Apple's Customers Are You, Google's Customers Are Advertisers

[namaseit]

As a developer I can say the horror stories of Apple's "strict app store curation" are way overblown. They're very reasonable. The only times I've had apps rejected are for bugs that I've missed (some of them crazy like "if you spin the date picker and exit the screen while its spinning, the app will crash") Contrast that with Google's marketplace where you can get a fake bank app that will phish your info. No thanks.

And as far as Apple profiting from the app store, Google takes the same 30% cut from their marketplace.

Fake bank app that phishes your info? Reading must not be your forte. Those malicious apps are found on non supported 3rd party markets. Same thing can happen to a jailbroken iPhone using a 3rd party appstore. Use android how its intended and you'll be just as safe as iPhone. I know its hard to believe Google is protecting its users and interests. Oh wait but that would mean Google cares about its customers and that can't be true cause this is a Google bashing.

Oh and Google doesn't require 30% of all subscriptions and purchases from within apps. Just the purchasing of an app. An infinitely larger difference. Once again that whole reading thing getting in they way.

 

[rmwebs]

As a developer I can say the horror stories of Apple's "strict app store curation" are way overblown. They're very reasonable. The only times I've had apps rejected are for bugs that I've missed (some of them crazy like "if you spin the date picker and exit the screen while its spinning, the app will crash") Contrast that with Google's marketplace where you can get a fake bank app that will phish your info. No thanks.

And as far as Apple profiting from the app store, Google takes the same 30% cut from their marketplace.

Sorry but thats debatable. I've had apps get through with bugs that myself and Apple should have seen the second you open the App. It all depends on who reviews the App.

Dont for one minute think that Apple have a 'better' review system than Google. The only difference is that Google check for network activity....Apple do not, hence how a developer was able to send off copies of everyones password in raw format to his server.

As a developer on both platforms I can tell you now that I'd take a Google review over Apple's any day! Not only do the apps get reviewed quicker, but if you do get a rejection, its very detailed....not a one line response.

 

[Krevnik]

How did IE become the dominant web browser? How is TimeWarner the only option for cable in my area? Why did 'Ma Bell' have to get broken up? How might have things been different for AT&T if Apple launched the iPhone on all cell networks in the US in '07? There's more than one way to skin a cat and there's more than one way to round up a customer base.

A little bit of apples and oranges there. Cable and Telecom companies are slightly different in that they were government-sanctioned monopolies in the form of local government contracts (taxes pay for some of the infrastructure to encourage the company to provide service in that region).

IE is probably the best analogy, but even then, the 'lock-in' was relatively minor for the user (install Netscape/etc). It's even weaker now than before, now that all browsers have finally focused on the W3 standards. What Microsoft did was leverage their existing Windows monopoly, and browbeat their OEMs so that they could leverage natural human laziness. And it worked, but was also illegal, due to leveraging the existing monopoly and browbeating OEMs.

If Apple has similar lock-in, it's in the apps, but that said, I can't run Windows apps on my machine without paying for a Windows license or running Wine (which doesn't always work). I can't run my 360 game on the PS3. But I can run my MPEG-4 video on most platforms. Outside of DRM'd content (which is a mess on any platform), Apple tends to build on standards that they don't fully control, unless one doesn't exist that meets their needs. Even FaceTime is a conglomeration of existing standards in a specific way. Apple's problem is that they suck at encouraging adoption of these things outside of their company with the notable exception of Bonjour and maybe NAT-PMP which are so simple, a college student intern can implement them for you in their sleep (in comparison to UPnP).

Exclusivity of a device for a period of time is leverage a company like AT&T/Verizon uses to lure you to their service. Apple certainly wasn't using AT&T to lure you to the iPhone. But to get their foot in the door, they had to convince one of the mobile operators that they knew what they were doing, and I think gave too much to the operator in their negotiations to get that leverage they wanted. But, they got a device with no operator branding, and no operator-installed apps by default in return.

A fairly big problem in the tech sector in general is that if a company doesn't produce some new technology, they stagnate and die in the market. But anything they create is a mess to get turned into a standard. Even if you do, other companies might not use it since they already invested in their own tech trying to beat you to market. In the end, you get a bunch of disjointed, incompatible technologies that nobody is willing to dump their investment in to move onto something different and encourage a standard technology to develop.

