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

171–180 of 408 posts

Re: Apple’s 2016 in review

#171

Post by cottsak »

JoachimS wrote: post #158
jakelarkin wrote: post #37

the brand new Macbook Pro has last-generation Intel CPUs. I remember when Jobs announced one of the first Intel Macbook Pros with chips that no other manufacturer had even been given the chance to ship yet.

This is a really interesting point. Apple seems to have stopped pushing suppliers as much as they used to.

It's not an interesting point, because if you do your research, there is no gain to using a Kaby Lake (7th generation) CPU over a "Skylake-U" (6th gen) CPU:

Current/2016 13" max-spec i7 MBP uses i7-6567U which scores slightly higher (average single/multi-core geekbench results) than the best dual-core Kaby Lake CPU, being the i7-7500U.

https://twitter.com/mattkocaj/status/814090388986175488

Re: Apple’s 2016 in review

#172

Post by elcct »

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…

By the way, contrary to the popular belief, the "Pro" in the MacBook stands for "Prostate" not "Professional.

Re: Apple’s 2016 in review

#173

Post by raverbashing »

visakanv wrote: post #134
loosescrews wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, but unfortunately, by letting Steve select that person, they ended up with someone completely unlike Steve. Paul Graham wrote about this back in 2012: "I was talking recently to someone who knew Apple well, and I asked him if the people now running the company would be able to keep creating new things the way Apple had under Steve Jobs. His answer was simply "no." I…

It's hard. Also, there wouldn't have been Steve Jobs without that crazy and convoluted history. Getting fired from the company, then founding a new one then getting brought back?

People focus too much on the 'nasty' side of jobs, but it's easy to be nasty, and a lot of people do that, what's hard is having the other aspects that might be more subtle

in his biography (or most likely I read it somewhere else), the group that worked with him had a whole way of presenting things to him, that "made" him go for the best solution. It was a ruse, which he might have been aware or not, but it worked. And of course people were on their feet to present the best products

Jobs had a very finicky way of thinking about products, but I guess that created a dynamic in which other people that worked with him also stood for things that they believed in and that resulted in a balance of qualities that is lacking

Also Apple is not thinking about experience. When they took the floppy disks from the Macs I assume people were more than happy to see they go. Heck even display port has some advantages (you need one tiny interface to plug whatever kind of monitor you want).

Now we get a crapfest of different very similar cables with USB-C with different ports that look the same (charging/display/etc) and we killed an existing interface that for the most part works

And guess what Apple, your Keyboard and Mouse may be wireless and bluetooth but they still need an USB cable to be charged! Which cable comes with it? USB-A

I'm assume Steve would be testing the aerodynamic properties of the latest MB line, if you know what I mean

Re: Apple’s 2016 in review

#174

Post by aexis »

visakanv wrote: post #137
bamurphymac1 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've thought about this a lot. Wouldn't Steve have realized this inherent contradiction? Is this an understood reality at the top levels at Apple? That is, does Tim see his role now as maximizing revenue from the current position, with the goal being to hand off a healthier company to a "visionary" successor? My personal answer fluctuates depending on my daily gut feeling about human nature. And how many times source…

I think about this a lot too, and the question I have is – has there ever been a visionary who made his way to the top of the corporate ladder of ANY company, however enlightened? Would love to hear about it.

I think Satya Nadella, his vision has turned Microsoft around completely from a dull company to a company with vision for the future.

Re: Apple’s 2016 in review

#175

Post by angry_octet »

> it makes sense for Apple to stop making WIFI devices

Only if Apple is looking not to innovate. Mesh networking has great potential to take off, especially if the software was integrated into iOS. One missing element from mesh is AAA, which Apple could definitely mediate.

