3rd party websites that do this instead aren't really the point, either.
Regardless, I think your exhibit is more easily explained by Apple understanding exactly who is likely to spend money and making them want to be their customers. I'm a huge Debian fanatic, but I have to admit that the linux users are the most tight-fisted demographic I've ever seen.
This seems to suggest the exact opposite of what you just said: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28471/Humble_Indie_Bundle...
2) There is not much commercial software for sale for Linux at all, so I guess there is a chicken and egg problem.
3) Of course you will sell less Linux copies of a piece of software. There are less Linux users.
But to say Linux users are comparatively tight-fisted compared to users of other OSes, I'm not sure how you come up with that, Personnally, I'd buy a lot more games if they simply worked in Ubuntu... And if iTunes worked on Linux I'd buy more music there.
It's slightly different from the iTunes situation, but the same case can be made for Mobile me services. On any iOS device you won't be able to access mobile me (mail, calendar, address book, gallery) through the browser, you have to set it up locally and use the native applications.
Mobile me is for people who by definition spent money upfront on the service, and people using iOS devices are the customers. So far it's been a pita to deal with their lack of support for mobile safari access.
My daughter got an iPod touch for Christmas and I was shocked that it's just a useless brick until connected to a computer. I had to bring her laptop to Christmas (and hide it) so she could use her shinny new toy once it was out of the package.
Can you not download podcasts on the iPhone over the cell network? I have 3rd gen iPod touch and it lets me download podcasts over wifi.
Part of the reason so much online activity shifted to the web in the web 1.0 era was that the browser sidestepped the problems of distributing and updating client applications.
With its app stores, Apple has solved these problems, and put applications back on an equal footing with web apps.
Whether or not this is is the winning strategy over the long term remains to be seen, but I think it's hard to make the case that Apple doesn't understand the internet.
Just as Google has tried to do with its search engine, Apple is building a system that makes it easy to find quality content. Content that is legal, age rated and doesn't harm your devices. A lot of families value those qualities over 'absolute freedom'.
I'd say that Apple doesn't just not understand the Internet, but at a higher level, it doesn't understand communication. Look at the iOS notification system: it is, and always has been, fundamentally broken. It assumes you'll only get a single notification, and that that notification is so important that it should interrupt your current app to get it.
Apple have been selling computers in phone formats. Android, Microsoft, and especially Palm, are selling you communicators, that pulls in data from all over your communication space and centralizes it. Apple doesn't seem to know how to do this (or assumes most people don't have an online persona in various locations, which I think most people really do).
The article was about Apple trying to control how people interact with content on the internet. The author feels that that's against the nature of the internet, hence: "Apple doesn't understand the internet".
Microsoft is (or was) really good at backwards compatibility (and making it easy to import other formats into their own). This is their weakness: they are focused on getting content into their own formats.
Facebook's strength is to get people to impart information into their system. Their weakness is in always trying to make it public (or at the least visible to anyone you friend)
Microsoft is very good at understanding the median user. Their sweet spot is good enough to justify paying rather than reassuringly expensive, and they impress users with feature lists and [sometimes illusory] choice over usability and extensibility. As a result their products can be pretty horrible for beginners and power users alike, and their blindness towards early adopters leaves them paying catchup in markets like smartphones
Facebook's strength is addictiveness; they understand how to get eyeballs in. Their weakness is a failure to add much value to users' lives beyond voyeurism and distraction.
Has anyone ever actually said this? Between the logo doodles, April fools jokes, and bright colors, Google is one of the funnest companies around.
Pretty sure people have been working on this problem for a while, and it won't be solved anytime soon.
The data is not the problem, the communication medium is not the problem, the issue is the control over the distribution channel.
Personally, my strategy is to create my product as a REST web service and provide some kind of default web interface, but let native clients use the REST interface to provide a nicer experience where applicable. I.e. the HTML interface is just one possible "view" to the service.
Why does my native app have to be the completely generic web browser native app when it could be a specific "web browser" custom tailored for my specific service?
It's not that Apple doesn't understand the internet, it's that many geeks want "native" apps, rather than having web apps on mobile devices. Apple tolerates these apps, but just barely, and offers the web as the way out of their walled garden.
Geeks wanting native apps, and Apple reluctantly going along may have been the case when the iPhone & App Store first began, but Apple has long since realized that the app channel is very valuable to users and to the platform, and that control over that channel will be hugely profitable.
If Apple really wanted to have webapps be first class iOS citizens, they would provide Phonegap capabilities standardized in the native browser (http://www.phonegap.com/).
The app store didn't get to be a huge success by appealing to geeks. Native apps really do have significant advantages over web apps (and vice versa).
Apple have made huge contributions to the internet, such as Webkit, promoting web standards, the iPhone and yes, even the iTunes store - still the biggest internet-based media distribution channel.
I think the OSX/Mac overall experience is the best out there, beating Ubuntu 10.10 and W7. (Reliability, programmer-friendliness, 'normal' programs).
If Facebook succeeds in social, at least in part because of its attention to order and organization, why is this fatal for Google?
Microsoft is really good at B2B.
Facebook has a great email replacement because it does not fill your inbox with your friend's vacation photos, but still provides the opportunity to view them.
For Microsoft its simple. They understand customers, and they understand that avg customer never needs over-excellence in product. So, they would never be creative like apple, or tech-savvy like google. Its sad, but the software giant will never be upto the mark when it comes to driving technology and innovations.
But, iTools was great when it was around. Way ahead of its time and free! When they went to subscription model I think most early adopters had a hard time justifying the price when you could get hotmail for nothing.
