Completely agree. I'm not exactly an apple fanboy, but I do love my iPad, and there isn't yet a competitor's device I'd want to replace it with (although I'm hoping BlackBerry's will change that).
If he had come out and given all the ways that the iPad 2 is better than the iPad, I'd have been impressed. But spending half the time criticising competitors just came across as the kind of tacky tactic that really shouldn't be needed unless you're trying to catch up to them - not if you're trying to prevent them from catching up to you.
Oh, and that's just for the attacking competitors. Going even further than that, and attacking them with incorrect spin, way too far.
Allow me to appropriate a quotation from a person who's legacy Apple has had no shame appropriating for marketing: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
Allow me to appropriate a quotation from a person who's legacy Apple has had no shame appropriating for marketing: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
While I agree with you that Apple's use of Gandhi in their ads is just about the most shamelessly incongruent marketing ever, Gandhi never said "First they ignore you etc." It comes from a speech made by someone called Nicholas Klein to a garment workers' union circa 1915. Oddly enough, the original Google Books citation I found for this no longer yields the phrase in search. But it appears in this (garbled but recognizable) digitization of the primary source:
Of course you realize how easy it is to apply that quote to completely absurd things, e.g. the Flat Earth Society or pretty much anyone who has reached the ridicule stage. It gets significantly harder as you go along (ignored, ridiculed, fought, victory), and the first two are relatively easy...
It's basically a rallying cry for the severe underdog (which I don't think Android is in this case).
I seem to recall the iPad being pretty roundly ridiculed as 'just a big iPod touch' no USB, no flash, etc. etc, and I hear plenty of ridicule from the Xoom crowd.
What's the rule in this situation? Does the one who ridicules first lose, or the one who ridicules the most?
It about how power behaves when threatened. The iPad was a challenge to the dominant netbook model. The Xoom crowd isn't at the top, but android is surging, so they're just noise at this point. Apple's at the top. That's the key difference. Ridiculing Android means that it's progressed to the point that they can't ignore them.
I don't disagree, though I would say plenty of things which are ridiculed are done so with good cause and don't get anywhere near the fighting or winning stage.
Just because you're being ridiculed doesn't mean you're on the right track, it might just mean that you're genuinely worthy of ridicule.
(Note: I'm not suggesting that Android is worthy of ridicule, just saying the fact that someone chooses to ridicule you says little about what might happen next).
I think this is a sign that they're running scared a lot more than they're letting on.
It's only a matter of time before the iPad style tablet becomes commoditized. Quite a few years ago, Apple was one of the design leaders in the laptop space, then others caught up, more or less. The same thing happened in the smartphone space. The same thing will happen to tablets. In a way, they are subject to the same forces that Nokia is desperately trying to escape, except Apple has been smart and positioned themselves on the forefront of each wave, where it will lift them up. Nokia rode their wave too long.
Will Apple become a victim of their own success? Yes.
For the record, though, I think Steve Job's "reality distortion field" is sometimes actually an anti-distortion field. I think the consensus reality has some significant distortions, which he's good at seeing through. Then again, everyone who isn't Steve might have a hard time knowing which polarity the field is set to at any given moment.
> Quite a few years ago, Apple was one of the design leaders in the laptop space, then others caught up, more or less. The same thing happened in the smartphone space.
Who are these companies? Seriously. Have you used an Apple product side by side with a non Apple equivalent? Does any company come close to the build quality or original design of Apple?
If other companies are almost catching up, it still means they are behind, and, worse, just riding on Apple's success without much idea of why they are successful.
I can't speak for design, I know most people think that Thinkpads look ugly, however regarding build quality I own a Thinkpad T500 I bought 2 years ago and I have:
+Dropped it way more times than I can count, usually while closed and turned off but also while it was running, and while it was open (both running and not).
+Totally stood on it, putting my full weight on the closed lid many times.
+Left it running in my closed backpack for almost an hour (twice).
+Used it indoors and out during drizzle, snow, the height of summer and the low of winter, I even used it on a beach once.
And through all of the above I never had any problems. The only issue I have ever had was when I was carrying it about 6 ft. off the ground while open and running (brilliant I know) and I dropped it onto a tile-on-concrete floor. That time the hard drive crashed but everything was perfectly fine.
I don't know what kind of build quality Apple computers have but I'm going to guess that it can't be that much better.
I don't think so. Most people I know love the look of Thinkpads. It's still my favorite looking laptop. It has a classic styling too. It's a design that looked good 10 years ago, and still looks good now. I'm not sure any other laptop exists that can make that claim.
The styling of UPS delivery vans shares this longevity. I think it's because we all know Thinkpads just keep looking the same, so they never look out of date. Whereas, we can tell a Dell from 5 years ago is going to be a lot slower.
