Apple changes words in order to change the debate

It's easy to look at this cynically but it's not unreasonable to change the conversation. Google's exploitation of "open" has been disingenuous at best. When you try to square their high ideals against reality, you end up in an uncomfortable spot.<p>The fact is, Android's openness <i>does not make it to the end user</i>. Its openness is exploited for the benefit of the carriers to load branded crapware onto the device, disable specific features and other nonsense. Don't like this? Too bad. Android's openness <i>isn't for you</i>, now that carriers and manufacturers are getting wise to your hackery tricks. They're going to make it as hard as possible to root your Android phone. So you'd better get used to that awesome Blockbuster app.<p>In the end, iOS and Android devices are on even footing in terms of big companies trying to control the final experience.<p>Which leaves us with one thing: motivations.<p>Carrier motivations are to <i>fuck you out of as much money as humanly possible in the short term</i>. In the past that meant disabling device features to force you into their ecosystem – I'm sure this will continue one way or another. They'll load branded garbage onto your device. They'll put specific marketplaces on your device, and maybe even remove Google's if they want to. Their manufacturing partners will happily conspire with them on this, including the firmware fuse that prevents rooting your device so you can make it somewhat clean again.<p>Apple is no less ruthless with its control, but it exercises it for a different purpose: To deliver the most integrated, user-friendly, clean experience possible. (edit: and so, Apple's play is the converse: to maximize your cheerful purchases of Apple gear in the <i>long term</i> – thanks, matwood)<p>If you're a carrier, Android's openness makes it much more valuable than iOS in the short term. In that, Google's piety will ring true. If you're an end user, the net gain of that openness is zero, and at times it's even a loss.<p>I trust Apple infinitely more than I trust the carriers to make something I'll enjoy using. And that's the key to understand. With Apple, what I buy will always be clean. I'll always instantly understand the tradeoffs. With Android, it's going to be a gamble. How hard has my carrier boned this device? I'll have to research if I'm a nerd or be surprised if I'm everyone else. And there goes the power of Android as a brand.<p>Android is no longer Google. Android <i>is</i> the carriers.<p>When was the last time you heard someone write <i>those</i> guys a love letter?

Good point, it is in Apple's interest to reframe the debate. Theoretically, Apple could argue that Google's core assets (search and advertising) aren't open-sourced. Their Android apps (like Maps) aren't open-source and Apple could say that "open" is just a marketing buzzword that Google uses to try and beat Apple with. However, that will be an argument on turf picked by Google.<p>"What is best for the customer" (and also what is best for app developers) is imo a much better argument for Apple and so it isn't surprising that Apple would prefer to fight on this turf.<p>As an app developer, I develop for the iPhone/iPad (even though I wrote an Android app with their beta SDK long before Apple launched the app store and Google launched their first Android device). So I personally agree with the case made by Apple.<p>In this context, it is also worth noting that Rovio (which earned &#62;$1M/month with their $0.99 iPhone app) recently released an Android app, but made it free. They seem to be using the "ad-supported" model for the same reason that many developers don't develop paid Android apps (and I hope I haven't offended too many Android users by pointing out that Android users download very few paid apps). Rovio has also mentioned the difficulties with Android fragmentation. Overall, I'd say that Apple's argument does resonate in the market.Google's argument (and the fact that it is available on all major US carriers) is also very effective. Overall, this is a great time for mobile devices/apps

Framing is powerful and fascinating game every spokesperson worth its money plays.<p>Steve Jobs talked a lot about fragmentation and brushed openness aside. Why then did Andy Rubin not talk about fragmentation but emphasize openness? Because he is not stupid, that’s why.<p>That’s what makes many of those public fights very frustrating to watch. In a perfect world humans wouldn’t get distracted by frames. They would be able to recognize that there is nearly always more than one aspect to a story.<p>It absolutely drives me crazy when, for example, so many advocates of nuclear power can only ever talk about CO2 and so many adversaries of nuclear power can only ever talk about safety and waste.

Another "great" example of this: the Corn Refiner's Association has applied to rebrand HFCS into "corn sugar."<p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100914/ap_on_bi_ge/us_corn_syrup_image" rel="nofollow">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100914/ap_on_bi_ge/us_corn_syru...</a>

I can totally see where framing this as integrated vs. fractured can happen. A coworker has an Android based phone and the latest update from the phone manufacturer killed the app she had to get to the corporate email account. 3 months in, the problem still isn't resolved. You end up with a gaggle of vendors all pointing the finger at each other as well as the app maker.<p>On my iPod Touch, I can get to the corporate email perfectly fine, through all of the iOS updates I've gotten.<p>Apple can test all of their base features and their apps and know that they work on every device they ship. It just works and it is integrated.

There are some great reads by the cited examples.<p>George Lakoff's (left) Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate - is a fascinating read regardless of your political beliefs. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressives/dp/1931498717" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-Progressive...</a><p>The Frank Luntz (right) example of death tax vs. estate tax is pretty well known. What he put together for the GOP about how to frame the bailouts/Wall St/financial reform/Obama admin this year is also a fascinating political document: <a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23808095/Language-of-Financial-Reform" rel="nofollow">http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23808095/Language-of-Financial-R...</a>

I really think the comparison with politicians is (probably unintentionally) disingenuous. The thing that would make reframing an argument in different terms dishonest is (a) when it is done without telling you- politicians don't say, look we don't like such and such term, we're going to call it this instead and (b) when the terms that it is reframed in have undue intrinsic positive or negative value.<p>When Steve did it, he clearly stated what he was doing and justified reframing the argument in that way. In that case, reframing a debate using more appropriate terms to really approach the core of what is different is an honest tactic that is often necessary to really compare two things objectively.<p>Secondly, the terms fragmented vs. integrated appear to have less intrinsic value than open (good) and closed (bad).<p>As such, you can argue with which is the most relevant framework to compare the two systems (and actually, this is going to be different for different user groups- manufacturers care about different things than developers, or end users), but I don't like the implicit characterization of his reframing the argument as somehow dishonest. That seems close-minded.

