The one downside to this difference - low quantity. It's not so noticeable with Apple, but someone else with constantly high quality, Daft Punk, have done so little, five albums by my count.
Apple is professional, the web is amateur
11–20 of 61 posts
Re: Apple is professional, the web is amateur
#12I think you're correct that Apple is going to have to do things differently get some of their web properties to catch on, but I disagree heavily on your premise. For a counterexample, Facebook is professional-looking and very structured compared to MySpace, which in turn is very amateurish-feeling. There isn't any question which is preferred. Forums are amateurish. Stackoverflow is professional. I know where I'm goin…
My point wasn't that less professional looking websites succeed over more professional looking sites. It's Apple's focus on professional content (the select few) vs amateur content (all of us). I didn't mean to use amateur in a derogative sense. Amateurs are just people who don't get paid for their work. Re: Facebook/MySpace, I think this was a different dynamic. The thing facebook did right was tone down the design…
It's this part that's going to get people disagreeing with you:
"No more pixel perfect web apps that feel like desktop apps, no more sites that look like glossy brochures, and embracing chaos and amateurism over order and professionalism. It is going to be very hard."
Re: Apple is professional, the web is amateur
#13> It's common knowledge that Apple doesn't get the web in general and social in particular.
It is?
> In iMovie, you can take your professional looking photos and stitch them together with the Ken Burns effect. The name says it all right there.
So you acknowledge that iLife is a counter to your point, and your only refutation is that there is a Ken Burns effect? I don't get it.
The premise of this very short article seems to be that, because Apple includes some professionally-made templates and used stock photos in a keynote, they don't get amateur content. iLife is the biggest counter to this argument. Apple does try to make sure that amateur content doesn't look or sound too shitty, but how does that mean they don't understand amateur content at all? It just means they're removing the boring work for the average user who doesn't want to spend an hour making a theme look good. Apple totally gets amateur content. They want every kid with an iPad to be recording music in Garageband.
The amateur content argument is weak and doesn't support the social argument. As for Ping, I never understood the hatred for it as it was always clearly just a way to see the music people were buying and not some major social network competitor. I've used it to browse a few people and found new albums I liked. It did its job in my case.
Facebook was the clean, professional-looking, easier-to-use alternative to the chaotic and amateurish MySpace. The idea that Apple must embrace amateur chaos just doesn't make sense to me and seems like it would be the wrong thing to do. Apple is the kind of company that is often a few years behind but eventually releases something so polished and easy to use that it's successful anyway.
Re: Apple is professional, the web is amateur
#14> It's common knowledge that Apple doesn't get the web in general and social in particular. It is? > In iMovie, you can take your professional looking photos and stitch them together with the Ken Burns effect. The name says it all right there. So you acknowledge that iLife is a counter to your point, and your only refutation is that there is a Ken Burns effect? I don't get it. The premise of this very short article s…
I don't think there was ever a hatred for Ping -- a hatred would infer that people cared about it. Nobody cared at all... logged in once, and then never went back to that part of iTunes again.
Re: Apple is professional, the web is amateur
#15> It's common knowledge that Apple doesn't get the web in general and social in particular. It is? > In iMovie, you can take your professional looking photos and stitch them together with the Ken Burns effect. The name says it all right there. So you acknowledge that iLife is a counter to your point, and your only refutation is that there is a Ken Burns effect? I don't get it. The premise of this very short article s…
[deleted]
Re: Apple is professional, the web is amateur
#16> It's common knowledge that Apple doesn't get the web in general and social in particular. It is? > In iMovie, you can take your professional looking photos and stitch them together with the Ken Burns effect. The name says it all right there. So you acknowledge that iLife is a counter to your point, and your only refutation is that there is a Ken Burns effect? I don't get it. The premise of this very short article s…
I don't think there was ever a hatred for Ping -- a hatred would infer that people cared about it. Nobody cared at all... logged in once, and then never went back to that part of iTunes again.
Fair point, but a lot of people freak out over Ping for some reason.
Re: Apple is professional, the web is amateur
#17I think you're correct that Apple is going to have to do things differently get some of their web properties to catch on, but I disagree heavily on your premise. For a counterexample, Facebook is professional-looking and very structured compared to MySpace, which in turn is very amateurish-feeling. There isn't any question which is preferred. Forums are amateurish. Stackoverflow is professional. I know where I'm goin…
My point wasn't that less professional looking websites succeed over more professional looking sites. It's Apple's focus on professional content (the select few) vs amateur content (all of us). I didn't mean to use amateur in a derogative sense. Amateurs are just people who don't get paid for their work. Re: Facebook/MySpace, I think this was a different dynamic. The thing facebook did right was tone down the design…
> If Apple had done Stack Overflow, I bet they would have had a team of certified experts to answer the questions and I don't think it would have worked very well.
Something like Knol?
Re: Apple is professional, the web is amateur
#18> If Apple's going to succeed at the web, they have to unlearn a lot of what makes them Apple. No more pixel perfect web apps that feel like desktop apps, no more sites that look like glossy brochures, and embracing chaos and amateurism over order and professionalism Here is yet another argument based on the premise that, in order for Apple to succeed, it must do the same thing as everyone else. We have heard the sam…
I don't think these situations are parallels.
Clones were a bad idea because they diluted Apple's brand and cut way into their margins (Apple is a hardware company and makes money from that).
As for cheap phones, Apple now sells the 3GS for $49. I don't think this is an example of the naysayers being right, it's just Apple having their cake and eating it too.
The point is not that Apple should do the same thing as everyone else to succeed at the web. It's just that they've been trying one thing over and over again with no success. They have to change something.
Re: Apple is professional, the web is amateur
#19And yet if you zoom out just a little, people seem to be buying more and more equipment from Apple to produce and consume the "amateur" content of the web.
Re: Apple is professional, the web is amateur
#20Beneath the cruft (i.e., Apple products should have less polish, Apple hates amateurs), I think there's a kernel of truth, especially related to their approach to social networking. Can we expect Kayne West to use Ping like Twitter? Probably not, but it's an interesting thought.
Do remember that many of Apple's products (e.g., iMovie, iWeb) are designed for everyday people to create content that is fairly professional-looking. I'd argue that, to a certain degree, Apple has done more to raise the bar of content quality than Instagram or YouTube (which have lowered the bar to entry). Those aren't exclusive approaches, merely different value propositions.