Bloomberg: Apple May Let iOS Users Set Third-Party Web Browser and Mail Apps as Defaults Over Stock Apps

[I7guy]

Why? Why would anyone switch to a platform that lags in bringing features (that are important to them) over to it?

Apple is grudgingly and slowly introducing features to iOS. The more people who switch to iOS, the slower features will be added to it.

If anything, iOS users should be thanking those Android-holdouts because if it weren't for them, Apple would have no incentive to bring those things over. (Many Apple users complain of ecosystem lock-in that hold them captive)

IMO, it doesn’t work the way you think.

 

[Rob_2811]

Does this mean Apple with spam iOS users with ads for their own services less or more than they already do?

Will we still be getting push notifications for junk like Apple News enabled by default? Because they really should rein that in.

 

[bluecoast]

They won’t do Maps yet. Google screwed Apple years ago. Apple essentially made Google Maps into the success it became, and then they insisted on mining user data when it came up for renewal, and so Apple severed ties and had to build Apple Maps geo data from the ground up — it’s taken years to catch up. Apple Maps finally has a fighting chance, but they likely won’t, and shouldn’t, open it up for a while. Now that the underlying geo data is finally there, there are many features they still need to add To catch up a,d in some ways hopefully surpass Google Maps. Next 3 years should be interesting.
[automerge]1582328235[/automerge]
The challenge for Apple: make Apple services the best in class in all categories, and no one would have any reason to switch. But unfortunately, that’s not always the case. The demise of Apple‘s incredible market share lead in digital music is almost tragic.

They basically pioneered the category, and then allowed Spotify to worm their way in when they could have easily prevented it. Same with Samsung and large phones. And Amazon and Alexa. All of Apple’s biggest rivals are in areas they pioneered and allowed to enter the category by being slow to evolve after their original innovation.

Agreed, it’s amazing that 10 years ago there was just one dominant brand in digital music - iTunes.

And over the next four years, Apple loosened its grip on iTunes and allowed other players to compete.

When Tim Cook eventually stands down, I think a major criticism of his tenure will be an overly numbers driven focus to Apple, as well as a focus on the operations side and not enough to the ‘product vision’.

My case?:
- The middle 5 years of the last decade was a terrible one for the Mac with only 2019 seeing a big improvement (the 2018 Air was a start but it wasn’t great). Why was this? The Mac must’ve seemed like a dying product and thus not worthy of investment. And Apple still has two major product lines that still have terrible keyboards.

- The iPad, again although it’s a priority just hasn’t had the product vision that (arguably) Jobs would’ve provided. Its hardware has got better each year but its software has just drifted. Better Apple commentators than I have written at length about how bad the IPad’s multitasking is and how it needs mouse and trackpad support. It feels like there is a 50/50 chance of Apple turning this around, even though it’s stunningly obvious to serious Apple-heads as to what they need to urgently fix.

- Services, are a priority but there feels no good reason for most of them to exist other than to help diversify Apple’s revenue. News+ and TV+ just seem gratuitous. Arcade though is great. Apple Music is just phoning it in with not much product progression from its 2015 launch (disclosure: I don’t listen to its Radio). And iTunes Music Store is still around. I think.

 

[Rob_2811]

Agreed, it’s amazing that 10 years ago there was just one dominant brand in digital music - iTunes.

And over the next four years, Apple loosened its grip on iTunes and allowed other players to compete.

When Tim Cook eventually stands down, I think a major criticism of his tenure will be an overly numbers driven focus to Apple, as well as a focus on the operations side and not enough to the ‘product vision’.

My case?:
- The middle 5 years of the last decade was a terrible one for the Mac with only 2019 seeing a big improvement (the 2018 Air was a start but it wasn’t great). Why was this? The Mac must’ve seemed like a dying product and thus not worthy of investment. And Apple still has two major product lines that still have terrible keyboards.

- The iPad, again although it’s a priority just hasn’t had the product vision that (arguably) Jobs would’ve provided. Its hardware has got better each year but it’s software has just drifted. Better Apple commentators than I have written at length about how bad it’s multitasking is and how it needs mouse and trackpad support. It feels like there is a 50/50 chance of Apple turning this around, still.

- Services, are a priority but there feels no good reason for most of them to exist other than to help diversify Apple’s revenue. News+ and TV+ just seem gratuitous. Arcade though is great. And Apple Music is just phoning it in. And iTunes Music Store is still around. I think.

