Why I hate Apple (long)

The BBQ Pit
101

Just thought of something actually useful for the OP: GoodReader. That app lets you deal with a lot more files than text and PDFs. It’ll let you have a pesudo-file system inside iOS. You can sync over wi-fi, sync with Dropbox, transfer files back and forth from your iOS device to your computer. It’ll handle a whole bunch of things that you wouldn’t think it’ll handle. You can do presentations, slideshows, etc. within the app. You can play most audio files from it, including individual podcasts without subscribing, and even video files. Check it out, it might be what you were looking for.

Re: introductory price; Short memory.

(iPad - Wikipedia, 3 links to sources in the Wiki article)

(Apple iPad to cost just $499 | TechRadar)

You’re not exactly comparing like to like, either. The Nexus 7 omits some hardware like a back facing camera to reach that price point. They originally only offered wi-fi models. I guess the recent revision included cellular data options. (I’ll note here that it also doesn’t have an SD card slot. Why do Google and Asus get a pass on that when Apple gets criticized for not including one on an iPad?) But it’s telling that they don’t even offer a 64 GB option, presumably because the cost difference would be significant and they couldn’t afford to eat that much loss.

Google has publicly stated that it’s making no profit on the Nexus 7. None. So the one device that’s even in the same league as an iPad is only that cheap because its being dumped on the market by a company willing to chance losing money in order to gain a competitive foothold.

I will concede that the Nexus 7 is a good device. It’s the only Android tablet that I’ve seen reviewers consistently call worth buying. Some have even gone so far as to say they prefer it over an iPad, which means it’s probably pretty damn good. And yes, that’s a good thing, I totally agree on that point. Decent competition usually is good for everyone, including businesses since it helps keep them on-task.

But the price is made possible through a business strategy that probably isn’t sustainable in the long term. It remains to be seen whether Google can afford to keep offering these devices at cost, which puts them significantly below market value, while making up the difference with other revenue streams. The other revenue streams are, of course, mostly pimping you, the “customer”. Google’s real customers are not individuals, they’re businesses. Google makes money by selling information about you, and by selling your attention.

People seem to forget that Google is an advertising company, not primarily a tech company. Even if the difference in price between devices was “a label” — and I think I’ve shown that it’s not — I’d still be willing to pay more for an honest business relationship. I pay money, I get hardware. Apple isn’t selling information about me on the back end to a different company to make more cash off that sale. That was, in fact, one of the reported differences of opinion that led to the end of the maps collaboration. Google wanted user information and Apple said they weren’t willing to provide it.

Re: USB standard revision
But one problem here is that they would have to wait for someone else to revise the standard. Apple likes to be in control of its own destiny, a lesson they learned through problems with partner companies like Adobe way back in the 90s. With their own connector on the device side, Apple can switch to whatever standard is around, whether USB or other.

An advantage even with the old 30 pin connector was that they could deliver more than just data. They could send sound, video, and other signals without a processing cost on the other end. This was actually an advantage for both Apple and accessory manufacturers, since cheaper accessories could be made. Speakers could be just speakers and a dock connector, not a USB bus, processor, etc. and speakers.

The dock connector was future-proof for nearly 10 years, through switches from IEEE 1394 to USB 1 and 2. A large part of the reason people are bitching so much about the switch is because a bunch of old accessories that they were able to use all the way from the time of older iPod models were made obsolete after years of use.

USB 3 isn’t a complete solution. I/O is still too slow for HDMI without compression or loss of quality. Power transmission is still a bottleneck even with the revised standard. The connector is different from older ones, and honestly looks like a butt-ugly kludge. It’s larger and wider than Apple’s Lightning connector, which is also orientation agnostic in addition to being both physically smaller and tougher than USB 3.

Unlike a dedicated USB 3 port, the potential signals out for Lightning are limited only by the processor on the device side. HDMI and VGA cables are already available. The pin signals can change based on the requirements of what it’s connected to on the other side. In short, it’s a far more flexible connector which offers technical benefits over USB 3 already, and the advantages of the design will only make it more useful in the future.

