How Tim Cook transformed Apple after Steve Jobs(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
How Tim Cook transformed Apple after Steve Jobs
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-02-09/this-is-how-tim-cook-transformed-apple-aapl-after-steve-jobs
322 comments
I recalled that when in 2015, working for another sourcing shop working for likes of BestBuy/Futureshop/Target/London Drugs I was asked to tear down few chargers for them.
I found that diodes in parallel are surprisingly common around the industry.
This is such a thing which you are pretty much told on day 1 of any electronics course that it is impossible to not to know.
My only thinkable conclusion was that people keep doing it on purpose.
Other extreme cost cutting measures I saw were things like LEDs being used in double role as a diode. Wire wound around PCB used as inductor. Plug pegs being directly soldered to the PCB. Near paper thin plastic with holes from molding defects. Through hole components being soldered to each other. Flybacks without feedback. A 555 coaxed into use in a charger circuit.
You cannot come with any of that unknowingly, nor will you find any of that crap on the open market easily even in China.
It's pretty much an engineering equivalent of a "controlled flight into terrain," a direct result of suppliers being consciously directed into "stripping to the last cent" of the products by such unwitting buyers.
I found that diodes in parallel are surprisingly common around the industry.
This is such a thing which you are pretty much told on day 1 of any electronics course that it is impossible to not to know.
My only thinkable conclusion was that people keep doing it on purpose.
Other extreme cost cutting measures I saw were things like LEDs being used in double role as a diode. Wire wound around PCB used as inductor. Plug pegs being directly soldered to the PCB. Near paper thin plastic with holes from molding defects. Through hole components being soldered to each other. Flybacks without feedback. A 555 coaxed into use in a charger circuit.
You cannot come with any of that unknowingly, nor will you find any of that crap on the open market easily even in China.
It's pretty much an engineering equivalent of a "controlled flight into terrain," a direct result of suppliers being consciously directed into "stripping to the last cent" of the products by such unwitting buyers.
I had to look up why not to put diodes in parallel, and here’s an answer: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/6151/is-para...
Everyone's talking about negative temperature coefficients there. I thought it was more to do with diodes having a roughly constant voltage drop in the first place, meaning if you put two diodes with different voltage drops in parallel, the one with the lower drop would steal most or all of the current from the start?
The "diodes in parallel" thing sounds like cargo-culting and lack of knowledge beyond the basic stuff.
I wouldn't be surprised if reference circuits would have the double diode. Sad, but not surprised.
I wouldn't be surprised if reference circuits would have the double diode. Sad, but not surprised.
This stuff is why USB-C PD scares me.
You've got these manufactures that are struggling to make basic AC->DC inverters and now you want to throw on a negotiation step? Yeah, not going to end well for these cost cutting idiots.
There are going to be destroyed devices and fires because some idiot decides "Just hard wire 20v and be done with it!"
You've got these manufactures that are struggling to make basic AC->DC inverters and now you want to throw on a negotiation step? Yeah, not going to end well for these cost cutting idiots.
There are going to be destroyed devices and fires because some idiot decides "Just hard wire 20v and be done with it!"
I only use Apple chargers in my house, even for non Apple devices. I’m not saying Apple is the only quality charger, but I have no real methodology to assess the quality of any other brand.
FWIW, I've only used Anker chargers and USB power blocks for the past several years (including as my main MBP power sources) and have had absolutely zero problems. No methodology but their brand now stands for reliability in my mind, at least.
I stumbled on this brand a few years ago and the couple items of theirs I've bought have held up extremely well, which is quite a rarity in this product space.
There was one person who wrote deep reviews of things like chargers and battery packs (I think) on Amazon, checking for standards compliance and design safety. Does anyone remember who?
Not on Amazon, but Ken Sherrif has dome some superb teardowns and analysis of Apple and non Apple chargers
http://www.righto.com/2012/05/apple-iphone-charger-teardown-...
http://www.righto.com/2016/03/counterfeit-macbook-charger-te...
http://www.righto.com/2012/05/apple-iphone-charger-teardown-...
http://www.righto.com/2016/03/counterfeit-macbook-charger-te...
Benson Leung? He was famous for his reviews of USB-C products.
>I have no real methodology to assess the quality of any other brand
But then how did you assess the quality of Apple's chargers? Can the same methodology not be applied then to other brands as well?
But then how did you assess the quality of Apple's chargers? Can the same methodology not be applied then to other brands as well?
Their size and demonstrated product quality in other areas, plus this guy’s tear down: http://www.righto.com/2012/05/apple-iphone-charger-teardown-...
>Their size
How do you judge the quality and safety of charger purely by size? Is bigger safer, or is smaller safer? And if so, why don't other brands of the same size meet your quality standard based on that yardstick.
>and demonstrated product quality in other areas
Like their multi-year run of defective butterfly keyboards or hinge design that would cut through the MacBooks display cable over time causing the famous "stagelight effect" AKA "flexgate" where you'd being charged $600 to fix the $6 ribbon cable[1]?
[1]https://www.extremetech.com/computing/284236-some-apple-lapt...
Edit: Ah, I see the downvotes are already here. I guess criticism of Apple with proof is not tolerated on HN.
How do you judge the quality and safety of charger purely by size? Is bigger safer, or is smaller safer? And if so, why don't other brands of the same size meet your quality standard based on that yardstick.
>and demonstrated product quality in other areas
Like their multi-year run of defective butterfly keyboards or hinge design that would cut through the MacBooks display cable over time causing the famous "stagelight effect" AKA "flexgate" where you'd being charged $600 to fix the $6 ribbon cable[1]?
[1]https://www.extremetech.com/computing/284236-some-apple-lapt...
Edit: Ah, I see the downvotes are already here. I guess criticism of Apple with proof is not tolerated on HN.
> How do you judge the quality and safety of charger purely by size?
I'm pretty sure spoonjim was referring to the size of Apple, not the size of the chargers they make.
I'm pretty sure spoonjim was referring to the size of Apple, not the size of the chargers they make.
Ok, but then there are other huge electronics brands like Samsung or Sony. Why don't they qualify as "safe" by this metric?
Samsung literally sold an exploding phone.
Note 7 did explode. But that wasn't due to them cutting corners and they took it quickly off the market and it never happened to another model after they learned the design lesson where you need to give the battery cell space inside the phone to expand.
And how does one battery incident from one brand prove that Apple is the best at making chargers? We're talking about different things here.
"iPhones don't explode so Apple must be the best?"
Samsung Note 7 exploded before it was taken of the market, but any other brand or model did not, so unless you want to hang on the 2016 Samsung Note 7 incident as strawman argument, you have provided no valid arguments.
And how does one battery incident from one brand prove that Apple is the best at making chargers? We're talking about different things here.
"iPhones don't explode so Apple must be the best?"
Samsung Note 7 exploded before it was taken of the market, but any other brand or model did not, so unless you want to hang on the 2016 Samsung Note 7 incident as strawman argument, you have provided no valid arguments.
An exploding phone is not a straw man argument. It’s an extremely valuable data point.
Who is more likely to commit murder, a randomly selected person or a randomly selected person from those with an existing murder conviction?
Who is more likely to commit murder, a randomly selected person or a randomly selected person from those with an existing murder conviction?
Sony, LG and many other devices didn't explode, so why aren't their chargers as safe as Apple's by the logic of your arguments so far?
How does one negative battery incident from Samsung prove that Apple makes the safest chargers of ALL the major electronics manufacturers?
Because so far you provided no proof or arguments to support this other than "murderer" metaphors and opinionated brand loyalty wrapped in whataboutism focused towards one particular incident, then move the goalpost from safety to quality instead and I showed you proof that quality does not equal safety or vice versa.