Everything you mentioned, I've also done (with the exception of using it out in drizzle and snow - that just seems crazy!)
Once, during my commute home, I decided to play music via iTunes (my iPod had died). I arrived home, walking to the door, when I decided to unzip the bag I was carrying (a sling type) to turn off iTunes, when my Mac Book Pro came sliding out. It landed smack on the front right corner, a good 5-5.5 ft drop. I feared the worst! It took me a good 10 seconds to finally get the nerve to check and was shocked to find, not only was the screen not cracked, but the machine was still running like a champ! (I did end up with a serious dent and some major scratches on the bottom, but I considered them battle scars and showed them off with pride!)
I've looked at ThinkPads for work (web development) and I'm glad to hear the quality is on par with the MBPs I'm use to.
I second this. My MBP has been dropped more times than I can ever admit to the Genius Bar and it has kept on ticking. Every computer I've ever owned has been a mac and they all still work. Compare that to my fiance's 4 PCs that have all broken beyond use. He's currently using my Power Book that's almost 8 years old. It's slow but it works! It also still looks nice.
It's not just build quality, it's also aesthetics. You say you can't speak for design, but that's what most people care about more than the ability to bounce their laptop off of concrete. That's why the average consumer isn't in the market for a Toughbook.
Does it matter? Are you disputing the claim? Do you think that people care more about the ability to bounce their laptop off of concrete than aesthetics?
Yes probably. And in reality if you look at laptops > $1k it's not even close, Apple has 90% of that market. What that says to me though is that most people care more about cost than aesthetics. The point being that aesthetics isn't really the trump card that a lot of people think it is.
I think we have to bucket buyers into different groups. For one large group I think it is the dominant factor. I think the word "aesthetics" maybe be a bit of a misnomer. It's more than just physical appearance. There's a clean elegance to almost all aspects of the device including the software.
The tablets will be a good test, so far the android tablets aren't a lot cheaper than the ipad. We'll see how they do.
I disagree. I think that the average person looks almost exclusively at price, and not much else.
However, in my experience the few people that pay much attention to the specific type of laptop they are buying pay at least as much attention to quality as they do to aesthetics. (Note that I don't have any numbers to back this up, this is just my experience from the people who I help buy computers)
My original Aluminum Unibody 13" macbook has been dropped 6ft onto a hardwood floor, and banged multiple times against aluminum braces. Has a few dings, but still going strong.
I do like apple hardware (until mac os x became good enough for me, around 10.4/10.5 I used linux on a intel macbook), and it is well designed, but IBM thinkpad are much more solid.
Actually, the Intel plastic macbook were pretty crappy quality-wise: the magnet stuff which kept breaking for many people, etc... I bought the alu one for that reason alone. Also, ipods are not super strong, and the recent ones rarely last more than 2 years for me.
Maybe I am just careless, but the IBM thinkpad I got lasted for years and were built like tanks (and unfortunately looked like as well...).
These stories of people running across streets frantically computing with their open laptop during the dead of winter invite so many more questions than just the survival of the device.
I will tell you the build that Apple has:
> +Dropped it way more times than I can count, usually while closed and turned off but also while it was running, and while it was open (both running and not).
Yes
>+Totally stood on it, putting my full weight on the closed lid many times.
Why on earth would I do that?
>+Left it running in my closed backpack for almost an hour (twice).
More times than I can count. My MBP has been "shut down" for a maximum of 20 times in the past 2 years.
>+Used it indoors and out during drizzle, snow, the height of summer and the low of winter, I even used it on a beach once.
Everything except the snow
>The only issue I have ever had was when I was carrying it about 6 ft. off the ground while open and running (brilliant I know) and I dropped it onto a tile-on-concrete floor. That time the hard drive crashed but everything was perfectly fine.
Done that as well. The MBP hard disk stops motion when the acceleration exceeds a certain value suddenly
-It is not just the build quality.
-It is also about merging design and technology
-Building a durable laptop can be as non innovative as carbon fibre layering.
-It is about removing point of failures/fall/mishaps by innovation like the MagSafe adapters. God they prevent the laptop from falling everyday.
-Also it is not just how it is built but also how it works. I work on Windows in my office and on my MBP by the night. The OS is exceedingly more polished and refined on the Mac.
<br />
Does that give a fair perspective?
I didn't downvote, so I'm not sure, but I'd guess it's mostly because of the odd formatting. It's difficult to tell what you are quoting, and what you are adding. I wouldn't take offense. Checking http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc might help for the future.
Asus has superior build quality to Apple (measured in failures within 3 years; Apple is around 17% and Asus is 15%, as I recall), lots of original designs (they started the netbook craze, and have a line of laptops made with bamboo), and they don't look half bad either. The U36Jc is completely comparable spec-wise to the 13-inch macbook pro, except for lacking an optical drive, while costing $200 less. It also has better graphics, a larger hard drive, better battery life, is thinner, and weighs about a pound less.
