The Time I “Interviewed” At Apple • Hacker News Board

Re: The Time I “Interviewed” At Apple

#71

Post by comex » Fri, Oct 04, 2013, 8:54 PM UTC

Patrick_Devine wrote: post #26

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple does plenty of iteration, just in a different way. Think about copy and paste on iPhone, MMS messaging, multitasking, etc. They work depth-first rather than breadth, so instead of dozens of half-working features, you get one or two complete features. I think it opens Apple up to more criticism, especially combined with their secrecy, but the criticism and even trolls only help contribute to more buzz.

I'm looking at the Dock at the bottom of my MacBook Pro and I can't help but think that most of the apps are half baked and most of them I don't even use. I've replaced Safari with Firefox. I haven't fired up iChat in a while because I just use GMail chat instead. iTunes is really wonky when you want to play music off of an NFS server. I've never fired up FaceTime or PhotoBooth. The X11 app is so buggy it's ridiculou…

Looking at mine...

I prefer Safari over all other browsers, due to speed and better UI, although it loses on security to Chrome. Firefox, meanwhile, didn't have Retina display support until half a year after that MacBook Pro was released, still doesn't have disappearing scrollbars, and has no smooth zoom, and I have many other sorts of complaints about it.

iTunes, despite all the various crappiness, doesn't have much good competition and usually works well. Playing music off an NFS server is not a normal use case.

Preview is a brilliant PDF reader.

I use Gmail chat, but if I weren't using a Mavericks beta with broken Messages.app, I would also be using that for iMessage. FaceTime also works well.

Mail.app is pretty great; it has some flaws, but is better than most of the competition not named Gmail.

Terminal is a great terminal app (you'd think this wouldn't be hard to achieve, and I think iTerm is roughly on par now, but the latter used to be quite terrible).

edit: oh, and QuickTime Player is nice; might not support all the codecs of other players, but the seeking/frame stepping is nice and smooth, compared to VLC which can't step backwards at all.

YMMV, but I think the suite of default Mac apps is not bad at all.

Re: The Time I “Interviewed” At Apple

#72

Post by Teckla » Fri, Oct 04, 2013, 8:59 PM UTC

what_ever wrote: post #60

MikeCapone wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People pay for Apple products, so they expect something that works well and looks good. The switching costs are also much higher with hardware than software. You don't want to pay for a phone and find out it's half-baked, while if a 'free' web service doesn't work, it's easy to switch. It's also about branding and culture, people expect different things from each company. That has pros and cons.

Just staying with the Google example, I don't remember any major Google product having a major failure. The new Google Maps may be. I know many people complain about the new GMail but it's just about choices of design they made and not about some bugs in the product. So again, Google products are iterative and not buggy irrespective of whether people pay for them or not.

Start watching a YouTube video. Pause it. Come back hours later. Hit play. It'll play a few more seconds and then fail to continue. I'd call that a major Google product with a major failure, though our definitions for major may differ.

Google Chrome for iOS crashes on a regular basis. It also fails to start YouTube videos a lot. Again, I consider those major products with major failures.

Gchat-in-Gmail has issues on a regular basis.

Also, non-major Google products have plenty of bugs. Google Groups digest emails have been broken forever. Once in a while one randomly trickles into my inbox, and I think for a second it may be fixed. Nope, still borked. Despite quite a bit of effort, I've never managed to communicate with any actual human Googler about it.

I've often had to authenticate twice, for unknown reasons, while getting into Gmail from Chrome, when trying to get in via their Gmail app icon.

I like plenty of Google products and services, and use them daily, but they seem to have their fair share of bugs.

Re: The Time I “Interviewed” At Apple

#73

Post by naterator » Fri, Oct 04, 2013, 9:00 PM UTC

Steko wrote: post #70

the_bear wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the author comparing Google's approach to Apple's? Google has more market share than Apple in just about every software category, so if Google can iterate, than why can't Apple? I think it has more to do with Apple's marketing. Every time they release even the most trivial improvement they tout it as being amazingly innovative. They also charge premium prices. This creates an expectation with their users that e…

"Google has more market share than Apple in just about every software category, so if Google can iterate, than why can't Apple?" This seems like the wrong way to understand each companies motivations. Google got into the maps market because Google's ambition is to be the worldwide leader in (among other things) mapping software. Apple got into maps because Google maps product for iOS was shitty and that was being hel…

>Apple got into maps because Google maps product for iOS was shitty and that was being held against the iPhone.

