This is Gruber at his best. He correctly points out that the distinction people (including me) seem to be drawing is basically an arbitrary one.
I think the more abstract distinction comes from what each company wants you to do with their products, though. Apple wants you to use their hardware. What you use it for doesn't matter so much as you using it, and every decision they make, including leveraging the cloud, is informed by this.
Google, on the other hand, wants you to use the web, because the web is where they get paid. And the web is where we connect to each other.
Google's model makes that connection its fundamental primary motivation, while for Apple, the connection is incidental, just another feature.
Apple wants you to use their hardware. What you use it for doesn't matter so much as you using it
This is unfortunately less true than it used to be. It matters to Apple if you want to run unapproved software on an iPad, or heaven forbid install Linux on it. I expect these restrictions will be coming to Macs over the next few years.
Google, on the other hand, wants you to use the web
Google wants you to use Google services and see ads that make Google money. They don't especially care whether that means web apps with AdSense ads or native apps with AdMob.
It matters to Apple if you want to run unapproved software on an iPad, or heaven forbid install Linux on it.
Doesn't it make more sense that Apple is trying to build a large and consumer friendly platform (approved apps) and that it would be an unjustifiable expense to support installing alternative OSes (Linux)?
Why is there always the assumption of nefarious motivations when it's more simply explained? They are only trying to make money, after all.
> I expect these restrictions will be coming to Macs over the next few years.
I doubt it - iOS has only got less restrictive over time (From no 3rd party apps, to 3rd party apps in Objective-C, C++ and C, to 3rd party apps in any language)... Why would they would go in the opposite direction on the Mac and alienate all their current Mac users?
I think the more abstract distinction comes from what each company wants you to do with their products, though. Apple wants you to use their hardware. What you use it for doesn't matter so much as you using it, and every decision they make, including leveraging the cloud, is informed by this.
Google, on the other hand, wants you to use the web, because the web is where they get paid. And the web is where we connect to each other.
Google's model makes that connection its fundamental primary motivation, while for Apple, the connection is incidental, just another feature.