Steve Jobs, BMW & eBay • Hacker News Board

Re: Steve Jobs, BMW & eBay

#61

Post by edge17 » Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 6:20 PM UTC

alastairpat wrote: post #26

voodoomagicman wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Apple could have kept both closed and innovated on them" Webkit is based on GPL code from KDE, so Apple had no choice but to release the source.

There's also the work that Apple did on LLVM/Clang, as well as Grand Central Dispatch. They weren't obliged to release that.

They kinda were. I don't know all the in's and outs, but as it was explained to me, GPL v3 is not very attractive for them since they're shipping devices that are closed ecosystems. The specific issue has to do with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

Re: Steve Jobs, BMW & eBay

#62

Post by sethg » Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 6:28 PM UTC

gbhn wrote: post #21

adamnash wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple seems to have proved your point, but they seem exceptional in that respect. Typical reasons are that the broader you make the audience, the more you have to dial down exceptional features for cost, scale and broad appeal.

One of the key things I feel like I learn from Steve Jobs is that while he may have been niche-focused at one time, he seems to me to have either intuited, or rapidly learned, that actually there's a very broad audience that values high-quality products. It's easy to forget that the "cheaper is better" pessimistic view of consumers is very strong, and that can become very cynical in a product company. Deciding to tru…

His genius move was turning Apple’s engineering talent to making sub-$1000 products that were not personal computers and therefore had profit margins comparable to the Mac’s.

PC manufacturers went with the strategy of “we used to be able to sell a machine with these features for $1000, and now that components are cheaper, we can sell it for $800”... and then they got into a price war that destroyed one another’s margins.

Re: Steve Jobs, BMW & eBay

#63

Post by nirvana » Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 8:53 PM UTC

tjogin wrote: post #31

nirvana wrote: post #16

Here it is 14 years later. The thing about that meeting, that strikes me, is that this is what Apple always was. Steve wasn't bringing a purpose to Apple, he was reminding Apple employees of Apple's purpose. Apple still has that purpose. Every product cycle you see the blogs and the pundits speculating on what Apple will do, and exclaiming what Apple should do. Just today I saw an article along the lines of "now that…

I agree, and it has puzzled me also why so many people just doesn't get it. Apple operates as dependently as a clock. You can see from a mile away what their intentions are when they've done something (or haven't done something), and they are often honest and upfront about it. And yet, people think Apple have some sort of unlikely agenda of world domination. Jesus christ. They just want to make the best products poss…

For the last decade, I've been wondering why people "just don't get it", not only about Apple, but about politics, economics, history, etc.

I've been forced to reach the conclusion that they don't get it because they don't want to. They are driven by ideology. Notice I was called a "fanboy" for defending Apple. The person who called me that name has substituted an ideology for their decision making, and thus, because I said something that pokes holes in the ideology, they must attack me personally.

Further, in the case of Apple, the fact that they are so good at being good, inflames the of people who are jealous or upset, because Apple isn't following their ideology. Richard Stallman, for instance, has been kicking Apple since they were down, and doing so while giving bigger companies like IBM, Google and Microsoft a complete pass.

They don't get it because reality disagrees with their ideology.

Re: Steve Jobs, BMW & eBay

#64

Post by nirvana » Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 8:56 PM UTC

voodoomagicman wrote: post #20

nirvana wrote: post #16

Here it is 14 years later. The thing about that meeting, that strikes me, is that this is what Apple always was. Steve wasn't bringing a purpose to Apple, he was reminding Apple employees of Apple's purpose. Apple still has that purpose. Every product cycle you see the blogs and the pundits speculating on what Apple will do, and exclaiming what Apple should do. Just today I saw an article along the lines of "now that…

"Apple could have kept both closed and innovated on them" Webkit is based on GPL code from KDE, so Apple had no choice but to release the source.

Webkit didn't need to be based on that open source project, and could have been done from scratch by Apple.

Re: Steve Jobs, BMW & eBay

#65

Post by nirvana » Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 9:01 PM UTC

Peaker wrote: post #49

thought_alarm wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't have to start http://webkit.org and run it as a public open source project. They did far more than simply comply with the GPL.

After a big PR scandal. Originally they just threw useless code patches back at KHTML to minimally comply with the license (LGPL, iirc).

There was no scandal and only GPL "enthusiasts" would be mad at someone for complying with the license... only not in the style they might want. Reality is, they're just bigots who hate Apple and are looking for any excuse to bash them. Really, you're not fooling anyone.

Re: Steve Jobs, BMW & eBay

#66

Post by nirvana » Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 9:02 PM UTC

edge17 wrote: post #61

alastairpat wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also the work that Apple did on LLVM/Clang, as well as Grand Central Dispatch. They weren't obliged to release that.

They kinda were. I don't know all the in's and outs, but as it was explained to me, GPL v3 is not very attractive for them since they're shipping devices that are closed ecosystems. The specific issue has to do with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

The purpose of using LLVM was so that they could stop relying on the GPLed gcc. The reason GPL is not attractive is because it restricts freedom. It limits people from using GPL software.

Re: Steve Jobs, BMW & eBay

#67

Post by nirvana » Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 9:04 PM UTC

ibisum wrote: post #30

nirvana wrote: post #16

Here it is 14 years later. The thing about that meeting, that strikes me, is that this is what Apple always was. Steve wasn't bringing a purpose to Apple, he was reminding Apple employees of Apple's purpose. Apple still has that purpose. Every product cycle you see the blogs and the pundits speculating on what Apple will do, and exclaiming what Apple should do. Just today I saw an article along the lines of "now that…

> Hell, Mac OS X is the most popular open sourced operating system on the planet. No. Linux.

%23 of personal computers sold these days are Macs.

What percentage are running Linux? (combining those that ship with Linux and those that ship with Windows but are reformatted.)

Re: Steve Jobs, BMW & eBay

#68

Post by thewisedude » Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 10:03 PM UTC

ConceitedCode wrote: post #4

Having a market share as large as Toyota's doesn't mean that you can't make great products. Who says they have to be related? It seems to happen in practice, but I can't figure out any good reasons.

I agree. IPhone is clearly a great smartphone and I pretty sure it has a very good market share... can somebody quantify this please?

Re: Steve Jobs, BMW & eBay

#69

Post by thewisedude » Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 10:08 PM UTC

I dont see why a great product cant have a great market share which seems to be an implication. Google search was one example. I am sure there have been other examples.

I am sure there are many lessons to be learnt from Steve Jobs, but I think we should be careful in not making everything he said or did as a lesson to learn!

Re: Steve Jobs, BMW & eBay

#70

Post by bjtitus » Tue, Oct 11, 2011, 10:54 PM UTC

efsavage wrote: post #59

Terretta wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, as I type in a Windows vm running on a computer assembled from commodity hardware, I can honestly say that are certainly a much larger number of choices, since neither of those are options with OS X. On the contrary, running in a VM, and running in a VM on a computer assembled from commodity hardware, are both certainly options with OS X. Running both server and desktop OS X in a VM is now even allowed in…

I stand partially corrected, you can apparently run OS X in a VM, but only on an OS X machine you buy from Apple. "to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software" So no, unless I missed something, you cannot run it in VMWare Workstation, and I stil…

You do realize that not including excess drivers for components that Apple doesn't use in its own hardware is part of that "better user experience" talked about above...

You may disagree with Apple's approach of bundling hardware and software but you would be foolish to expect a company taking that route to produce software that runs on other devices. Notice that the cheapest Windows 7 option is $120 while Lion is $20. Apple is not selling software to run on other devices. They are selling devices with their software. I hope you understand the difference between a hardware and software company.