How does one negative battery incident from Samsung prove that Apple makes the safest chargers of ALL the major electronics manufacturers?
Because so far you provided no proof or arguments to support this other than "murderer" metaphors and opinionated brand loyalty wrapped in whataboutism focused towards one particular incident, then move the goalpost from safety to quality instead and I showed you proof that quality does not equal safety or vice versa.
By that logic ...
Apple phones had antenna problems. You probably should not buy that brand anymore.
Apple phones had antenna problems. You probably should not buy that brand anymore.
Safety != product quality like the examples you gave. Charger blocks is the one spot Apple doesn’t seem to fuck around because of the outsized brand impact it would have (see Samsung’s exploding batteries).
Anecdotal, but the only charger block I've ever had explode was from a MacBook. In its favour, it didn't fragment or catch fire. But as it shuffled off its mortal coil, the white plastic casing momentarily shone like the sun. Was pretty dramatic.
Cables, on the other hand... I honestly can't remember seeing any other cable casings disintegrate like Apple's.
Funny thing is Apple internally use Anker cables as they're much more resistent than their own.
It's well known that Apple prioritizes thinness, aesthetics and industrial design over function and reliability which is ironic given how stupid the magic mouse looks when it's charging.[1] How Jonny Ive green-lit that is beyond me.
[1]https://i.stack.imgur.com/WxNgu.jpg
It's well known that Apple prioritizes thinness, aesthetics and industrial design over function and reliability which is ironic given how stupid the magic mouse looks when it's charging.[1] How Jonny Ive green-lit that is beyond me.
[1]https://i.stack.imgur.com/WxNgu.jpg
> Funny thing is Apple internally use Anker cables as they're much more resistent than their own.
Source? Sound interesting!
Source? Sound interesting!
That does sound like an interesting claim & one that doesn't line up with my experience. When I worked there ~6 years ago that certainly wasn't the case. Maybe some groups did but I didn't observe that for the coworkers that sat around me.
Nobody else has Apple's resources for supply management, nor are they as large a target for getting sued - Apple has the ability and incentive to sell safe products.
And Samsung, Panasonic, LG, SONY, Lenovo, Dell, HP and every other major electronics brand don't? How so?
Apple is bigger and has better control of their supply chain. Similarly, those large companies would also likely build safe products, but it would be slightly less of a safe bet.
Overall most of those companies have excellent track records, but I bet everybody still remembers the exploding batteries from Samsung. Meanwhile, Sony actually has a pretty spotty track record (depending on where privacy and safety overlap for you), but most people have forgotten the root kit scandal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
Overall most of those companies have excellent track records, but I bet everybody still remembers the exploding batteries from Samsung. Meanwhile, Sony actually has a pretty spotty track record (depending on where privacy and safety overlap for you), but most people have forgotten the root kit scandal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
My camera has an USB-C port, which can be used to charge the (removable) battery. I don't think I have the guts to plug pretty much any USB-C charger into a 2000 € camera. I can already hear a little pop and the not-so-faint smell of burned electronics just thinking about doing it.
Dispensing with "unnecessary" components is called Muntzing, after Muntz, a TV salesman in the 1940s and 50s. He reduced costs by cutting out components from a TV until it stopped working, to find the minimum number of components required.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muntzing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muntzing
Yeah, what parent is describing isn't muntzing, but the simple act of being dense in a setting where nobody can say it:
> He kept insisting on completely bizarre design changes, and ridiculous cost cutting on design like using 2 cheaper through hole diodes in parallel instead of one a cent more expensive (did not believe my ears, the guy failed EE101 right here,) dispensing with NTC inrush limiters, removing safety caps (he did not know what they are for) and asked us to redo the mold 6! times in order to save some grams of plastic per run.
I've seen this happening plenty of times, too. The higher-ups in many consumer (and even non-consumer!) companies are 100% clueless about these things, but they "know" that Chinese OEMs try to "rip you off" on designs, so they will demand their staff to squeeze them (and will promptly fire or replace anyone who dares tell them that a design is actually okay).
So every once in a while one of these smart guys will show up and make completely stupid demands. And explaining someone who doesn't understand basic electrical engineering concepts just why these demands are stupid is completely unproductive -- they don't just lack an understanding of the jargon, they lack an understanding of the most basic concepts. It's akin to trying to explain someone who doesn't know what a for loop is why you're using a hash table in a place where "a simple array would suffice".
> He kept insisting on completely bizarre design changes, and ridiculous cost cutting on design like using 2 cheaper through hole diodes in parallel instead of one a cent more expensive (did not believe my ears, the guy failed EE101 right here,) dispensing with NTC inrush limiters, removing safety caps (he did not know what they are for) and asked us to redo the mold 6! times in order to save some grams of plastic per run.
I've seen this happening plenty of times, too. The higher-ups in many consumer (and even non-consumer!) companies are 100% clueless about these things, but they "know" that Chinese OEMs try to "rip you off" on designs, so they will demand their staff to squeeze them (and will promptly fire or replace anyone who dares tell them that a design is actually okay).
So every once in a while one of these smart guys will show up and make completely stupid demands. And explaining someone who doesn't understand basic electrical engineering concepts just why these demands are stupid is completely unproductive -- they don't just lack an understanding of the jargon, they lack an understanding of the most basic concepts. It's akin to trying to explain someone who doesn't know what a for loop is why you're using a hash table in a place where "a simple array would suffice".
If only the executives' salaries were scrutinized this closely. If someone is telling you about sacrificing safety to save a lone cent they are insane or hopelessly inept at their job. On almost any profit margin imaginable. Sell a million of these for $88 and you have saved only $10,000 on $88 million in sales. I don't know the Kindle profit margin but I'm going to guess it is quite a bit. One court case about the charger catching fire would eat that $10,000.
Charger blocks are not $88 retail let alone BOM. 1 cent in BOM translates to 5-7c in MSRP if I recall correctly. The charger itself is probably a dollar or two so you’re looking at 2-5% of the total charger cost. Maybe not a talent thing on the part of the engineer (although could be contributory) so much as getting pressure from management to cut BOM across the board without management specifying any kind of threshold requirement.
Obviously still ridiculous when talking about charger safety but it’s important to remember we only see one side of the story here. Who knows what actually happened. I’ve worked with talented EE engineers on the client side complaining about how the contractor fucked up a board layout, wired things up incorrectly, or swapped out for cheaper “equivalent” parts that were out of spec in some incorrect way.
Obviously still ridiculous when talking about charger safety but it’s important to remember we only see one side of the story here. Who knows what actually happened. I’ve worked with talented EE engineers on the client side complaining about how the contractor fucked up a board layout, wired things up incorrectly, or swapped out for cheaper “equivalent” parts that were out of spec in some incorrect way.
Chargers used to be way more expensive, proprietary ones in particular.
Branded siemens, and ericsson chargers for phones were $100+ circa 2001
Branded siemens, and ericsson chargers for phones were $100+ circa 2001
That's true but you have to look at shipped volume & BOM cost (bill of materials), not MSRP from a charging block 20 years ago.
If this charging block was from the Kindle, you're looking at significantly higher volume & several years of advances that drive the cost down. Additionally, since everyone has shifted to stock USB chargers, all chargers have gotten drastically cheaper due to scaling. You can buy a wall USB (C or A) charger for a few $ MSRP which means it costs like 20-50 cents for the components that go into it.
If this charging block was from the Kindle, you're looking at significantly higher volume & several years of advances that drive the cost down. Additionally, since everyone has shifted to stock USB chargers, all chargers have gotten drastically cheaper due to scaling. You can buy a wall USB (C or A) charger for a few $ MSRP which means it costs like 20-50 cents for the components that go into it.
