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

Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)

longform.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 157 posts

Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)

#91

Post by simonh »

ekianjo wrote: post #80
simonh wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IBM never gained control of that market sector though. What happened is that they lost control of the technical standards they created, accidentaly launching an open platform they never intended to be open. If IBM had retained control of the PC and had as a result dominated the desktop computer industry, history would be very different. I don't think Jobs ever really intended to win the dsktop wars in that way though…

> That's not a Jobsian vision. Even when the iPhone was the only 'modern' smartphone and Android devices were years away from competing effectively with it, Apple never went for the market share play Yet Apple achieved a large market share and was perfectly happy with it even when Jobs was on the board. I'd find it hard to believe that you don't want Market Share anyway, even if you target premium users. You don't wa…

They did, but profit has always been a higher priority for them than market share and the 'platform dominance' that goes with it. If they happen to get a large market share, or if their platform becomes dominant anyway that's a nice benefit, but it's not a strategic goal.

A good example of when Apple became a market share elader is the iPod. If you look at Apple's product strategy though, they never did anything to gain market share at the cost of profits and premium branding. The combination of devices and services via iTunes created a dominant platform. They didn't do anything to avoid that, it's not that beign dominant is itself a bad thing, it's just that it wasn't a strategic goal. They never under-cut competitors to achieve it. Yet at the height of their market dominance, when they were best placed to use their position to exert market control, instead of using that power against customers to increase lock-in, they used it to force reluctant labels to embrace DRM free content. They then used it again to coerce the labels to sign up to iTunes Match. They did this becaue these moves ease customer pain points and improve the customer experience, making their products more attractive and therefore more valuable.

Can you imagine Microsoft or IBM making moves like that? I can't. As another example, Apple has always maintained that they don't allow third party keyboards, or third party browsers to use the accelerated Webkit engine for security reasons. These explanations were widely derided as fig leaves to cover a lock-in strategy, yet as soon as Apple has implemented controls to open these restrictions securely, it did so. It turns out their stated reasons for doing that really were their actual reasons for doing it. So if you want to make your 'Apple lockin would be worse than IBM' thesis stand up, you need to explain why their actual behaviour when they're in that situation doesn't match the thesis.

Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)

#92

Post by jacquesm »

simonh wrote: post #73
ekianjo wrote: post #39

> Jobs: my personal feeling is that we are going to enter sort of a computer Dark Ages for about 20 years. Once IBM gains control of a market sector, they almost always stop innovation. They prevent innovation from happening. I'm very glad that IBM and its compatible equivalents won the market, we would certainly be in much Darker Ages should Apple have won the desktop war, with their close-minded view on the world a…

IBM never gained control of that market sector though. What happened is that they lost control of the technical standards they created, accidentaly launching an open platform they never intended to be open. If IBM had retained control of the PC and had as a result dominated the desktop computer industry, history would be very different. I don't think Jobs ever really intended to win the dsktop wars in that way though…

The scary thing to me is that we're currently seeing a reply of a chunk of history with the worst case alternative outcome, closed silos and tremendous user lock-in, nota-bene on top of an open operating system.

Very frustrating.

Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)

#93

Post by ddebernardy »

tdicola wrote: post #11
ddebernardy wrote: post #2

Quite prescient: > Jobs: The most compelling reason for most people to buy a computer for the home will be to link it into a nationwide communications network. We’re just in the beginning stages of what will be a truly remarkable breakthrough for most people—as remarkable as the telephone.

Is it really that prescient? By 1985 there were lots of BBSes you could dial into and connect with people from across the nation. In fact what would become America Online was just starting out as a BBS. The internet was available at most colleges, and tools like email and usenet were in full use. I think his statement is like someone right now saying electric cars will be a huge thing in the future.

His statement is in no way similar to some random guy making a prediction that electric cars will be huge in the future. Unless that random guy happens to be named Elon Musk: working hard on actually making it happen.

As I recollect the times, computers were rare enough at the time that we passed as a truly geeky family. And in spite of being fairly early adopters of IT as consumers, I can't recollect internet in our household before the early 1990s.