They also don’t have to wait years for someone else to make revisions to a standard, they can update or change their connector’s capabilities whenever they want while still offering compatibility with multiple connectors on the other end of the cable. They’re not trying to fuck people. They’re creating a good engineering solution with more longevity, fewer kludges necessary to keep it useful, and independence from an outside standards board that moves at the speed of committee.

Found a post with way more detail than I knew originally about the Lightning connector. Worth a look if you’re interested in some technical aspects.

102

My memory’s not what it was, but this is only 3 years back we’re talking and I remember just how many conflicting rumours there were on the iPad, what size it would be, the form factor and the price. Claiming that “everyone was expecting it to be nearly $1,000” is just patently untrue. I saw prices way higher, and way lower. For example:

“How much? We’re hoping for $600, or $700 with more memory. Halfway between the MacBook and the iPhone, right where it belongs.”

“reports have put the price at between $500 and $700 (approximately £400). This would put it between the iPhone and MacBook, which is where we expect it to sit.”

That’s it? You reckon that the lack of a back facing camera means they’re not like for like devices? There seems to be a bit of inconsistency in your logic. On the one hand a 72% difference in price is marginal, but on the other the omission of a back facing camera means the Nexus is not comparable to an iPad mini. I’m sorry, but I disagree.

I’m also bemused by your claim that in selling the device cheap, Google are being disingenuous, or that it’s not a sustainable model. From mobile phones to video game consoles, lots of tech is sold at cost or even subsidised on the basis that the after sales will make the seller a net profit.

And while Apple might claim that they ditched Google maps over concerns about user information, I think it’s a lot more likely that they didn’t want to pay Google $500 million a year anymore

I’ll do the USB response later, work beckons.

103

As the Nexus 7 is just a mini and I want a larger tablet then it’s not an option, There has been a succession of fly-by-night failed tablets trying to compete with the ipad.

There is an scant £80 price difference between the 32gb N10 and the ipad 4 32gb. The N10 looks a nice piece of kit but even if I did not want the 64gb capacity ipad offers £80 is not enough to write off all my apps.

If I was a new purchaser and I could have an android phone and player as good as the apple equivalents and guaranteed to run the same apps on exactly the same android platform then I might be tempted to pick the ‘locked into android’ rather than ‘locked into apple’ route.

And i’d rather be ‘locked into’ a company that’s going to stick around improving its line of seamlessly integrated products. For all I know Nexus could go the way of all the other abandoned ipad beater lines.

But my every experience of Apple products and OS was nothing but smooth. My experience of Android was, ‘this sucks compared to Apple’. And that is what happens when a well-designed premium platform competes with an ‘instantly fragments into a dozen bespoke versions’ one. Especially in a market where price is not necessarily the main driver.

I’m not interested in playing around with skins or whatever. The Apple interface works brilliantly for me. It does everything I want and is intuitively easy to use and is the same on every device. But my android phone, tablet and music player could well have 3 different versions all working in annoyingly different ways.

Am I happy to pay a premium for this? Yes.

And on a purely silly subjective note - calling your OS stupid names like Jellybean and Icecream Sandwich makes Android seem like a kids toy.

Having said that - I don’t have a mini and the 16gb Nexus 7 is tempting.

Would it download and run my existing Googleplay purchased apps?

104

If you get Android, you’re not locked into any one company - that’s the point.

Snow Leopard. That is all.

105

No - the differing versions of Android - which I’ve experienced being locked into for 2 years on my motorola phone - is the point.

Maybe i could skin it. Who knows. I don’t want to. I just want stuff to work.

And I’ve no idea what Snow Leopard might be - but on googling I see it is a great name for an OS. But i use windows based pc’s.

I see the Nexus 7 doesn’t offer 3g connectivity either, which makes it much less attractive.

Apple are just very good for consumers like me. We want an integrated line of products from a reliable company that do what we want and do it simply and well. Do I wish they were cheaper? Sure I do. Do I wish they were more moral? sure. The same for Google.

Some of us buy Apple not because we’re brain-washed but because they are the better suite of products for us.

Maybe it 2 years time, when Android exists as one OS across all the devices I want, rather than a melange of company-customised versions that update as and when they can be bothered, I’ll want to switch.

