Ecosistemul Apple

Marco Arment, developerul Instapaper pentru iOS, intelege diferenta dintre Android si iPhone / iPad: Nu conteaza hardware-ul atita timp cind platforma nu iti ofera experienta de care ai nevoie. Oricine poate sa aduca pe piata o tableta noua, dar asta nu inseamna ca noua jucarie este relevanta.

Vorbele lui Marco sunt suficiente ca sa demonstrezi oricarui user al altor platforme ca iOS este superior. Pune bine articolul asta. O sa mai ai nevoie de el…

And, like they’ve done so far with Android, the hardware manufacturers will continue to attempt to make their own user-facing applications and front-end interfaces, but these usually suck. (Other people may describe “suck” with kinder, apologist adjectives like “getting better” and “not bad”.)

These manufacturers aren’t software companies: they’re hardware companies that write software out of necessity. Apple is a software company that makes hardware out of necessity. The software side of a modern computing platform is far more difficult and expensive to create and maintain than the hardware. Anyone can cobble together the same processors, DRAM, flash, and radios as Apple, put them into a plastic case, and run a commodity OS on them with slight front-end customizations. But not everyone can create an entire software platform.

It’s not just a matter of interface design. Apple has built an entire ecosystem to support and enrich the iPad for both customers and developers. To be competitive, a newcomer to the tablet software market needs to replicate or sidestep the need for nearly all of Apple’s major efforts, including synchronization of media and data with Windows PCs and Macs, integration with popular web services, an integrated payment system that customers will actually use at a reasonable rate, a well-stocked music and video storefront, plenty of high-quality third-party apps and fun games, a sophisticated SDK and development environment, widespread retail availability and customer support, and an assortment of good first- and third-party accessories to fulfill common needs (cases, chargers, docks, screen protectors, extended batteries) and give the device new uses (tripods, speakers, styluses, input and output adapters, wall and car mounts).

Because when normal people — not gadget bloggers and geeks like us — need to consider an alternative to the iPad, they’re not just thinking of Apple’s lack of “openness” (as Google so vaguely and poorly defines it in relation to Android) or the iPad’s lack of some individual hardware feature. Buying an alternative means giving up Apple’s entire ecosystem. That’s worth it to some buyers, but it’s incredibly impractical for many.

A successful mass-market iPad competitor needs to be so good that people will ignore all of that, buy it in large quantities, and let it develop its own entire ecosystem.

Stiu ca articolul este de la finalul anului trecut, dar el este mai actual ca oricind, acum cind RIM, Motorola sau Samsung se intrec in anunturi de hardware care vrea sa concureze cu iPad.

Ai nevoie de traducere? O sa fac si asta, daca sunt suficient de multi cititori interesati care nu inteleg Lb. Engleza.

1 Comment

  1. Simplul fapt ca a trebuit sa treacă ceva timp după ce Apple a lansat doua produse revolutionare (iPhone si iPad) pana când celelalte companii au REactionat, spune multe! Nu cred ca nu erau cunoscute aceste concepte tuturor departamentelor de cercetare de la majoritatea companiilor mari… A trebuit sa vina Jobs, sa creeze/verifice ca piața exista (cu doua produse foarte bune) pentru ca toți ceilalți sa vina acum sa încerce sa ia cotă din aceasta. Funny thing, nu pot face nici măcar acest lucru ca lumea… Iar noi, când ne exprimam suficienți “nu-mi place asta, nu-mi place aia”, nu cred ca realizam ce e in spatele crearii unor astfel de produse, apropo de ce se spune in articol.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*