Really good post that, agree with all of it.

 

[Jessica Lares]

I use Firefox on my iPhone and probably would set that as default to start with if the rumor turns out to be true, but would love to see developers try out new ideas and bring them to the Mac aswell.

People are already using the Google app/Chrome to search and having links in emails/etc open up in Safari. Google is already doing well even without being able to be set as default.

 

[Mr. Heckles]

I use Firefox on my iPhone and probably would set that as default to start with if the rumor turns out to be true, but would love to see developers try out new ideas and bring them to the Mac aswell.

People are already using the Google app/Chrome to search and having links in emails/etc open up in Safari. Google is already doing well even without being able to be set as default.

I use and like Firefox a lot. I can’t believe people think this is a bad thing.

 

[cmaier]

I use and like Firefox a lot. I can’t believe people think this is a bad thing.

They do?

 

[Jt69yupper]

No.

However iCab Mobile blows everything else away.

ICab mobile can already default if you turn Safari off by going to - screen time - content and privacy restrictions - allowed apps.

Why this works only for ICab,I don't know

ex: if you do this an email web link will open in icab

 

[Mr. Heckles]

They do?

Look at the posts, there are people who think this is bad.

here are some:

I get the feeling very long term this might not turn out well for end users. If Apple makes this change then Chrome will grow to dominate even more so than now. The Safari user base will shrink away to nothing. Apple will spend fewer resources developing Safari because of its disappearing user base. More people will move to Chrome. And the cycle will keep repeating until there is only one viable player in the market, Chrome. And in the end that will be bad for users.

Yes, exactly! This will in the long run ONLY benefit Google and therefor hurt competition and in the end be a bad thing for the consumer/user.

do not want

The last thing I need to have to try and figure out, over the phone, is what browser my mother has screwed up while trying to troubleshoot why she can't see her posts on facebook.

 

[I7guy]

Agreed, it’s amazing that 10 years ago there was just one dominant brand in digital music - iTunes.

And over the next four years, Apple loosened its grip on iTunes and allowed other players to compete.

When Tim Cook eventually stands down, I think a major criticism of his tenure will be an overly numbers driven focus to Apple, as well as a focus on the operations side and not enough to the ‘product vision’.

Its really hard to make that case with 91B in revenue the last quarter.

My case?:
....

- The iPad, again although it’s a priority just hasn’t had the product vision that (arguably) Jobs would’ve provided. Its hardware has got better each year but its software has just drifted. Better Apple commentators than I have written at length about how bad the IPad’s multitasking is and how it needs mouse and trackpad support. It feels like there is a 50/50 chance of Apple turning this around, even though it’s stunningly obvious to serious Apple-heads as to what they need to urgently fix.

That’s the thing. Apple is not marketing to apple heads. It’s marketing to the general public. As far as the iPad, it can be argued it may have languished under Jobs. iPadOS is pretty good and maybe mouse and trackpad support could be better.

- Services, are a priority but there feels no good reason for most of them to exist other than to help diversify Apple’s revenue. News+ and TV+ just seem gratuitous. Arcade though is great. Apple Music is just phoning it in with not much product progression from its 2015 launch (disclosure: I don’t listen to its Radio). And iTunes Music Store is still around. I think.

Was Apple Pay and Apple Card gratuitous? News and TV could at least be said it fits into the theme of communication.

 

[Rob_2811]

Its really hard to make that case with 91B in revenue the last quarter.

No it isn't. The majority of the revenue is coming from the iPhone and accessories and services that wouldn't exist without the iPhone. Most of which existed when SJ was alive and have been iterated on.

Was Apple Pay and Apple Card gratuitous? News and TV could at least be said it fits into the theme of communication.

Yes

 

[I7guy]

No it isn't. The majority of the revenue is coming from the iPhone and accessories and services that wouldn't exist without the iPhone. Most of which existed when SJ was alive and have been iterated on.

Yes it is. It’s the old “Tim cook riding on SJ coattails argument”. TC iterated the iPhone jn a way SJ may not have. As well as created new categories of items that hit themselves earn big $$$

Yes

Well, AP is successful in its own right and Apple Card, we’ll see. So no.

 

[BMox81]

I’ll be in the minority on this I’m sure but why are people wanting Apple to be more open?

One of its major draws that I’m sure many people considered when buying their Apple device/s is that closed nature of it all. There is a reason why all the Apple apps work so well with one another.

If you’re wanting all these extra options then maybe you should just buy an Android device?

