Apple is professional, the web is amateur

I think you're correct that Apple is going to have to do things differently get some of their web properties to catch on, but I disagree heavily on your premise.<p>For a counterexample, Facebook is professional-looking and very structured compared to MySpace, which in turn is very amateurish-feeling.<p>There isn't any question which is preferred.<p>Forums are amateurish. Stackoverflow is professional. I know where I'm going for Q&#38;A.<p>I think there's a lot more to Apple's problems than professionalism vs amateurism, to the point where it is a minor point, if one at all.<p>I'm very wary against sayings like "the web is about amateur content." The web is about <i>a lot of things,</i> and while a lot of the web is about amateur content, a lot of the web is also about providing good structure, order, and execution to that content. In general, it even seems to be that the company that can put the most order unto the all of the content reaps the greatest success.

&#62; If Apple's going to succeed at the web, they have to unlearn a lot of what makes them Apple. No more pixel perfect web apps that feel like desktop apps, no more sites that look like glossy brochures, and embracing chaos and amateurism over order and professionalism<p>Here is yet another argument based on the premise that, in order for Apple to succeed, it must do the same thing as everyone else. We have heard the same argument about desktop computers (license Mac OS; be like Microsoft), mobile (make cheap phones; be like Nokia), and now with the web.<p>In a sea of amateurs, being professional is not exactly a bad thing.

<p><pre><code> "But wait a second," you say. "What about iLife? Isn't that all about amateur content?" Not quite. iLife helps normal people create things that feel professional. </code></pre> This is the definition of amateur. Notably, you can spot things done in their software, Keynote being a glaring example. It has made a template of what a presentation is supposed to look like on a mac.<p>See when Jobs gives a keynote using Keynote wearing a black turtleneck, we recognize this signature. When your boss holds a meeting with a presentation in keynote with that same or similarly light faded colour background and bold white text, you recognize this as imitation.<p>Apple have fantastic engineers and fantastic designers and their products reflect a culture that prides craftsmanship, detail and perfection. But to say the web is amateur is to deny the wealth of originality and expression that spreads from it. Youtube has a direct cam to site, record and upload thing going because it enables people to be expressive. They keyword here is "enable" and it's in their advantage to promote the creating of original content by focusing on the enabling factors.<p>I think the article addresses the problem in a flawed perspective. Facebook being a good counter example. The problem with Apple is probably better tied with their culture. Apple is not social, and until they socialize they will not know what it takes to enable socializing.<p>A lot of people here are pointing out that MySpace was the amateur failure of the social web, further getting away from idea that social success == amateur, but let's not forget that MySpace was once, many years ago, "the shit" and only got its pedestal kicked out from under it when other sites offered better enabling factors (read: features) to socialize between friends. Sure, MySpace was fuck ugly, because not everyone's creativity is equal! but to say everyone switched to facebook solely because facebook looked more professional? I don't take that. (eh, i guess it was built better to - damn myspace always had fucking down time - whatever)

The salient point in this article aside (I agree with the author that Apple doesn't get the P2P nature of the web), I think Ping failed for a different reason:<p>I don't trust Apple knowing what music I have (ripped). They are too close to the recording industry which has spent years suing everyday folks like me to prop up their dying business model.<p>Sure, I know Apple won't "turn me in" (would be bad for business) for my shady music collection (most of which is NOT available in the US, btw) but I don't want to take the chance.<p>The fact that Apple seems to segregate the "professionals/industry" from the "amatuers/consumers" only adds to the dilemma that Ping has yet to resolve.

Apple is driven by a philosophy of <i>design</i>, like industrial design and graphic design, but not necessarily craftsmanship, although craftsmanship often goes into design.<p>As long as Steve Jobs is alive, Apple won't give up on design. Design is what sets Apple apart, not craftsmanship. It's why you see the Macintosh in the MoMA but not a Compaq.

Spot on about Ping. It should have been a service where anyone can be an artist, and everyone is a listener. Artists could share their content for free. And there should have been a web based application.

Its common knowledge that Apple doesn't understand the web?

"Blemish free" .... guy obviously has never used iTunes.

Beneath the cruft (i.e., Apple products should have less polish, Apple hates amateurs), I think there's a kernel of truth, especially related to their approach to social networking. Can we expect Kayne West to use Ping like Twitter? Probably not, but it's an interesting thought.<p>Do remember that many of Apple's products (e.g., iMovie, iWeb) are <i>designed</i> for everyday people to create content that is fairly professional-looking. I'd argue that, to a certain degree, Apple has done more to raise the bar of content quality than Instagram or YouTube (which have lowered the bar to entry). Those aren't exclusive approaches, merely different value propositions.