So yes, there are companies that produce hardware comparable to Apple. They're just not as well known.
"The company has an extremely great handle on what components are needed to make a really awesome thin and light machine – standard voltage processors, a dedicated GPU, a good sized battery, lots of ports – but it consistently forgets to pay attention to the small details. And in the case of the U36Jc, those details include a wonky mouse button, glossy bezel, and some heat issues. It's those things that hold systems like this one from being the best of the best."
Spec-wise, there are tons of laptops that can match or exceed the MacbookPros. It's the little details where almost all of them fall short.
I suspect this is more of a branding issue. Macbook Pro is a relatively memorable name; U36Jc took me longer to type than the rest of this sentence, let alone remember (I won't).
Apple is better at being the original-design-brand, even if they're not the only brand doing awesome original design.
It's a choice issue, too. If my next laptop is a MacBook, I know that I have basically one choice to make: how big I want the screen. If I'm a penny-pincher, I can check out the refurb section of the Apple Store, but in general, I really only have one choice.
If I want to get an Asus, where do I even start? Screen size, resolution, weight, price, processor, presence or not of optical drive? How do today's models stack up against yesterday's? How much would I gain in price and trade off in performance by seeking out a store model or overstock one from six months ago?
You're entirely right. Oddly enough, though, this never occurred to me before, even though in retrospect it's ridiculously obvious. Always interesting when that happens.
Asus has superior build quality to Apple (measured in failures within 3 years; Apple is around 17% and Asus is 15%, as I recall)
Where did you get these numbers? It certainly doesn't square with my own, pure anecdotal, experience with Asus and Apple. Is anyone actually publishing these numbers? Are laptop makers required to?
Who are these companies? Seriously. Have you used an Apple product side by side with a non Apple equivalent? Does any company come close to the build quality or original design of Apple?
"Close" is a very subjective term. I like the looks of my coworker's phones sometimes. I haven't played with one for very long. I really love the design of my iPhone 4. Nothing else is as good from a tactile perspective, I'll grant you that.
If other companies are almost catching up, it still means they are behind, and, worse, just riding on Apple's success without much idea of why they are successful.
Or they have something of an idea, but they can't execute.
I'm talking less about the physical design and more about the functional design. Apple products are extremely minimalist as a design decision: only include what is necessary, allow the form of the device to reflect what is necessary and the material chosen that expose that functionality. I mean design from a "how things work" perspective, something more objective than just how the thing works.
The designs of other companies appear to be aesthetic or functional primarily without regard for the other: design the look of the object and then fit as much functionality in as possible, or the opposite, get as much functionality as possible, and wrap it in some plastic. In either case there is little interaction between form and function, and often complete neglect between one or the other.
And even in the great case where both are considered, say Sony's line of VAIOs (I formerly owned a VAIO desktop), the build quality is low, or semifunctional (opening the case on my VAIO was a pain).
As others have noted, ThinkPad's may be the best counter example. They are extremely utilitarian. Their good looks, in my opinion, comes from their purely functional approach.
Sony's high end VAIO laptops have always surpassed Apple in build quality, and matched them in design, from the 505 to the R505, TZ and current Z series. I have a VAIO from 2002 that still runs well and the Z series is better than a macbook pro in pretty much every way except price (costing twice as much thanks to carbon fiber), while weighing as much as the macbook air 13".
Now don't get me wrong, Apple makes some fantastic product, and Sony makes a ton of crap to go along with its gems, but Sony can still go toe to toe with the company its aesthetic sense inspired.
It's only a matter of time before the iPad style tablet becomes commoditized. Quite a few years ago, Apple was one of the design leaders in the laptop space, then others caught up, more or less. The same thing happened in the smartphone space. The same thing will happen to tablets.
For sure! Oh, wait, I meant PlaysForSure.
I wish I thought you were right, because I think it would be much better for Apple in the long term to have credible competition. I see none, and pretty clearly Apple sees none, or their subscription-revenue plan wouldn't have seen the light of day.
Totally agree. Let's not forget the PC - invented by Apple, now it means non-Apple.
No one caught up with the iPod; Apple rode that wave fully, by mercilessly improving and price-cutting it; then subsuming/cannibalizing it with the iPhone/Touch. They will ruthlessly brutalize their current babies too.
When the iPad was launched, there was no talk of competitors. Today, most of the news is about competitors. It's necessary for Steve to trash them. And to be clear: the iPad 2 specs actually do trash them.
Big question: what's the next wave for Apple? I think it will be smart phones as a desktop/laptop replacement (you dock at home/work). Maybe a nano-sized smartphone replacement (or even smaller), for the next form-factor.
