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

Ways to save Apple (1997)

archive.wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: Ways to save Apple (1997)

#71

Post by jordanlev »

Lio wrote: post #42
bmcarr wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Admit it. You're out of the hardware game. Outsource your hardware production, or scrap it entirely, to compete more directly with Microsoft without the liability of manufacturing boxes. Very first one, lol. I agree that many are spot on, but coupling Mac software to its hardware is part of how they make such good products, not to mention the plethora of innovative hardware devices that have made them the richest…

All of Apple's hardware products are now made by outsourced contract manufacturers. They're still all designed by Apple obviously but I thought this point was spot on.

Are the entire products outsourced, or just the componenets?

Either way, I think this suggestion is implying that Apple stop selling hardware and instead just sell software that runs on other peoples' hardware (it's the "compete more directly with Microsoft" bit that leads me to believe this is what they meant).

Re: Ways to save Apple (1997)

#72

Post by L_Rahman »

jordanlev wrote: post #71
Lio wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of Apple's hardware products are now made by outsourced contract manufacturers. They're still all designed by Apple obviously but I thought this point was spot on.

Are the entire products outsourced, or just the componenets? Either way, I think this suggestion is implying that Apple stop selling hardware and instead just sell software that runs on other peoples' hardware (it's the "compete more directly with Microsoft" bit that leads me to believe this is what they meant).

Virtually all products are outsourced. Apple owns no factories and employs no assembly line workers.

Instead it's formed deep partnerships with certain contract manufacturers (Foxconn). When it wants to pioneer a certain manufacturing technique, it will simply make a large capital expenditure to make the tooling available to the contract manufacturer. Never however will it actually be responsible for the actual manufacturing and assembly of its devices.

This is Tim Cook's doing and it's the model for just about every OEM you see today, from Apple to Xiaomi. Samsung and LG are notable exceptions because they are component manufacturers who became OEMs afterwards.

Edit: There might be some iMac assembly done in the United States, but this is likely using a US-based contract manufacturer as well.

Re: Ways to save Apple (1997)

#73

Post by digi_owl »

DrStalker wrote: post #20
macspoofing wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's worse than that. You don't know the right answer, nobody else knows the right answer, and the only way get by is to guess and hope you get lucky. Apple got lucky. They built the iPod, which in hindsight, was a trans-formative product, but at the time it wasn't so obvious.

At the time it was a heavy music player with an annoying interface that only worked for mac users and was useless forever if you dropped it and the hard drive broke. They fixed all those problems later versions, but the initial device was underwhelming to a lot of people.

The on thing of note is that Mac users seems to include a massive number of people involved with media production. This including artists of various stripes.

From personal anecdote i think i first heard about iPod when people started chatting about what those white earbuds some artist had been spotted using.

And i sure as hell don't think Apple was in the position to pay them to use the iPod publically.

Re: Ways to save Apple (1997)

#74

Post by pdxgene »

I remember reading this in 1997, about a year after I switched from the awful Mac Performa that I had used in college and dragged out west with me to the first in a series of increasingly uninspiring beige WinTel boxes. It would be nine years before I switched back.

It's really easy to engage in hindsight-powered analysis. This article seemed perfectly reasonable at the time.

Re: Ways to save Apple (1997)

#75

Post by terminus »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #23
terminus wrote: post #16

Ye, Gods. Yet another Apple story. They are a for profit (and quite a lot of it) corporation that makes shiny gadgets. Why do we keep talking about them incessantly? If we are not talking about what Apple is doing now, then we are talking about what somebody said about Apple 20 years ago. I'm of course making the problem worse or meta-worse, if you will, by talking about talking about Apple, but I just don't understa…

Apple is one of the most important and influential tech companies in the world right now. There's a lot of Apple articles for the same reason there's a lot of Google/Amazon/Facebook articles. They also have a lot of pretty devoted fans, but don't confuse ponderings on the industry with fanboyism.

> Apple is one of the most important and influential tech companies in the world right now.

No. You are confusing admired with influential.

Re: Ways to save Apple (1997)

#76

Post by microtherion »

adventured wrote: post #70
BillFranklin wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't Steve jobs sell 1.5 million shares in 1997? It caused a 12 year low in the company's stock price.. http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Steve-Jobs-Confirms-A...

Jobs made several poor decisions around Apple's stock, including after he came back. A few choices cost him billions of dollars (which would now be tens of billions for his wife). Fortunately for him, money wasn't something that he obsessed over.

