Hacker News Reader

Comment by t-3 | Hacker News Reader

Apple in this analogy would be a subway. It runs on Apple tracks by Apple rules. If you live in the city, doing city things, you might never need a car, and the subway meets all your needs. If you have a car, you might never need the subway and think it just sounds horrible. The subway rider doesn't need to think about driving and doesn't want to. The driver thinks having to drive is a feature, not a bug.

View on HN

I think you're trying maybe a little too hard to see this from a product/horses-for-courses angle, but the subway analogy doesn't make sense. Subways have very practical and technical reasons to run on their tracks and exclusively operated by professionals. AFAIK there's no subway out there that isn't a closed ecosystem, and it's unclear if there'd be any benefit to their passengers if they weren't.

OTOH we know tablets, smartphones and cars can operate in an open manner, and their users benefit from this. Apple choosing not to make such tablets and phones is similar to cars that could operate on any road and fed any brand oil, but Apple choosing not to for their own benefit.

A bus works just as well and satisfies your complaints. Many people neither need nor want the full flexibility of car ownership. Many people neither need nor want full control of their computer. Apple being a locked-down walled garden is absolutely a selling point for many of their customers.

Microsoft's illegal monopoly over the web browser market was also "a selling point" for many lazy customers. It was also notably illegal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com