Apple is a traditional business • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple is a traditional business

#151

Post by esrauch » Wed, May 02, 2018, 5:04 PM UTC

0xcafecafe wrote: post #35

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).

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".

I don't think the argument is that they are stupid because they cost jobs, any more than the idea that smart speakers are bad because they will cost jobs.

Re: Apple is a traditional business

#152

Post by AstralStorm » Wed, May 02, 2018, 5:07 PM UTC

wmeredith wrote: post #113

pier25 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it really points to how rarely an innovation like the iPhone really occurs Yeah, but don't forget that the pieces to be able to create the iPhone had to be there first.

The innovation of the iPhone was in the execution. The ideas were around, along with a ton of failed attempts at it. A computer in your pocket had been an idea for decades. Apple made one that a critical mass of people could/would actually use.

Not really. The main innovation was business one that allowed Apple to steal US markets. They convinced two major carriers to offer expensive big data plans.

Re: Apple is a traditional business

#153

Post by 0xcafecafe » Wed, May 02, 2018, 5:07 PM UTC

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…

To each his own, I exclusively use the self checkout line whenever I can (especially at costco) and it saves me a ton of time. Besides the point here was about innovation and working towards a better future, which the amazon cashierless stores might be. Just because the current solution for self-checkouts is bad doesn't mean we should stop innovating.

Re: Apple is a traditional business

#154

Post by ordinaryradical » Wed, May 02, 2018, 5:08 PM UTC

wmeredith wrote: post #113

pier25 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it really points to how rarely an innovation like the iPhone really occurs Yeah, but don't forget that the pieces to be able to create the iPhone had to be there first.

The innovation of the iPhone was in the execution. The ideas were around, along with a ton of failed attempts at it. A computer in your pocket had been an idea for decades. Apple made one that a critical mass of people could/would actually use.

This is so dead-on. Having the idea is often the easy part—it's the execution that makes or breaks it. Yes a great idea can be valuable but it's nothing without the execution to bring it into reality.

Conversely, ideas which appear shitty or idiotic in their failure (Juicero, for eg.) might have thrived with sensible, correct execution.

This is why having the right team matters more than having the right idea and one should take a hard look at oneself as much as the product when facing failure.

Re: Apple is a traditional business

#155

Post by bitwize » Wed, May 02, 2018, 5:08 PM UTC

IncRnd wrote: post #91

Retric wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> iPhone was Xerox LoL what? Everything that's built with computers can be traced back to the guy who invented the transistor, but that does not mean innovation stopped then.

The first implementation of a smart phone was likely the LG Prada not the iPhone.

"Smartphone" was coined as a marketing term by Microsoft in the early 2000s to refer to PDAs with cell radios that ran Windows CE. These early smartphones were bricks -- not Zack Morris phones, but hand-sized bricks nonetheless -- and required a stylus to operate.

Re: Apple is a traditional business

#156

Post by AstralStorm » Wed, May 02, 2018, 5:09 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #142

pier25 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it really points to how rarely an innovation like the iPhone really occurs Yeah, but don't forget that the pieces to be able to create the iPhone had to be there first.

My list of the enabling technologies for the iPhone is: - USB 2.0 - developed by others, Apple's first use was in computers. - Flash memory - developed by others, Apple's first use was in iPods. - LCD screens - developed by others, Apple's first use was in laptops. - ARM chips - developed by others, Apple's first use was in... iPods? iPhone? Not sure. - Lithium ion batteries - developed by others, Apple's first use w…

The product wasn't even new. It was just popular due to Microsoft-class backroom negotiations with carriers to sell data plans and the fact that the launch perfectly coincided with launch of 3G networks in the USA.

Re: Apple is a traditional business

#157

Post by esrauch » Wed, May 02, 2018, 5:11 PM UTC

_bxg1 wrote: post #149

wmeredith wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, I think this argument is a bit glib. Google's main endeavor is to develop an actual product. They design and engineer something in the hopes that people use it. (Then they sell ads, like the publishing industry has done for 200 years.)

The difference is where the exchange of money happens. Because Google's, and Facebook's, Amazon's, and most SV startups' services are free, you get the privacy problems and the ulterior motives and the trust issues. With Apple, you paid for the product up-front. The transaction is done and in the open. They don't have to do anything skeevy to make money off their product.

Apple has plenty of non-aligned incentives, they control the store (+30% subscription tax on Spotify, taking down apps that compete with "core functionality"), they don't want you to repair your phone (and planned obsolescence) where ewaste and their profit is connected.

Re: Apple is a traditional business

#158

Post by ashleyn » Wed, May 02, 2018, 5:12 PM UTC

et-al wrote: post #82

fhood wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I occasionally loose sleep, wondering what products were lost due to Jobs' early death. Edit: Ok, fine. I loose sleep wondering what ideas were out there that languished because Jobs wasn't around to see their potential and capitalize on them. The argument "he wasn't that important because he didn't actually invent X" is played out, and it fundamentally misses the point.

Has this talk with a friend, but it was actually centered around accessibility of technology for older people (or less technologically-inclined people, if you must). If Jobs had aged, needed reading glasses, and maybe had Parkinson's, would there be more of a push towards making devices easier to use? Would Siri be more functional? I know Jitterbug exists, but it seems almost insulting. (If anyone has used one and fe…

In his biography, Jobs bemoaned the utilitarian brutalism of the medical devices he relied on in his final years of life. He absolutely would've oversaw the development of slicker accessibility.

Re: Apple is a traditional business

#159

Post by AstralStorm » Wed, May 02, 2018, 5:13 PM UTC

whatok wrote: post #31

ekianjo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because it's the only option that takes privacy and security seriously right now. iPhones are a luxury. If you can recommend them it means you already belong to the richest part of the planet. For the rest, they jut can't afford it, and Apple was never interested in making anything cheap.

21% of Apple's quarterly revenue was from China. China is not well-known as one of the richest parts of the planet.

That is now, not back when it was launched.

Re: Apple is a traditional business

#160

Post by ksec » Wed, May 02, 2018, 5:16 PM UTC

fhood wrote: post #22

oflannabhra wrote: post #11

> ...this is a time when Amazon is pushing innovations that don’t solve any real-world problems but may create some: like smart speakers, with their threat of big brother-style surveillance in exchange for a minimal increase in convenience, or complex and expensive cashierless stores that won’t deliver much of an improvement to our shopping experience but may cost underprivileged people their jobs. This is a time whe…

I occasionally loose sleep, wondering what products were lost due to Jobs' early death. Edit: Ok, fine. I loose sleep wondering what ideas were out there that languished because Jobs wasn't around to see their potential and capitalize on them. The argument "he wasn't that important because he didn't actually invent X" is played out, and it fundamentally misses the point.

People still don't understand what is invention and what is innovation.

So no need to feel bad about it.