> [If you don't know yourself] if you are asking a for something stupid, who will know? No one will.
Makes me think I could intentionally ask for 1 or 2 stupid things, and see if the supplier tells me about it?
Makes me think I could intentionally ask for 1 or 2 stupid things, and see if the supplier tells me about it?
Sounds like a variation of that rock band asking for a bowl of only brown m&m from the venue - at risk of voiding the contract if not provided - in the middle of their safety requirements document (if they didn't give them brown m&ms they know they didn't read the document throughout).
Yes! That rock band came to my mind, having read about them here at HN. But I couldn't remember the name (Van Halen, see below) or "brown m&m".
Now, because of your reply, I found this old HN post:
"Why Van Halen's tour contract had a "no brown M&M's" clause"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7754334
Now, because of your reply, I found this old HN post:
"Why Van Halen's tour contract had a "no brown M&M's" clause"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7754334
I would like a named list of such buyers. Not their employers. The actual natural person names. So I know which clients to decline outright based upon the name of the buyer I'm working with, if I find out they are anywhere in the chain of procurement during negotiations. I have happily told buyers "no" on numerous occasions (there is an art to how to decline a customer's request, or to decline the customer themselves). Warren Buffett was right: knowing when to judiciously say "yes" is a key factor in managing your time.
Eh, the game goes both ways tho. Factories love to feign innocence over defects and dispute penalties and commonly drop QC themselves and then baulk at redoing. Everybody is under pressure and there's angels and demons on both sides.
> using 2 cheaper through hole diodes in parallel instead of one a cent more expensive
Just an idea, would it be possible to ask suppliers to jack up prices of THT power diodes so price follows forward current rating?
Just an idea, would it be possible to ask suppliers to jack up prices of THT power diodes so price follows forward current rating?
That’s an interesting idea. Instead of treating the supplier as an enemy bring them on to your side with an offer of “if this part fails less than 1% of the time we’ll pay you $X more per part”
Right now the only incentive they have is to give you a part that just barely won’t break for the absolute cheapest amount.
As a side benefit this would weed out the bad suppliers and the good ones will seek you out.
Right now the only incentive they have is to give you a part that just barely won’t break for the absolute cheapest amount.
As a side benefit this would weed out the bad suppliers and the good ones will seek you out.
The guy came with his own prices, and said only buy passives from these companies.
> I've seen many guys like Tim Cook, most worse off ones. [...] He squeezes suppliers, and know what he is doing. [...] Others squeeze suppliers, and don't know what they are doing. [...] 9 out of 10 companies in the supply chain will just shoot themselves in the foot if they go on doing it like that.
Apple is probably the most cargo-culted company out there, after Google maybe. The number of "Steve Jobs wanabes" that I met who didn't have the billions nor the string of successful products behind them was staggering. I have no doubt Tim Cook is cargo-culted as much as Jobs was.
For anyone attempting this, keep in mind he built a team of world class experts around him.
Apple is probably the most cargo-culted company out there, after Google maybe. The number of "Steve Jobs wanabes" that I met who didn't have the billions nor the string of successful products behind them was staggering. I have no doubt Tim Cook is cargo-culted as much as Jobs was.
For anyone attempting this, keep in mind he built a team of world class experts around him.
Softwares suffers from a similar pattern. Think security issues.
Indeed, any kind of specialized skills suffer from the same problem, when you want to cut costs.
You can only get what you paid for.
(and I’m not saying paying for is a sufficient guarantee either...).
Indeed, any kind of specialized skills suffer from the same problem, when you want to cut costs.
You can only get what you paid for.
(and I’m not saying paying for is a sufficient guarantee either...).
> like using 2 cheaper through hole diodes in parallel instead of one a cent more expensive
Well, technically, once the first one burned out he still had a spare ;)
You should have insisted on current limiting resistors in series :)
On another note, I can see a small business in selling matched pairs of diodes...
Well, technically, once the first one burned out he still had a spare ;)
You should have insisted on current limiting resistors in series :)
On another note, I can see a small business in selling matched pairs of diodes...
> On another note, I can see a small business in selling matched pairs of diodes...
Hah but that will make it cost 0.0005 more per unit, can't have that
Hah but that will make it cost 0.0005 more per unit, can't have that
> On one of my first jobs, I've been witness to...
> ...years later I found out that the design of the first Kindle charger exactly matched...
So your employer's client was Amazon?
> ...years later I found out that the design of the first Kindle charger exactly matched...
So your employer's client was Amazon?
It was some inconspicuous sourcing company, may well been their front co, or maybe an actual sourcing agent working for them.
I don't believe they could've reused the design for some other client.
I don't believe they could've reused the design for some other client.
He made you redo the molds 720 times? That’s insanity!
Apple is the best company in the world at operations. I don't know how they do it but:
1) Ever year they manage to diligently upgrade iphones/ipads, macbooks and watches.
2) Every year they make some progress in their quest of removing suppliers by becoming vertically integrated. They don't only remove the supplier. They beat their former suppliers specs. (e.g: M1 chip).
3) Every year they make some progress in their quest of generating more revenue from services. They are managing to launch one or two services a year or create a new program that integrates services into attractive bundles.
All those things are incredibly hard operational challenges. Nothing there seems to be easy and some how they manage to always come ahead in delivering that operational excellence.
1) Ever year they manage to diligently upgrade iphones/ipads, macbooks and watches.
2) Every year they make some progress in their quest of removing suppliers by becoming vertically integrated. They don't only remove the supplier. They beat their former suppliers specs. (e.g: M1 chip).
3) Every year they make some progress in their quest of generating more revenue from services. They are managing to launch one or two services a year or create a new program that integrates services into attractive bundles.
All those things are incredibly hard operational challenges. Nothing there seems to be easy and some how they manage to always come ahead in delivering that operational excellence.
Yep, Apple's operations and logistics are second to none in this industry.
Watching AMD, NVIDIA, Sony, Microsoft and others struggling so much manufacturing their products, and then having Apple launch: - 2 new Apple Watches - 4 new iPhones - 3 new Macs - Airpods Max - Homepod Mini
All with Apple's own custom designed chips, even relying on the same chip fabs as those other companies, and still managing to mostly avoid the huge shortages that those others have faced is impressive.
It's probably a combination of their operations, logistics, supply networks - their predictable yearly cycles that allows them to plan out further in advance, having higher margin products that allows them to outbid the competition for capacity, etc, etc...
But as someone who did the fight for the new AMD CPUs, NVIDIA GPUs, been on the look out for the new Sony console, and bought a new iPhone, Apple Watch & Homepod mini on release - the Apple experience was such a breeze in comparison. It may seem like an odd thing to be impressed by, but with how much everyone else has been struggling - for it to appear to relatively easy for Apple is notable.
Watching AMD, NVIDIA, Sony, Microsoft and others struggling so much manufacturing their products, and then having Apple launch: - 2 new Apple Watches - 4 new iPhones - 3 new Macs - Airpods Max - Homepod Mini
All with Apple's own custom designed chips, even relying on the same chip fabs as those other companies, and still managing to mostly avoid the huge shortages that those others have faced is impressive.
It's probably a combination of their operations, logistics, supply networks - their predictable yearly cycles that allows them to plan out further in advance, having higher margin products that allows them to outbid the competition for capacity, etc, etc...
But as someone who did the fight for the new AMD CPUs, NVIDIA GPUs, been on the look out for the new Sony console, and bought a new iPhone, Apple Watch & Homepod mini on release - the Apple experience was such a breeze in comparison. It may seem like an odd thing to be impressed by, but with how much everyone else has been struggling - for it to appear to relatively easy for Apple is notable.
> All with Apple's own custom designed chips, even relying on the same chip fabs as those other companies, and still managing to mostly avoid the huge shortages that those others have faced is impressive.