Apple has tried amateur. The were very early out the gate with the podcast directory through iTunes. I think they were hoping that Podcasts + AppleTV would be an end-run around the cable companies and content providers.<p>Turns out, not enough people wanted amateur podcasts. I'd wager that the easily availability of paid Hollywood content drives far more people to the iTunes ecosystem than the free and easily availability of podcasts.<p>So I think their experience indicates their customers value professionalism.

The one downside to this difference - low quantity. It's not so noticeable with Apple, but someone else with constantly high quality, Daft Punk, have done so little, five albums by my count.

I was buying this article until I read the line about Apple dropping everything that constitutes why Apple is "Apple." Pixel-perfect design and a professional ethic are exactly why Apple is recognized as one of the most prolific companies (and brands) in the world. If I want to see loose, ragged, amateur content, I know where to go. There's nothing wrong with sterility if it's done properly and given purpose. In this case, to promote a more professional existence (not a bad thing).

And yet if you zoom out just a little, people seem to be buying more and more equipment from Apple to produce and consume the "amateur" content of the web.

On the web, PHP is professional. iWeb makes it easy to imitate professional trends (you said it yourself: just like Apple's website). Likewise, GarageBand is mostly used as a quick and dirty way to imitate professionally produced music, although there is a lot more truth to the "Apple = professional" boast in that industry.

I don't agree that youtube is about amateur content. Sometimes my friends upload interesting videos to youtube or someone links to a mildly amusing clip like MyDrunkKitchen. However, most of the youtube links I see go to professionally produced content such as music videos, news clips, or comedy shows.

Apple is too professional to get the amateurish web.. pfff what kind of non scene is that? As if web companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. were a bunch of disorganized slackers and that is somehow more successful on the net. Weird associations like that remind me of arguing with high people.

This dichotomy is incorrect. We shouldn't be focusing on professionals vs. amateurs.<p>I think it's more useful to realise that Apple is controlling .. the web is (largely) open. Or to put it another way; Apple want to set norms .. the web wants crowds to set norms.

I'm glad I actually read the article. Given the title I was all set to either ignore or flag. As it stands, I agree whole-heartedly with the message. Yes, there are things to quibble about, but overall it provides food for thought.

technology is amateur. technology probably shouldn't be analyzed by analog methodologies either.<p>how apple(substitute any company) 'catches on' can be derived from <a href="http://ow.ly/59Maa" rel="nofollow">http://ow.ly/59Maa</a>. our perception isn't as important as the ubiquity of that which is available to perceive.<p>apple properties will catch on as long as they don't go out of business or lose the power to shout about their products(though this probably sits under the former).

iMovie and iPhoto are professional? Woooooooooooooooooooooooow

&#62; It's common knowledge that Apple doesn't get the web in general and social in particular.<p>It is?<p>&#62; In iMovie, you can take your professional looking photos and stitch them together with the Ken Burns effect. The name says it all right there.<p>So you acknowledge that iLife is a counter to your point, and your only refutation is that there is a Ken Burns effect? I don't get it.<p>The premise of this very short article seems to be that, because Apple includes some professionally-made templates and used stock photos in a keynote, they don't get amateur content. iLife is the biggest counter to this argument. Apple does try to make sure that amateur content doesn't look or sound too shitty, but how does that mean they don't understand amateur content at all? It just means they're removing the boring work for the average user who doesn't want to spend an hour making a theme look good. Apple totally gets amateur content. They want every kid with an iPad to be recording music in Garageband.<p>The amateur content argument is weak and doesn't support the social argument. As for Ping, I never understood the hatred for it as it was always clearly just a way to see the music people were buying and not some major social network competitor. I've used it to browse a few people and found new albums I liked. It did its job in my case.<p>Facebook was the clean, professional-looking, easier-to-use alternative to the chaotic and amateurish MySpace. The idea that Apple must embrace amateur chaos just doesn't make sense to me and seems like it would be the wrong thing to do. Apple is the kind of company that is often a few years behind but eventually releases something so polished and easy to use that it's successful anyway.

I only have one thing to say: me.com

More trolling on HN I see! The Web is professional, it's the developer who blogged about this story that is an amateur.<p>Just because he doesn't know what he's doing, now the web is amateurish? These nerd-rage blog posts are just noobs venting that 'they don't get it'.