Apple taking aim at Google?
While I'm not sure I can refute this article, I can't say that I think it will work for Apple. Or at least, not pan out the way that they want if this truly is the case. What I got from the announcements is that once again Microsoft is ahead of the game and while consumers may not be paying attention to them, their rivals certainly are.
Basically, the most notable announcements of the day were Apple Music and the changes coming in watchOS 2. The third interesting announcement would have been the open sourcing of Swift.
All three of these are much more in line with Microsoft's recent changes than they are with Apple's or Google's. And, they are in fact very much at odds with the ways Apple has acted recently and how Google continues to act.
In the last several years Apple hasn't really announced any new product, service, API or anything really which is cross platform capable. And that makes Apple Music interesting. This service will be available on Windows and Android. That is a rather huge difference. And this is much more akin to Microsoft's strategy with their services which they are putting on all of the most popular platforms.
One might argue that this isn't worth mentioning because it will be embedded in iTunes. But that argument is empty. Firstly, the service wasn't previously baked into iTunes so there was no need to put it there. And MacOS and Windows are completely separate code bases and there is no iTunes on Android. So, Apple could EASILY have chosen to bake it only into iTunes on Macs and not release an Android app at all. This was clearly an explicit decision to support multiple platforms. And THAT is not some Apple has been doing lately at all.
Also, as the article mentions, Apple Music isn't really targeted at Android or Google though. This one is aimed and Spotify and Pandora and the big dogs in the subscription streaming arena. But, it is still a variation from their old strategies to go cross platform. They never felt the need to in the past. Skype is cross platform but FaceTime isn't. Many messenger apps are, but iMessage isn't. Many cloud storage providers are, but iCloud isn't. You can go on and on, but whether they are free or paid services, Apple hasn't done much cross platform since the iPad came out. And pretending that they need to or would have felt that they needed to at another point in delusional.
In the same veins in the changes in watchOS. Basically, the biggest change is native apps. This isn't the same as cross platform, but it is the first step and a very big one towards being able to own and use an Apple Watch without an iPhone. That may still be a ways or may never happen. But this rapid response in opening up the platform more combined with the freakish move above indicate that they might be starting to realize that not only their individual products too expensive, but trying to enforce a combination at their price points may be suicide for their accessory products. But, we still aren't really seeing anything that I would say is a stab at Google. In the end however, improving the situation for their smart watch may help slow Android Wear's advances.
Lastly is the open sourcing of Swift. This might just be an attempt to make project Islandwood implode. Obviously open sourcing it should make it easier for Microsoft to incorporate it into Islandwood. But that will also make it easier for developers to just stick with Apple. Better tooling for MS's "bridge" project actually makes it easier to ignore Microsoft's platform.
I guess my point here would be this. I don't think Apple can take aim at Google. Or really anyone. Their problem (and fortune), at least on a hardware front, has always been that no one is playing the same game they are. Apple doesn't sell computers or watches or phones or tablets. Apple sells luxury electronics. The vast majority of people who buy Apple products could care less how technically superior or inferior their devices are. And while Microsoft may have OEMs that sell in the same price points as Apple, they aren't truly competing with Apple. It's like saying Ferrari is competing with Corvette (assuming there was a Ferrari in the same price range as a Corvette). Those who want luxury status would buy the Ferrari. It isn't a competition. Those who like Corvettes or Chevy wouldn't buy a Ferrari.
And that is the way it is in the electronics world. The kind of people who buy Apple products aren't interested in what the competition offers. And those looking at OEMs devices in Apple's price range are only looking at them because they have no interest in Apple products.
Apple is however trying to compete with Spotify. And this is a smart thing. Music is what made Apple big. The iPod and iTunes are what paved the way for the iPhone and made the company successful. Music is cool. And it probably always will be. Being the main brand for music gives you a lot of power in related industries, like consumer electronics. Social media and online video streaming are the two other powerhouses at the moment, but Apple has no real experience there.
Basically, the most notable announcements of the day were Apple Music and the changes coming in watchOS 2. The third interesting announcement would have been the open sourcing of Swift.
All three of these are much more in line with Microsoft's recent changes than they are with Apple's or Google's. And, they are in fact very much at odds with the ways Apple has acted recently and how Google continues to act.
In the last several years Apple hasn't really announced any new product, service, API or anything really which is cross platform capable. And that makes Apple Music interesting. This service will be available on Windows and Android. That is a rather huge difference. And this is much more akin to Microsoft's strategy with their services which they are putting on all of the most popular platforms.
One might argue that this isn't worth mentioning because it will be embedded in iTunes. But that argument is empty. Firstly, the service wasn't previously baked into iTunes so there was no need to put it there. And MacOS and Windows are completely separate code bases and there is no iTunes on Android. So, Apple could EASILY have chosen to bake it only into iTunes on Macs and not release an Android app at all. This was clearly an explicit decision to support multiple platforms. And THAT is not some Apple has been doing lately at all.
Also, as the article mentions, Apple Music isn't really targeted at Android or Google though. This one is aimed and Spotify and Pandora and the big dogs in the subscription streaming arena. But, it is still a variation from their old strategies to go cross platform. They never felt the need to in the past. Skype is cross platform but FaceTime isn't. Many messenger apps are, but iMessage isn't. Many cloud storage providers are, but iCloud isn't. You can go on and on, but whether they are free or paid services, Apple hasn't done much cross platform since the iPad came out. And pretending that they need to or would have felt that they needed to at another point in delusional.
In the same veins in the changes in watchOS. Basically, the biggest change is native apps. This isn't the same as cross platform, but it is the first step and a very big one towards being able to own and use an Apple Watch without an iPhone. That may still be a ways or may never happen. But this rapid response in opening up the platform more combined with the freakish move above indicate that they might be starting to realize that not only their individual products too expensive, but trying to enforce a combination at their price points may be suicide for their accessory products. But, we still aren't really seeing anything that I would say is a stab at Google. In the end however, improving the situation for their smart watch may help slow Android Wear's advances.
Lastly is the open sourcing of Swift. This might just be an attempt to make project Islandwood implode. Obviously open sourcing it should make it easier for Microsoft to incorporate it into Islandwood. But that will also make it easier for developers to just stick with Apple. Better tooling for MS's "bridge" project actually makes it easier to ignore Microsoft's platform.
I guess my point here would be this. I don't think Apple can take aim at Google. Or really anyone. Their problem (and fortune), at least on a hardware front, has always been that no one is playing the same game they are. Apple doesn't sell computers or watches or phones or tablets. Apple sells luxury electronics. The vast majority of people who buy Apple products could care less how technically superior or inferior their devices are. And while Microsoft may have OEMs that sell in the same price points as Apple, they aren't truly competing with Apple. It's like saying Ferrari is competing with Corvette (assuming there was a Ferrari in the same price range as a Corvette). Those who want luxury status would buy the Ferrari. It isn't a competition. Those who like Corvettes or Chevy wouldn't buy a Ferrari.
And that is the way it is in the electronics world. The kind of people who buy Apple products aren't interested in what the competition offers. And those looking at OEMs devices in Apple's price range are only looking at them because they have no interest in Apple products.
Apple is however trying to compete with Spotify. And this is a smart thing. Music is what made Apple big. The iPod and iTunes are what paved the way for the iPhone and made the company successful. Music is cool. And it probably always will be. Being the main brand for music gives you a lot of power in related industries, like consumer electronics. Social media and online video streaming are the two other powerhouses at the moment, but Apple has no real experience there.
Comments
Post a Comment