PS: The Kindle will disrupt the iPad: it has a far cheaper yet more profitable business model; when the iPad becomes more powerful than it needs to be, the Kindle will be powerful enough.
It's not the devices. The iPod didn't succeed because of the iPod. The iPhone was woefully inadequate when it was launched. The iPad succeeded because of everything that had come before it.
* iTunes
* The Apple Retail Store
* iOS App Store
* Now the Mac App Store
* Apple TV
Don't get me wrong, the devices are great. They look nice, the work well. I love my iPhone, my iMac, MBP, iPad, Apple TV. The Airport Extreme is a wonderful wireless router.
But alone, any of these products are okay (except the AE, it's worth it). It's everything around them that matters.
That's why I agree with you on the Kindle, though it won't disrupt the iPad. I love my Kindle, but it's used for a different reason than the iPad. But the Kindle does what it does well, and everything it connects to is top notch.
I'm not really disagreeing with you. However, it's not the product, it's everything beyond the product that really made Apple successful.
As for what's next: Removing the computer from the screen. I've been saying it for a LONG time here. I really think Apple is moving toward a server -> client model. You'll buy a computer for the house, a really powerful beast, something you put in the corner. Everyone connects to it using their iPads, monitors, Airs, iPhones. Your session remains the same regardless of the device.
That's how it was reported but if you listen to the actual call it was about 1-2 minutes squarely aimed at the Samsung Galaxy Tab which had just been released.
I actually see his assertiveness as a sign of how much Jobs respects the potential of his competitors and the ruthlessness with which the market will walk away from his company's products if he doesn't sell, and just how much obligation he has to employees who sacrifice so much to make it look like magic.
It's worth mentioning that last year's Google I/O featured some intense competitor bashing from Vic Gundontra that actually did a lot to strengthen the Android brand, and cemented its status as the primary anti-Apple underdog (now uberdog?).
I think any harsh remarks from Steve Jobs at this event should be viewed in that context, and are a reflection of the overall shift in tone between Apple and Google. The sniping is probably good for their brands and for their 'brand advocates,' who along with the press are really the primary consumers of Apple Event streams and Google I/O conferences—the people discussing this shit ad nauseaum in forums and comment flamewars.
When a perceived underdog bashes it's "scrappy", when a perceived leader does it it's "bullying", simple as that.
I think the thing I took away best from the original post is the presentation of some severe cognitive dissonance: huge pumping of specs, followed by carefully omitting specs that may not look the best, followed by "specs aren't important anyways".
Yes, I think it's a pretty fair assessment to say that they are all losing steam. Their basic problem is that smartphones and tablets have gone from being the cool new toys of yesteryear to being mainstream, expensive tools, with just a soupçon of "too clever for your own good".
I saw an interesting debate a few weeks ago on HN. Some people saw these generic tools as the future and specialised tools increasingly becoming obsolete. Other people saw the generic tools as Jacks-of-all-trades whose weaknesses next to dedicated mobile phones, music players, e-book readers, satnavs, etc. were becoming increasingly apparent as practical experience starts to trump the hype.
If I were brave enough to invest in hi-tech companies, I imagine I would be shorting all of the stocks I mentioned above right now. They are making a staggering amount of money today, to be sure. I'm just not sure how much all these new technologies they have been coming out with recently actually help real people to do things they care about, and I think they are highly vulnerable to indirect competition as consumers become more aware of what they actually care about and which gadgets help them do those things.
[Edit: Would the downvoter(s) care to explain why? Apple have or have recently had significant problems with the reliability of the iPhone 4, the spec for the iPad, and their reputation among the communities of app and content developers who support their entire infrastructure. Google have released a string of flops, many of which have been killed within a year, and are starting to look vulnerable even in their main playgrounds of search and on-line advertising, so unless something is fundamentally different in Android world there are probably similar difficulties there as well. RIM's last two big product launches have made Microsoft's handling of Vista look professional. Microsoft themselves have released a string of Windows Mobile platforms that have horrible reliability, functionality and performance compared to other major mobile operating systems. How are any of these companies not losing steam?]
Your perspective is interesting. But I think it weakens your argument to claim you would short these stocks in theory, but actually won't. The market price is determined by people who are confident enough in their beliefs to act on them. And those people collectively seem to think market-cap-weighted bundle of AAPL, MSFT, GOOG and RIMM is a good bet. If you are not confident enough to act, then that significantly discounts the evidentiary value of your opinion.
Think of it as a figure of speech. I don't believe the current path taken by those companies is sustainable if they come up against well-considered competition.
Also, please don't read too much into my not investing in this particular case. For one thing, I'm not in the US, and for me trading US stocks directly and in a tax-efficient way would require jumping through hoops that just aren't worth the hassle.
Good god, why on earth did that get downvoted? It's an intelligent opinion, and he's not the only one who thinks it.