 

[Mr. Heckles]

I’ll be in the minority on this I’m sure but why are people wanting Apple to be more open?

One of its major draws that I’m sure many people considered when buying their Apple device/s is that closed nature of it all. There is a reason why all the Apple apps work so well with one another.

If you’re wanting all these extra options then maybe you should just buy an Android device?

It‘s still closed. Closed means you can’t load apps outside the App Store like android.

 

[cmaier]

It‘s still closed. Closed means you can’t load apps outside the App Store like android.

Well, you actually can (e.g. my employer allows me to do it all the time via device management software that gives me a web-based “App Store” which downloads apps directly onto the device), but your point is understood.

 

[sgtaylor5]

ICab mobile can already default if you turn Safari off by going to - screen time - content and privacy restrictions - allowed apps.

Why this works only for ICab,I don't know

ex: if you do this an email web link will open in icab

it works! Edge developers, are you listening??

 

[MikeZTM]

Right but until Apple decides to makes a way to play nice with Windows, since there is no Windows Safari anymore, syncing bookmarks, open tabs, etc is a total nonstarter in iOS Safari with your PC.

Again, like my prior point, they HAVE a way via iCloud but refuse to. Icloud could easily sync a desktop browser tabs and bookmarks with iOS Safari; they are just freaking urls.

So Google Sync certainly has its place for many many people until Apple fixes the problem they caused

You can sync your desktop Chrome with iOS Safari via iCloud app on windows. Not the best experience but works.
[automerge]1582559552[/automerge]

In my brief forray into iOS, i immediately discovered that all browsers are functionally the same. The reason is because all are required to use the same "api tool kit", i think they call it.

All the behaviors in the browsers are the same, the same radio buttons, the same drop down menus, and format is the same.

I was trying to use an ipad for my job, where i rely on web forms to input data.
But i had problems with the way Safari displayed the forms. And i tried every other browser i could find, but they all were exactly the same.

Contrast this with Android, where there are clear differences between browsers. When entering text, auto zoom, auto centering behavior varies between browsers. Drop down menus behave differently. Apple boxes have round corners that partly obscure the content, same on all iOS. But on android, some do and some do not.

Animations were annoying in iOS...but same on all browsers. I tap a radio button, and it does a little song and dance before i can hit the next one. It rejects inputs while the animation is happening.

But Android doesnt have thus. There are different behaviors of radio buttons, but non were so animated, and none cause input rejection while a previous animation is in progress.

So simply put, apple forces all browsers to be exactly the same, and i found no benefit to changing to any other browser. But outside of iOS, changing browsers can make a big difference.

So the root problem is Apples strangle hold on app development!

It's called WKwebView aka Webkit Web View. So all "browser" on iOS share the same render surface and javascript engine. It used to be a slower version of Safari named UIWebView as Safari before iOS 9 was using some not secure way to optimize Javascript performance and Apple doesn't allow other app to use it. Back then all other browser are much slower than Safari.

The reason is Apple doesn't allow run time code generation. So no one can build a browser that could run javascript fast enough to render modern web content.

Run time code generation essentially kills the AppStore as the code run on the device is generated on device and not AppStore review-able (code doesn't exist yet during review). So Apple will almost never allow this to happen.

 

[bluecoast]

Its really hard to make that case with 91B in revenue the last quarter.

That’s the thing. Apple is not marketing to apple heads. It’s marketing to the general public. As far as the iPad, it can be argued it may have languished under Jobs. iPadOS is pretty good and maybe mouse and trackpad support could be better.

Was Apple Pay and Apple Card gratuitous? News and TV could at least be said it fits into the theme of communication.

Hi. Good points about Apple Pay (which is great - though as a resident of the UK, we were lucky enough to have contactless card payments rolled out about 2 years before Apple Pay so it was a little bit ‘meh’ here) & Apple Card (though I’m uneasy about Apple putting their name to a product that can encourage financial debt).

I guess my point is that ~2005, ITunes and the ITMS felt world class and THE best digital music store by far.

Often times, I don’t think that you can say that Apple’s services are world class, just ‘good enough’.

And I don’t think it’s good enough for Apple to be just good enough.

If Apple stands for anything, it’s that what it puts its name to, should to be the best or one of the best in every category that it’s in. And you can’t say that of News+, Tv+, iCloud Drive etc

 

[sidewinder3000]

I don't think it's feasible to expect that Apple services be the best in all categories.

