[sscalia]

I find it hard to argue with any of the points he makes. I'm sure someone here will, but I found myself doing the mental "gulp of air and raising a finger" then getting silenced again.

I really wish Microsoft had pulled off Windows Phone; it arguably had a much better user experience than Android did (and still does) -- and interesting Nokia hardware.

I simply don't believe Google has the best interests of anyone at heart except themselves and advertisers.

The next 10 years are going to be very interesting indeed.

[markdown]

> I simply don't believe Google has the best interests of anyone at heart except themselves and advertisers.

You think Apple has your interests at heart? Or Microsoft?

Like Google, they have your cash at heart. Not a thing more.

[curun1r]

No, it's very much different than Google. Google doesn't have your cash at heart. They've largely been uninterested in your cash. The cash they do care about is that of the advertisers that use their platform. Apple is unapologetically interested in your money and less interested in impinging on people's privacy.

We can argue over which model is preferable to users, with may preferring to pay and others preferring the sponsored option, but you can't really say that Apple and Google are equivalent.

People like to frame the Apple vs Google battle as one of openness vs closed-ness, of an ecosystem with many participants vs a walled garden with just Apple. But I see it far more as a battle over how we choose to pay for technology...directly or indirectly.

[coldtea]

>Like Google, they have your cash at heart. Not a thing more.

For one, they could get the same or even more cash with far more crappier products (marketed more, altered to satisfy pundits, relax design and build requirements to cash-in on the Apple brand, etc). Nobody would have taken offense if they built a heavier, bulkier, plastic MacBook Air, with a DVD drive even and VGA ports and visible seams -- but they wanted to do things their was.

Second, wanting my cash is good. Because I get to be the judge when to give my cash, and I give it when I see things I want and like ("shut up and take my money"). Google, on the other hand, wants the advertisers' cash, which means they could not care less about me in lots of areas (except the area of seeing their ads).

So Apple might not have "my interests" at heart, but they are allowed by their management to take more pride in what they build than other companies, where the bottom line dictates more decisions.

[webwielder]

Not everyone is as cynical as you. I believe the people at Apple genuinely want to make great hardware and software that enhances people's lives. Their world-class accessibility support is proof enough of that.

[caycep]

That being said, I think they've learned that getting your cash depends on you being satisfied, and their interests tend to align/dovetail with yours better than MS or Google. With MS/Google, you don't pay them, the advertisers or corporate buyers do and they don't care as much.

[seiji]

To march out some old tropes: Apple makes money by delighting users so they will continue to buy products. Google makes money by tracking users, forcefully if necessary, and abusing their advertisers. Microsoft makes money out of legacy ties these days—they don't deserve to continue existing.

[happyscrappy]

It is a question of whose interests align with yours. Do your interests align with advertisers? Mine sure as hell don't.

[sscalia]

Yes, my cash - the end user.

Not other companies looking to get my "attention"