That said, I strongly disagree. iPad class tablets are a portable window into the digital world. Apple's video did a pretty good job of showing how that could help people do things they care about, and we're only just getting started.
Apparently we'll just have to have a civilised discussion in light grey. ;-)
I would certainly agree that mobile devices with networking capabilities are a big step forward in general. What I think remains to be seen is whether tablet-style devices like the iPad and Galaxy Tab can carve out a sustainable niche fast enough to survive in a notoriously fickle market.
For leisure use, they seem to have fundamental weaknesses like very short battery lives and being difficult to read in sunlight. No doubt with time these will improve, but for now they reduce the applicability of tablet-style devices, and notably leave them vulnerable to competition from Kindle-style e-book readers in a major segment of the market.
For serious work, I think the lack of a real keyboard is a major disadvantage compared to netbook-style devices. It's going to be a long time before some sort of physical feedback screen is anything like as comfortable and efficient for sustained typing as even a cheap-and-nasty keyboard already is today.
Speaking of controls, while touch-based UIs could become the norm and stylus-type pointing devices might take over from mice for precision work, I don't think I'll hold my breath. Portable mice are widely used with laptops, simply because even the best built-in trackpads are relatively clumsy controls. Also, many a useful UI feature over the past couple of decades has been driven by awareness of what the user is passively observing, typically deduced by where a pointer is positioned. Again, this might change, but it's going to take a long time for conventions that have become as intuitive as handwriting to die, and I don't think the alternative UIs being developed for smartphones today are even close to refined enough for that job yet once you scale them up to tablet-size devices and applications.
I can certainly see tablet-style devices with custom UIs quickly becoming widely used in many niche areas where the flexibility has value, such as shop floor or industrial applications. And I'm sure there will always be an enthusiast segment of the market that values the flexibility they offer, though perhaps tempered in this case by the current closed/tightly-controlled software ecosystems that have been associated with these devices by the big players so far.
However, I think there is a long way to go before a general purpose device that is expensive enough to include components for everything but still only does one thing at once will beat out dedicated and cost-effective GPS satnavs, e-book readers, digital photo frames, wrist watches, and so on. I'm not saying it can't or won't happen, just that I don't think we're there yet, and until we are, companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft and RIM are highly vulnerable not so much to competition from each other but to competition from specialist firms whose specialist devices do one thing, but better and at a lower price.
I think you're overlooking the idea that tablets only have to be better at one or two things in order for people to adopt them. Once you have one, the additional functions don't have to be objectively better in order to displace single function devices because they have two unassailable advantages - zero additional hardware cost, and zero mass.
For example - just being able to browser, keep up with light email, and read ebooks is enough for me to carry my iPad in a lot of situations. I used to carry a backpack full of books and a laptop to get the same functionality. Once I'm carrying the iPad, the fact that it can become a music keyboard for another $5 is just a bonus. I was never going to buy and carry a small portable keyboard. Likewise the GPS and maps. I wouldn't have bought and carried an independent device for that. For specialists, dedicated devices will better for some time to come, but for most people that doesn't matter - the tablet is enabling activities that were simply not practical before.
As far as UI conventions go, most non-geeks just aren't very good with the desktop metaphor anyway. Sure there are experts and for programmers or digital content creators by profession it pays to become one, but most people just aren't.
My 87 year old father (who's last computer was analog!) was able to take my iPad out of my hands and operate the browser without me even telling him what the device was let alone explaining UI metaphors.
I think the key is that tablets can work in situations where netbooks etc. simply can't, and they can make functionality ubiquitous where a collection of special purpose devices would be too much overhead.
And then it's not going to take long for them to evolve to outpace the development of independent specialist hardware because all those separate makers don't stand a chance of putting the same level of resources into the development.
And for all the things that need custom sensors, why not simply have them be extensions of a tablet?
Take something really specialized - e.g. a metal detector. Why not make that into just a Bluetooth sensor that communicated with an iPhone? Setting could be adjusted on the touch screen, but more importantly the phone could log the output, put it on the map with GPS, and upload it to the cloud. All this extra capability, and the sensor could probably be lower cost than a standalone device.
So once tablets enter the equation, previously devices can become cheaper and more capable.
We aren't going to see tablets fall to standalone devices, altough other hardware isn't necessarily going away either.
I would certainly agree that there is room in the market for both specialist and generic devices, if that's what you're arguing.
I just think the generic device probably doesn't make much sense unless there are several things a customer would use it for but not simultaneously, and those things do collectively make use of the bells and whistles to justify the relatively high hardware cost. I'm not sure how many people that really applies to today, and market forces can be a harsh critic.
I think he means that when a company switches from ignoring competitors to acknowledging them by ridiculing them, then they are not as far ahead as they used to be.
So it does imply losing steam in this case.
