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

Apple's Blue Ocean

hypercritical.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 262 posts

Re: Apple's Blue Ocean

#81

Post by makeitdouble »

Kon-Peki wrote: post #75

I thought that EU regulations were going to force smartphones to have removable batteries within the next few years. That’s hardly swimming out into the blue ocean. But regardless, easily removable batteries are going to create more e-waste, not less. Replacing a battery is perfectly doable right now, but there is a hurdle you have to jump over - you aren’t going to do it until you really need it. Once those batterie…

Batteries are still expensive. An iPad battery for instance is easily in the 100~200 bucks, same for laptops. The iPhone might come lower (50?) but even with a simple system, opening the device will till probably enough of a friction to not make it worth it to most people.

To make a comparison to cameras, I don't know how many people care to buy spare batteries outside of pros and people actually going through 2 or 3 batteries on their trips. Everyone else is probably using the one coming with their camera until it dies and then replaces it.

Re: Apple's Blue Ocean

#82

Post by ungamedplayer »

M3L0NM4N wrote: post #72
Reason077 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Why not no battery in the device?" How about a nuclear battery, aka radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG)? This would be sealed in (carefully!) and would last the lifetime of the device, with no need for charging, ever. Would need special steps/handling to ensure safe disposal at end of product life, however.

What about a fusion reactor, generating its own hydrogen molecules to power nuclear fusion through electrolysis from the water vapor in the air. There isn't really a theoretical limit to how small a fusion reactor can be, although clearly this would not achievable for a long time.

Totally planned obsolescence.

Re: Apple's Blue Ocean

#84

Post by pipeline_peak »

Really bad article, the author doesn’t seem to have any idea what blue ocean strategy is about. It’s not about making “bold moves” in an unchanging market. It’s about cutting down cost through focusing on what really matters to an under looked consumer audience. That audience being one the competition isn’t even focusing on. Also low cost wasn’t just Nintendo’s choice, that was a major factor in the definition of Blue Ocean. Apple cuts down cost in some areas to compensate for quality and user experience, keeping the cost. They do this because they make luxury items.

Yellow Tail Wine and Nintendo’s Wii were text book examples. They both found an untapped audience, novice consumers who don’t know nor care for over the top quality. In Nintendo’s case, hard core gamers valued graphics and performance as quality. To Yellow Tail it was Wine enthusiasts and their interest in vineyards, vintages, and hints of whatever.

Apple products are novice, but they aren’t cheap. The Chromebook is a better example of Blue Ocean. It does only what an entry level consumer wants in a laptop. It browsers the web, writes documents. Google said “hey, pretty much everyone who owns a MacBook but isn’t an artist or techie could use this”. Like MacBooks it doesnt require expertise, it offers a similar user quality experience, but unlike them it’s affordable because it doesn’t have unnecessary hardware specs and Swiss watch leveled build quality.

I don’t blame the author for not reading the whole ass book. But for god sakes, at least read the wiki page about it, don’t use a gaming magazine as your source. Because he clearly took the Wii example in the magazine and ran with it. He thought he could map it onto Apple products because what, they get rid of stuff and are innovative like the Wii was?

I’m glad I’m not the only one who found the battery ramble irrelevant.

Re: Apple's Blue Ocean

#86

Post by silisili »

bradgessler wrote: post #44
albertgoeswoof wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wireless power is too inefficient for this to make sense. You’d be throwing 30% of the battery capacity to the wind

You could have low profile metal contacts between the battery case and the phone to achieve full efficiency.

Every phone with moto mods were built this way. The battery mod was probably the most popular.

They didn't sell well, apparently.

Re: Apple's Blue Ocean

#87

Post by andrewjf »

artimaeis wrote: post #71
SoftTalker wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What brand of LED bulb do you buy? I'm consistently replacing one or two bulbs a month around the house. I don't know if it's the electronics or the LEDs; I don't really care either.

Jumping in to recommend Cree if they're still around. Used to be able to get them at Home Depot here in the US. I started going Cree when I was renting 10 years ago, I've yet to have a single failure of the bulbs that I've drug with me to the place I live now. Have at least 25 bulbs currently in the house that are Cree LEDs. Their reliability actually has me frustrated at the current trend of lighting fixtures with i…

I’m replacing all the ecosmart bulbs with crees. The normal 60w/100w equivalents have been fine so far, but I have some 7500 lumen Cree ED37s that are trash, replaced 3 already out of ~7. Not sure what the deal is. Maybe my power at my house is bad or something. We blow through LEDs like crazy. They just start flickering.

Re: Apple's Blue Ocean

#88

Post by foobiekr »

SoftTalker wrote: post #63
PaulKeeble wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a bit of a myth for ever lasting bulbs, its more complicated than that. The life time was a trade off of colour and brightness. If you made them very red shifted and quite dim then there are bulbs that are very old still around, but they don't produce much light and never did. The harder you drive the filament the better the light properties but the quicker it died. The industry choose a point for trade offs as a…

I'd be happy with an LED bulb that lasted a year. I haven't yet found one that can do that reliably. Remember that 60W incandescent bulbs costing $0.25 used to be available that met that goal. We've taken huge steps backwards on interior household lighting.

Felt, GE, Philips. I have ~20 bulbs, including several on dimmers, in the house and have never had to replace a failed LED bulb in ten years.

Are you sure your power isn't bad in some way?

Re: Apple's Blue Ocean

#89

Post by jen20 »

dangus wrote: post #50
todd3834 wrote: post #27

I really enjoyed the first half talking about how Apple and Nintendo followed a blue ocean strategy. Then the second half ranting about removable batteries felt totally out of place. I’m not sure I buy the blue ocean strategy of that, although well written.

I agree. It made no sense after the excellent first half. Apple has designed the Mac to become obsolete in approximately 10 years. That’s when you lose official OS support. And yes, you can get your battery serviced but nobody’s going to buy a $200 battery for a laptop worth $500. Adding it back wouldn’t be a blue ocean, it would just be Apple ceding profits to nobody. Apple’s blue ocean is stacking ecosystem benefit…

I don't disagree with anything you've written, but (somewhat) regularly buy new batteries for my Lenovo X220, at about the same price to value ratio.

Re: Apple's Blue Ocean

#90

Post by mathieuh »

SoftTalker wrote: post #63
PaulKeeble wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a bit of a myth for ever lasting bulbs, its more complicated than that. The life time was a trade off of colour and brightness. If you made them very red shifted and quite dim then there are bulbs that are very old still around, but they don't produce much light and never did. The harder you drive the filament the better the light properties but the quicker it died. The industry choose a point for trade offs as a…

I'd be happy with an LED bulb that lasted a year. I haven't yet found one that can do that reliably. Remember that 60W incandescent bulbs costing $0.25 used to be available that met that goal. We've taken huge steps backwards on interior household lighting.

That’s crazy to me, I couldn’t tell you the last time I had to change an LED bulb, certainly it’s at least five years. And I work from home in a part of the world where it’s very dark for half the year so they get a lot of use.

They’re Philips Hue bulbs, a mix between LWB010 and LTW001, but even the cheap supermarket bulbs have lasted so long I also couldn’t tell you when I last changed them. Some of them have been in the house longer than I have.

Post reply on HN