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

We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 100 posts

Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.

#61

Post by jesseendahl »

alanstorm wrote: post #31

Not that I don't ♥ The Gruber™, but the link should probably be pointing at the original article, as all John is doing here is quoting from the Wired piece.

I made an HN submission to the original article 2 hours before this link to Gruber showed up here. The original article was on the front page of HN (and still is: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1529931), but for some reason this submission has twice the points. Guesses:

* Catchier headline.

* Short attention spans mean excerpts are more highly valued on HN (despite lack of context, such as bugs in the original baseband, as pointed out by cligner below).

Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.

#62

Post by yardie »

statictype wrote: post #38

Why did Apple decide to tie themselves to a single carrier instead of keeping the phone unlocked? Is it because AT&T would subsidize the R&D cost that went into making the iPhone? And purely in hindsight, was that a good decision?

Unlike Google, Apple realized early on that they would need carrier support to get into the market at all. You only get that by having exclusives. Normally these only last a year. Why 5 years? I don't know but I've heard that ATT was paying Apple part of the data subscriptions.

Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.

#63

Post by herrherr »

From http://putthison.com/post/833571254/were-apple-we-dont-wear-...:

“We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.” — Steve Jobs (or a representative thereof, the citation is a little unclear), incredibly rich establishment capitalist businessman, on fighting in 2010 the anti-establishment battles of 1965. Because you know what the problem is? Suits.

Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.

#64

Post by yardie »

aaron111 wrote: post #14

Of course Gruber will quote the parts where AT&T is asking Apple to tweak the iphone (trying to shift more blame on AT&T for their network) and now all the parts about how Apple is extremely hard to work with or where the iphone's baseband radio is incredibly buggy and is arguably one of the main reasons for the constant dropped calls. Gruber is nothing but a hack who's trying to glorify Apple in every way.

I'm aware that HN is mostly US focused. But I'm one of those iPhone users that doesn't have any relationship with ATT and I can emphatically say that this phone is not the problem. I'm assuming I have the same baseband and radio as the US version, but dropped calls isn't a problem. And I've had tethering from the day I bought it (no hacks).

Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.

#65

Post by joubert »

alanstorm wrote: post #53
hokkos wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original article is not accessible.

Weird, it comes up fine for me http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/07/ff_att_fail/all/1 stupidbrokeninternet

I think he typed google into google (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1531590)

Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.

#66

Post by joubert »

astrange wrote: post #51
billmcneale wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's way below an average place to work: these past years, Apple hasn't made it in the top 100 places to work a single time. Not a single time. In the Top 100. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2010/fu... http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2009/fu... http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2008/fu...

That's a strange list and I can't really see how I'd use it to choose somewhere to work. Would you enjoy getting a CS degree and then working at Men's Wearhouse rather than Apple?

You could come up with some cool inventory logistics algorithms.

Eh, Thinking about it again, I'd rather work at Apple

Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.

#68

Post by hmmmmmmm »

billmcneale wrote: post #43
hyperbovine wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to their bios ( http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/ ), every senior exec who isn't doing hardware of software has either an MBA or a JD. More anecdotally, I know at least three people with MBAs working in middle management there. Apple does a good job of maintaining a counterculture image while remaining a pretty average place to work. Of course, you could make the case that Apple is run by one person, and he did…

It's way below an average place to work: these past years, Apple hasn't made it in the top 100 places to work a single time. Not a single time. In the Top 100. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2010/fu... http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2009/fu... http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2008/fu...

My wife used to work for one of those 'top 100' companies, and now she works for a large company that is not in the list.

The top 100 company was far more broken than her current employer in nearly every possible way.

Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.

#69

Post by jonknee »

MarcusA wrote: post #34
ams6110 wrote: post #30

If Apple are so concerned with user experience that they are unwilling to throttle the iPhone to meet ATT's network limitations, then why did they partner with ATT to begin with? ATT are pretty generally perceived as having the worst wireless phone service in the USA, and that certainly dovetails with my personal experience.

You have to remember what the carriers were like in 2006/2007 timeframe. Cingular/AT&T was the open carrier at the time. You would use any GSM phone. More importantly, they allowed you to use any feature on your phone. Conceding to Apple control of the apps on your phone was a very radical idea at the time. Typically carriers dictated what application would be on the phone. On Verizon, you had to use their phones (th…

T-Mobile USA was just as open, perhaps a bit more because you could use European GSM tri-band phones.

Re: We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits.

#70

Post by pornel »

vl wrote: post #35
ams6110 wrote: post #30

If Apple are so concerned with user experience that they are unwilling to throttle the iPhone to meet ATT's network limitations, then why did they partner with ATT to begin with? ATT are pretty generally perceived as having the worst wireless phone service in the USA, and that certainly dovetails with my personal experience.

It would appear that they didn't want to develop non-GSM headset, and the only two choices for GSM in US is AT&T and T-Mobile. T-Mobile is even slower to roll out network upgrades than AT&T.

Apple developed and maintained X86 OS X for years when Macs were PowerPC-only.

To me it seems likely that they have CDMA iPhones "just in case" as well.

Post reply on HN