The New Apple Advantage • Hacker News Board

Re: The New Apple Advantage

#81

Post by rayiner » Sat, Sep 10, 2011, 3:52 AM UTC

martingordon wrote: post #22

> It’s even worse if I just browse without searching. The options I get are just… meaningless. Yes, I want “Everyday Computing,” so I want an Inspiron. But hang on, I also want “Design & Performance,” so I want an XPS. Wait a second, I want “Thin & Powerful,” too. This is the crux of the problem with all of Apple's competitors, in the PC business and in mobile. Why choose when you can have everything? Apple's lineup…

I'm a geek and I couldn't care less what WiFi chipset is in my laptop.

I was shopping for a ThinkPad X220 for someone, and it had the option of the regular screen or the "premium" screen for $50 more. They don't tell you what the "premium" screen is or why you'd want it. I presume the regular screen is shitty. Can you even imagine Apple offering such an option? A $1000+ laptop with a shitty screen, with a $50 option to upgrade to a non-shitty screen?

Re: The New Apple Advantage

#82

Post by wavephorm » Sat, Sep 10, 2011, 3:55 AM UTC

zeteo wrote: post #9

There's nothing new about this. Apple has been doing vertical integration for decades. When things went badly, pundits criticized it. Now it's the whole new rage. There's nothing particularly enlightening in this article, nothing that would be of any use to anyone hoping to replicate some of Apple's success. Advice to have good design and a low price is just a platitude.

Apple's vertical model didn't work for the PC industry for a variety of reasons. But now in the new mobile industry it is so successful, that literally every big company is trying to go all vertical, all the time.

Hardware, software, development tools, operating system, mobile and desktop platforms, app stores, single sign-on, cloud services, music, movies, and tv delivery, voice and video communications...

Google, Apple, and Microsoft are all trying to build an entire computing stack, back to front, and leave the other guys out. Nokia, Motorola, and HP knew they weren't going to be able to compete in the new vertical world. Samsung is trying to get into the OS game with their Bada and maybe something after that.

Re: The New Apple Advantage

#83

Post by Fluxx » Sat, Sep 10, 2011, 4:06 AM UTC

socratic wrote: post #52

ugh wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are reading way too much into it. This article is not trying to make the argument that Steve Jobs was irrelevant or less important for Apple than Tim Cook.

"But at this point, it seems clear to me that however superior Apple's design is, it's their business and operations strength — the Cook side of the equation — that is furthest ahead of their competition, and the more sustainable advantage."

Right, but you can't discount the vision that Jobs had to show Apple and everyone else that having products that are uncompromising on design + are solid technically will lead to great success.

Re: The New Apple Advantage

#84

Post by officemonkey » Sat, Sep 10, 2011, 4:08 AM UTC

Steko wrote: post #77

wysiwtf wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure that X220 is similar enough to an Air, it doesn't look like an air and the design specs are quite bulkier: MacBook Air 11 inch: Height: .68 Weight: 2.38 MacBook Air 13 inch: Height: .68 Weight: 2.96 X220 12 inch: Height: 1.25 Weight: 3.6 I don't think it matters that you spec'ed it out to be slightly faster, I bet many of the people who want an Air-like notebook want the thinnest, cleanest, lightest note…

Apple had to send their engineers over to Intel to teach them how to build the chips they wanted for the Airs. They wanted lower Ghz.

Believe it or not, people once did productive work on a computer with a 386 chip. Fastest does not necessarily equate with best.

EDIT: I misinterpreted the above comment. It's Friday and I'm sleepy.

Re: The New Apple Advantage

#85

Post by gcb » Sat, Sep 10, 2011, 4:10 AM UTC

dgallagher wrote: post #31

Another way to put this, Apple loosely abides to the "Good, Better, Best" lineup for their product offerings. They don't follow it exactly, but in general, they keep selection simple. This doesn't confuse customers, and allows them to easily compare one thing to another. If you've ever eaten at Panera Bread, you'll usually see people staring at the menu on the wall for a few minutes. Their menu is huge and all over t…

great analogy. and just like with food, anyone who has a clue about what they are ordering, will never enter an apple store.

Re: The New Apple Advantage

#86

Post by Steko » Sat, Sep 10, 2011, 4:11 AM UTC

socratic wrote: post #68

Anechoic wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Could we possibly, as a community, just agree that a blacklist of Gruber posts is good for us? How would we begin such a discussion? This submittal is #1 on the front page with 110 net points. I think the community has spoken.