Apple is just one company, with a finger in many pies. It's not realistic for Apple to devote enough manpower to make maps as good as google maps, not when this is something that Google is focused on doing 24/7. All the more when you consider that google maps is a source of revenue for google, vs Apple who doesn't earn a cent from Apple maps.

Same with spotify (one company) vs apple music (a feature in an ecosystem).

That said, I do believe that from Apple's perspective, they are more concerned about the strategic and security implications of default apps. Opening up system default apps to any third-party app will definitely result in users choosing alternatives to their stock apps, which I feel are key to Apple’s ecosystem of services and iPhone experience as a whole. Apple essentially sees certain iPhone apps as being critical to controlling the iOS ecosystem.

In addition, Apple's history (especially their humiliation at the hands of Microsoft) naturally predisposes them to desiring absolute control over their platform wherever possible, even if it comes across as being overbearing to a bystander. Apple doesn't want a scenario where any one third party app or service ends up becoming so dominant that it ends up holding sway over users. I suspect this is why Apple gives their own stock apps and services such preferential treatment, and every other third party app is essentially a second-class citizen. They believe that their stock apps are key to the iOS experience, yet know that they cannot expect to match third party developers feature for feature (nor do they have any desire to), and so they favour their own apps with exclusive features such as default status and Siri integration to give users a strong incentive to want to use them over third parties, who in turn find themselves having to work even harder to make their apps way more superior to the stock iOS apps so as to give users a compelling reason to opt for them.

At the end of the day, while I do understand many of users' desire for better third party app support, I do feel that much of the criticism misses the mark. It all boils down to Apple being Apple and believing that they know best when it comes to deciding what makes for the best user experience for its end users. It doesn't matter whether you as the customer agree with Apple's decision or not.

Great analysis. Especially the part about other companies having incentive to make their services great because they make money off of them. But if you’re looking at the big picture, Apple is making money off of it services, just not via advertising in a direct way. They make it by selling hardware that features those services.

But I’m not sure I agree that Apple can’t, or shouldn’t want to be, the best in all, or at least many, categories for one simple reason: if the services that are exclusive to owners of Apple hardware aren’t as good or better than the services available to people without Apple hardware, then it gives people yet another reason to not buy Apple hardware. Sure, the user experience is great, but as we have seen over the past five years, Samsung and Google are making huge strides with their phones in terms of design & usability. if Apple Maps were best in class, then anybody who wanted the best maps would have to own an iPhone. If Siri were the best voice assistant, then anybody who wants the best voice assistant would need to on an Apple product. The fact that so many services available on different platforms are not just better, but in someways much better, poses a real threat to Apple’s ecosystem. If I am using the superior services of other companies on my iPhone, then at a certain point, I no longer need the iPhone.

What makes this even more vexing is it often Apple innovates and is the leader in a category, but then gets bored with it and moves on to other stuff. I believe that this problem, which I will call “innovate and coast”, is not only frustrating for users, but it is also needlessly destructive to Apple from a business standpoint. The creation of iPods and iTunes was one of the most disruptive innovations in the history of modern music. It changed the industry, and was the 800 pound gorilla. They had everything they needed to launch the first, and best, streaming music service but they chose not to. Partially because they failed to do what Steve Jobs so eloquently talked about as “disrupting yourself”. But also partially because the way the company is structured, they are naturally prone to mono tasking in order to create innovations, but are not so great at multitasking and creating iterations or evolutions. They love making big bold changes to markets, but they seem to get bored when it comes to the day-to-day operations of building on and evolving those elevations. Another example is how they basically gift wrapped Samsung‘s entrée into the big time smart phone market by refusing to make a larger iPhone for so many years. If Apple had offered a larger iPhone sooner, Samsung‘s main competitive advantage, phablets, would’ve been gone, and there’s a good chance they would not have become the mega competitor to iPhones that they are now.

I love Apple products, and I’ve been using them since 1984. But it does get frustrating to see them, repeatedly, change the world with some cool innovation, lead the market for years, and then get bored with that and move onto the next thing, leaving users with second and often third-best services or features. Just as competitors like Google and Samsung have worked hard to make their operating systems and user experience better in order to compete with Apple, Apple must in turn work to make their services better, or they will be on the losing end of the competitive equation.
[automerge]1582890808[/automerge]

Agreed, it’s amazing that 10 years ago there was just one dominant brand in digital music - iTunes.

