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

Apple's Middle Age

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 113 posts

Re: Apple's Middle Age

#21

Post by lazypenguin »

jballanc wrote: post #8

Any article that speculates on Apple's future viability in the market would be remiss not to mention Apple's unprecedented cash hoard. Currently, Apple is sitting on $126B in net tangible assets. With 100,000 full-time equivalent employees, that means that Apple could pay every one of their full-time equivalent employees (which, as a reminder, includes a large number of retail employees) an average yearly salary of $…

I generally agree with you but there is the case for negative revenue that could deplete those reserves at a rate faster than you have calculated.

Re: Apple's Middle Age

#22

Post by anvandare »

jballanc wrote: post #8

Any article that speculates on Apple's future viability in the market would be remiss not to mention Apple's unprecedented cash hoard. Currently, Apple is sitting on $126B in net tangible assets. With 100,000 full-time equivalent employees, that means that Apple could pay every one of their full-time equivalent employees (which, as a reminder, includes a large number of retail employees) an average yearly salary of $…

You could try visiting, but it would have a proprietary docking port. :>

Re: Apple's Middle Age

#23

Post by namelost »

carlmr wrote: post #14
mjburgess wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People talk about the downsides of this. But it does mean all the tech you buy today is going to be use able in 10ys. That's quite a win.

Capitalism hates it though if there's no reason to sell new devices. Although I think we still have a lot of headroom in terms of memory performance that will matter just as much as the previous CPU performance increases.

The future is heterogeneous computing. Intel's chips already include a GPU, the next step will be FPGAs.

Re: Apple's Middle Age

#24

Post by jrs95 »

gergles wrote: post #7
pi-err wrote: post #5

Tl,dr: “it makes sense to settle down”. Tells how much this is pure projection from the author (he’s open about it). Apple has amazing bricks to build on (Watch especially) so to not settle down. Even iPhone X shows they can still bet big with their flagship.

> Even iPhone X shows they can still bet big with their flagship. Does it? The iPhone X (which is a great phone and one that I own) is a Galaxy S8 with a Face ID scanner. They didn't "bet big" on it, it was the only logical place to take their market.

I generally agree that they didn't "bet big" on iPhone X, but I really hate equating it with the S8 because that was a terrible device in my opinion.

First off, just from being in my empty pocket for 2-3 days, the screen was covered in scratches that made it difficult to see a portion of the screen in direct sunlight. I've never had this experience with any other phone.

Then I dropped my S8 from less than a foot and it cracked the glass on both the front and back of the screen. I haven't dropped my iPhone X yet, but based on my experience with recent iPhones it can probably take a lot more abuse.

The S8 also had some pretty annoying design/UX flaws. The fingerprint reader placement next the camera was amazingly stupid, and everything related to Bixby has been somewhat of a disaster. I had tried to reprogram the Bixby button to do something useful, but then it was still slow and Samsung insisted on breaking that functionality repeatedly in updates. They ought to know well enough that nobody wants to use their stupid assistant. Or cover their camera with fingerprints.

Re: Apple's Middle Age

#25

Post by dingo_bat »

macintux wrote: post #16
gergles wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even iPhone X shows they can still bet big with their flagship. Does it? The iPhone X (which is a great phone and one that I own) is a Galaxy S8 with a Face ID scanner. They didn't "bet big" on it, it was the only logical place to take their market.

They could have easily compromised their vision by including touch ID and/or a button. Samsung does this all the time: include every option, just so no one is left unhappy.

They did compromise their vision, in a way much worse than including a fingerprint sensor on the back. They put in an ugly notch.

Re: Apple's Middle Age

#26

Post by s14ve »

With the "features" of new macbooks, it doesn't really seem like they would like to settle down, even though it would probably make sense there...

Re: Apple's Middle Age

#27

Post by emdowling »

lukateake wrote: post #2

[A]s a general rule, challengers pursue interoperability while incumbents strive for incompatibility. This is Strategy 101: seek to fight battles where you have the greatest advantage. Should Apple buy a wireless carrier?

100% yes, Apple should own this part of the experience. Increasingly, their devices are requiring constant connectivity. The Apple Watch comes into it's own with cellular - but the experience of adding it to my carrier (EE in UK) was absolutely horrific and an absolute nightmare.

A carrier should just be dumb pipes. Slowly, Apple has been eroding the value that a carrier adds (the iPhone Upgrade Program being the single biggest shot fired towards carriers). I would love to never, ever have to deal with a carrier and their scammy sales tactics ever again.

What can Apple gain from being a carrier? Seamless set up of devices and international roaming. In Europe, we already have data roaming across borders and it is incredible to have a device "just work" when I step off a plane. Bringing the "it just works" mentality to the service layer makes a lot of sense for Apple now. Importantly, unlike carriers, Apple doesn't need the cell network in and of itself to make money. It just serves to push the model this article articulates so well.

The biggest barrier they are going to face is the connectivity issue - they can make the best augmented reality glasses or cellular AirPods, or wireless, portable outdoor speakers, but without seamless connectivity, they won't be able to "just work". The rollout of 5G might just be the opportunity they need to execute on this.

Re: Apple's Middle Age

#28

Post by pwinnski »

macintux wrote: post #16
gergles wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even iPhone X shows they can still bet big with their flagship. Does it? The iPhone X (which is a great phone and one that I own) is a Galaxy S8 with a Face ID scanner. They didn't "bet big" on it, it was the only logical place to take their market.

They could have easily compromised their vision by including touch ID and/or a button. Samsung does this all the time: include every option, just so no one is left unhappy.

Alternatively, "include every option so everyone is left slightly unhappy."

I can't imagine ever going back to a phone with a button. Every time I pick up my daughter's iPad, I try to use gestures on it before remembering that I have to press that button, which already seems like a relic from the past.

It took minutes to get used to swiping up instead of pressing a button. It now feels like the most natural thing in the world, and I wonder why they ever started with a button. (Not really, but that's how natural the swipe gestures feel)

Re: Apple's Middle Age

#29

Post by eastWestMath »

jasonsync wrote: post #19

Apple’s growth is almost entirely inwardly-focused when it comes to its user-base: higher prices, more services, and more devices I find myself increasingly stuck in an Apple 2011 - 2013 universe. For starters Apple has not yet provided a viable upgrade for my primary desktop machine: a 2011 Mac Mini (2.7GHz dual-core Intel Core i7 with 8 GB ram and SSD). The specs on the current 2018 Mac Mini lineup are considerable…

I just looked on the Apple store app and you can get a Mac mini with a 3.0ghz dual core i7 and 16 gb of ram.

Re: Apple's Middle Age

#30

Post by jrs95 »

dingo_bat wrote: post #25
macintux wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could have easily compromised their vision by including touch ID and/or a button. Samsung does this all the time: include every option, just so no one is left unhappy.

They did compromise their vision, in a way much worse than including a fingerprint sensor on the back. They put in an ugly notch.

Personally I don't think it's ugly. I think having a solid bezel across the top but not the bottom would actually look worse. And it actually makes the new gestures more intuitive: swiping down from the left of the notch does the same thing that swiping down did before, and swiping down from the right of the notch opens control center.
Post reply on HN