Hacker News Reader

Comment by illo | Hacker News Reader

In which way a market can truly be split between (ideologically) better and worse players (this is a sincere question, no rethorics)? My point of view is that all the companies involved in this mobile-market dance happened and will happen (sometimes willingly) to turn out evil or good based on what better suits them in a particular point in time. I'm confident it will take just time for Samsung to show they're just a company (no deontology involved). Same goes for Google, HTC, LG, whatever. Apple, they chose the wrong juncture and now are paying that by (deservingly) facing endless bad publicity. So, no, I don't think the "good guys" won (let alone the fact that profit-wise they're actually all winning right now), I can't even think about them being good guys... just companies.

View on HN

Well, this is hair-splitting, but I'll bite. A company can be considered (by me) a "good-guy" if:

1 - they do not want to steal from me (by using legal tactics to shut down competitors)

2 - they are not making my life difficult (by actively fighting standardization of protocols/formats)

Bonus points for improving life for everybody by releasing quality open source software (which Apple has done, in a limited way)

I have yet to be disappointed by Google. I am sure I will, sometime in the future, but not yet (lots of open source software, little legal activity - mostly retaliation - data liberation, open formats)

I have systematically been negatively affected by Microsoft (I am still waiting for a universally accepted document format, which Microsoft largely destroyed with their back-room tactics against ODF; I am also fed up that most laptops on the market are only offered with Windows tax - which I attribute to Microsoft abusing their OEM market power)

And Apple has tried to reduce my choice on the Smartphone market (it has failed); they are trying to destroy a truly open applications market on the web (by offering "Apps", same applies to Google, following suit); and they are largely responsible for the trend in locked-in content (iTunes, books, whatever)

Given the web is so wide open and been available for over 20 years to the public, I fail to see how Apple is responsible for this lock-in trend.

Rather Apple has aptly uncovered an untapped desire among the public, which the web failed to provide.

Yes, you can say Apple started it, so they're responsible. But this desire was ready for the pickin's. I don't fault Apple for picking it up. It must have been obvious to them.

Yes, but a 30% cut gives them all incentive in the world to further destroy the open marketplace (html). I do not have evidence that it is happening - but this must be an Apple goal. Simply because of how they are profiting from this arrangement.

Or, to put it another way: the financial incentives for Apple are not at all aligned with my personal interests.

Whereas I can not say the same thing about Google. I do not see how their financial incentives are colliding with my personal interests. Yes, privacy is a concern, but I am not - that I know - affected by that, and there are worse players here (Facebook).

In that light, Apple==bad, Google==good.

So you're claiming that the company who initially pushed web apps as the iPhone API but caved under pressure from developers, the same company who developed webkit. You're claiming this company is trying to destroy the web?

Do you not think that's a little unjustified?

With Google you are the product, with Apple you are the customer. I like Google but I trust Apple.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com