Comment by bradleyland | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bradleyland | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Apple's view of the web is a little different than most. When you think of today's internet, you think of web pages, but there's a whole other layer. If you look at web development trends, you'll see that the tools we have (like HTTP) are being pushed to do things they weren't originally designed to do. Starting with the first use of HttpRequestXmlResponse, web developers pushed HTTP down a conceptual layer. HTTP used to be the destination. Content was pushed, in whole, using HTTP. Javascript enabled web browsers give us the power to use HTTP as an underlying transport. With these tools, the balance of our app moved back in to the browser. This ideology is pretty well expressed in pieces espousing the virtues of the "Javascript Age".

The browser, enabled by javascript, has become a platform in and of itself. This pushed the OS down a conceptual layer as well. Google is embracing this model because they live on the web. Apple is fighting this model, because they live in the hardware and OS market.

Apple sees the internet as a ubiquitous transport. They're building an ecosystem of "things", just like Google, only Apple's "things" are iOS devices, where Google's "things" are websites.

Android is Google's hedge against Apple's platform. It exists primarily as a countermeasure. If Google believed in Apple's view of the internet -- where devices are king -- they'd have much stronger ownership of the entire Android platform. In short, they'd go vertical as well. They've made some small plays in that direction (Nexus phones), but they're not seriously committed to it.

The great part is, we get to watch this battle unfold. I don't particularly care which one wins. I think both perspectives have merit, because I don't buy in to the many "principle" arguments that push matters one way or the other. Never forget, there's money to be made on both sides of the table.

I agree with what you say, except I would take it a step futher – both Apple and Google are moving toward the same place. For Apple, the "rich client" experience starts on the desktop, with cloud-based data stores. For Google, the "rich client" begins in the browser with HTML, then AJAX, then Gears, Android, etc.

Either way, they both end up with a rich client experience that assumes a remote master data store.

right. the only buggy piece is gears. it has been deprecated for html5 localstore. still buggy but is getting better

I don't understand the distinctions you're drawing at all. HTTP "used to be the destination"? What does that mean? It sounds false on its face. The page, image or other resource was always the destination — HTTP was just the protocol used for the transfer. And "content was pushed … using HTTP," but later HTTP was used "as an underlying transport"? Wouldn't the fact that content was pushed using HTTP make it the underlying transport for that content? This all sounds like "I used to have six, now I have half a dozen."

I'm speaking abstractly, not literally. HTTP is still the destination for anything sent from the server (unless you're using SPDY), but that's literally. Abstractly, I'm referring to the fact that we used to build web apps that output HTML web pages, which were streamed over HTTP. The "application" was entirely on the server. The browser was, in effect, a dumb terminal. Nothing "interesting" was happening on the browser. Heh, tell that to the early browser developers :)

When you get down in to the details, it all seems so obvious, but that's kind of the point. Step back and stop thinking about how all this stuff happens. Sometimes, a detailed understanding is a hindrance. There's a saying, "can't see the forest for the trees," that applies very well here. Step back, ignore the details for a moment, and look at things broadly.

Abstractly, I'm referring to the fact that we used to build web apps that output HTML web pages, which were streamed over HTTP. The "application" was entirely on the server. The browser was, in effect, a dumb terminal.

Then 1999 happened and we got true Web apps (smarts in the browser fetching data from the server) as well as the mixed-bag of XML-RPC and HTTP as a post-Web-page transport[0].

Not that I don't think that Apple is seeing the Internet as that thing that connect Apple products, just that this is not a rare or recent concept.

[0] Or earlier, depending on your view of Java applets.

Who says there has to be a winner? What's wrong with a world with both options?

That's definitely a possible outcome. That's not to say there won't be a battle though.

Google and Apple are not competing, especially to the degree that you imply.

You can use gmail on your Macbook, and many do. You can click on AdSense on your Macbook, and many do. Google doesn't need to compete with Apple directly, or even capture their market for hardware. As long as Apple users browse the web, Google is fine.

There is no "battle" unless Apple got into advertising.

Apple and Google have competing visions. In Google's vision, the operating system itself matters less and less, as functionality is pushed into the web browser and web pages. This is in contrast to Apple, which is pushing specialized native applications which do not rely on a web browser to access remote data.

Google is trying to remove the OS from the equation. Apple is trying to remove the web browser from the equation. I think those visions are clearly in competition.

They are competing to death.

Apple wants you to use very expensive gear you own yourself because it is more powerful and beautiful than any other gear. They make hardware.

Google wants you to use very cheap gear, make it a commodity even making it free if possible, so you expend money more on the web on services they own, or they sell your information without your even realizing about it. e.g Instead of having a powerful computer to do video, you connect to the powerful servers they have and you edit it on the web using a browser. Google is a service company.

Google has been winning from some time as people do not care if you sell their info to marketers as long as they do not see it(out of sight, out of mind) and is free like facebook.

So Apple is entering the "free" arena here. I expect them to put a price for premium services once people start liking it. Some people like me actually prefer to pay and not having someone spying at what I do.

They don't compete in every area, but make no mistake, they see each other as competitors. They have conflicting interests. Is Apple the same type of company as Google (and vice versa)? No, but that doesn't mean they're not competing for the same users who will consume like services.

There are parallels here to the old Apple vs WinTel battle. That history is easy to reflect on, because we have the benefit of hindsight. However, when those events were playing out, no one knew what the mature market definitions would be. They were defined as history was made.

We're in the same place today. We have clumsy, inane terms like "cloud" that we use to describe services that have indistinct boundaries (pun intended).

Obviously I'm not saying that history is about to repeat itself verbatim, but there are parallels.

Like iAd?

interestingly iAds have been a huge disapointment. they could not reach critical mass of advertisers. And by Job's comment yesterday against ads on iCloud, it looks like they gave up on it

Google can't go vertical no matter what because they are an advertising company. They need their ads in as many places as possible, and the only way to do that is to make sure others can use your platform pieces.

It's amusing how Microsoft doesn't even factor in this discussion. But surely there are other major players in this struggle aside from Apple and Google. What about Amazon? Facebook?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com