Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s 2016 in review

chuqui.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 408 posts

Re: Apple’s 2016 in review

#91

Post by picklesman »

erichocean wrote: post #69
wyager wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now its just incremental phone updates. And the software side of those updates is bad . Apple hardware is probably better than ever. The mechanical engineering and precision involved blows away anyone else in consumer electronics. The new MacBooks and iPhones are truly works of art compared to the cheap injection-molded stuff everyone else is pumping out. But the software just keeps getting worse and worse. My iPho…

> My suspicion is that Apple is hitting a level of software complexity where the development and maintenance costs of correct code are too high. Nope, just a lack of solid engineers. Anyone worth anything bailed years ago, and they're left with a used car salesman running the show (Craig Federighi). Holy Jesus is that guy a tool.

How is he a tool? I didn't get that impression based on his demos and interviews I've heard

Re: Apple’s 2016 in review

#92

Post by anexprogrammer »

triangleman wrote: post #75
wineisfine wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very clever analysis. Thanks for that, it makes a lot of sense. It also explains why it's shifted from being a computer company that makes gadgets (Jobs) is now becoming a gadget company that happens to make some computers as well (Cook). In all this, the gates are wide open for Microsoft to score some good points here towards devs.

How do you figure there has been a "shift" like you said? In 2007 Jobs was using the phrase "post-PC", and by the time he died in 2011, more than half of Apple's revenue was iPhone/iPad/etc. To me it seems that Cook is just continuing the trend.

Precisely. Continuing Steve's vision as best they can imagine it (not well). Don't forget when he used the post-PC phrase he was very clear PCs are still going to be needed and valued. It wasn't supposed to be either-or.

Pretty sure in 6 years Jobs would have picked up some new trends, details and directions. Pretty sure we'd not be stuck in some infinte repeat loop. Thinner. Groundhog Day. Repeat.

Re: Apple’s 2016 in review

#93

Post by bangonkeyboard »

> Want us to think you’re still serious about the Mac, Apple? Show us parity of capabilities between the two platforms, at least on your core product sets...

Be careful what you wish for.

  The primary problem with Sierra with respect to PDFs is that Apple chose to 
  rewrite the PDFKit framework in macOS 10.12 and it broke a number of things 
  that PDF-related developers relied upon...

  Apple wants to use a common foundation for both iOS and macOS. However, it was 
  released way too early, and for the first time (at least in my experience) 
  Apple deprecated several features without caring about compatibility. And to 
  make things worse, lots of former features are now broken or not implemented at 
  all, meaning that we had to add lots of workarounds or implement stuff on our 
  own. And there’s still work left to be done.
  
  10.12.2 introduces new issues (it seems that Apple wants to fix at least the 
  broken compatibility now) and of course fixed almost none of the other issues.
http://tidbits.com/article/16966

Re: Apple’s 2016 in review

#94

Post by jannyfer »

wyager wrote: post #55
lowbloodsugar wrote: post #8

In 2009 I bought my first Apple product: an 8GB 13" MacBook Pro that cost $3000 ($1000 for the extra 4gb, like a dumbass). Quite soon after I got an iPhone 3GS. Now every computer in the house (family of four) is an Apple. Every phone is an Apple. Even AirPlay was an influencing factor in selecting a hi-fi receiver (HTR7065). Apple TVs sit next to actual TVs. Yesterday I replaced our fleet of TimeCapsules and Airport…

> Now its just incremental phone updates. And the software side of those updates is bad . Apple hardware is probably better than ever. The mechanical engineering and precision involved blows away anyone else in consumer electronics. The new MacBooks and iPhones are truly works of art compared to the cheap injection-molded stuff everyone else is pumping out. But the software just keeps getting worse and worse. My iPho…

Even if Apple hardware is a feat of mechanical engineering and precision, I don't want to upgrade my Macbook Air or iPhone 6 with an Apple product right now because nothing fits my needs.

I want a phone with a flat back that won't rock on a desk without a case. I want a desktop with modern specs. I want a laptop with great battery life.

Re: Apple’s 2016 in review

#95

Post by wineisfine »

triangleman wrote: post #75
wineisfine wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very clever analysis. Thanks for that, it makes a lot of sense. It also explains why it's shifted from being a computer company that makes gadgets (Jobs) is now becoming a gadget company that happens to make some computers as well (Cook). In all this, the gates are wide open for Microsoft to score some good points here towards devs.

