorious for shutting down apps that usurp their markets?

[its_so_on]

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.

[betterth]

"Apple won't be Apple for much longer, and it has given up on all premium differentiation by being idiots."

That's some hilarious armchair analysis. Got any polls, statistics or.... anything... to back that up?

Or just stereotypical Apple-is-going-to-fail bs that people have parroted for the past two decades straight?

[its_so_on]

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.

[betterth]

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).

[stcredzero]

> it has given up on all premium differentiation by being idiots.

Elaborate?

[seabee]

You lose your premium sheen when you start giving away your products (iPhone 3GS for free).

[betterth]

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).

[its_so_on]

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.

[benihana]

>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.

[betterth]

Anti-apple fanboys are rabid in this thread, today. But as anyone who deals with the anti-fanboys on a regular basis can tell you: haters gonna' hate.

[its_so_on]

No, I'm a fanboi. I want Apple to keep giving me something to be a fanboi to - I am looking ahead 2-3 years and their strategy is not doing it.

[betterth]

What a shame! To each their own -- I'm really excited by Apple's 2-3 year plan.

[its_so_on]

Let's dig into this and see what we find. What are your impressions of Apple's 2-3 year plans and prospects?

I'll respond with my thoughts.

[its_so_on]

Please think a little more abstractly. The iPhone is less and less a well-differentiated premium offering versus its competition.

[danilocampos]

That's a pretty good chicken little, there.

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.

[lomegor]

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.

[danilocampos]

> 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.

[its_so_on]

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.

[mhurron]

That's a whole lot of stupid you're spitting out there, but honestly the part that is bugging me the worst is you keep confusing Chrome with Firefox.

[its_so_on]

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.

[danilocampos]

You get that iOS Chrome is running the exact same WebKit as Mobile Safari, right? There's no fragmentation risk there.

[telcodud]

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.

[danilocampos]

...Where once there was one rendering engine, now there would be two. That introduces fragmentation for any developers targeting web users on iOS devices, as there would surely be a handful of nuances differentiating the two. Even if those were just around performance.

I don't even think that matters very much, though – I'm just addressing the concern of the crazy fucker above.