And over the next four years, Apple loosened its grip on iTunes and allowed other players to compete.

When Tim Cook eventually stands down, I think a major criticism of his tenure will be an overly numbers driven focus to Apple, as well as a focus on the operations side and not enough to the ‘product vision’.

My case?:
- The middle 5 years of the last decade was a terrible one for the Mac with only 2019 seeing a big improvement (the 2018 Air was a start but it wasn’t great). Why was this? The Mac must’ve seemed like a dying product and thus not worthy of investment. And Apple still has two major product lines that still have terrible keyboards.

- The iPad, again although it’s a priority just hasn’t had the product vision that (arguably) Jobs would’ve provided. Its hardware has got better each year but its software has just drifted. Better Apple commentators than I have written at length about how bad the IPad’s multitasking is and how it needs mouse and trackpad support. It feels like there is a 50/50 chance of Apple turning this around, even though it’s stunningly obvious to serious Apple-heads as to what they need to urgently fix.

- Services, are a priority but there feels no good reason for most of them to exist other than to help diversify Apple’s revenue. News+ and TV+ just seem gratuitous. Arcade though is great. Apple Music is just phoning it in with not much product progression from its 2015 launch (disclosure: I don’t listen to its Radio). And iTunes Music Store is still around. I think.

I agree with just about everything you said. into the Mac, and the iPad, I will add final cut pro, which ones dominated the mid tier for professional and semi professional video editing applications. It is frustrating to see Apple take the lead and then, through what seems like just a lack of focus, allow competitors to gain market share and out-innovate them.

 

[Abazigal]

But I’m not sure I agree that Apple can’t, or shouldn’t want to be, the best in all, or at least many, categories for one simple reason: if the services that are exclusive to owners of Apple hardware aren’t as good or better than the services available to people without Apple hardware, then it gives people yet another reason to not buy Apple hardware. Sure, the user experience is great, but as we have seen over the past five years, Samsung and Google are making huge strides with their phones in terms of design & usability. if Apple Maps were best in class, then anybody who wanted the best maps would have to own an iPhone. If Siri were the best voice assistant, then anybody who wants the best voice assistant would need to on an Apple product. The fact that so many services available on different platforms are not just better, but in someways much better, poses a real threat to Apple’s ecosystem. If I am using the superior services of other companies on my iPhone, then at a certain point, I no longer need the iPhone.

I feel the main issue with Apple's services is that because they don't really generate any revenue on their own, Apple might not feel the urge to break the bank in order to make them the absolute best in their respective classes. They just need to be "good enough" to prevent users from defecting.

Take me for instance. I use apple maps on my iPhone because it's the preinstalled default app, I still trust Apple's privacy stance more, and find it is good enough to get me from A to B, which is really all I need in a maps app. That google maps is many times better is irrelevant here for most part because it's not better in the areas that I care about.

One exception was when I went to Sarawak with my students last year on an overseas travel programme and apple maps had basically zero data there, while google maps was fully-featured. But that's like only a week out of the entire year.

Likewise, it doesn't matter how much better google assistant is over Siri when Siri is the only option available on my Apple Watch. If I want to stream music on my Apple Watch, apple music is the only option there is. Same with running apple maps. Apple's control over their hardware has effectively rendered any superior alternatives irrelevant.

So I feel a case can be made that companies like google are over serving their user base. Past a certain point, adding more functionality doesn't necessarily make for a better user experience because it's not giving me more of what I want.

What makes this even more vexing is it often Apple innovates and is the leader in a category, but then gets bored with it and moves on to other stuff. I believe that this problem, which I will call “innovate and coast”, is not only frustrating for users, but it is also needlessly destructive to Apple from a business standpoint. The creation of iPods and iTunes was one of the most disruptive innovations in the history of modern music. It changed the industry, and was the 800 pound gorilla. They had everything they needed to launch the first, and best, streaming music service but they chose not to. Partially because they failed to do what Steve Jobs so eloquently talked about as “disrupting yourself”. But also partially because the way the company is structured, they are naturally prone to mono tasking in order to create innovations, but are not so great at multitasking and creating iterations or evolutions. They love making big bold changes to markets, but they seem to get bored when it comes to the day-to-day operations of building on and evolving those elevations. Another example is how they basically gift wrapped Samsung‘s entrée into the big time smart phone market by refusing to make a larger iPhone for so many years. If Apple had offered a larger iPhone sooner, Samsung‘s main competitive advantage, phablets, would’ve been gone, and there’s a good chance they would not have become the mega competitor to iPhones that they are now.

