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

Apple is a traditional business

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 248 posts

Re: Apple is a traditional business

#121

Post by kerng »

MBCook wrote: post #74
beamatronic wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those of us who were PDA users in the late 90s and Treo users in the early 2000s, the iPhone is an incremental improvement on those ideas. The presence of ubiquitous wireless networking (I am lumping cellular wireless and WiFi in together) was the real game changer. If you are not convinced, try this thought experiment: Imagine yourself in 1998 standing on the street in a major city holding a Palm pilot. It has a…

It was not an incremental leap. It was MASSIVE. Yes, all the technology was there. We had smartphones and they would have continued without the iPhone. The value of the internet in your pocket is too big for the smart phone not to become a huge thing. Eventually. But Apple NAILED the UI. They made it so simple that 3 year olds can use the UI and are confused when other computers don’t work through such great touch co…

The success was massive, the innovation aspect just part of incremental (small) progress in the grand scheme of things I would say.

Re: Apple is a traditional business

#122

Post by gambiting »

greymeister wrote: post #71
0xcafecafe wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it naive to criticize cashierless stores and automated cars as "stupid areas"? Arguing that those will cost jobs is akin to saying a 100 years back that the "iron horse" will cost jobs. Mankind has to continue to innovate and it is disingenuous to argue that a cashierless store is a "minor convenience".

My current experience with just about any cashierless option at a grocery or department store is far from a minor convenience, it's almost entirely an inconvenience. I now get to do what I did over 20 years ago and bag groceries, except then I was paid for it. However, it allows the store to place one minimum wage employee over multiple lanes versus having to have one per lane (or even two if it was like the grocery…

I despise the cashierless checkouts too, however, the recent advent of scan-as-you-shop options here in UK(Tescos and Sainsburys have it) means that I walk into the store, put items directly into my own bags that I brought with me from home, scanning each as I put it into the bag, and then at the end I walk up to one of many terminals(there's never any queue), return the handset, pay with card and literally walk out. It was transformative to my shopping experience(as in - made it a lot better).

Re: Apple is a traditional business

#125

Post by gambiting »

UncleMeat wrote: post #67
gambiting wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point here is that Apple is not innovating in "stupid" areas(for the author) - like cashierless stores, automated cars, surveillance speakers etc. In a way, yes, that is admirable - I think all other tech giants are going in the "wrong" and harmful direction, while Apple still concentrates on making good hardware with matching software(their abysmal attempts at MacOs fixes notwithstanding).

How exactly is Alexa different than Siri on iPhones? Why is one a surveillance speaker but the other isnt? I'm near my phone far more often than I am in my living room.

You need to press a button to activate Siri. Alexa/Google home are listening at all times.

Re: Apple is a traditional business

#126

Post by scarface74 »

simsla wrote: post #110
scarface74 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The HomePod has a very simple proposition. I give Apple money and they give me a speaker. They aren't trying to use the HomePod to gather data to see what else they can sell me.

Neither are the other two.

Bezos specifically said that the entire purpose of their hardware is to get people to buy more stuff from Amazon. You really don't think both Amazon and Google are collecting data to improve their real money makers - targeted ad revenue and marketing?

Re: Apple is a traditional business

#127

Post by SonicSoul »

Here’s a naive question.

This all sounds noble and all , but doesn’t Apple know just as much or more about you via phone / watch / iCloud / iTunes / Apple Pay / Apple TV?

Are we celebrating here that they’re not openly selling this information or using as primary business model ? Or that it’s only used for internal business?

Re: Apple is a traditional business

#128

Post by neuromantik8086 »

blhack wrote: post #106
IncRnd wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, but don't forget that the pieces to be able to create the iPhone had to be there first. Like the LG Prada?

Like Palm's existing smartphone with existing smartphone apps, or blackberry.

Or General Magic's work in the early 90s.

Re: Apple is a traditional business

#129

Post by r00fus »

blhack wrote: post #106
IncRnd wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, but don't forget that the pieces to be able to create the iPhone had to be there first. Like the LG Prada?

Like Palm's existing smartphone with existing smartphone apps, or blackberry.

I migrated from a Palm Treo 650 to an OG iPhone. Superficially they're similar in functionality (I didn't really need a stylus for most Palm apps) but there was so much you could do with an iPhone that the Palm just couldn't touch.

Execution details like Apple contracting with Cingular/ATT to provide unlimited 2G for $20/mo was a huge substantive usability difference. I had to pay $40-$45/mo for similar ubiquitous signal on my Palm - needless to say I didn't - so Palm apps weren't built on that assumption.

Re: Apple is a traditional business

#130

Post by srslack »

imron wrote: post #116
wilsonnb wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really wasn't as massive a leap as you make it out to be. It's likely that we would have ended up with something very similar to today's smartphones even if the iPhone had never existed. It wasn't the first smartphone. It wasn't the first phone to use a capacitive touch screen. The first iPhone didn't even have the app store - it launched with the 3G a year after the the first iPhone was released, if I remember co…

> It's likely that we would have ended up with something very similar to today's smartphones even if the iPhone had never existed. I'm not so sure. A picture says a thousand words: https://www.cultofmac.com/145083/what-phones-looked-like-bef...

The LG Prada is certainly worth some words of acknowledgement, but acknowledging it wouldn't fit the narrative that page is attempting to cultivate. There are also examples going further back, such as the IBM Simon, and of course Apple's own Newton, which is technically not a smart phone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada

Post reply on HN