I would not be surprised if the other companies are having shortages because of Apple taking up most of the fab capacity and support engineers.
I would not be surprised if the other companies are having shortages because of Apple taking up most of the fab capacity and support engineers.
>I would not be surprised if the other companies are having shortages because of Apple taking up most of the fab capacity and support engineers.
The whole reason why Apple got the advantage and others dont is merely because Apple is willing put down payment, contract obligation and guarantee over number of years. And their volume will dictate how TSMC plan their capacity. Unless other company are willing to place some sort of bet that they will at least buy x millions on x node within the x years. It is not TSMC's duty to second guess everyone of their customers volume and take the risk of empty Fabs with redundant capacity. Fabs are meant to run at near constant Full Capacity. Most so called Supply Chain expert and professionals are being taught JIT without really understanding the purpose of JIT. I dont like the product and strategy direction of Tim Cook, but he is absolutely a genius in Supply Chain and Operation Management.
Edit: And it just so happens there is a news story on JIT from Toyota https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26151072
And after the Qualcomm and Samsung 4G/5G settlement it seems Qualcomm will try to use Samsung Foundry whenever possible. So it should mean more room at TSMC next year.
The whole reason why Apple got the advantage and others dont is merely because Apple is willing put down payment, contract obligation and guarantee over number of years. And their volume will dictate how TSMC plan their capacity. Unless other company are willing to place some sort of bet that they will at least buy x millions on x node within the x years. It is not TSMC's duty to second guess everyone of their customers volume and take the risk of empty Fabs with redundant capacity. Fabs are meant to run at near constant Full Capacity. Most so called Supply Chain expert and professionals are being taught JIT without really understanding the purpose of JIT. I dont like the product and strategy direction of Tim Cook, but he is absolutely a genius in Supply Chain and Operation Management.
Edit: And it just so happens there is a news story on JIT from Toyota https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26151072
And after the Qualcomm and Samsung 4G/5G settlement it seems Qualcomm will try to use Samsung Foundry whenever possible. So it should mean more room at TSMC next year.
Toyota had a lot of trouble after the 2011 earthquake, I'm sure their decision to keep inventory is related to that
Both Apple and Huawei have been stockpiling on silicon wafers for months. The silicon shortage is becoming real.
On 2)... TSMC produces the M1 and it will be interesting if they eventually enter the fab business... Apple is one of the few companies with the required capital. This is all on the heels of the news that Samsung is planning a foundry in the U.S.
Apple's usual way of doing business with Tim Cook running the supply chain is to buy a supplier a manufacturing line in return for guaranteed production levels on exactly the part they want.
This is the first case of this in action that I can remember.
>CUPERTINO, California—November 21, 2005—Apple® today announced that it has reached long-term supply agreements with Hynix, Intel, Micron, Samsung Electronics and Toshiba to secure the supply of NAND flash memory through 2010. As part of these agreements, Apple intends to prepay a total of $1.25 billion for flash memory components during the next three months.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2005/11/21Apple-Announces-Lon...
Here's a more recent example.
>(Reuters) - Apple Inc on Tuesday said it would award Corning Inc $250 million from a $5 billion fund dedicated to U.S. advanced manufacturing.
In the past, Apple has made long-term supply agreements here with its vendors in which it provides upfront cash to lock in supplies of parts and better prices.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-corning/apple-award...
This is the first case of this in action that I can remember.
>CUPERTINO, California—November 21, 2005—Apple® today announced that it has reached long-term supply agreements with Hynix, Intel, Micron, Samsung Electronics and Toshiba to secure the supply of NAND flash memory through 2010. As part of these agreements, Apple intends to prepay a total of $1.25 billion for flash memory components during the next three months.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2005/11/21Apple-Announces-Lon...
Here's a more recent example.
>(Reuters) - Apple Inc on Tuesday said it would award Corning Inc $250 million from a $5 billion fund dedicated to U.S. advanced manufacturing.
In the past, Apple has made long-term supply agreements here with its vendors in which it provides upfront cash to lock in supplies of parts and better prices.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-corning/apple-award...
Ive seen this suggested a few times and I don't believe it. Apple is only intersted in the latest cutting edge processes, those are the ones that give them competitive advantage. The problem is no process stays cutting edge forever. After a few years it becomes a commodity process.
That's not a problem for TSMC who has plenty of customers for commodity nodes, but it would be a millstone round Apple's neck. They don't want to be in the business of owning a commodity process line used by their competitors.
That's not a problem for TSMC who has plenty of customers for commodity nodes, but it would be a millstone round Apple's neck. They don't want to be in the business of owning a commodity process line used by their competitors.
Apple's mobile devices haven't been that interesting since the iPhone X / Watch Series 3. Nothing really has felt like a 'must have' upgrade. iPhone 12 & series 4 watch was definitely an improvement stylistically, but that's about it.
And apple only really cares about privacy from 3rd parties, not privacy from apple for their customers. They don't E2E encrypt their backups, and many other services, which makes their service operation not very attractive. Why use apple services if it's not going to be private, might as well use the better run or cheaper google or amazon ones at that point.
Most interesting thing so far is the M1.
And apple only really cares about privacy from 3rd parties, not privacy from apple for their customers. They don't E2E encrypt their backups, and many other services, which makes their service operation not very attractive. Why use apple services if it's not going to be private, might as well use the better run or cheaper google or amazon ones at that point.
Most interesting thing so far is the M1.
> Apple's mobile devices haven't been that interesting since the iPhone X / Watch Series 3. Nothing really has felt like a 'must have' upgrade. iPhone 12 & series 4 watch was definitely an improvement stylistically, but that's about it.
1994 DOOM
1996 Quake
1997 Quake 2
1999 Quake 3
2004 Doom 3
2007 Crysis < Phones are here
1994 DOOM
1996 Quake
1997 Quake 2
1999 Quake 3
2004 Doom 3
2007 Crysis < Phones are here
Upgrades are hard even when they subtle.
Iterating hardware is extremely complex.
The internal layout of the phones changes every year and all the supply chain needs to get instructions to get the exact adjustments.
New parts need to be procured. New software needs to be integrated and tested.
Every year there are major software updates that launch new stable OS versions.
Every year your ecosystem evolvez and you have to keep everyone in the loop.
I find mind-blowing how good they are at re-aligning all the pieces after major shifts like form-factors or adding propietary silicon.
It’s even more mind-blowing when you think that they are producing millions of these devices and distributing around the world at key times of the year.
I know for some people it’s hard to see innovation in their year updates. But they need nearly perfect operational coordination to achieve what they do at their scale.
Iterating hardware is extremely complex.
The internal layout of the phones changes every year and all the supply chain needs to get instructions to get the exact adjustments.
New parts need to be procured. New software needs to be integrated and tested.
Every year there are major software updates that launch new stable OS versions.
Every year your ecosystem evolvez and you have to keep everyone in the loop.
I find mind-blowing how good they are at re-aligning all the pieces after major shifts like form-factors or adding propietary silicon.
It’s even more mind-blowing when you think that they are producing millions of these devices and distributing around the world at key times of the year.
I know for some people it’s hard to see innovation in their year updates. But they need nearly perfect operational coordination to achieve what they do at their scale.
The parent comment makes it sound like a bad thing, but I kind of enjoy the current way of not feeling the need to buy the latest and greatest every year.
Chugging along with my iPhone 8. Screen is cracked and battery is getting worse, but the phone itself I have n problems with. If I could get the battery and screen replaced for relatively cheap I would, but as it stands that would cost me way to much compared to a new phone.
If it phones and you can use the web a bit or an app, it’s all good in my book.