You seem to have missed an earlier part of my comment. Because HN requires very high karma thresholds before enabling downvotes, net points are an extremely asymmetric measure. However, one possible solution would be to enable downvotes, but only on controversial posts such as Gruber's. That would enable both sides of the community to speak. How would you feel about such a measure? EDIT: Controversial might be define…

How hard is it for you to not click on something you don't want to read?

I see hundreds of posts here every day that I don't click on, some in the top 5. I don't start campaigns to censor these posts, I assume people upvote them because they find value in them. Obviously people find value in Gruber's posts if they are being upvoted.

So here's the suggestion again: don't click on it bro. Problem solved.

Re: The New Apple Advantage

#87

Post by uladzislau » Sat, Sep 10, 2011, 4:13 AM UTC

ugh wrote: post #55

jellicle wrote: post #53

What I grasp from this is that John Gruber and Peter Bright are just too dim to understand basic online stores. This qualifies for mockery from Gruber/Bright: > "Everyday Computing" But this is good understandable product description: > "The ultimate everyday notebook" (that second one is Apple's marketing copy for the Macbook Air). The low-end Macbook Air is $999 in Canada. Let's compare. I just priced a Lenovo X220…

So, you really wanna claim that Apple has an equally confusing product lineup compared to other manufactures? That’s a quite daring claim (and also some impressive misleading quoting you are doing there). Apple doesn’t ask you to decide based on non-sensical marketing blabber like that. They use it, sure, but it isn’t central in the decision process of the buyer. Go to their store and check out how they do it: http:/…

It's exactly the point other market players don't get: give people less choice i.e. less confusion. Save their time and they will pay premium for that. And in the end, serious and smart people care about piece of mind not specs or even price.

Re: The New Apple Advantage

#88

Post by Steko » Sat, Sep 10, 2011, 4:14 AM UTC

officemonkey wrote: post #84

Steko wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple had to send their engineers over to Intel to teach them how to build the chips they wanted for the Airs. They wanted lower Ghz.

Believe it or not, people once did productive work on a computer with a 386 chip. Fastest does not necessarily equate with best. EDIT: I misinterpreted the above comment. It's Friday and I'm sleepy.

I think you've misread my comment.

The extra Mhz here is wasted because Apple intentionally values the heat/battery dynamics more in this product. That's how the whole 1.7 Ghz lines of the Core Duo (and now the Core i5/i7) chips came about: Apple worked with intel to make the chips and got a good deal of exclusivity. This was all made clear when the Macbook Air debuted with Paul Otellini and Jobs onstage together.

Re: The New Apple Advantage

#89

Post by bostonvaulter2 » Sat, Sep 10, 2011, 4:16 AM UTC

dasil003 wrote: post #66

whatusername wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone can make a better/tastier/nicer hamburger than McDonalds. No-one can make a more profitable hamburger than McDonalds. That ties in pretty well to Tim Cook.

Most hamburgers are more profitable than McDonalds. The hard part is selling a billion of them.

Isn't it about selling the sides as well, like the soda's?

Re: The New Apple Advantage

#90

Post by dlss » Sat, Sep 10, 2011, 4:18 AM UTC

jseliger wrote: post #71

ugh wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you really wanna claim that Apple has an equally confusing product lineup compared to other manufactures? That’s a quite daring claim (and also some impressive misleading quoting you are doing there). Apple doesn’t ask you to decide based on non-sensical marketing blabber like that. They use it, sure, but it isn’t central in the decision process of the buyer. Go to their store and check out how they do it: http:/…

So, you really wanna claim that Apple has an equally confusing product lineup compared to other manufactures? That’s a quite daring claim (and also some impressive misleading quoting you are doing there). Apple doesn’t ask you to decide based on non-sensical marketing blabber like that. They use it, sure, but it isn’t central in the decision process of the buyer. One other point: all three Macs I've owned were ready…

What an odd way to decide which machine you'll use every day for the next year or more.

A clean install is really easy -- maybe one hour if you sit and watch it, fifteen minutes if you use your old laptop while it's going... why would you let a cost of Setup time is part of the cost of a system. I'm sure that the apple machine isn't actually ready for you to use it out of the box -- if you're like most HN readers you'll have tons of tweaks you need to install before the computer actually works the way you want it to.

I'm writing this on a x220 with a 240GB Vertex3 under the hood, which is 4-10x faster than my coworker's13" 240GB macbook air for bioinformatics workloads. It cost about $100 more, and yes it required a clean install as part of setup.

The profit I've made on that $100 + 1 hour is insane... probably 100x return so far this year on decreased compile & run times (calculated as delta in experiments per day times my annual salary)