Re: Apple’s 2016 in review

#176

Post by tnone »

adamlett wrote: post #161
erichocean wrote: post #86

Apple is a company that is following the process they learned when Steve ran the show, without any clear understanding of why that process exists. As a result, they are unable to adapt to adapt that process to the external world while remaining true to the underlying principles. What you see is the predictable result: ossified thinking couple with a rigid adherence to "what makes them great". all criticism falls on d…

Apple is a company that is following the process they learned when Steve ran the show, without any clear understanding of why that process exists Apple created Apple University years before Steve died, to understand clearly why they became so successful. They even hired a top professor from an Ivy League university to run it. Whatever ails Apple these days is not caused by them not understanding how they became great…

You cannot teach taste and vision. Apple giving up monitors is the clearest sign of that: it's the face of the computer, so much that novices confused it for the computer itself.

The Jobs-style answer was the all-in-one iMacs and the monitor-as-a-dock, a computer that wants to be seen. The Cook-style answer is to put somebody else's logo right on their product's display case. Madness.

Re: Apple’s 2016 in review

#177

Post by Lio »

new299 wrote: post #48

I feel like Apple are one of the few large SV companies that are producing products for their users. For everyone else the user is a resource that they're selling to advertisers. They've shown they're willing to stand up for user rights. For this reason alone I hope they continue to be successful.

I totally agree with this but at the same time I'm annoyed with the current state of macOS and the Mac product line.

The Mac (and maybe the AirPort Extreme) are the only Apple products I really care about or depend on.

I'm holding on to my iPhone because Apple have a great strategy with regard to privacy and user rights but I'm not upgrading it because I'm pissed off about the Mac. Pathetic as that is, as a Mac user it's about the only small leverage available.

Sadly, I think Tim knows more about business than me. For every disgruntled, Unix loving, Mac user they loose they'll probably add 10 more iOS users for whom emoji are culturally interesting. :(

Re: Apple’s 2016 in review

#178

Post by phaed »

adamlett wrote: post #161
erichocean wrote: post #86

Apple is a company that is following the process they learned when Steve ran the show, without any clear understanding of why that process exists. As a result, they are unable to adapt to adapt that process to the external world while remaining true to the underlying principles. What you see is the predictable result: ossified thinking couple with a rigid adherence to "what makes them great". all criticism falls on d…

Apple is a company that is following the process they learned when Steve ran the show, without any clear understanding of why that process exists Apple created Apple University years before Steve died, to understand clearly why they became so successful. They even hired a top professor from an Ivy League university to run it. Whatever ails Apple these days is not caused by them not understanding how they became great…

Nope you don't get to pass the buck to "the world has changed". Nothing has changed. Power users are still there needing the best machines they can get. Apple is the one that has changed to cater to the lowest common denominator, this is a lack of understanding.

Re: Apple’s 2016 in review

#179

Post by gutnor »

wineisfine wrote: post #52
loosescrews wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Has others have pointed out - becoming a widget company was Jobs plan all along.

The true value of Steve Jobs is the reality distortion field. That's really was is missing here with the new Mac.

All the discutable decisions about the Mac that people complain about are just similar to the trends set under Jobs, the difference is that he would make the people believe that Apple was 100% behind the Mac. There would no need for Jobs to write twice in a month to employee and the press to say that Apple was committed to it.

I'm not sure what is missing exactly, but the MBP failed at delivery rather than feature. For example, did Apple really need to can all their Mac related accessories at the same time, building up a negative climate. They could have rebranded the LG monitor. Somehow give the people a hint that Apple is behind the USB-C, not just picking up and leave it up to the third party to sort out. (which is BTW what Apple has always really done, it just seemed handled better)

Apple strategy is to keep everything secret until they do a big delivery event. They are utterly bad at delivery since Jobs is gone, and the lengthy secrecy they keep around everything is now not building hype, just building apprehension.

Re: Apple’s 2016 in review

#180

Post by phaed »

WildUtah wrote: post #153
ktRolster wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The day Apple makes a power cord that doesn't have a cable sheath with the consistency and durability of silly putty is the day I will recognize them as back on track. That's a really strange thing, because it's such a well-understood problem and the solution is known. I don't know why Apple makes such lousy power cables, even if they messed up a decade ago, you'd think they'd have fixed it by now.

Jony Ive considers standard strain relief cones to be unattractive and prohibits Apple from shipping them.

This seems to be a trend with apple, completely breaking the form follows function principle everywhere anyone can see.
Post reply on HN