If I can save a few hundred on a tablet, a smartphone and a music player that all work the same and seamlessly update themselves with apps when I buy them from a huge secure range (where I don’t have to play internet detective before buying anything because the company running the Store doesn’t make much of an effort to stop crooked apps getting in), then I’d be very open to switching.

As it is, and as cost is a secondary concern, I’m sticking with Apple.

106
107

Assuming I understand all the random numbers, it has 3G. Wish it told me a bit more. And that PC World stocked them in 3g version. Makes it more attractive.

EDIT: It’s only on one network. Bugger

108

Nope, it’s unlocked. Buy it from google, pick up a 3g sim from whoever’s cheapest for you, sorted.

I was a bit disappointed that it doesn’t offer LTE, but as it’s going to be at least a couple of years before LTE in Europe is commonplace and not hideously expensive, it’s no major issue.

109

If that works and my existing apps download it makes it interesting. The reviews I read says it is Three only.

110

That review must be wrong. As has been said, the device is unlocked. Get yourself a £10 giffgaff sim and you are good to go.

Incidentally, I’ve already got a 16gb Nexus 7 and I’m loving it. As does the family which is why I may be tempted by a 31gb 3g version and pass the original on to my wife.

The lack of 4G isn’t an issue. The average media consumer will be hard pushed to spot the difference in everyday use (and will be having their teeth removed for the privilege)

111

This discussion has gone far afield, as usually happens. I’m a big-picture kind of person. I take a look at all the connected issues and use everything I know to analyze what is going on. You seem to focus solely on a few details. We’re never going to agree. I’m always going to think you’re missing or glossing over a huge amount of information, and you’re probably always going to think I’m being intransigent or defensive.

I follow news about Apple because I think it’s an interesting company. They make a lot of smart strategic choices in their business deals, and they make strong, even opinionated, choices in product design. I like using their products too, but I don’t have anything resembling blind loyalty to them. I can see why some people might find other products useful, but most of the time there are undesirable trade-offs. Apple stuff generally fits the way I work. If it didn’t, I’d probably use something else. To me, that just makes sense. I’ve never seen the point in getting emotional about a product.

I don’t think I’m willing to take any more time arguing with someone I’m probably never going to convince or agree with, so here’s my parting shot.

Nice selective quoting. Your Macworld UK cite says at the top, “Most reports place it between $800 and $1,000” which is exactly in line with what I said earlier. Their link to “between $500 and $700” at the beginning of your quoted section appears to be dead, so who knows how credible that one was. Your other “cite” is again a selective quote. Continuing in the next sentence from Business Insider, “But it’s likely Apple would charge another $100 or $200. That’ll probably fly with early adopters for long enough until Apple can make them cheaper.”

If you’re going to be nit-picky, you should probably try to find cleaner support for your argument. What’s “patently untrue” is that anyone expected the iPad to be introduced at anywhere near the price they actually announced. The actual price — including Apple’s usual healthy margins — was far lower than anyone expected. Hoped for? Maybe. But not what they expected.

No, that’s not it. The back facing camera was an example item, as I clearly said in that sentence. Larger display (though with slightly lower pixel density), back facing 5.0 Mp camera, more expensive case material, lighter and thinner build, faster dual-band wi-fi, slightly larger battery. In addition, there are choices available at the high end that the Nexus simply doesn’t offer, like more storage and a much faster cellular connection.

Product lines are usually strategically priced to support other products in that line. I’d bet that the margins are thinner on the high end, actually, than the low end, which is why I think the Nexus 7 tops out at 32 GB. A jump to 64 GB would either force them to bump the prices higher on the 16 and 32 to subsidize the 64, or it would force them to have a large price jump from 32 to 64 — so large that most people would never buy it. That’s probably part of the difference in cost between a Mini 32 GB and a Nexus 7 32 GB right there; strategic pricing, not a “real” cost.

Some of those higher real costs, like the larger display and the battery needed to drive it, are due to design choices, but those incur real material costs. If cost was your only criterion, then sure, the Nexus would probably be a better choice, depending on the capabilities you wanted. But claiming that the Mini is clearly overpriced is simply overstating the case. They are not offering the same thing; they are offering similar hardware with different design trade offs.