Except the debate isn't <i>open</i> vs. <i>closed</i>. It's <i>iOS</i> vs. <i>Android</i>. Since Jobs is trying to strengthen Apple's position in <i>that</i> debate, where's the foul?

We can also look at it as Apple viewing this from customer perspective (fragmented vs. integrated) and Google viewing this from production and development philosophy point of view. Which view is more relevant to a customer? (where a customer is your regular Joe/Jane)

Oldest trick in the book. It's good to see the tech industry catch up with what politicians discovered centuries ago.

Open and closed can mean so many things in this context. The whole debate really <i>needs</i> to be more semantically focused on what they mean to really make any sense.

The "real" real problem is not the carriers. Its the way the government manages the spectrum.<p>We could have a dynamic marketplace where devices, users, networks could buy spectrum in advance or real time and even resell it.<p>We need incentives for making the most use of spectrum, for making more spectrum with faster clocks. Seems we have incentives for controlling and inhibiting innovation.<p>Instead we've sold spectrum to the highest bidder who can then control access to it and have no real open competition. Maybe Google's bid last year will change that a bit (<a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9910932-7.html" rel="nofollow">http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9910932-7.html</a>).<p>You ought to be able to create your own network by buying spectrum in a fluid marketplace. Or just be one guy buying spectrum as you need it for some device you made yourself.<p>Don't if that all makes sense, but I think you may at least see what I mean by the problem behind the problem.

Growing up, my stepmother was very big on the power of words, and how you can change people's minds based on how you say a thing. She was right, of course... but to my mind, that seemed like protecting myself from this manipulation was more important (and more ethical) than using this knowledge to manipulate other people. For a long time, I'd practice re-writing everything I heard using words with the most negative connotations I could without changing the meaning of the sentence.<p>"I gave him a job, and his skills and abilities are helping my business do well." vs. "I am profitably exploiting his skills and abilities."<p>the meaning is essentially the same, but don't say the second one in public. (in my teenage years I tried that, too.. it ended badly.)<p>Anyhow, I don't spend as much effort on it as I did, but I still think being aware of this sort of thing is an important part of everyone's mental self-defense.

For those who would like to listen to exactly what Steve Jobs said, the audio is posted at <a href="http://www.apple.com/investor/" rel="nofollow">http://www.apple.com/investor/</a> and will probably be there for about 10 - 15 days.

I still remember how the Bush administration carefully worded some bills.<p>Healthy Forest Initiative - opens up more parks to the timber industry<p>Patriot Act - Who would dare say they are against Patriotism?

Apple could be much more open with iOS and at the same time be not less integrated. How does the whole AppStore policy make iOS more integrated?<p>When I am criticizing Apple for iOS not being open I mean it is not open to run any application that works on the device.<p>The Problem with iOS is that only Apple-Signed applications are allowed. Because of that, Apple has the power to keep the competition and the content they do not approve of out.

Their previous argument—"yes, it's open, but it sucks"—was less effective than this. It also said pretty much the same thing.

<i>We think the open versus closed argument is just a smokescreen to try and hide the real issue, which is, “What’s best for the customer – fragmented versus integrated?”</i><p>Sounds awfully familiar. Didn't they learn anything from the desktop wars in the 90's?

George Lakoff's class, "The Mind, Language, and Politics" (Cognitive Science C104) was my absolute favorite class at UC Berkeley. We read plenty of his work and Frank Luntz. I'm glad to see these ideas again!

Say what you may about Jobs, but you have to admire how he plays the game.

They stole my comment from earlier today: <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1807530" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1807530</a>

Jobs begs the question: Are the users actually the system integrators?<p>What does that even mean anyway?

Debating 101: Frame the argument.<p>Both sides of any argument do this. Google by calling it "open" which means more than it really does. Apple doesn't debate it's not open, it just debates that the results aren't any good because of the confusion of choices. "Open" is supposed to be a good thing, Apple doesn't believe it is.<p>But the fact is that Apple is crying about it, they're explaining why they made the decisions they made. They need to justify this to their investors. Google needs PR to make Android look good.<p>That's why people are "Pro Life" not anti-abortion. Do these guys read the news, maybe they just started?

How about "integrating" a phone that works into your phone.

There's a term for the kind of rephrasing used by Apple: "fear, uncertainty, and doubt"<p>There's another term: "propaganda"<p>I could probably rephrase the matter endlessly if I really wanted to.

How about Jobs misinterpreting a blog-post bij the makers of TweetDeck, by using it as an example of how terribly difficult it is for developers to write for the 'fragmented' android platform.<p>Just a little later the CEO of TweetDeck (@iaindodsworth) tweets this: "Did we at any point say it was a nightmare developing on Android? Errr nope, no we didn't. It wasn't."<p>Help me out, is this a typical case of 'FUD'?