Wait, really? Was this an actual thing, for anyone? Because I _never_ was disappointed by any Google Maps related product on the iPhone. Serious question here.

Re: The Time I “Interviewed” At Apple

#74

Post by swift » Fri, Oct 04, 2013, 9:11 PM UTC

aestra wrote: post #43

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple does plenty of iteration, just in a different way. Think about copy and paste on iPhone, MMS messaging, multitasking, etc. They work depth-first rather than breadth, so instead of dozens of half-working features, you get one or two complete features. I think it opens Apple up to more criticism, especially combined with their secrecy, but the criticism and even trolls only help contribute to more buzz.

>copy and paste on iPhone, MMS messaging, multitasking As I recall Apple tried to say things at the time that amounted to "you don't really need that." Every single iPhone user I knew at the time drank the Steve Jobs koolaid and talked about how yeah, they didn't need those features.

My experience was a little different. Nobody I know thought that you didn't need copy and paste or MMS messaging.

The only case you mention where I saw a lot of koolaid drinking is multitasking, and that's probably because there is a kernel of truth in that case - it's tricky to do right without harming battery life or user experience. (That's only a reason why it might take longer to implement well, though. Definitely not a reason to leave it out of the platform permanently.)

The koolaid drinking about iOS products that bothers me the most is the claim that an active stylus isn't worth including. Anyone who's used OneNote can see the potential there. If anything gets me to drop iOS, this will be the reason.

Re: The Time I “Interviewed” At Apple

#75

Post by Steko » Fri, Oct 04, 2013, 9:17 PM UTC

naterator wrote: post #73

Steko wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Google has more market share than Apple in just about every software category, so if Google can iterate, than why can't Apple?" This seems like the wrong way to understand each companies motivations. Google got into the maps market because Google's ambition is to be the worldwide leader in (among other things) mapping software. Apple got into maps because Google maps product for iOS was shitty and that was being hel…

>Apple got into maps because Google maps product for iOS was shitty and that was being held against the iPhone. Wait, really? Was this an actual thing, for anyone? Because I _never_ was disappointed by any Google Maps related product on the iPhone. Serious question here.

The whole saga is fairly well documented. Go to any comparison of iOS and Android in 2010-11 and you'll see Google Maps for Android held up as one of the biggest Android advantages. Maps for Android had turn by turn. Maps for iOS didn't.

Apple was excited to partner with Google for Maps on the iPhone launch and it was excited to partner with companies like Garmin on expensive third party turn by turn solutions. Once it became obvious that free turn by turn nav was a fundamental OS level checkbox Apple was forced to rush out their Maps product.

Re: The Time I “Interviewed” At Apple

#76

Post by plorkyeran » Fri, Oct 04, 2013, 9:26 PM UTC

naterator wrote: post #73

Steko wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Google has more market share than Apple in just about every software category, so if Google can iterate, than why can't Apple?" This seems like the wrong way to understand each companies motivations. Google got into the maps market because Google's ambition is to be the worldwide leader in (among other things) mapping software. Apple got into maps because Google maps product for iOS was shitty and that was being hel…

>Apple got into maps because Google maps product for iOS was shitty and that was being held against the iPhone. Wait, really? Was this an actual thing, for anyone? Because I _never_ was disappointed by any Google Maps related product on the iPhone. Serious question here.

The iOS 5 Google Maps app was very dated and lacking in features compared to the Android version at the time - probably the biggest thing it was missing was turn-by-turn navigation.

It wasn't terrible, it just hadn't been updated in a long time and had fallen behind the other options.

Re: The Time I “Interviewed” At Apple

#77

Post by infinotize » Fri, Oct 04, 2013, 9:45 PM UTC

Steko wrote: post #69

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maps might not be a great example. Apple was clearly banking on crowdsourcing to help with its inaccurate maps. They could have just released it as an optional app and fixed it over time, until it became mature and then replaced google maps with it. But it looks like they were caught with their pants down as the google maps contract renewel deadline was looming and they said "fuck it, launch with it, and we'll handle…

Maps is a great example of the difference because, wait for it, Apple never wanted to be in the mapping business. People are comparing Apple and Google and forgetting that the two companies ambitions are completely different. Google wants the full vampire squid platter. It wants to be your phone OS, your browser, your desktop OS, your search company, your video site, your social network, your office software solution…

You can't compare the browser situation however many years ago and the Maps calamity. Google's app was hardly a "shitty" alternative, but as others have indicated the Apple response is mostly due to other reasons. How many iOS users rejoiced when Google Maps got rereleased?

