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

Apple R&D Reveals a Pivot Is Coming

aboveavalon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 269 posts

Re: Apple R&D Reveals a Pivot Is Coming

#141

Post by Daneel_ »

shoyer wrote: post #101
Daneel_ wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...yes. Yes I am. Egg on face. The point still stands though, it's such a shame seeing the minimisation of ports on all systems these days. I can understand using standard ports (usb-c) for peripherals, but essentials such as Ethernet, display and several USB ports (whichever format) should remain built in.

There's a simpler reason for the lack of an Ethernet port. Compare the size of an Ethernet port to a USB port on the Mac Pro and then look at the side of your MacBook Pro. The Ethernet port would not even fit.

I've seen expandable Ethernet ports on several ultrabooks - Toshibas in particular. They spring closed when not in use and the bottom half expands when you need to plug in a cable. Apple could manage it tastefully, I'm sure.

Re: Apple R&D Reveals a Pivot Is Coming

#142

Post by Daneel_ »

Daneel_ wrote: post #95
realityking wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you thinking of MacBooks? Because the grandparent talked about the Mac Pro who has two normal RJ45 ports: http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/specs/

...yes. Yes I am. Egg on face. The point still stands though, it's such a shame seeing the minimisation of ports on all systems these days. I can understand using standard ports (usb-c) for peripherals, but essentials such as Ethernet, display and several USB ports (whichever format) should remain built in.

*Edit - parent has also clarified that he has egg on face too. He meant a MacBook Pro as well.

Re: Apple R&D Reveals a Pivot Is Coming

#143

Post by bane »

cstross wrote: post #129
reissbaker wrote: post #126

Apple was once considered extremely innovative despite its secrecy because it regularly shipped ground-breaking new products like OS X, its breathtakingly high-design computers in the late 90s and early 2000s, the iPod, and of course the iPhone. Apple hasn't shipped a successful new product line since Steve Jobs' death, and sales of its last successful major product — the iPhone — now seem to be slowing. Their cloud…

> Apple hasn't shipped a successful new product line since Steve Jobs' death I disagree. The Apple Watch is only "unsuccessful" using a yardstick calibrated to the scale of existing Apple product lines -- in its first year it appears to have achieved sales revenue on the same order as Rolex ($4.7Bn, per Forbes). (Apple's secretiveness makes it hard to tell how many Watches they've sold, but the low estimates are in t…

> and the high end estimate -- 12 million shipped through 2015

What's interesting is that if you think of the Watch in terms of it being a computing platform, 12 million devices shipped might be considered a bad sign.

Sega had two back-to-back systems that shipped in that League (the Saturn shipped 9.26 million and Dreamcast shipped 9.13 million) and both systems are considered massive commercial failures, so bad that they nearly sunk the company forcing Sega to pull entirely out of the hardware market.

Re: Apple R&D Reveals a Pivot Is Coming

#144

Post by simonh »

astrodust wrote: post #53
beloch wrote: post #37

According to this chart, Apple spent $6B in 2014 and is projected to spend just over $10B in 2016. For comparison, in 2014 Volkswagen spent $13.5B, Samsung spent $13.4B, and Microsoft spent $10.4B. [1] Apple has, historically, not been a big spender when it comes to research, tending to favor short-term, tightly focused research over long-term, curiosity driven research. Over the last few years their research budget…

Just imagine how much fun Ive would have designing an orbital space station. What's interesting is how aggressively they're moving into the car space if that's what's happening. The phone people had no idea, they got blindsided thinking Apple wouldn't have the guts, would never commit the money.

I think the phone industry just didn't think it possible that real ground breaking innovation in their industry was at all possible. They imagined a phone must have a physical keyboard, couldn't run a decent web browser and Microsoft was already selling the best mobile OS it was possible to make.

It wasn't that they doubted Apple's commitment, they just didn't have the imagination. To be fair to them, Apple timed things perfectly. Even a year earlier SOCs weren't powerful enough to run something like the early iOS. They did in software what they did in hardware much later with the 64-bit transition. They pulled off a superbly executed technological coup just at the point when it became possible to do it at all, beating everyone else to the market by years.

If they're planning to do the same with cars, we have interesting times ahead.

Re: Apple R&D Reveals a Pivot Is Coming

#145

Post by tzaman »

iLoch wrote: post #60
astrodust wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just imagine how much fun Ive would have designing an orbital space station. What's interesting is how aggressively they're moving into the car space if that's what's happening. The phone people had no idea, they got blindsided thinking Apple wouldn't have the guts, would never commit the money.

Not nearly as much fun as he'd have talking about how he designed it.

