\n\nOf course not.\n\nIt struck me, while reading one of several pieces about how iOS6 is a direct attack on Google by Apple (I omit to link a piece from BusinessInsider along similar lines), that at bottom Apple vs. Google isn't about \"proprietary\" vs. \"open\" but two different fundamentally different approaches to customer service. Or to put it more crudely: people vs. robots.\n\nGoogle likes building robotic money trees. What it wants to do is build a giant appliance that, assuming you keep it running, causes money to appear in its bank accounts. It likes working on that machine. It likes refining that machine. It likes thinking of different machines it could make that would also make money. It has no problem with hiring people who invent or build or improve or maintain robotic money trees. What it doesn't like is hiring people who do other stuff.\n\nAs far as big businesses go, at the other extreme is the Disney theme park business. The ratio of Disney staff to visitors in Disney theme parks is huge. I don't know the number, but it's really, really high. Disney's hotels are well-staffed, and the people don't seem to be overwhelmed by the volume of work. The theme parks are full of people selling stuff, making sure no-one has an accident, finding lost children/parents, juggling, searching backpacks for weapons, and so forth. And as soon as the park shuts down a huge number of people show up to clean and maintain everything. And, as far as I can tell, these people are all working for Disney.\n\nAll these people need to be recruited, trained, supervised, paid, provided with benefits, and so on. Some of them are highly paid content creatives, some are engineers, some are aspiring actors making money by dressing up as Goofy, there are chefs and painters and plumbers and electricians and janitors. Disney has made a bunch of gigantic machines that make money appear in its bank accounts (the theme parks are relentlessly profitable) but these machines need to be maintained, cleaned, watched, and staffed with people who help older folks onto and off of vehicles, stop people from falling off trains, and so on. And all of these people need to look nice, behave well, and show up on time. It's like Google's worst nightmare.\n\nWhen Google released its Nexus phone one of the problems that became obvious immediately was that Google had absolutely no plan in place to provide after-sales service for the phones. When the problem became unmanageable, Google simply decided to stop selling phones rather than attempt to solve the problem. It hasn't tried again. Compare that to (the old) Microsoft's approach to entering a product space: ship what you've got, fix the obvious problems, repeat as required until you own the market.\n\nApple is by no means as extreme as Disney — in his NeXT days Steve Jobs loved robotic factories — but Apple is relentlessly focused on customer experience, and it takes an expansive view of what that means. This isn't something unique to Apple-under-Steve-Jobs either. Apple's marketing people at the height of the John Sculley era would explain that, just as with car makers, marketing a product involves understanding the customer's post-purchase experience from honeymoon phase through happiness to dissatisfaction. Talk to any recent Apple user and chances are that they're just as likely to be thrilled by how Apple handled a bad situation (e.g. fixing or replacing a broken device) as a good one. \"It wasn't under warranty but the guy at the genius bar just fixed it for me for free.\" Similarly, during a recent family trip to Disneyworld, my wife and one of my twins fell and got cut up — the way Disney's hotel staff handled everything turned what could have been a depressing end to a vacation into yet another story we'll tell people about how great Disneyworld is.\n\nYou don't see many people using Android tablets out in the wild, but I've absolutely never ever heard of a great Google (or Samsung) customer service story.\n\nAll of this customer service doesn't come free. You need to hire, train, and feed the people who do it. Because their time is valuable you try to avoid wasting it. What's the main source of frustrations for users and what's the most effective way to address it? Can't figure out how to use a feature? Simplify or eliminate it. Don't know how to do software updates? Make them automatic. Worried about malware? Prevent it altogether. Can't find key functionality? Lock down key parts of the user interface. Google can, and sometimes does, address these problems. But sometimes the answer will be \"hire someone to help with that\", and then Google baulks.\n\nA prime example of this is the App approval process. Apple at some point decided that the only way to keep malware out of the App Store was to train people to check submissions manually.\n\nNew York City requires street vendors and cab drivers to be licensed and runs it own anti-Terrorist unit — no doubt Android boosters would call it a \"walled garden\". Creating a process like this that requires people to do stuff is thorny. It is imperfect. There will be errors. People will complain. Based on past performance, Google will respond to this by either (a) not doing it, or (b) trying it, failing, and then opting not to do it.\n\nTaking a big and thorny problem that obviously could be solved by hiring and training a lot of people and choosing to solve it by hiring and training a lot of people (rather than ignore or implement a half-assed automated solution) is not something we used to associate with Apple. Seeing Apple take on this task in 2008 was almost as surprising as it would be to see Google try something similar today.\n\nIf you look at the earlier battle — if you can even call it that — between Google and Yahoo!, which Google clearly won, this was also a war between a company that likes building giant robot money factories and a company that hires people to do stuff. The problem here was that Google built a machine that was clearly much better at doing the things it did, i.e. indexing the web, than people were. The fact that Google's robots before people strategy was so clearly correct for Search and that it won its war against Yahoo! (et al) so convincingly has perhaps made it immune to sometimes compelling arguments in favor of people. Thus its lack of customer service (not just for Android but all its various services).\n\nUsability at its best needs to be holistic. You don't make life easier for some people by making life harder for others if you can avoid it. But if you can't avoid it, you make life more difficult for people yourself or the people you pay, rather than people who pay you. A classic example of this is the iOS SDK. Is developing an iOS app harder than, say, developing an Android app, or a Windows Phone 7 app? Probably, but it doesn't matter: developers chiefly care about how much they'll be paid, not whether they had to do more typing.\n\nYou may assume from all this that I'm pro-Apple and anti-Google. Well, I am, but this isn't the reason why. I actually have enormous sympathy for Google's robotic money tree approach to making money, but I've found that in practice, for me, it doesn't work well. E.g. RiddleMeThis is a fine product (well, sometimes) but without customer service and documentation it's a useless pile of bits, and to the extent that I want it to be a robotic money tree and not an exercise in business development and user support, it hasn't been much of a commercial success.\n\nIt seems to me that when Apple started opening up Apple Stores it grew up as a company. To be a gigantic world-spanning company you need to suck it up and stop being afraid of dealing with people who don't work on robot money making machines all day. Google is younger and hasn't grown up yet. Once it grows up and starts hiring people to deal with other people it will be able to handle selling products to actual people. Imagine if Google hired people to clean up its business listings, or provide support for users of its various products. Google could sell Android Phones, GoogleTVs, and self-driving cars itself rather than rely on third parties to make the products and subtract value from them by not providing updates or adding bloatware or whatever.","$updatedAt":"2024-06-05T09:10:30.276+00:00",path:"is-new-york-a-walled-garden-",_created:"2024-07-09T20:29:33.511Z",id:"4791",_modified:"2024-07-09T20:29:33.511Z","$id":"4791",_path:"post/path=is-new-york-a-walled-garden-"},"page/path=blog":{path:"blog",css:"",imageUrl:"",prefetch:[{regexp:"^\\/(([\\w\\d]+\\/)*)([\\w-]+)\\/?$",path:"post/path=[3]"}],tags:["public"],source:"",title:"",description:"",_path:"page/path=blog"}}