Supposedly they were planning to encrypt backups, but looked at the expected number of users that would lose their keys and not be able to access their backups and bottled out.
More likely: https://bgr.com/2020/01/21/iphone-icloud-backup-isnt-fully-e...
Also apple had your choice key escrow/backup for filevault backups, and it's the default option, which is how you deal with the above issue.
Also a few key things are E2E backed up (keychain, health), so that reason hasn't stopped them before.
Also apple had your choice key escrow/backup for filevault backups, and it's the default option, which is how you deal with the above issue.
Also a few key things are E2E backed up (keychain, health), so that reason hasn't stopped them before.
And yet they fail so spectacularly at software. All their devices are limited by software, they can't swing their weight to develop software across all platforms, and they can't deal with software bugs in a scalable way.
It's intriguing: they managed to scale their hardware in an impressive way, but software lags so far behind it's not even funny.
It's intriguing: they managed to scale their hardware in an impressive way, but software lags so far behind it's not even funny.
I hesitated to reply because this is such a subjective issue. I look at the software on the Android and Windows side and just don't see much of interest to me. That's just me though.
I think one area that Apple clearly does excel at though is software features that take advantage of specific hardware features. The fact they design the whole product in sync on both the hardware and software side, without either taking priority by itself is truly unique in the industry. So for example the way the M1 has instructions that accelerate particular operations common on the OSX/iOS software stack, or the computational photography software that works hand in glove with the neural engine hardware.
The fact that apple develops their own developer tools, OS, application software, hardware and even CPUs now is unique in the industry and deep software skills are a really important differentiator. Maybe that side is slipping, but if so that will be a big problem for them down the line.
I think one area that Apple clearly does excel at though is software features that take advantage of specific hardware features. The fact they design the whole product in sync on both the hardware and software side, without either taking priority by itself is truly unique in the industry. So for example the way the M1 has instructions that accelerate particular operations common on the OSX/iOS software stack, or the computational photography software that works hand in glove with the neural engine hardware.
The fact that apple develops their own developer tools, OS, application software, hardware and even CPUs now is unique in the industry and deep software skills are a really important differentiator. Maybe that side is slipping, but if so that will be a big problem for them down the line.
> I look at the software on the Android and Windows side and just don't see much of interest to me. That's just me though.
At the end Windows Phone ended up being tightly integrated to the handsets Microsoft built. And it could run extremely well on hardware considered too light to ever run Android smoothly. But it dropped compatibility for a lot of Windows API surfaces.
Windows has to maintain 25+ years of compatibility in certain areas (and still run software that only exists in compiled blobs, the source having been lost a long time ago by whatever enterprise software shop gone bankrupt).
Android has no excuses however. It's OEM cutting corners and shipping patched kernels and "fixes" for their SoC that's plaguing the whole ecosystem.
At the end Windows Phone ended up being tightly integrated to the handsets Microsoft built. And it could run extremely well on hardware considered too light to ever run Android smoothly. But it dropped compatibility for a lot of Windows API surfaces.
Windows has to maintain 25+ years of compatibility in certain areas (and still run software that only exists in compiled blobs, the source having been lost a long time ago by whatever enterprise software shop gone bankrupt).
Android has no excuses however. It's OEM cutting corners and shipping patched kernels and "fixes" for their SoC that's plaguing the whole ecosystem.
> I don't know how they do it but:
Easy to answer. Well, it's not the complete answer but I think it's crucial:
Small number of different products.
Think about it, why was the first iPhone so good compared to the competition? On paper, it had a fraction of the competition's features. But as a result, what it did it did so much better.
Easy to answer. Well, it's not the complete answer but I think it's crucial:
Small number of different products.
Think about it, why was the first iPhone so good compared to the competition? On paper, it had a fraction of the competition's features. But as a result, what it did it did so much better.
They've also always charged enough of a premium to afford to do things (mostly) properly. Apple's brand value isn't just in name recognition but in being able to command this premium which in turn improves their brand image more.. a virtuous cycle.
> They don't only remove the supplier. They beat their former suppliers specs. (e.g: M1 chip).
They remove the supplier because they beat their specs.
They remove the supplier because they beat their specs.
Every year their UX/UI gets consistently worse.
I don’t agree: I love the recent UI updates.
Big Sur is a huge step in the wrong direction. And there were links here on HN to posts that explained it better than I'll ever do. In short: there were many changes that only considered the looks, without ever thinking about actual usability. Then the fact that this overall touch-ification of the UI has now plagued macOS as well just saddens me. If nothing changes, in several years we'll lose the last mainstream OS that had a proper desktop UI made for keyboards and mice.
You know what was the best thing they could've done to the macOS UI? Leave it alone.
You know what was the best thing they could've done to the macOS UI? Leave it alone.
I think it’s naive to expect that American companies like Apple that outsource everything but design and software and reap enormous profits are going to be able to do this indefinitely. China is getting better fast at doing these things too and will have tremendous advantages when it owns the entire stack. If American companies want to stay competitive in the long run they’re going to have to break their addiction to the easy profits they’re enjoying now and do the hard work of bringing this manufacturing back on-shore.
Isn't this ordinary commoditization? Provided Apple keeps innovating, they'll keep ahead. They have a head start, and innovatiin is their corporate organizing principle, from hiring to advertizing. They leave commodity profits on the table.
The danger is if China has a monopoly on know-how, i.e. if it's not a "commodity". But that doesn't seem to be the case.
However, one day, the iphone will be "good enough", and customers won't pay extra for further innovations... and unless other product lines or new ones (glasses? cars? others?) catch fire, Apple will settle down to become like Sony.
The danger is if China has a monopoly on know-how, i.e. if it's not a "commodity". But that doesn't seem to be the case.
However, one day, the iphone will be "good enough", and customers won't pay extra for further innovations... and unless other product lines or new ones (glasses? cars? others?) catch fire, Apple will settle down to become like Sony.
The commodification argument. People have been saying the iPhone is good enough for a decade so far (in fact from before it even came out) and there's no sign of their losing their grip on the high end of the market. In fact this has been said generally about Apple computers since the 80s at least. Hence Apple's unofficial corporate slogan, "Proudly going out of business since 1976".
The fact is nobody even tries to do the level of integration between software and hardware that Apple does. It's hard to compete with an opponent when you don't understand what they are doing, or why they are doing it, or why it works and it's very clear their competitors don't understand any of those things.
As long as the competition sit on their hands following the 'theoretically' ideal business 101 commodification strategy, which hasn't worked for 40 years now, it will continue to not work. But here we are, generations of business managers at Apple's competitors have come and gone and the wait them out strategy keeps losing.
The fact is nobody even tries to do the level of integration between software and hardware that Apple does. It's hard to compete with an opponent when you don't understand what they are doing, or why they are doing it, or why it works and it's very clear their competitors don't understand any of those things.
As long as the competition sit on their hands following the 'theoretically' ideal business 101 commodification strategy, which hasn't worked for 40 years now, it will continue to not work. But here we are, generations of business managers at Apple's competitors have come and gone and the wait them out strategy keeps losing.
It is also partly marketing. Apple has a lot of other pieces of the puzzle like privacy and racial equality and other socio-political issues well rounded up.
Loyal Apple fans and customers really like to identify with these principles.
Apple does this really well and most Chinese companies are transactional in nature and have been adversely affected by many political and humanitarian issues that are part of their ethos.
Loyal Apple fans and customers really like to identify with these principles.
Apple does this really well and most Chinese companies are transactional in nature and have been adversely affected by many political and humanitarian issues that are part of their ethos.
I find it hard to believe that people are choosing Apple products over competitors because of anything to do with "racial equality". Especially since most of the components are manufactured in China, therefore by buying an Apple product (or basically any other piece of modern consumer electronics), you're helping to fund a racist ethnostate that's currently committing genocide.