I am not sure how accurate it is, but I recall reading somewhere that Apple actually realised that there was a market for larger phones in 2011, as the 4s was released. However, by this time, the 4s had been released, the iPhone 5 design had been locked in, and they were basically stuck with that form factor for the next 2 years due to their preference for using the same design for two years in order to benefit from manufacturing efficiencies. So 2014 was really the earliest Apple could have released a phablet phone at any rate.

As for "disrupting yourself", it's also easier said than done. It's easy to blow your own horn when you are replacing one product with another more profitable one (eg: the iPod with the iPhone), not so much when you are giving up a very lucrative revenue stream (music downloads, which was practically pure profit for Apple) for a loss-making alternative (spotify still isn't profitable, for all its subscribers), so I kinda get why Apple chose to drag their feet in this area until they were left with no choice but to respond.

I love Apple products, and I’ve been using them since 1984. But it does get frustrating to see them, repeatedly, change the world with some cool innovation, lead the market for years, and then get bored with that and move onto the next thing, leaving users with second and often third-best services or features. Just as competitors like Google and Samsung have worked hard to make their operating systems and user experience better in order to compete with Apple, Apple must in turn work to make their services better, or they will be on the losing end of the competitive equation.

I think a lot of of it goes back to your initial point about Apple being a great mono-tasker, but lousy at multi-tasking. The way I see it, much of Apple's focus has been on building a formidable ecosystem around the iPhone to lock users in via higher prices, more accessories and more services. The next logical step is to then use the iPhone to prop up their burgeoning wearables platform until it is mature enough to stand on its own.

That's possibly why the Mac, and even the iPhone, is in their current states. Apple is going all-in on wearables, which means less resources dedicated to the Mac (which doesn't really benefit from smartphones). Likewise, with people holding on to smartphones longer, there is less incentive to invest so much in reinventing the phone every year.

Apple is simply responding to the market, while laying the foundation in place for the next big thing. If anything, I would argue that Samsung and Google are stuck fighting yesterday's war. They are doubling down on mobile because they know they have little hope of succeeding in wearables, especially Samsung who has no ecosystem to call their own.

If and when wearables as the next computing frontier take off, these companies may find that having "won" mobile may not mean for much after all.

 

[CarlJ]

It is frustrating to see Apple take the lead and then, through what seems like just a lack of focus, allow competitors to gain market share and out-innovate them.

I get the impression that they have a tendency to say, "Oh, product X shipped? Great! We need developers on product Y right now!" and move people around, and then put precious little attention on existing products - the developers and management see intense (internal) focus on something that has yet to ship, while the customers see, for instance, the cylindrical Mac Pro sitting on the shelves, untouched, gathering dust for year after year. What they did to Macs in the years leading up to 2019 was tragic. And we see obvious, stupid, customer-facing bugs sitting in key applications for years - stuff that would have gotten cleaned up relatively quickly, way back when. They need an internal sea change that puts a focus on continually improving existing code - don't prioritize new whizbang features (even if they're SuPeR cool) over making the existing code work correctly.

 

[sidewinder3000]

I feel the main issue with Apple's services is that because they don't really generate any revenue on their own, Apple might not feel the urge to break the bank in order to make them the absolute best in their respective classes. They just need to be "good enough" to prevent users from defecting.

Take me for instance. I use apple maps on my iPhone because it's the preinstalled default app, I still trust Apple's privacy stance more, and find it is good enough to get me from A to B, which is really all I need in a maps app. That google maps is many times better is irrelevant here for most part because it's not better in the areas that I care about.

One exception was when I went to Sarawak with my students last year on an overseas travel programme and apple maps had basically zero data there, while google maps was fully-featured. But that's like only a week out of the entire year.

Likewise, it doesn't matter how much better google assistant is over Siri when Siri is the only option available on my Apple Watch. If I want to stream music on my Apple Watch, apple music is the only option there is. Same with running apple maps. Apple's control over their hardware has effectively rendered any superior alternatives irrelevant.

So I feel a case can be made that companies like google are over serving their user base. Past a certain point, adding more functionality doesn't necessarily make for a better user experience because it's not giving me more of what I want.