Anyway, I don’t know why we went off on this price tangent. I never claimed Apple wasn’t pricing stuff to make a profit. Of course they’re going to make money on hardware; that’s their core business. What I was refuting is that they’re gouging customers, and you’ve done absolutely nothing to convince any reasonable person that Apple’s prices are out of line with the cost of the parts, design, and build quality of the product, along with a healthy margin of profit. You want to see what happens when companies go for lower prices over everything else? Take a look at the commodity computer market. Shit hardware, but great prices. Nominally decent specs on products that don’t work worth a damn in real use.

Google is making less money on search than they used to, which is why they’re trying to expand their reach. If the trend continues — and it probably will — they’re going to get more aggressive than they already are about data mining. Maybe you’re comfortable giving more and more personal information in return for lower product prices, but I’ll bet not everyone is. I’m certainly not. They’re not expecting to make up the difference by selling software and taking a cut, they’re expecting to make up the difference by selling user information. That directly impacts the sustainability of this business model.

It’s not analogous to video game consoles or mobile phones. For one thing, not all game consoles are sold at a loss. The Wii made a profit from day one, even without content licensing. In mobile, you know that you’re receiving a subsidy for the hardware in the expectation that usage fees will make the deal profitable. That’s why they lock you into a contract with cancellation fees; so that they can collect the subsidy no matter what.

In either case, you know what you’re paying for. You know that game prices subsidize the console through licensing (if the console company is selling at a loss) and you know that you are paying more in usage fees to subsidize the cost of your phone. The relationship is pretty darn transparent.

In this case, you probably have no way of knowing what information Google is collecting about you, in what level of detail, who they’re selling it to, or how they’re using it. Google’s track record with privacy is not good. Apple’s is pretty good. I’m willing to pay more to a company I trust more. Maybe that’s not a concern for you. You can enjoy your cheaper hardware, but you should be aware that you’re paying a hidden cost.

The Register? Seriously? It’s opinionated and possibly entertaining for some people, but not particularly well-researched.

The credibility of your cite aside, I don’t think the deal happened solely because of concerns over user information. I’m not an idiot. I clearly said that it was ONE OF the reasons. I don’t think Apple is a bleeding-heart organization that only does things for the good of its customers. Again, you’re being overly reductive. Of course they had a monetary and strategic reason for ending the deal.

Right now, Google needs Apple more than Apple needs Google. Something like half of all Google’s mobile search revenue still comes from iOS. That will probably change with time as Android grows.

Mapping is a key element of mobile usage, which is why Apple started to make strategic acquisitions years ago. They knew that being reliant on a rival company put them at a disadvantage. The longer they were reliant on Google for mapping data, the stronger Google’s position became. When the partnership first went through, Google wasn’t in competition with them. Android changed that. Paying money to a company that’s competing in the same market, and being reliant on them for a key service is just stupid. Of course they were going to try to find a way to avoid paying money to a competitor.

112

And this is what I don’t understand. I can’t conceive how anyone wants someone making decisions for them. I can’t understand why making opinionated choices wouldn’t alienate you. I can understand continuing to use the product knowing that’s the downside of using it, but I can’t understand actually liking that aspect.

The ideal is always “Here’s what we think is the best idea, but, if you don’t like it, feel free to do what you want.” Choosing and enjoying one or the other baffles me.

And, yes, I know Google does it with Chrome. But at least no one ever says they actually like the browser because Google refuses to implement certain things. Yet constantly people talk about being glad they don’t have to make a decision on their iDevice.

Oh, and while you can argue that the original iPad is a completely different device, the iPad Mini was specifically designed to compete with other tablets at that size. It is obviously fair to compare them. For some reason, Apple has marginal tech increases that count up to $200 more.

Finally, if the OP thinks security questions you can’t design for yourself are onerous, wait until he encounters companies begging you to give them your cell phone number. They say they’ll only use it if they need to contact you if your account is hacked, but, if that were true, then my alternate email would be sufficient. And they wouldn’t keep begging after I’ve told them no, what, 20 times now?