What has Apple done to promote racial equality beyond the same vague performative gestures as every other major Western corporation?
What has Apple done to promote racial equality beyond the same vague performative gestures as every other major Western corporation?
It's worth noting that 80% of Samsung smartphones are manufactured in Vietnam these days. Something people often forget even in today's geopolitical environment.
I wish Samsung used that fact in their marketing, I think it would really play well.
I wish Samsung used that fact in their marketing, I think it would really play well.
Vietnam might not be as bad as China but it still doesn't exactly have a stellar human rights record.
I’m curious how most Americans feel about Vietnam. Yes, it’s been 50 years, but the war was a huge part of a decade of internal turmoil and a pretty significant defeat for our military.
Samsung may feel that it’s risky to trade on that name in the U.S. market.
Samsung may feel that it’s risky to trade on that name in the U.S. market.
Seems like to many people making nice statements about racial equality and donating money to black only initiatives is enough.
Working with actual genocidal governments is fine though, I mean it's what you say that matters, not what you do.
Working with actual genocidal governments is fine though, I mean it's what you say that matters, not what you do.
Acyutally, according to TFA, it's the whole ecology of supply chains in one place (an infrastructure) that is difficult to replicate.
Perhaps similar to silicon valley, with investors and many kinds of skilled labour, all in one place.
Perhaps similar to silicon valley, with investors and many kinds of skilled labour, all in one place.
It's ironic that you make that comparison to silicon valley because silicon valley was the progenitor of these supply chains.
If the supply chains can move across the ocean once then surely they can move back again.
If the supply chains can move across the ocean once then surely they can move back again.
How is moving manufacturing to the USA going to protect against China developing expertise in design and software?
Also the whole made in China panic is overblown. Most of the value in the parts in an iPhone is sourced outside China. CPUs in Taiwan (used to be Texas), flash memory in Korea, Japan and the US, camera module in Japan, Gorilla Glass in Kentucky, Japan and Korea etc, etc. Final assembly is only worth a few bucks per phone. It's fighting over scraps.
I just don't see how reversing the relationship - design and software in China, final assembly in the US, is going to benefit the US all that much.
Also the whole made in China panic is overblown. Most of the value in the parts in an iPhone is sourced outside China. CPUs in Taiwan (used to be Texas), flash memory in Korea, Japan and the US, camera module in Japan, Gorilla Glass in Kentucky, Japan and Korea etc, etc. Final assembly is only worth a few bucks per phone. It's fighting over scraps.
I just don't see how reversing the relationship - design and software in China, final assembly in the US, is going to benefit the US all that much.
If Samsung can manufacture 80% of their smartphones in Vietnam on 300 million smartphones, I can see why Apple couldn't move all their manufacturing to Vietnam and India.
I agree, that makes a lot more sense. Not so sure about India though, that's just to avoid punitive Indian import taxes. It would make little sense for export.
It doesn't prevent China from developing expertise. That's inevitable. It prevents the US from falling dramatically behind.
Falling behind on what? Low end assembly line work at the very bottom of the value chain just isn't worth fighting low skilled workers from rural China or Vietnam over. The chances are all of that will be done by robots soon anyway, which is a whole new ball game.
It’s “low end” right up until you have no access to it. When it comes to national security, you don’t want to be in a position where the majority of your manufacturing output is at the mercy of a foreign country’s blessing. Your R&D is worth nothing if you can’t actually build.
That boat sailed a long, long time ago. The era where any country, even a giant like the US can make everything and be entirely self sufficient is long gone. What kind of future would realistically result in no access to foreign manufacturing or resources?
If the risk is seen as China particularly, they only do the lowest value lowest skilled work. Pretty much by definition that's the easiest to relocate. Samsung does most of it's phone manufacturing in Vietnam. Apple has assembly lines in Brazil and India. Yes they're vulnerable to short term pain, but even the recent trade war didn't come even close to the kind of massive economic death struggle that would lead to cutting off access to basic manufacturing. If we end up in an actual war, we'll have more to worry about than not getting the latest iPhone for a few years.
If the risk is seen as China particularly, they only do the lowest value lowest skilled work. Pretty much by definition that's the easiest to relocate. Samsung does most of it's phone manufacturing in Vietnam. Apple has assembly lines in Brazil and India. Yes they're vulnerable to short term pain, but even the recent trade war didn't come even close to the kind of massive economic death struggle that would lead to cutting off access to basic manufacturing. If we end up in an actual war, we'll have more to worry about than not getting the latest iPhone for a few years.
> If we end up in an actual war, we'll have more to worry about than not getting the latest iPhone for a few years.
This is a supply issue with silicon/electronics in general. At this point, it would be more of a disaster for any country to lose access to electronics than to oil. I'm not sure where you heard that manufacturing electronics is low skill, but I definitely don't agree.
The point is that there's no difference between the US and some country that has oil resources but no refining capacity. We can dig silicon out of the ground but we can't make anything with it.
The other thing you may be failing to consider is automation. If another economy gets there first, they won't be just building chips. If you're afraid of China becoming the fastest at bringing technology ideas to market, we are already there. And not just some ridiculously useless SV "x but for uber" product. A real piece of reality that turns on and can perform work.
This is even before you get into the national security argument about a trustable supply chain.
This is a supply issue with silicon/electronics in general. At this point, it would be more of a disaster for any country to lose access to electronics than to oil. I'm not sure where you heard that manufacturing electronics is low skill, but I definitely don't agree.
The point is that there's no difference between the US and some country that has oil resources but no refining capacity. We can dig silicon out of the ground but we can't make anything with it.
The other thing you may be failing to consider is automation. If another economy gets there first, they won't be just building chips. If you're afraid of China becoming the fastest at bringing technology ideas to market, we are already there. And not just some ridiculously useless SV "x but for uber" product. A real piece of reality that turns on and can perform work.
This is even before you get into the national security argument about a trustable supply chain.
Making the high value parts, the CPU, flash memory, camera module, sensors, Gorilla Glass, display panels, etc is high value. Do you know how many of the components on that list are made in China? None. They’re all made in the USA, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Only low value parts and final assembly are done in China yet it’s the low skill final assembly worth only a few dollars in value that counts as “manufacturing”.
I think the flash used to be made in China for a while, but the fancy new stuff is South Korea (Samsung) and Japan (Toshiba). The camera modules are made by Sony in Japan. The CPUs are TSMC in Taiwan. Back in the early years over 40% of the value in the Bill of Materials of an iPhone was made in the USA, including the CPUs by Samsung in Texas, Gorilla Glass by Corning in NY state, I forget all the rest, only about 10% of the cost of manufacture was added in China. It’s probably a bit more now.
I think the flash used to be made in China for a while, but the fancy new stuff is South Korea (Samsung) and Japan (Toshiba). The camera modules are made by Sony in Japan. The CPUs are TSMC in Taiwan. Back in the early years over 40% of the value in the Bill of Materials of an iPhone was made in the USA, including the CPUs by Samsung in Texas, Gorilla Glass by Corning in NY state, I forget all the rest, only about 10% of the cost of manufacture was added in China. It’s probably a bit more now.
You are still talking about iPhone parts.
China is behind on leading edge integrated circuits.[1] However, China can manufacture a computer from entirely Chinese parts.[2] America cannot manufacture a computer from entirely American parts.
China not only made plans for a 100% domestically produced computer, they have already achieved it.
We don't even have plans.
[1] https://semiengineering.com/china-speeds-up-advanced-chip-de... [2] https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1193625.shtml
China is behind on leading edge integrated circuits.[1] However, China can manufacture a computer from entirely Chinese parts.[2] America cannot manufacture a computer from entirely American parts.
