I was reading some articles from a few tech pundits this past week, following Apple’s product event in October. In the mix, I somehow found an old article that attempted to compare Google and Apple’s business models. The article made a few decent points, but it didn’t really offer anything amazing.
But then I began to think about the various church models that exist in the West, particularly the US, and I think I found a neat way of looking at them, from a tech perspective. That said, let’s take a look at Google and Apple’s differing approaches to their mobile platform as a way of comparing two of the more common church models, attractional and missional.
Google & The Attractional Church—Open, Free, Divided
I know that I have a reputation as an Apple fan boy, and that’s a fair criticism. However, I’m not blind I what Google does right. In fact, I prefer Google’s cloud services to Apple’s iCloud. Of course, they aren’t entirely comparable, but despite, Google just does it better. Anyway, on to the critique.
Google, it seems, strives to be open to everyone, no matter what platform they are on. This, no doubt, stems from their early days as “just” a search engine. Google, at its core, is still essentially web-based. Of course, Android is its own platform, but the tools and services that Google touts so heavily are still open to everyone. If you will give Google a piece of your life, if you will let it in in some way, then that’s enough for them. Are you a Windows user or an Apple fan boy? That’s fine. Google will meet you where you are. You don’t have to convert, just entrust a part of your digital heart to Mountain View. Of course, Google wants you to adopt its brand in its entirety, but in the end, it would rather have some allegiance than none.
To that end, Google is free. There is very little cost associated with Google. Yes, there are areas in which Google takes money (Google Play, Google Docs for Businesses, premium Google Drive plans, etc.), but the vast majority of what Google offers is free or “priced to move.” Chromebooks are some of the cheapest laptops on the market. Android-based phones and tablets are generally cheaper (even “much cheaper”) than comparable Apple products.
To me, this is Google’s attempt to lower the threshold for investment. It’s easy to step inside the door of Google’s mobile ecosystem. And for that matter, when you’re inside, the cost to advance remains low as well—Android apps are also cheaper (of free) when compared with iOS apps.
Of course, all of this low-threshold, “come as you are” freedom leads to division. Everyone is on their own platform, their own hardware, their own mission. Even though it’s the “same” service Windows users experience Google differently than Apple and Android users. And what about the mobile experience? Every Android phone is different. There’s no unity. Not in the experience—either positive or negative—nor in the mission, as each device is built for with different styles, sensibilities, and/or purposes in mind.
The Attractional Church
This makes me think of attractional churches. They try their best to lower the threshold for belonging, desiring to meet everyone where they are. They don’t want to give individuals a reason to “not belong,” so they keep the cost of “investing” low as well. (I know I sound a bit critical here, but I’m trying to be clear that this is how such a church model appears to those who haven’t adopted it.) Google offer a wide variety of services that are all fabulously integrated—they’re is something for everyone, and it’s all connected! Attractional churches do something similar. They offer dozens of entry-level activities (i.e. sports leagues, educational/child care services, family-friendly events, etc.) aimed at bringing outsiders in. Once they come in, successful attractional churches invite them to “buy in” to some other programs and services that will help bring them further into the fold. However, like Google, attractional churches are divided. Everyone has their own entry point by which they found the church, and once they’re there, they have their program or ministry that appeals to them. The church is divided, which isn’t to say that it’s in conflict, just that it isn’t united on a singular, focused mission.
Apple & The Missional Church—Exclusive, Invested, United
Where Google is open to anyone, anywhere joining them in anyway, Apple is a bit more exclusive. Sure, they let Windows and Android user have iPhones and iPads and such, but remember way back to the first generation or two of iPods? They were Mac OS only. Unlike Google, Apple doesn’t offer it’s browser, Safari, on any platform except its own. Any cross-platform cooperation is done begrudgingly. Apple wants you to join them completely. Their stance is essentially,
“Thou shalt not have any other tech loyalties besides us.”
Understand, Apple doesn’t have a “closed” system compared to Google’s “open.” The distinction is that Google is open for a causal relationship, accepting whatever level of commitment you’re willing to give. Apple, however, wants exclusivity. They’ll let you get away with having an iOS device on a Windows system, but that’s only because having an iOS device is the best way for you to be seduced by their ever-enticing app ecosystem. Time and again, we hear that, even though iOS apps are generally more expensive than Android apps, iOS users, on average, buy more apps. Why is this? Well, the article I read conjectured that it was because Apple has courted users with a higher socioeconomic index (SEI). This may be true, but let’s look at it another way. Could we say that Apple courts those who are willing to invest? It creates an exclusive culture with inward momentum, encouraging and enticing its users to more and more commitment, asking them to invest more of themselves (and their money) into the system itself.
Beyond the exclusivity and the heightened levels of investment, iOS users are generally united in their experience. iOS is iOS whether the device is tethered to a PC or a Mac. (Sure, there may be some issues with that tethered PC, but those are relatively limited these days.) The united experience makes Apple feel less like a brand and more like a collective or a family. This unity—whether real, imagined, or merely exaggerated—makes it easier to for Apple to create a culture of mission.
Is Apple really on a mission? You bet there are. They’re trying to conquer the world of consumer electronics. Not as lofty a goal as a missional church, but nonetheless, it’s just as real. However, that isn’t the mission that Apple’s communicating to its users. No, Apple, rather shrewdly, tries to join its users on their individual missions. (Granted, the analogy between the missional church and Apple begins to break down here, but I’m going to tie this point in later.) Now, if I remember correctly, at their October iPad/Mac event, Apple presented a sampling of content created upon/work being done with the iPad. In a way, Apple co-opts the individual missions of its users. To some, this makes it feel like Apple is on a mission with them. To others, it seems like arrogant self-aggrandizing. Either way, whether it’s posturing or genuine, Apple wants its users to feel united in a mission to create cool stuff.
Tomorrow, I’ll outline a third approach: The best of both worlds.
Chris Wilson says
Interesting comparison Phil. I heard someone describing Google’s approach to Android as a way to commoditize smartphone, to make them so ubiquitous that everyone has access to Google’s services and so will become Google users, which is in contrast to Apple.
However, Apple has some interesting gateways for PC users to entice them in, iTunes (that was my first music downloading service), iPods (especially the nanos back in the day for runners) so as you say it’s not a complete dichotomy but Apple certainly has a higher barrier to entry.
Interestingly I think that now there are die hard Google/android fanboys even though they don’t have as high barrier to entry.
Anyway back to churches, The “Google example” makes me think of the churches with different types of services for different ages where people may never cross paths (google plus circles?) whereas an “apple church” has everyone in with the same service.
Just some thoughts, I’m looking forward to the follow up.
BTW Safari can be used on a Windows PC as well as OS.
Phil Schneider says
Good point about the circles and the separate services, Chris. I hadn’t thought of either of those ideas.
I think Safari was last updated for Windows XP. Having an old version hanging on really isn’t the same as offering their browser for PC users.