You're talking about a guy who got in trouble for having his subordinates make up a fictitious board meeting to get a better strike price for his options.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/10/06/steve-job...

Re: Ways to save Apple (1997)

#77

Post by microtherion »

L_Rahman wrote: post #72
jordanlev wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are the entire products outsourced, or just the componenets? Either way, I think this suggestion is implying that Apple stop selling hardware and instead just sell software that runs on other peoples' hardware (it's the "compete more directly with Microsoft" bit that leads me to believe this is what they meant).

Virtually all products are outsourced. Apple owns no factories and employs no assembly line workers. Instead it's formed deep partnerships with certain contract manufacturers (Foxconn). When it wants to pioneer a certain manufacturing technique, it will simply make a large capital expenditure to make the tooling available to the contract manufacturer. Never however will it actually be responsible for the actual manuf…

Yes, hardware building is largely outsourced, but it's not Dell-style outsourced, where the contract manufacturer does a considerable part of the design. Today's Apple products probably have less generic design in them than 1997 Apple products, and more control by Apple.

Re: Ways to save Apple (1997)

#78

Post by PhasmaFelis »

terminus wrote: post #75
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is one of the most important and influential tech companies in the world right now. There's a lot of Apple articles for the same reason there's a lot of Google/Amazon/Facebook articles. They also have a lot of pretty devoted fans, but don't confuse ponderings on the industry with fanboyism.

> Apple is one of the most important and influential tech companies in the world right now. No. You are confusing admired with influential.

No, I really don't think I am. Apple essentially created the modern smartphone market. Android was Google saying "We've got to get in on that." You're going to accuse me of fanboying now, but I've never owned an iOS device; I think Android is better and I wouldn't use anything else. But without the iPhone, Android as we know it would not exist.

You don't like Apple or Apple products, and that's fine and fair, but you are confusing your personal opinion with the actual state of the market. Quality and influence aren't always related, much as we might wish it were otherwise.

Re: Ways to save Apple (1997)

#79

Post by terminus »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #78
terminus wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple is one of the most important and influential tech companies in the world right now. No. You are confusing admired with influential.

No, I really don't think I am. Apple essentially created the modern smartphone market. Android was Google saying "We've got to get in on that." You're going to accuse me of fanboying now, but I've never owned an iOS device; I think Android is better and I wouldn't use anything else. But without the iPhone, Android as we know it would not exist. You don't like Apple or Apple products, and that's fine and fair, but you…

This is not about Android or iPhone. Or Google or whoever. I'll happily acknowledge that Apple sells well thought out products.

I stand by what I said earlier. There's too much of a cult of personality associated with Apple. Why do we shrink our worldview to gossipy discussions of a corporation. Tell me something interesting, something edifying that came up in this discussion?

Re: Ways to save Apple (1997)

#80

Post by PhasmaFelis »

terminus wrote: post #79
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I really don't think I am. Apple essentially created the modern smartphone market. Android was Google saying "We've got to get in on that." You're going to accuse me of fanboying now, but I've never owned an iOS device; I think Android is better and I wouldn't use anything else. But without the iPhone, Android as we know it would not exist. You don't like Apple or Apple products, and that's fine and fair, but you…

This is not about Android or iPhone. Or Google or whoever. I'll happily acknowledge that Apple sells well thought out products. I stand by what I said earlier. There's too much of a cult of personality associated with Apple. Why do we shrink our worldview to gossipy discussions of a corporation. Tell me something interesting, something edifying that came up in this discussion?

> This is not about Android or iPhone. Or Google or whoever. I'll happily acknowledge that Apple sells well thought out products.

You specifically said that I was wrong to call them influential. I think Android demonstrates that they are. That makes it relevant.

> I stand by what I said earlier. There's too much of a cult of personality associated with Apple. Why do we shrink our worldview to gossipy discussions of a corporation. Tell me something interesting, something edifying that came up in this discussion?

Past predictions about the future of the industry have always had currency on Hacker News, from pre-electronic sci-fi like Wells' World Brain to Engelbart's 1968 "mother of all demos" to mid-'90s attempt to get a handle on the internet, and so on and so forth. Apple wasn't terribly relevant in the mid-'90s, but they _had been_ relevant (the Apple II, bringing Xerox's GUI ideas to the home desktop), and as it turned out they would be relevant again. This particular article is not exactly a giant of the genre, but it's a window into the conditions of the time and what people cared about and anticipated.

Post reply on HN