Phases:
1) Ignore
2) Ridicule
3) Fight
4) Lose
If a company was in phase 2 last year, and phase 2 this year they are not losing steam. A company is losing steam when it moves down the above phase ladder.
I agree that it seems negative and I'd rather he didn't do it, but I can see why he does. There are plenty of even less accurate commentators who are prepared to make analyses of the situation that are unfavorable to Apple. Most people don't take the time to critically analyze the 'news' they hear and are actually influenced by this stuff. Apple needs to at least state their viewpoint so that it is out there alongside the criticism, and maybe it's better for it to come in this form than in their marketing materials.
Is it so hard for you fanboys to say something like "Lying is wrong and he shouldn't have done it" and just leave it at that? No bullshit, no qualifications, no Gruber-style excuses, just a simple condemnation of someone doing something wrong.
Apple is a religion. It's like when, 2000 years ago, some flood destroyed some town. They knew God caused floods, and they thought God liked everyone, so they came up with some bullshit like, "those people had impure thoughts". You have to "qualify it" or else everything you believe in is gone.
Now, the stakes are lower for tablet PCs versus The Meaning Of Life, and we all know... the lower the stakes, the more people care. Now you understand why so much hot air is devoted to Apple vs. The World.
The best reaction is to just laugh at the whole thing. They won't even tell you how much RAM the thing they want you to buy has. And you don't care, because you can't use it like a real computer.
I don't buy Apple products in general (with only one exception) and I think this presentation was of really poor taste, being in total agreement with the article.
That said ... I have an iPhone 3GS and I couldn't care less that it has lower resolution, a 600 MHz processor and only 256 MB of RAM. I totally prefer it over any Android high-end device available right now, because it runs smoothly, it has all the apps that I need including a couple of cool games, upgrades have been smooth and I haven't had any problems with it.
I don't like the iPad, I don't like their closed iTunes repository.
But I really think more hardware / software companies should be focusing more on functionality, polish, user experience rather than technical specifications.
And here I was hoping that at least one hardware company gets it. And yet I see them entering that same shitty game.
Have you really tried a recent Android device? Many highly technical people (ok, programmers/nerds) prefer it after they dig into it vs an iPhone.
Notifications, Google Nav, 3D + Vectorized Google Maps, Chrome-to-Phone, a real filesystem with SFTP/FTP/HTTP sync apps, widgets, python via SL4A, free dev tools for Windows/Linux/Mac, awesome 3rd party ROMs, swappable batteries, SDCard, bigger screens, tight Google voice integration, WiMax/LTE, Swype, better cameras, faster javascript, $30/mo cheaper plans, etc.. I feel sorry for iPhone4 users who think they're superior because the scrolling on their phone is a little smoother.
My wife has an Desire HD. It is great, and a developer's dream indeed (you can run frikin' Python on it :)). I also think the iPhone 4 is too expensive and doesn't provide enough value for the extra money over the 3GS or over a cheap Android, like LG Optimus One.
I was just making a point that faster processor / bigger RAM doesn't necessarily translate in a better experience; and more companies should focus on experience.
You can get _x_ features if you're willing to wait longer for updates, are willing to potentially be told your warranty is void if your device breaks, and don't have a recently released device.
In part they're "playing the game" because their followers want them to.
But I agree that it should be about how useful the device is, but that runs counter-intuitively to how companies work. The device must make more profit. This might mean being more marketable, or it might mean having a channel for content, or it might mean being better. Sadly, better is the WORST of the three.
I find the "cult of apple" and "apple is a religion" memes amusing because, including myself, the majority of Apple users that I know are atheists.
Personally, I think "spectator sports" makes for more constructive analogies than religion. People develop very strong associations to their favorite rugby/football/etc team, delight in their team's victories, and bemoan their losses. Some people cheer on favorite tech companies in the same way. It's silly, but no more so than a die-hard Detroit Lions fan.
I wish I could upvote you more. "X is a religion" should only be valid when X categorically resembles a religion--books, worship, in-group perks, rituals, supernatural, the lot. Your sports team analogy is great.
Religion to me is any kind of belief without questioning, without observable proof.
Books, worship, in-group perks, rituals, supernatural; are just side-effects and the scale of it depends on the ability of its leaders to bullshit people.
I'm not an atheist btw - that also requires belief and too much energy. As I'm too lazy to answer the question "does God exist or not?" guess that makes me an agnostic - and truly I don't give a shit.
But then again, I'm an Ubuntu user that also uses Windows from time to time.
And Ubuntu Christian Edition is a few clicks away if I ever make a decision :p
If you cannot honestly make this claim: "I believe in god/s", you are an atheist by definition. You may not be a strong atheist which is someone who would make the claim: "There is/are no god/s", but you are still an atheist (a weak atheist, which anecdotally appears to be the most common variety). Just think about the roots, atheism - without theism.