The 1980s was a period where most businesses were beginning to equip themselves with computers. The process took roughly two decades and closed the century with the dotcom bubble. Networking was on the radar all along, yes, but recall that this primarily was for private networks or intranets. Internet as we think of it today was on nobody's radar until into the 1990s.

Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)

#94

Post by jacquesm »

mpweiher wrote: post #52
ekianjo wrote: post #39

> Jobs: my personal feeling is that we are going to enter sort of a computer Dark Ages for about 20 years. Once IBM gains control of a market sector, they almost always stop innovation. They prevent innovation from happening. I'm very glad that IBM and its compatible equivalents won the market, we would certainly be in much Darker Ages should Apple have won the desktop war, with their close-minded view on the world a…

Hmm...the prediction came through fairly precisely.

Not quite. IBM paved the way for Compaq, which in turn led to an explosion of computer brands all around the same Industry Standard Architecture.

Apple first bet on the 68K line, then moved to IBM (the Power series CPU), then finally joined that 'closed' culture with the advent of the second generation iMac.

Each of those machines was as closed as they could make them without welding them shut (and your present day iMac is no exception to this, it doesn't have to be designed in such a way that it is hard to open).

Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)

#95

Post by Drakim »

spain wrote: post #90
ekianjo wrote: post #39

> Jobs: my personal feeling is that we are going to enter sort of a computer Dark Ages for about 20 years. Once IBM gains control of a market sector, they almost always stop innovation. They prevent innovation from happening. I'm very glad that IBM and its compatible equivalents won the market, we would certainly be in much Darker Ages should Apple have won the desktop war, with their close-minded view on the world a…

> Once IBM gains control of a market sector, they almost always stop innovation. They prevent innovation from happening. It's funny because Apple is now in that same situation. Apple isn't exactly known for innovation anymore (as much as they would like to lead you to believe in their keynotes).

>(as much as they would like to lead you to believe in their keynotes)

This is not unique to Apple. When a business has market dominance through regulation, lockin or high entry cost, they usually spin it as being simply because they provide the absolute latest and best service.

It's especially easy to see among internet providers that provide stoneage speeds, as they will brag about their amazing cutting edge internet service.

One may say "no shit sherlock" to that, but there is a lot of potential advertisement that wouldn't be equally deceptive in that context. They could advertise themselves as "tried and true" or "the enduring provider you can rely on".

Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)

#96

Post by Intermernet »

simonh wrote: post #91
ekianjo wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not a Jobsian vision. Even when the iPhone was the only 'modern' smartphone and Android devices were years away from competing effectively with it, Apple never went for the market share play Yet Apple achieved a large market share and was perfectly happy with it even when Jobs was on the board. I'd find it hard to believe that you don't want Market Share anyway, even if you target premium users. You don't wa…

They did, but profit has always been a higher priority for them than market share and the 'platform dominance' that goes with it. If they happen to get a large market share, or if their platform becomes dominant anyway that's a nice benefit, but it's not a strategic goal. A good example of when Apple became a market share elader is the iPod. If you look at Apple's product strategy though, they never did anything to g…

Apple dropped DRM in iTunes because of bad PR. Everything Apple have done with regards to content distribution has been a balancing act between industry demands and PR.

Except for Sony, every other media player disregarded DRM. You may not have noticed this if you only had an iPod. The fact that they joined the ranks of their competitors in this regard should not be seen as a positive, it should only be seen as PR.

Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)

#97

Post by DanBC »

Intermernet wrote: post #96
simonh wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did, but profit has always been a higher priority for them than market share and the 'platform dominance' that goes with it. If they happen to get a large market share, or if their platform becomes dominant anyway that's a nice benefit, but it's not a strategic goal. A good example of when Apple became a market share elader is the iPod. If you look at Apple's product strategy though, they never did anything to g…

Apple dropped DRM in iTunes because of bad PR. Everything Apple have done with regards to content distribution has been a balancing act between industry demands and PR. Except for Sony, every other media player disregarded DRM. You may not have noticed this if you only had an iPod. The fact that they joined the ranks of their competitors in this regard should not be seen as a positive, it should only be seen as PR.

> Except for Sony, every other media player disregarded DRM.