 

[thenumbersrbad]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I had a .mac address when I got my first Mac but then didn't want to pay for the service, I plan on going back when iCloud is released. The one thing I will say about google, I use google and yahoo now, is that I set up gmail on my iPhone and used it only there, then I went to try to use it on my Mac and couldn't remember my password, I apparently couldn't give them enough info for them to believe it was me trying to reset my password and they wanted to charge me .30 cents to do it. I don't get what .30 cents is going to do if I was someone hacking another account. I didn't pay them so maybe there is some other measures taken after you agree to pay but I mean come on!

 

[Krevnik]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I had a .mac address when I got my first Mac but then didn't want to pay for the service, I plan on going back when iCloud is released. The one thing I will say about google, I use google and yahoo now, is that I set up gmail on my iPhone and used it only there, then I went to try to use it on my Mac and couldn't remember my password, I apparently couldn't give them enough info for them to believe it was me trying to reset my password ad wanted to charge me .30 cents to do it. I don't get what .30 cents is going to do if I was someone hacking another account. I didn't pay them so maybe there is some other measures taken after you agree to pay but I mean come on!

The payment itself is the measure. Unless the CC is stolen, then it's tied to a person with a name/address. They can use that to confirm it's you, and the 30 cents pays for the processing fee of charging your CC in the first place.

 

[joeyhockey]

Bring back eWorld!

I agree, I'll happily pay for an e-mail service that doesn't bombard me with spam or ads.

To the OP, don't forget eWorld!

Ah, the good ol' days....

 

[accessoriesguy]

that is an interesting view point. It makes sense that people see google as something that is free and we do not want to pay something that we are accustom to providing us a free service.

Also any negative experiences automatically make us not trust a company. That new virus or spamware that makes your google search links change to something you don't want is a negative experience. Free + Bad Experience makes us not want something.

This is kind of like Netflix, (alright so they did mess up with too high of a price hike) but when they hired the price it could be viewed as a great deal turned into just a good deal. It annoys us, even when it is still the cheapest alternative, humans can be irrational. This works against google.

While Apple focuses on positive user experiences. This would do for a great business study. I like both businesses however.

 

[pcmxa]

I agree, I'll happily pay for an e-mail service that doesn't bombard me with spam or ads.

To the OP, don't forget eWorld!

Ah, the good ol' days....

Bombarded with ads? there is a single line of text at the bottom of my screen (used to be at the top) and I seriously had to look for it to even find it. That is the only ad. I have a number of email accounts all forwarded to gmail and I get as much spam from my university account as I do from gmail. But by far the largest amount of spam is various sites and organizations that I have registered my email with knowing full well that they would send me crap (usually to take advantage of a temporary sale or offer) that I am to lazy to click on the link in the email to un-enroll from. I don't know about Google's customer service, since I have never had a problem in the years I have been using them for email, calendar syncing, voicemail, and telephony. Apple's customer service is incredibly easy to use and friendly, but I haven't found them all that useful, since, except for hardware problems, I have fixed all of my OS related problems (sleep issues, lion download issues, etc.) myself after stumping them (initial person, advanced person, engineers) by using Google to find the answer to the problem. I have warm feelings towards Apple's customer service while I view Google as cold and indifferent to me, using me for ad revenue, but rationally speaking, Google does more for me than Apple does.

 

[webman2k]

Bombarded with ads? there is a single line of text at the bottom of my screen (used to be at the top) and I seriously had to look for it to even find it. That is the only ad. I have a number of email accounts all forwarded to gmail and I get as much spam from my university account as I do from gmail. But by far the largest amount of spam is various sites and organizations that I have registered my email with knowing full well that they would send me crap (usually to take advantage of a temporary sale or offer) that I am to lazy to click on the link in the email to un-enroll from. I don't know about Google's customer service, since I have never had a problem in the years I have been using them for email, calendar syncing, voicemail, and telephony. Apple's customer service is incredibly easy to use and friendly, but I haven't found them all that useful, since, except for hardware problems, I have fixed all of my OS related problems (sleep issues, lion download issues, etc.) myself after stumping them (initial person, advanced person, engineers) by using Google to find the answer to the problem. I have warm feelings towards Apple's customer service while I view Google as cold and indifferent to me, using me for ad revenue, but rationally speaking, Google does more for me than Apple does.

