Originally Posted by jragosta
If anyone ever needed proof that the Mac bashers around here have no idea what they're talking about, this is it in a nutshell.
For Apple, User Experience IS about money.
Simple Marketing 101 lesson. Pay attention.
What does Apple have to sell?
-They certainly don't have network effects.
- They don't have unique hardware (note: their hardware is far, far better than MOST of the PCs being sold out there which is part of the reason why Apple has such high satisfaction scores, but there is other high quality hardware if you want to pay for it).
- They don't have a cost advantage
What they have is a vastly superior, consistent UI. That is the driving force which has created customer loyalty and which make the iPhone the fastest selling (at launch) electronic device EVER. When you have that kind of market advantage in such a competitive market, you don't let go of it. EVER. You fiercely defend your turf and do not allow anyone to interfere with it. That is essentially why the developer rules say you can't replace Apple's UI.
Arguing that 'it's only UI' indicates nothing more than your complete and utter lack of understanding of how the market works.
You must be new to the Mac community. Apple has a great UI, but it has often been inconsistent. Not to point out an utter lack of understanding, but this post is full of them...where to start...
1) Apples rules say you can't replace Apple's UI. Now, do you mean you think they say you cannot replace, as in remove and substitute your own? Or that may not offer an alternative? Or both? To help you, there are many approved apps that provide UIs to functions that Apple offers. Dialers, SMS apps, calendars, contacts..you name it. A GV App would have 'replaced' the Apple UI in the sense that it would offer an alternative. Obviously, if it replaced actual UI elements (i.e. parts of the OS) then it would have been rejected. Apple says it was not yet rejected. Go figure. Also, Apple's own description of the 'replacing' of Apple's interface by GV makes it clear that all it does is offer an alternative. I think the chose the word 'replace' to intentionally confuse the simple.
2)The OS is very important, but the UI is only a part of that and not the most important part. Just look at how often the tweak and change the Mac OSX UI. Sometimes aesthetics are just aesthetics. Their OS is robust, scalable, secure and fully buzzword compliant, but the OS and certainly not the UI are alone in being responsible for their success, though that are a part (just a part)
Their success has mainly been due to implementation and delivery. Whether it is the OS, their apps, their acessories, the iPhone, etc, it is their tight control and obsession with perfection that has made them a success...oh and Jobs ability to sell anything. On could also argue a large factor has been their integration of hardware and software, but they are hardly unique in the aspect. On the desktop side, everyone was selling integrated units when Apple was young. Apple's was just better. On the phone side, obviously there are competitors selling integrated units. Again, Apple just does it better.
3) Apple would strongly argue, and have for years, that they do have a cost advantage. TCO, ROI, whatever, they like to project a competitive level. Btu you know better than Apple?
4) Up until a few years ago, they sold very unique hardware (PPC). Even now, with the PA Semi acquisition they have openly discussed developing custom chips, potentially for the iPhone. But again, you know better?