And those weren’t from Apple. It was Microsoft (when I tried to sign into Windows 8) and Google (every month that I use my Gmail). Fuck the whole lot of 'em, I say.

113

I’ve thought about getting another Google Voice number from a second Google account so I can give it to any site that asks for my mobile number.

114

it’s obvious you’ve never argued with a hardcore Apple advocate. if a competing device doesn’t have each and every feature of the equivalent Apple product, then you can’t compare the two because “it’s not faaaaiiiirrrr.” especially ridiculous when people would pooh-pooh an alternative to the MacBook because it “didn’t have FireWire so it’s not faaaaiiiirrr!”

'course, we see what happened to the critically-important FireWire.

115

The thing I’d like to see that is an obvious oversight is multiple accounts. There are lots of families that share an iPad but you don’t want to share the same accounts and passwords for every app.

116

Well, in general I don’t want to have to make decisions about how my phone, computer, etc. work. I don’t want to experiment and try different workflows, user interface layouts, etc. to figure out what the most productive and efficient configuration is. I want someone else to go through that trouble for me, so that I can simply get to work (or play) and not have to fuck with making 100 different choices to get everything “just right”. In fact, I am willing to pay a significant amount of extra money to companies that put the effort and thought into minimizing the choices I have to make by designing their software to work optimally right out of the box.

I don’t like overly-customizable software, especially if I’m paying for it. An abundance of “choices” say to me that the designer thought to myself “Fuck it, I have no idea what the best configuration is and I don’t want to go through the hard work of figuring out - I’ll just make it an option and shift the burden to the users.” And overly-configurable software is generally buggier, since it is harder to test all the possible configurations it might be used in.

The analogy I draw is to seats in luxury cars. I have sat in cars that have 28-way adjustable seats. You can sit there for an hour moving the little controller, perturbing each cushion by a small amount trying to find the perfect configuration. I’ve done it. I have no idea what the fuck I’m doing, and whether what seems like a comfortable configuration now will really still be comfortable after 4 hours stuck in traffic. Fuck that. If I’m paying $80,000 for a car, I want some ergonomics expert to design the perfect seat, so that I can sit in it, and without messing with any buttons think to myself “holy shit what a comfortable seat”, and then go driving.

117

Correction in bold.

118

You built your own house and your own car? Bloody hell!

Any product anybody buys has someone else’s decisions embedded. It’s a matter of picking the one that’s right for the buyer, and amazingly enough, different buyers want different things.

That reasoning is from the same bin as “I don’t believe anything I haven’t seen with my own eyes”.

119

Apple fanboy logic: more choice is bad! Rigid, uncustomisable interfaces are a feature, not a bug! Android are evil for even making it possible to customise their interface! No layperson should have to endure that sort of pressure! What if you have to download more than one app to get it working just the way you like it?! The horror!

I can’t get my head around the idea that fewer options are better. I ran my Galaxy S2 on the default, out-of-the-box configuration for a while and it was fine. Then I tweaked it - without losing my job, spouse or children; it honestly wasn’t that much of a time investment. Now it’s better. Choice. It’s a grand thing.

120

Maybe when one appears in the local store I’ll check one out. Giffgaff looks good. not heard of it before.

Upgraded my android to an iphone 5 today and it just felt like coming home. All my favourite apps ready to download free and able to be organised into my preferred folders. An OS that didn’t get in the way. Apps working around that OS instead of working with whatever interface struck the individual android app designer was a good idea at the time. Apps I didn’t have to scrutinise carefully to make sure they weren’t a criminal knock-off before buying. A flawlessly working touch-screen.

I’ve no doubt Android has improved (or there are versions that are good), or maybe the top of the range at the time motorola phone was just shit despite the rave reviews, but my equally old ipad wasn’t shit.

This is why apple can sell at a premium to people like me. It’s not that we’re conned, it’s that apple had their shit together while manufacturers using android have been flinging their own brand of shit at the wall to see what sticks. Motorola android has just left a nasty smell in the air.

Maybe in the Nexus’ case it is sticking now. For £200 it is a tempting toy.