The Sandisk Sansa Fuze[1] had the bizarre "slot radio". http://gizmodo.com/5126743/how-sandisks-slotradio-turned-a-g...

Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)

#98

Post by spain »

Drakim wrote: post #95
spain wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once IBM gains control of a market sector, they almost always stop innovation. They prevent innovation from happening. It's funny because Apple is now in that same situation. Apple isn't exactly known for innovation anymore (as much as they would like to lead you to believe in their keynotes).

>(as much as they would like to lead you to believe in their keynotes) This is not unique to Apple. When a business has market dominance through regulation, lockin or high entry cost, they usually spin it as being simply because they provide the absolute latest and best service. It's especially easy to see among internet providers that provide stoneage speeds, as they will brag about their amazing cutting edge intern…

> They could advertise themselves as "tried and true" or "the enduring provider you can rely on".

The problem with that is that consumers nowadays are far more focused on "cutting edge" and "latest and greatest". Not much is made to last anymore (especially in the consumer electronics industry) and most people seem fine with that. I know buying a smartphone isn't the same as buying services from an ISP, but I think the same principle applies. Faster speeds are more important to consumers than "tried and true" services and so if ISPs want to maximize the effectiveness of advertisement, that's what they'll do.

In the worst case scenario, "tried and true" and "the enduring provider you can rely on" would turn consumers away from your service because they would make your ISP seem old and boring (again, not something that's bad per se, but bad going by the preferences of the average consumer).

Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)

#99

Post by Intermernet »

DanBC wrote: post #97
Intermernet wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple dropped DRM in iTunes because of bad PR. Everything Apple have done with regards to content distribution has been a balancing act between industry demands and PR. Except for Sony, every other media player disregarded DRM. You may not have noticed this if you only had an iPod. The fact that they joined the ranks of their competitors in this regard should not be seen as a positive, it should only be seen as PR.

> Except for Sony, every other media player disregarded DRM. The Sandisk Sansa Fuze[1] had the bizarre "slot radio". http://gizmodo.com/5126743/how-sandisks-slotradio-turned-a-g...

Wow, thanks for the link. I didn't know about that at all...

Surprising that it's from 2009. I thought that the big players had worked out the public's opinion by then, but it may be that that product was in development during the DRM battles and Sandisk had to either release it, or scrap the product.

Re: Playboy Interview: Steve Jobs (1985)

#100

Post by ekianjo »

simonh wrote: post #91
ekianjo wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not a Jobsian vision. Even when the iPhone was the only 'modern' smartphone and Android devices were years away from competing effectively with it, Apple never went for the market share play Yet Apple achieved a large market share and was perfectly happy with it even when Jobs was on the board. I'd find it hard to believe that you don't want Market Share anyway, even if you target premium users. You don't wa…

They did, but profit has always been a higher priority for them than market share and the 'platform dominance' that goes with it. If they happen to get a large market share, or if their platform becomes dominant anyway that's a nice benefit, but it's not a strategic goal. A good example of when Apple became a market share elader is the iPod. If you look at Apple's product strategy though, they never did anything to g…

> Yet at the height of their market dominance, when they were best placed to use their position to exert market control, instead of using that power against customers to increase lock-in, they used it to force reluctant labels to embrace DRM free content. They then used it again to coerce the labels to sign up to iTunes Match. They did this becaue these moves ease customer pain points and improve the customer experience, making their products more attractive and therefore more valuable.

You almost had me choke on that one. Yeah, yeah, they did everything for the best interests of the customers. Oh wait, like preventing to put your own songs if you did not use their proprietary software (iTunes) that ran like shit on Windows (Hey, even I had to use it) and was impossible to run under Linux or anything else. And let's not forget they did not embrace the non-DRM MP3 until everyone else started to do it - they were far way from leading the trend to benefit customers in providing interoperable devices. As a matter of fact, iPods were locked and you were NOT able to use the songs you licensed on iTunes with any other music player.

Yeah, what a great experience that was. Thumbs up for User Freedom! But I'm sure you will build a case to tell me that Freedom is not good, and everyone is better in an Apple jail.

Post reply on HN