Well said. I know that Google collects information about me, and with Google+ that's going to explode into even new areas. But, the only entity responsible for your Internet experience is YOU. If you don't share it, it can't be shared again. As some others have said, if you put your information out there, it's out there. Look at the recent hacks? Millions of passwords and emails out there, from what many thought were secure.

What happens when Apple's iTunes accounts are hacked, and all of those credit cards are out there? What happens if Google's servers are hacked and the same happens? What happens if that meteor really does come in 2012?

Stop it. If you want to be online, then be online, and accept the risks involved. Use who you want. In the end, the risk is the same - what you put in, can come out.

For the record, I use Google's services because I have access to that information on many different devices. Please realize, that while Google's ultimate motivation might be to sell advertisements, Apple's is to lock you to their hardware. Why doesn't Apple provide Android or Windows mobile apps? Why isn't there a mobile version of their web portal?

Google provides it's services on all platforms, with the goal of reaching more users. I understand they want to show more ads, but in the end it doesn't matter, because in doing so, they've given me the freedom to use what I want, from a mac, to my android, to my kindle.

 

[benmrii]

The entire point of this post is summed up with this early sentence: He says the most important part of the service was the identity that came with having an @Mac.com email address.

In other words, if you're a fanboi, and you want the world to know you love Apple, it's the best option. For no other reason has it ever been.

MobileMe, .Mac, etc. have been horrible from the start. More downtime than any other options, the worst - and continues to be - web-based email interface available, buggy beyond belief, embarrassingly few options, ridiculous and childish limitations, the least reliable synchronized calendar option I've ever used, etc.

I also find it hilarious that so many folks here are screaming that Google is so hell-bent on selling your information when it is Apple that is currently paying out on lawsuits for violations of privacy.

To suggest that MobileMe or any of its previous iterations have been anything but expensive, substandard options for each and every one of their provided services (with the possible exception of iWeb which wasn't great but was very easy for folks new to such things) is irresponsible at best. I love Apple, worked for them for a long time, and many of their products are the best. But let this one go. Arguing that their cloud and web based services have been even decent just proves your blinders are working very well.

Google's customers may be businesses, but their customer service to users, features and usability of the products they offer are far superior than any web-based service Apple has ever offered. And they are not the only one far and away better. It is entirely possible that iCloud will change that, but until we know for sure, my friend's Twitter review still is the most accurate one I've read so far: In the entire history of life on earth, there has never been one single reason to trust Apple with a web service.

 

[leon44]

...and most people would care less.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw

 

[rbrian]

the entire point of this post is summed up with this early sentence: he says the most important part of the service was the identity that came with having an @mac.com email address.

in other words, if you're a fanboi, and you want the world to know you love apple, it's the best option. For no other reason has it ever been.

qft

 

[rbrian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw

David Mitchell is da shizzle!

 

[mrbash]

The entire point of this post is summed up with this early sentence: He says the most important part of the service was the identity that came with having an @Mac.com email address.
In other words, if you're a fanboi, and you want the world to know you love Apple, it's the best option. For no other reason has it ever been.

Yup! That sums up the entire argument.

 

[LethalWolfe]

A little bit of apples and oranges there.

A very broad question requires a very broad answer.

W/o doing in depth studies the whole discussions is merely academic. One could argue that Apple has to be more customer focused because they need to convince people to hand over a nice chunk of change but on the other hand once people have laid down money that acts a as barrier to keep them from jumping ship. I'm sure back in the day we've all heard a Windows user say they'd like to try out a Mac but they've already got so much money tied up in their Windows-based hardware and software that they can't afford to switch even though they want to.

Then there is Google where one could say they have a higher motivation to create a quality product because their customers can leave at anytime w/o financial repercussions but the flip side to that Google knows they don't have to convince people to fork over any cash so they could take a "Hey, it's free. What more do you expect?" approach.

Like I said before, I think a company's underlying business philosophy has more of an impression of the products they make than whether their primary income is from ad sales or direct sales.


Lethal

 

[wordoflife]

It's a good view point, and is completely true.
However, I'd probably pay to use Gmail (if they didn't put ads). I've come to like gmail a lot for what it does.

I am really excited about icloud though