Re: The Time I “Interviewed” At Apple

#78

Post by leoc » Fri, Oct 04, 2013, 9:50 PM UTC

toadi wrote: post #36

diydsp wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is in the position Sun Microsystems was 20 years ago. They supplied finished, working solutions, which were really "just" high-quality versions of what the other guys did. Eventually, services got so widespread (Lintel) that customers got less picky and Sun's peculiar quality didn't matter anymore. However, that won't be how Apple will die out (if they do...), because there is already a huge market of people wi…

Difference between apple and sun is that apple is a consumer product. Companies make cost effective decisions. Consumers emotional factors.

I don't think that's the whole story. It's true that companies often buy cost-effective but unsexy computer hardware for their employees (viz. Dell). But back when the Macintosh was getting its market-share crushed by good-enough Win95 PCs, consumers were behaving in a similar price-conscious way. (Though the crashiness of late System 7 probably helped to loosen emotional attachments to the Mac as well.) In fact the Mac had famous bulwarks of continued demand in the institutional education market and among graphics and other "creative" professionals.

However, the situation is different in some ways that favour Apple this time. The shift to smaller, portable devices like the iPod, iPhone and iPad really seems to help Apple to sell premium products, because probably many more people are tempted to choose their phone on emotional (or quality) grounds than their PC. First, people tend to associate the PC with 'work' - in particular, with grinding office documents for work - or with utilitarian duty as a thinnish client for the Web. And unlike a desktop box which sits mostly hidden under your desk, you touch, lift and look at your phone's hardware many times every day. You also take it to public places where other people will get to know about and admire your lifestyle choice. (A laptop is roughly halfway between a phone and a desktop computer in these respects.) And a smartphone still generally costs less than a PC - the price of a whole iPhone after subsidy can easily be less than the price premium for a Mac over a PC. (Back in '96 a desktop computer cost even more than it does now, and better hardware specs could make a big difference to the quality of the user experience, so buyers had a compelling motivation to save their money and/or spend it on specs rather than OS polish or brand mystique.) In the iPhone Apple can sell a glowing, no-compromises 'perfect thing' and at the same time sell it for a lot less.

Which isn't to say that the march of good-enough Android isn't going to squeeze Apple in future: I think it will.

Re: The Time I “Interviewed” At Apple

#79

Post by jff » Fri, Oct 04, 2013, 9:53 PM UTC

Patrick_Devine wrote: post #26

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple does plenty of iteration, just in a different way. Think about copy and paste on iPhone, MMS messaging, multitasking, etc. They work depth-first rather than breadth, so instead of dozens of half-working features, you get one or two complete features. I think it opens Apple up to more criticism, especially combined with their secrecy, but the criticism and even trolls only help contribute to more buzz.

I'm looking at the Dock at the bottom of my MacBook Pro and I can't help but think that most of the apps are half baked and most of them I don't even use. I've replaced Safari with Firefox. I haven't fired up iChat in a while because I just use GMail chat instead. iTunes is really wonky when you want to play music off of an NFS server. I've never fired up FaceTime or PhotoBooth. The X11 app is so buggy it's ridiculou…

Regarding the Terminal application, check the scrollback settings. My colleague wondered why it took 20 seconds to start and ate up 2 gigs of memory... turns out Terminal was storing scrollback all the way back to when he first bought the machine, eating up just a little bit of memory every day as he used it more.

Re: The Time I “Interviewed” At Apple

#80

Post by Steko » Fri, Oct 04, 2013, 10:11 PM UTC

infinotize wrote: post #77

Steko wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maps is a great example of the difference because, wait for it, Apple never wanted to be in the mapping business. People are comparing Apple and Google and forgetting that the two companies ambitions are completely different. Google wants the full vampire squid platter. It wants to be your phone OS, your browser, your desktop OS, your search company, your video site, your social network, your office software solution…

You can't compare the browser situation however many years ago and the Maps calamity. Google's app was hardly a "shitty" alternative, but as others have indicated the Apple response is mostly due to other reasons. How many iOS users rejoiced when Google Maps got rereleased?

"You can't compare the browser situation however many years ago and the Maps calamity."

Actually I just did.

"Google's app was hardly a "shitty" alternative ... How many iOS users rejoiced when Google Maps got rereleased?"

'Rereleased' he says... you mean with turn-by-turn which was never there in the original app. Which is why the original was shitty compared to Maps for Android. QED.