How do you figure there has been a "shift" like you said? In 2007 Jobs was using the phrase "post-PC", and by the time he died in 2011, more than half of Apple's revenue was iPhone/iPad/etc. To me it seems that Cook is just continuing the trend.

The shift is the pure neglect towards the dev community. Something that most likely would not have happened so blatant and fast under Jobs. It is also completely not necessary that making great phones excludes a company from making at least decent upgrade cycles in their computer hardware.

Why should one exclude the other?

Re: Apple’s 2016 in review

#96

Post by twright0 »

> But here’s the problem: sitting in this niche of excluded users are some of Apple’s strongest supporters, the influencers that create word of mouth...

I see this point made a lot, especially on Hacker News whenever this general topic comes up. I'm just curious: what evidence is there to support this point of view?

I'm as frustrated as the next software engineer that the new Macbook Pros aren't targeted at me or users like me (and that there hasn't been a new Mac Pro in a long time), and my next primary machine may well not be an Apple product when my current Macbook Pro ages out. But I don't really see an argument that draws a line between that fact and a future perception issue for Apple - and that seems to be accepted as gospel whenever the topic of Apple comes up in developer circles. Who are these "influencers" whose opinions purportedly closely align with software engineers' and why do consumers care about them?

Re: Apple’s 2016 in review

#97

Post by intherdfield »

Apple has a large enough hardware footprint.

They now need to compete on AI. I imagine a lot of their resources are being put in the catch-up-to-Google bucket.

There have been a lot of blog posts saying Apple doesn't know who their customers are. But their products are already accepted by everyone (every group). Their customers are everyone.

Re: Apple’s 2016 in review

#98

Post by snowwrestler »

loosescrews wrote: post #27
panic wrote: post #5

How do they fix this? They need to do more talking — and even more listening — with their users. Engage with the influencers. Sit down and find out what their developers need that the current products don’t offer. Find out what is making their users unhappy. Asking people what they want will give you predictable results: complaints about any kind of change and positive feedback about shiny-looking features that demo…

Steve was a notoriously hard person to work with. Realistically, anyone who Steve was likely to name as his successor would be a follower, someone who went along with whatever Steve said and told him what he wanted to hear. What Apple needed was another person like Steve, but unfortunately, by letting Steve select that person, they ended up with someone completely unlike Steve.

> What Apple needed was another person like Steve

I know--so obvious, right? All they needed was another Steve Jobs. Why didn't they think of that, and just go out and get one? I hear they grow on trees.

Re: Apple’s 2016 in review

#99

Post by sjwright »

triangleman wrote: post #75
wineisfine wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very clever analysis. Thanks for that, it makes a lot of sense. It also explains why it's shifted from being a computer company that makes gadgets (Jobs) is now becoming a gadget company that happens to make some computers as well (Cook). In all this, the gates are wide open for Microsoft to score some good points here towards devs.

How do you figure there has been a "shift" like you said? In 2007 Jobs was using the phrase "post-PC", and by the time he died in 2011, more than half of Apple's revenue was iPhone/iPad/etc. To me it seems that Cook is just continuing the trend.

Indeed Jobs himself described computers as like trucks (large ute/pickup), whereas most people only need a regular car.[0]

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfJ3QxJYsw8

Re: Apple’s 2016 in review

#100

Post by jpalomaki »

aresant wrote: post #33

Apple is the world's most profitable business - twice the profits of #2 (JP Morgan Chase) and almost a 4x magnitude over Google.(1) I agree with the author's final assessment - "meets expectations with some areas that need improvement" - and I think this is the key. They are stoking the fire, keeping it burning, but clearly their focus seems to be diminished on their core business. And even companies of this scale ne…

As everybody knows, Apple's major innovations happened on well known product categories that other companies had not properly looked at. Apple took the existing ideas, figured out the most important features and executed extremely well.

Maybe the world has changed and such opportunities no longer exist. There's more VC money available and more large IT companies pursuing various opportunities. It might be that we simply don't have such overlooked categories any more. Even if they do exist, everybody is watching Apple so closely that it is not likely they could build something major in secret.

Post reply on HN