China not only made plans for a 100% domestically produced computer, they have already achieved it.
We don't even have plans.
[1] https://semiengineering.com/china-speeds-up-advanced-chip-de... [2] https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1193625.shtml
Why wouldn't they just move production to another, cheaper country besides China?
I think you are underestimating how much more expensive an iPhone would be if it was made entirely in the United States:
https://fee.org/articles/a-made-in-america-iphone-would-cost...
I think you are underestimating how much more expensive an iPhone would be if it was made entirely in the United States:
https://fee.org/articles/a-made-in-america-iphone-would-cost...
The article you linked argues why it wouldn't be possible to move to another country. In fact the article argues heavily that labor costs are not the biggest advantage that China has.
The article argues why it would be more expensive in the short term.
The argument I've seen for bringing production closer to home is that it's going to be painful either way so we ought to rip the bandaid off, because every year that we continue the status quo represents more money and market power amassed by other nations on the back of American demand.
There's more to corporate or economic strategy than today's cost of doing business.
The argument I've seen for bringing production closer to home is that it's going to be painful either way so we ought to rip the bandaid off, because every year that we continue the status quo represents more money and market power amassed by other nations on the back of American demand.
There's more to corporate or economic strategy than today's cost of doing business.
Trade is complicated and protectionism is not always bad, but the idea that "money going out == bad" is a common misconception that underlay the "mercantilist" economic policies of the early modern era. Kings and parliaments were alarmed to see precious gold leaving their shores. Adam Smith set them straight: money and value are not the same thing. In fact, money is only valuable if you can use it to acquire something else of value! If you "give up" an amount of gold but receive valuable goods, which can be combined with other goods to create even more value, the national wealth can go up even with "precious gold" leaving town.
That’s silly, we get as much benefit from free trade as every other country. Let China or India do assembly at wages that would be below minimum wage here, and take those savings to get a bigger piece of the market, sell more iPhones, do more software and hardware design and create more developer jobs.
> we get as much benefit from free trade as every other country
Considering that trade relationships are fundamentally asymmetrical (ie, you wouldn't have them if you were self-sufficient in the market segment being traded), I think this is a naive view of the wealth transfer and externalities associated with international trade.
Considering that trade relationships are fundamentally asymmetrical (ie, you wouldn't have them if you were self-sufficient in the market segment being traded), I think this is a naive view of the wealth transfer and externalities associated with international trade.
First, the relationships are voluntary. Second, the relationships are mutually beneficial else one party would end them.
Lastly, free trade doesn’t create a wealth transfer, it creates new wealth for both parties. Chinese assembling iPhones lifted a huge number of Chinese laborers out of rural poverty working in much more physically demanding and dangerous jobs at a fraction of the pay. A significant part of Apples market share, market cap, and tens of thousands of US iOS developer jobs are owed to cheaper iPhones enabled by Chinese labor.
The only time “wealth transfer” occurs is when free trade breaks down a monopoly. Like if we ended sugar tariffs, the wealth would be transferred from certain politically connected families in Florida, to US consumers and foreign workers.
Lastly, free trade doesn’t create a wealth transfer, it creates new wealth for both parties. Chinese assembling iPhones lifted a huge number of Chinese laborers out of rural poverty working in much more physically demanding and dangerous jobs at a fraction of the pay. A significant part of Apples market share, market cap, and tens of thousands of US iOS developer jobs are owed to cheaper iPhones enabled by Chinese labor.
The only time “wealth transfer” occurs is when free trade breaks down a monopoly. Like if we ended sugar tariffs, the wealth would be transferred from certain politically connected families in Florida, to US consumers and foreign workers.
They are starting to do that in India.
As an Indian, India isn't exactly a cheap manufacturing destination. The reasons to move to India for a country like US are more political than economical.
The US perceives China as an ideologically incompatible competition at a political level and wants to work with India. That's pretty much it.
The US perceives China as an ideologically incompatible competition at a political level and wants to work with India. That's pretty much it.
Only to avoid crippling Indian import taxes.
It’s going to be a while before China can own either the top (the OS) or the bottom (the silicon) of the stack, but ultimately you are right.
Genuinely curious - why do you say that? It might not be something they can export to other countries, but that’s mostly because of the rap that they have for surveillance and data collection and not because of a lack of resources. For the domestic market I don’t see why they can’t make their own silicon or software. I’d love to hear thoughts on the matter.
It’s not that they can’t. I’m sure they will eventually.
It’s that they are very complex iterative processes that take time to organize and are hard to get right. You can’t just quickly ‘own’ either one. Consider how long the iOS and Android of today took to build, or how long it took Apple to get from the A4 to the M1.
It’s that they are very complex iterative processes that take time to organize and are hard to get right. You can’t just quickly ‘own’ either one. Consider how long the iOS and Android of today took to build, or how long it took Apple to get from the A4 to the M1.
'Design and Software' ???
Brand, marketing, product strategy, product marketing, industrial design, ui design, millions of lines of code which is all part of design, massive retail distribution chains both direct and indirect, massive loyal userbase, millions of developers, massive supply chain - and the ope rationalizing of all of that.
China is not competing very well in many of those things.
China's advantages are starting to look like working capital , the factories, the labour, and the local supply chain - which is much more advantageous for lower end products but it's still a price advantage more than anything.
I was in the drugstore - there were over 20 different kinds of electric toothbrushes. 20 kinds! I will buy 1 and maybe, maybe another some time in my life. That's a rough business, as is almost everything in hardware.
The 'high end stuff' is not necessarily going to be China. It could, but not necessarily.
Brand, marketing, product strategy, product marketing, industrial design, ui design, millions of lines of code which is all part of design, massive retail distribution chains both direct and indirect, massive loyal userbase, millions of developers, massive supply chain - and the ope rationalizing of all of that.
China is not competing very well in many of those things.
China's advantages are starting to look like working capital , the factories, the labour, and the local supply chain - which is much more advantageous for lower end products but it's still a price advantage more than anything.
I was in the drugstore - there were over 20 different kinds of electric toothbrushes. 20 kinds! I will buy 1 and maybe, maybe another some time in my life. That's a rough business, as is almost everything in hardware.
The 'high end stuff' is not necessarily going to be China. It could, but not necessarily.
Chinese smartphones are selling extremely well and are currently the top ranked camera phones. The reputation of other Chinese brands is getting better too. Here in Asia I see Chinese branded stuff everywhere.
https://www.dxomark.com/rankings/
I remember back in the day "Made in Taiwan" or "Made in Japan" was considered a joke and mark of cheap products. That changed fast and to assume the same thing won't happen again with China is a mark of Western arrogance IMO.
https://www.dxomark.com/rankings/
I remember back in the day "Made in Taiwan" or "Made in Japan" was considered a joke and mark of cheap products. That changed fast and to assume the same thing won't happen again with China is a mark of Western arrogance IMO.
Chinese phones sell well because they are cheap. Apple has never had but a fraction of the market but has always made most of the revenues and profits because they dominate high end phones.
For a long time Apple made more than 100% of the profits in the mobile phone handset industry. That may appear to be impossible, but it's because so many of their competitors made losses and so had negative profits.
Steve Jobs built consumer products that he wanted for himself, his family and friends. He would push for out of the box ideas while scrutinizing every detail of the product, optimized and repeated.
Tim Cook builds the supply chain that he wants for himself, his shareholders and coworkers. He pushes for out of the box ideas while scrutinizing every detail of the supply chain, optimizes and repeats.
Tim Cook builds supply chain the way Jobs built for consumers. Jobs needed customer insight, creativity and societal foresight. Instead to make product decisions Cook has a giant user base to "A/B test" (between different phone models/features every quarter), he can afford to wait/purchase/curate good ideas rather than use foresight, and purchase creativity and ingenuity.