I am not sure how accurate it is, but I recall reading somewhere that Apple actually realised that there was a market for larger phones in 2011, as the 4s was released. However, by this time, the 4s had been released, the iPhone 5 design had been locked in, and they were basically stuck with that form factor for the next 2 years due to their preference for using the same design for two years in order to benefit from manufacturing efficiencies. So 2014 was really the earliest Apple could have released a phablet phone at any rate.

As for "disrupting yourself", it's also easier said than done. It's easy to blow your own horn when you are replacing one product with another more profitable one (eg: the iPod with the iPhone), not so much when you are giving up a very lucrative revenue stream (music downloads, which was practically pure profit for Apple) for a loss-making alternative (spotify still isn't profitable, for all its subscribers), so I kinda get why Apple chose to drag their feet in this area until they were left with no choice but to respond.



I think a lot of of it goes back to your initial point about Apple being a great mono-tasker, but lousy at multi-tasking. The way I see it, much of Apple's focus has been on building a formidable ecosystem around the iPhone to lock users in via higher prices, more accessories and more services. The next logical step is to then use the iPhone to prop up their burgeoning wearables platform until it is mature enough to stand on its own.

That's possibly why the Mac, and even the iPhone, is in their current states. Apple is going all-in on wearables, which means less resources dedicated to the Mac (which doesn't really benefit from smartphones). Likewise, with people holding on to smartphones longer, there is less incentive to invest so much in reinventing the phone every year.

Apple is simply responding to the market, while laying the foundation in place for the next big thing. If anything, I would argue that Samsung and Google are stuck fighting yesterday's war. They are doubling down on mobile because they know they have little hope of succeeding in wearables, especially Samsung who has no ecosystem to call their own.

If and when wearables as the next computing frontier take off, these companies may find that having "won" mobile may not mean for much after all.

Your analysis for all this stuff is well-reasoned and articulate. Hard to argue with most of it, and I agree with a lot of it. I'll just say that, despite your rationale for why they more often than not settle for "good" when it comes to services and software, I will still kick & scream that they should be providing us loyal Apple users with "great" because... that's what I want. It's not rational, it's just... what I want. My rationale? They should do it out of pride. That feeling of wanting to be beyond the best. From that crazy, "put a dent in the universe", "insanely great" mindset that didn't worry about holding back features for next year's model, or about making something too good. It's completely selfish, I know. And it's what I want.

And as far as not coming out with a phablet sooner, I think the entire point of disrupting yourself is that it is hard and yet must be done, even when the new generation of products might be less profitable. Because if you don't own the new market and the change that inevitably will happen (because change happens in technology) then someone else will. And then you'll lose whatever prayer there might be to make a profit when the dust settles. Just because Apple liked to use a phone design for two years is no excuse for them not iterating a new size before that two years cycle was up. That's not some government regulation or natural law–it's just an internal preference. Also, if you were correct in that "Apple actually realized that there was a market for larger phones in 2011, as the 4s was released" then that's very un-Apple-like behavior and probably why they screwed up so badly with their delay in making large phones. Apple typically doesn't wait to see if there is a market for things. They design things for themselves that they like and find useful, figuring that if they like it, there will be other users who will find it useful. And if they were on their game, they would have come up with large phones themselves, for themselves. But it's been well documented that notion was artificially suppressed by Jobs, who apparently was locked in on the small form factor and not open to the idea of larger phones. (Sometimes the stubbornness required to bring genius ideas to life is also the stubbornness that limits those. ideas from evolving later). That stubbornness allowed inferior competition to grab a substantial chunk of market share that Apple ceded to them for no good reason, and as a result, they have a colossal competitor (Samsung) that might never have come to be without their early success with large phones. Failure to disrupt yourself almost always has serious negative consequences. I really hope they stop letting this happen. Not for some abstract reason, but because I am an investor in this ecosystem, and what hurts the ecosystem has an effect on its users. The rise of Spotify didn't happen in a vacuum. It meant a shift of millions of users away from iTunes/Apple Music, including podcasters, content curators, etc. And It also means that media companies and brands are often creating content and programs and tie-ins for Spotify first. This means that not only is it now harder for Apple Music users to share music and playlists with 2/3 of all the streaming music fans in the world, but they are more frequently left out when it comes to exclusives, offers, and tie-ins regarding music streaming. So for all the money and time users have invested in building up and curating their iTunes/Apple Music libraries, it's become more difficult and less advantageous in a variety of ways. So the duty isn't just to the immediate bottom line, but to the long term bottom line of keeping users happy and ever more invested within the ecosystem that they have chosen. Because if/when people start to leave the ecosystem, the effect may be swift and merciless.