You're also an agnostic if you can honestly make the claim: "It is unknowable whether or not there is/are god/s".
I used to call myself an agnostic because, for whatever reason, people always assume that if you are an atheist you hold the position that there are no gods (which you also seem to hold given your assumption that atheism is a position that requires belief).
Just as long as you realize you're using uncommon terminology with respect to 'religion'. I'd rather term faith-based thinking as religious-thinking (or religious-esque), but it's certainly not unique to religion, and some irrational atheists also suffer from it... (I'd also ask how many bits of evidence about a belief you require before you take something as proof but that's fairly off-topic..) In regards to the god question, for me I care about being right, and my number of bits for the proposition "the Christian god exists" is at least below -10 so I'm pretty sure it's false. :) If I was presented with a strong piece of evidence in the other direction, I might join you and uninstall Gentoo to use the holy Ubuntu Christian Edition.
You know, the problem with God is that it isn't really a falsifiable notion; but here's something to chew on ...
Do you admit the possibility that tomorrow, based on weird but explainable phenomenons, molecules in the air might collide and materialize a tuna-sandwitch right before your eyes? Think about it - possibility is so close to zero that intuition would tell you that it is impossible.
And yet atheists are ready to admin that this wonderful and full of life world that we live in (which is a lot more complex than a tuna-sandwich btw) - came into being by way of some kind of cosmic accident that we'll never understand, with our universe instantly expanding, forming lots of hydrogen-burning stars and rocks of all shapes and sizes - and somehow on one of these rocks, carbon-based life not only happened, but it also gave birth to sentience.
This story is even more unlikely to happen than a tuna-sandwich integrating right before your eyes tomorrow, or having a man in red suit driving a sleigh with flying reindeers and yet we consider it natural because it already happened.
Eh, I'll spend a little karma. I believe the laws of physics, and it's the laws of physics which make the spontaneity of sandwich-appearance much less likely than the arising of homo sapiens based on billions of years of causality we have determined experimentally and then many many years of the very mathematical process of evolution. The big bang theory has some issues, but the idea that things were once really close together and now are expanding at an accelerating rate is pretty nailed down. Evolutionary theory is similarly nailed down, I believe both those propositions with a fairly high number of bits. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong, but not by merit of the possibility that I could be wrong. Not all possibilities are equal.
Can you point to some atheists who are as you say? As an atheist I've never considered this a particularly wonderful and full of life world (sure I like it and want to preserve parts of it but there's a lot of improvement to be made) nor have I considered the mysteries of the universe are incomprehensible. We are as Sagan said "the universe trying to understand itself".
You may say our lives coming into being by the known fundamental laws of physics is as unlikely as Santa existing, but here we are, the evidence is actually in front of us, humans and quantum mechanics. I've never seen Santa, yet I've seen humans and studied some QM.
You've been here for 1,466 days, and you didn't realize that this might not be the way to move a debate forward on HN? Please try harder not to call people names.
Yeah, because calling out someone's bullshit is now "abusive behaviour".
Listen, people here aren't retarded - they don't need someone to try and explain why Jobs lied. He lied because he can make himself and Apple look better if he told the truth. It's the same reason most other people lie and it's so transparent a toddler can see through it.
No one's gonna stop you from posting low quality Apple fluff, but don't expect not to get called out on it.
The problem with your comment is that it begs for a response in kind. The tone on the thread changes, from tendentious to outright hostile. Users click into threads and see high-ranked comments with that tone. They write their own comments like that. Oh, look. Now we're Reddit.
I think he used just the right amount of vitriol to best make his point. He's adding something valuable to the discussion and that's all that really matters to me. It's not tone that leads to Reddit, it's too many posters with too little to say.
If it's so transparent, and provokes such outrage, why does it make Apple look better?
I don't think it's so clear. I've noticed Jobs attacking the competition more and more - gradually increasing since the launch of the original iPhone - and, as I've said elsewhere it makes me think less and less of him.
At the same time, I'm curious as to why he feels he needs to do it given what a strong position they appear to be in. Wouldn't magnanimity serve them better? If not, why not? And if as you suggest, Jobs doing is serving Apple's best interests by doing this, how should we avoid getting into that position if we become successful ourselves?
I'd be interested to discuss this, but that means speculating about his motivations, which according to you, is off-limits in this community and must be policed with personal attacks and rudeness.
Is it so hard for you black and white moralists to say something like "companies interpret any data they can in the most favourable light they possibly can and it's up to you to work out what you want to know" instead of classifying the company you like's interpretation as "truth" and the company you dislike's interpretation as "lies"?