Not nearly as much fun as YouTubers would have remaking his promo videos :)

Re: Apple R&D Reveals a Pivot Is Coming

#146

Post by simonh »

shas3 wrote: post #130
beloch wrote: post #37

According to this chart, Apple spent $6B in 2014 and is projected to spend just over $10B in 2016. For comparison, in 2014 Volkswagen spent $13.5B, Samsung spent $13.4B, and Microsoft spent $10.4B. [1] Apple has, historically, not been a big spender when it comes to research, tending to favor short-term, tightly focused research over long-term, curiosity driven research. Over the last few years their research budget…

You are comparing across industries. Apple is a mix of software and manufacturing. As is Samsung. VW is a car company. Further, a better metric is to look at % of revenue spent on R&D.

> You are comparing across industries.

That's the whole point. The argument is that Apple is pivoting into a different industry.

% of revenue spent on R&D would not tell you much here. If a company with $10m revenue spends the same % revenue on R&D as VW, does that mean it's possible for it to bringing out a new line of cars? Setting up to manufacture a car costs a large amount of absolute $, so comparing absolute spend makes sense here.

Re: Apple R&D Reveals a Pivot Is Coming

#147

Post by gniv »

darawk wrote: post #67
rixed wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they are working on a non autonomous car? The car industry is somewhat similar to the phone industry at the time it was dominated by Nokia and telcos: not evolving, slow to integrate new technologies, terrible legacy UIs ... There is a lot of room for improvement outside of autonomy. I can hear the press mocking the development of a"manual " car like it's the 20th century again, and being ridiculed by Apple com…

Ya if I had to guess i'd say that's exactly it. But do we really need an Apple car? What is there really for them to offer in that space? Better UX? Is there enough of a delta there to warrant entering the space? I grant though that this is a sort of 'unknown unknown'. By definition, the great new things are non-obvious. I may have said the same thing about pre-iphone phones. But I don't really see what they could of…

> What is there really for them to offer in that space?

Electric cars. Yes, there is Tesla, but not much else. And, as Tesla proved, there is significant demand for an electric car done right (ie, powerful, long range, not expensive). Throw in the brand name and a really nice cockpit design, and you have a hit.

Re: Apple R&D Reveals a Pivot Is Coming

#148

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

SyneRyder wrote: post #125
DannyBee wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Google Maps' advantage has a lot more to do with data than algorithms." Given literally everyone else collected the data well before google, and maps was still better, this seems wrong. Google developed better ways to get the data and automate it, not just got better data. For years, literally everyone else had better data.

Apple is not even trying, or is leaving their Maps team terribly under resourced. I've been running some experiments submitting the same edits to Google, Yelp & Apple simultaneously (since Apple uses Yelp data), and timing how long each takes to update. The last time I publicly recorded my results: Google Maps: 40 minutes Yelp: 3 days 20 hours Apple Maps: 13 days https://twitter.com/syneryder/statuses/668473075365642…

OpenStreetMap: 0 minutes

Re: Apple R&D Reveals a Pivot Is Coming

#149

Post by vlehto »

CPLX wrote: post #27
darawk wrote: post #16

Is this a surprise? Isn't it well known that Apple is working on a car? I think the big question here is not are they working on a car, but can they deliver a car that represents a significant improvement over what's out there. And that i'm highly skeptical of, unless they deliver full autonomy. But there is just no way Apple is going to beat Google to market with that technology. So, I agree they're working on a car…

> But there is just no way Apple is going to beat Google to market with that technology. Why? Apple is possibly the world's most effective company at synthesizing industrial design and software in premium devices sold to consumers. Google is a web/cloud services and advertising company. The reason presumably is that you can't see what Apple is doing in public, while Google has a car that still can't drive itself in t…

If you say that Apple has more relevant experience, then why doesn't Audi, BMW, Daimler, Ford, GM, Google, Kia, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Renault, Tesla, or Toyota beat them both? All of these have more relevant experience than either Google or Apple, because industrial design is not really what car is about.

Re: Apple R&D Reveals a Pivot Is Coming

#150

Post by glenndebacker »

bane wrote: post #143
cstross wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple hasn't shipped a successful new product line since Steve Jobs' death I disagree. The Apple Watch is only "unsuccessful" using a yardstick calibrated to the scale of existing Apple product lines -- in its first year it appears to have achieved sales revenue on the same order as Rolex ($4.7Bn, per Forbes). (Apple's secretiveness makes it hard to tell how many Watches they've sold, but the low estimates are in t…

> and the high end estimate -- 12 million shipped through 2015 What's interesting is that if you think of the Watch in terms of it being a computing platform, 12 million devices shipped might be considered a bad sign. Sega had two back-to-back systems that shipped in that League (the Saturn shipped 9.26 million and Dreamcast shipped 9.13 million) and both systems are considered massive commercial failures, so bad tha…

I think that Sega executives would have done backflips for the kind of revenue that Apple receives from those Apple watches... .

I personally find for the price and the (personal taste) ugly design the Watch exceeds the expectations. It's not because something is not pulling the same frenzy like there was with the iPhone and iPod, that it's automatically a failure.

Post reply on HN