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

71–80 of 100 posts

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

#71

Post by warfangle »

Terretta wrote: post #39
warfangle wrote: post #23

I do believe apple has given some opaque concessions. Note that this is anecdotal; I have not scientifically tested this. I have the nexus one, running on att 3g - the same similar card I used to use in my iPhone 3g. A co-worker just got the iPhone 4. We both picked up the FCC bandwidth test app. Testing each phone in succession - not simultaneously - in the same spot, hands free, flat on the desk. My N1 consistently…

Tell him to reset network settings. If not fixed dial 611 to reprovision. Known issue with activation not setting right for iPhone 4 restored from iPhone 3, and some new iPhone 4 with glitch in activation. I get 3 Mbps / 1.5 Mbps in SoHo and the Village.

If the activation didn't set right, wouldn't he not be able to even get on the 3G network? The phone works fine - just, in tests, the network is quite a bit slower than other phones.

Activation would seem to be a binary, not gradient, issue..

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

#72

Post by jasonlotito »

jesseendahl wrote: post #61
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…

Several reasons for this.

1. DF sneezes and get's hits. 2. Linkbait headline. 3. Shorter post means people are back here faster and will remember to upvote. Wired article is longer, much better, and by the time you are done, you forget to upvote.

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

#73

Post by wallflower »

jesseendahl wrote: post #60
pinstriped_dude wrote: post #54

Why is the DaringFireball article here? and why does it have a 100 votes? The guy has just quoted the Wired article without adding anything on his own?

It is particularly odd since the actual Wired article was already on the front page of HN when this was submitted.

The power of a headline that grabs your focus

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

#74

Post by wallflower »

tlrobinson wrote: post #59
pinstriped_dude wrote: post #54

Why is the DaringFireball article here? and why does it have a 100 votes? The guy has just quoted the Wired article without adding anything on his own?

Because it highlights the most interesting points of a much longer article? I'm no Daring Fireball fanboy (the 1st derivative of an Apple fanboy?) but there is sometimes value in aggregation and summarization.

> sometimes value in aggregation

What do you think of http://kottke.org ?

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

#75

Post by CaptainMcCrank »

Original article reeks of linkbait.

Counterculture versus The Man. Flippant startup versus entrenched corporation. Think different versus rethink possible.

And a bunch of hacker newsers get all excited about a quote about dressing nice.

I love the irony of counterculture groupthink. "we are apple, we don't even own suits." They should finish that with a "we are legion" reference.

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

#76

Post by culled »

jrockway wrote: post #45

I don't normally like Apple, but I like their attitude here. Why should they wear certain clothes to a meeting with AT&T? Who cares what AT&T thinks of Apple!? If AT&T passes on Apple, Verizon or Sprint or T-Mobile would pick them up in a heartbeat. The only reason AT&T is still in business is because of Apple. Fuck wearing a suit! I'm shocked to hear that AT&T is not showering Apple's execs with expensive champagne…

" The only reason AT&T is still in business is because of Apple. "

That's a little over the top. Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile are all still in business without the iPhone and AT&T was a very large carrier before they had the iPhone. AT&T would probably be doing worse than they are now without the iPhone but I seriously doubt they'd be going out of business. I'd go so far as to say that AT&T's reputation would be somewhat better without the iPhone since it seems like most of their network problems were caused because of the demands that the iPhone created.

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

#77

Post by [deleted] »

culled wrote: post #76
jrockway wrote: post #45

I don't normally like Apple, but I like their attitude here. Why should they wear certain clothes to a meeting with AT&T? Who cares what AT&T thinks of Apple!? If AT&T passes on Apple, Verizon or Sprint or T-Mobile would pick them up in a heartbeat. The only reason AT&T is still in business is because of Apple. Fuck wearing a suit! I'm shocked to hear that AT&T is not showering Apple's execs with expensive champagne…

" The only reason AT&T is still in business is because of Apple. " That's a little over the top. Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile are all still in business without the iPhone and AT&T was a very large carrier before they had the iPhone. AT&T would probably be doing worse than they are now without the iPhone but I seriously doubt they'd be going out of business. I'd go so far as to say that AT&T's reputation would be some…

[deleted]

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

#78

Post by maukdaddy »

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?

Do you get to regularly interact with the dude from the commercials with the creepy, yet soothing, voice?

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

#80

Post by jarek »

xutopia wrote: post #79
pinstriped_dude wrote: post #54

Why is the DaringFireball article here? and why does it have a 100 votes? The guy has just quoted the Wired article without adding anything on his own?

He saves us time that's why.

If your time was that valuable, you wouldn't be reading HN right now.
Post reply on HN