What are we supposed to say? I don't think I'm the only one who is tired of what basically amounts to Apple marketing being posted constantly on HN (and sure maybe the rate of those posts is lower than sites like Techmeme but it's still quite high, see for example Ipad 2 posts http://www.google.com/search?q=site:news.ycombinator.com+%22... )
There has to be some way to identify this group of people, and say, look it's fine that you love Apple, but this is a place for in-depth discussions, not a place to show the latest shiny new trinket and 'ooh' and 'ahh' over its features.
His particular question reads fine as "Is it so hard to" without referring to who feels that way. If he genuinely wanted a response, he could be inclusive with "Is it so hard for us to". "Fanboys" is not taboo, but is insulting and unlikely to obtain a friendly response. "Fans of Apple" is probably a better neutral term. But like the original author, I wonder if you are actually asking a question. Are you?
If you read the thread, you'll see that there was no fawning. Just an attempt to understand the motivation behind Jobs negative statements. Understanding how and why someone like Jobs communicates seems pretty relevant to this community.
You're all fanboys of some kind or another - "my apple product is sooo much prettier than yours" - "I'm way too cool for apple, I have android" Whatever. Show me the guy who has a Dell monitor, Toshiba laptop, droid smartphone, Apple iPad, and Sony flat screen.
He did. Your comment was a long winded apologetic on why Apple was justified in lying, bending the truth, and promoting half truths.
You started by saying "I don't agree" then ended up "Apple needs to state their viewpoints" which is subtly justifying their behavior.
In my opinion, this is an open and shut case of Steve not being honest in his keynote, and he should be called out.
It's especially disappointing to hear this as a fan of Apple as I don't think this kind of reality distortion is necessary given Apple's success. It just makes them look desperate and much lower then their actual position would dictate.
I think steve jobs was dishonest in presenting that uncorrected quote from the Samsung executive. It lessens him in my eyes and it has been called out already.
Does that mean we can't attempt to understand his motivation without being called names? Must every statement about the subject begin with 'Steve Jobs is a liar'?
It's worth pointing out that nothing else he said even comes close to being a lie.
"Does that mean we can't attempt to understand his motivation without being called names?"
I think that's implicit and not really necessary to discuss, "sell more stuff".
However, if Jobs came out tomorrow and said, "look folks, I've been kinda sick and out of the loop recently, somebody else put those slides together and I didn't realize they weren't accurate, sorry 'bout that" that'd be a reasonable explanation.
That was definitely a response to what you wrote. However, I don't think it's a fair to demand: "JUST condemn it, and offer no excuses." You're free to excuse if you like.
Isn't the motivation "they lie to sell more devices" - which is what your post seems to dance around, without outright saying it? Or am I oversimplifying?
You're oversimplifying. The misquote of the Samsung executive is the only thing he said that might be dishonest. Unlike the original statement by Samsung that they sold 2 million devices.
The fact is that executives in the industry make misleading statements all the time. These statements end up in headlines and do influence people. This is fact.
Does this mean I like it? Of course not. Do I think it would be better if Jobs was a lot more careful to say things that are unimpeachably clean - very much so.
I think they make these kinds of statements to try to counteract the kinds of falsehoods that others are making.
Other than the Samsung quote, Jobs didn't lie. How is exaggerating the outrage and pretending that he did, any better than what he's accused of?
Is it so hard to accept that there are reasonable people in the world who disagree with you? Or is childish name-calling your way of dealing with that?
>Most people don't take the time to critically analyze the 'news' they hear and are actually influenced by this stuff.
Err, I thought most of his presentation was targeted at exactly those people who will walk away with wrong impressions of the competition. Jobs knows that this presentation will be much more widely publicized than this criticism and that's why they wanted to do it.
Seriously, how much percentage of the people who watched that slide containing the misquote of Samsung's exec would come to know it's a misquote? I would say 5% at the maximum.
You seem to imply that it's better to spread lies and misinformation about some facts around because some analysts may do the same about different facts. I don't know how that computes.
Yeah God forbid Apple conducts business like Microsoft and everyone else. I know we hold Apple to a higher moral standard for some reason, but come on, when has Jobs ever held back what he thought of his competitors?
I do agree the misquote was silly and unnecessary. I wonder if Jobs himself personally knew it was a complete deception or did he rely on fact checkers and speech writers to do his due diligence and simply wasn't aware the quote was wrong.
It's nothing about holding Apple to any higher standards, I made exactly the same comment about RIM a couple of months back, and in that instance all they were doing was putting their rivals down, not making up shit. And I'm a huge RIM fanboy.
If he had come out and given all the ways that the iPad 2 is better than the iPad, I'd have been impressed. But spending half the time criticising competitors just came across as the kind of tacky tactic that really shouldn't be needed unless you're trying to catch up to them - not if you're trying to prevent them from catching up to you.
Oh, and that's just for the attacking competitors. Going even further than that, and attacking them with incorrect spin, way too far.