 

[sidewinder3000]

I get the impression that they have a tendency to say, "Oh, product X shipped? Great! We need developers on product Y right now!" and move people around, and then put precious little attention on existing products - the developers and management see intense (internal) focus on something that has yet to ship, while the customers see, for instance, the cylindrical Mac Pro sitting on the shelves, untouched, gathering dust for year after year. What they did to Macs in the years leading up to 2019 was tragic. And we see obvious, stupid, customer-facing bugs sitting in key applications for years - stuff that would have gotten cleaned up relatively quickly, way back when. They need an internal sea change that puts a focus on continually improving existing code - don't prioritize new whizbang features (even if they're SuPeR cool) over making the existing code work correctly.

I agree! They seem very monofocused. And in addition, I'll posit that what they need isn't a sea change that focuses on iterations rather than the zeal/incentive for new whizbang features, but rather an acknowledgment that both types of thinking are necessary for a truly exceptional company to thrive. I've always gotten the impression, from stuff I've read from insiders, giving a behind the scenes look, that Apple prides itself in how innovative and groundbreaking they all are. But having a whole company with super innovators can be as dysfunctional as one that doesn't have any. The best teams and companies have a balance of employees with different thinking styles and work styles, all working to complement each other. the strengths of one helping to buoy the weaknesses of the others, and vice versa, creating a whole that's greater than the sum of its parts.

What they need are crazy innovators pushing the limits with revolutionary new products and features, who then hand those initiatives over to slower, steadier, more incrementally-minded co-workers who love the process of evolution and have the patience to strive toward perfecting things. That would be a mix that would serve Apple and its longterm customers and ecosystem inhabitants.

 

[Abazigal]

@sidewinder3000

The Steve Jobs email that outlined Apple’s strategy a year before his death

In 2010, a year before his death, Steve Jobs outlined Apple’s strategy in an email to the company’s 100 most senior employees. He heralded the “Post PC era,” vowed “Holy War with Google,” promised to “further lock customers into our ecosystem,” and warned that Apple was “in danger of hanging on...

qz.com

On a side note, here’s Steve Job’s email from 2010, outlining his strategy roadmap for Apple. Here, he talks about the post-PC era, the perils of the innovator’s dilemma, and the creation of a sticky ecosystem to keep users locked (while also acknowledging the areas that android and google are ahead of them in).

Contrary to what I thought I remembered, he doesn’t make any mention of larger iPhones, so it’s possible that at the time, he still didn’t believe in them. But it does also show that even in 2010, the iphone 5 design was already locked in, so it wouldn’t have been financially feasible to pivot at any rate.

What’s my point? I guess I don’t really have one either. It is what it is, I suppose

 

[Steve121178]

I get the feeling very long term this might not turn out well for end users. If Apple makes this change then Chrome will grow to dominate even more so than now. The Safari user base will shrink away to nothing. Apple will spend fewer resources developing Safari because of its disappearing user base. More people will move to Chrome. And the cycle will keep repeating until there is only one viable player in the market, Chrome. And in the end that will be bad for users.

Chrome is the 'standard'. Apple well & truly blew it with Safari. It's not rocket science - the severe lack of any kind of development with Safari has killed it on the desktop. Safari on iOS is ok for now but it's looking very stale and sparse without any kind of advanced features that most popular modern browser apps have.

Microsoft delivered Chromium based Edge in 9 months across all platforms and it's excellent. Why did Apple allow Safari to become virtually obsolete? Why can't Apple at least pretend to care about their own web browser?

The severe lack of any kind of development with the mail apps on iOS & macOS has killed them too.

While I am complaining, the Music app is a joke and badly needs a redesign.

The podcasts app gets worse with each new major iOS update. How is this possible?

Reminders app is still rubbish. It's lightyears behind other Reminder apps.

Notes app is insultingly basic.

Weather app is basic. Dark Sky shows how a modern weather app can be done. Weather app on Windows 10 shows how a modern weather app can work on the desktop - pretty & functional with plenty of data.

Calendar app on iOS looks just as crap now as it did 10 years ago.

Camera app needs modernising. The camera app on Android shows how it should be done.

I'd really like to know why Apple has left most of their stock apps on iOS & macOS to rot. It's like they receive the absolute minimum maintenance a year which is often a step backwards.

Apple needs to allow the users to choose something relevant rather than using the default crappy Apple stock apps just to get stuff done.