Originally Posted by nofear1az
I think this model will work for both Google (open) and Apple (closed). Why? because, They both are very smart and innovative companies and both implement their ideas differently. Google's always been about simplicity and fast (noun). Look at Google.com and their other apps they have made. Always simple but very effective; while Apple's is about simplicity and design both in one package. Design always costs more. I feel there is room for both models here.
But the thing about Google web services is that they don't have to do that much, in and of themselves. Yeah, search is pretty straightforward, but Google has never had to figure out how to move seamlessly from search to maps to Picasa and back, and make it all feel part of a whole.
And even within those basic parameters, the interfaces aren't anything to write home about. Go click on "advanced search" on the Google page and you get the basic Google style: everything they thought you could use, put in columns on a page, with pretty much zero style or elegance.
Is that "simple"? Only in the sense that a textbook is simple, that is, utterly unadorned with any thought towards actually enjoyment or ease of use. I think the Google style could charitably be called "Stalinist"-- none of that decadent "fun" for them.
I don't think this is the flip side to Apple's "stylish, but expensive" coin. There are already plenty of free phones with grimly spartan UIs, and they're really hard to use. Not caring about design doesn't automatically mean "pragmatic". It can also mean "not a very good user experience".
Of course, that's why they acquired Android-- to get some people in-house who have actually done UI stuff-- but as I have mentioned elsewhere, that apparently means Andy Rubin, who has never had a particularly successful product, despite many years of trying.
Honestly, reading over some of the responses around the web (and on other threads here), I'm mystified as to why the idea of Google doing an OS has some people all lit up. They have never made anything that suggests they are good at this. Not one thing.
Does their track record in the area they propose to revolutionize not mean anything at all? Is there just something about "Google-ness" that somehow imparts magic? Because I'm definitely not seeing it.