Apple no longer needs another Steve Jobs at the throne, they have access to hire two generations of the global population "raised by" and trying to emulate Steve Jobs while having the skills and 90% the talent of Woz. Apple today needs a master of execution that has a willingness to find the right new talent and give them a supply chain platform like never before seen. e.g. If you're talented in CPU and GPU development, where do you want to work in 2021/2022? Cook's supply chain optimization for A1 and M1 has made Apple one of the top three players in the industry. If as a developer, you want to re-think the need for a motherboard, or how to best integrate a Modem with the CPU (maybe a GPU/Neural Net enhanced storage/network card?), there is only one company you can go to right now to build that creative dream. Cook can leverage that creativity and ingenuity to delight customers while pushing like crazy on the supply chain.
Recent quote from Elon Musk: "Every company will soon have EVs. Every company will also have Autonomous driving. But no other company will be able to out compete Tesla at manufacturing." Similarly, Amazon Retails' newest CEO Dave Clark used to head the supply chain logistics. Clearly Apple's board, Amazon's board and Tesla's board all focused on the same thing, supply chain and logistics, imply there is some clear long term customer and shareholder value about it.
Tim Cook builds the supply chain that he wants for himself, his shareholders and coworkers. He pushes for out of the box ideas while scrutinizing every detail of the supply chain, optimizes and repeats.
Tim Cook builds supply chain the way Jobs built for consumers. Jobs needed customer insight, creativity and societal foresight. Instead to make product decisions Cook has a giant user base to "A/B test" (between different phone models/features every quarter), he can afford to wait/purchase/curate good ideas rather than use foresight, and purchase creativity and ingenuity.
Apple no longer needs another Steve Jobs at the throne, they have access to hire two generations of the global population "raised by" and trying to emulate Steve Jobs while having the skills and 90% the talent of Woz. Apple today needs a master of execution that has a willingness to find the right new talent and give them a supply chain platform like never before seen. e.g. If you're talented in CPU and GPU development, where do you want to work in 2021/2022? Cook's supply chain optimization for A1 and M1 has made Apple one of the top three players in the industry. If as a developer, you want to re-think the need for a motherboard, or how to best integrate a Modem with the CPU (maybe a GPU/Neural Net enhanced storage/network card?), there is only one company you can go to right now to build that creative dream. Cook can leverage that creativity and ingenuity to delight customers while pushing like crazy on the supply chain.
Recent quote from Elon Musk: "Every company will soon have EVs. Every company will also have Autonomous driving. But no other company will be able to out compete Tesla at manufacturing." Similarly, Amazon Retails' newest CEO Dave Clark used to head the supply chain logistics. Clearly Apple's board, Amazon's board and Tesla's board all focused on the same thing, supply chain and logistics, imply there is some clear long term customer and shareholder value about it.
Did Musk really say that? The one impression I get of Tesla in terms of manufacturing...even overcoming all those setbacks is how they promised they to would build ventilators for hospitals. Everyone Ooohhed and Aaahed over it.
Tesla never produced any ventilators. They bought basically CPAP machines from China. And my current google says as of October, their partnership w/ Medtronics to produce ventillators never materialized. As of October, they're going to help Medtronic build a single part. A single part...9 months after Covid...Not impressed.
Meanwhile, GM & Ford turned around and produced ventilators for our National Strategic Stockpile.
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/medtronic-par...
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-tesla-ventilator-c...
Tesla never produced any ventilators. They bought basically CPAP machines from China. And my current google says as of October, their partnership w/ Medtronics to produce ventillators never materialized. As of October, they're going to help Medtronic build a single part. A single part...9 months after Covid...Not impressed.
Meanwhile, GM & Ford turned around and produced ventilators for our National Strategic Stockpile.
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/medtronic-par...
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-tesla-ventilator-c...
People in USA should really read about world war efforts. You had a typewriter company make the most iconic handgun of all time, and fledgling car companies building plane engines. It was a true feat of modern engineering, one I wonder if could ever happen again, given our lack of production prowess.
The US now is full of product people who build overseas. While it's currently economically smart, it's a race to the bottom which eventually ends in completely foreign owned companies eating your lunch. It will be interesting to see how and if countries counter this eventuality.
The US now is full of product people who build overseas. While it's currently economically smart, it's a race to the bottom which eventually ends in completely foreign owned companies eating your lunch. It will be interesting to see how and if countries counter this eventuality.
Surely it's a race out of the bottom (low value assembly) towards the top (high value design, prototyping, software and services). What's the value of racing back down to the bottom again?
I don't know the current BOM, but for most of it's history more of the value in the components in an iPhone was actually manufactured in the US than in China. Gorilla Glass in New York state, flash memory in Kentucky, the CPUs used to be made by Samsung in Texas. Final assembly is only a few bucks.
A friend of mine here in the UK said the same ting to me a few years ago, his 6 year old boy was playing nearby so I asked him. Which would you prefer for your son, a job in design or software, or a job on an assembly line?
I don't know the current BOM, but for most of it's history more of the value in the components in an iPhone was actually manufactured in the US than in China. Gorilla Glass in New York state, flash memory in Kentucky, the CPUs used to be made by Samsung in Texas. Final assembly is only a few bucks.
A friend of mine here in the UK said the same ting to me a few years ago, his 6 year old boy was playing nearby so I asked him. Which would you prefer for your son, a job in design or software, or a job on an assembly line?
I’m not smart enough to know, but my guess is that there is so much inefficient interconnection between components that it’s worth the effort for Apple, et-al to become supply chain specialists.
For example with the M1 they didn’t just make a CPU they made an SOC that reduces the need for a heatsink and all the supply chain costs that go with it.
If it were a simple one to one swap, without other efficiency improvements, I agree there is no incentive to take over that responsibility.
For example with the M1 they didn’t just make a CPU they made an SOC that reduces the need for a heatsink and all the supply chain costs that go with it.
If it were a simple one to one swap, without other efficiency improvements, I agree there is no incentive to take over that responsibility.
How would you solve the incentives though? If you increase the import duty you can no longer compete globally (because of less competition), which has happened for steel for example. Is there any other way that works?
> But no other company will be able to out compete Tesla at manufacturing.
This is the reason I feel people are betting Tesla to get an outsized pie of the EV market even when the legacy OEMs catch up. When Tesla started manufacturing things in-house, folks were rightly skeptical about their manufacturing capabilities and their stupid refusal to rely on the automobile supply chain. The stubborn insistence to vertically integrate nearly killed the company.
Now that it has a market cap several times its nearest competitor, it can raise enough capital to focus on capital efficiency of new manufacturing plants to scale up production. In their battery day video, that's what impressed me the most - they have control over every cost center in their supply chain, and can optimize for quicker/cheaper manufacturing much faster than anyone else.
In some aspects, Tesla completely reversed Cook's playbook, and might even succeed at it if demand for Teslas remains high for the next decade or two.
This is the reason I feel people are betting Tesla to get an outsized pie of the EV market even when the legacy OEMs catch up. When Tesla started manufacturing things in-house, folks were rightly skeptical about their manufacturing capabilities and their stupid refusal to rely on the automobile supply chain. The stubborn insistence to vertically integrate nearly killed the company.
Now that it has a market cap several times its nearest competitor, it can raise enough capital to focus on capital efficiency of new manufacturing plants to scale up production. In their battery day video, that's what impressed me the most - they have control over every cost center in their supply chain, and can optimize for quicker/cheaper manufacturing much faster than anyone else.
In some aspects, Tesla completely reversed Cook's playbook, and might even succeed at it if demand for Teslas remains high for the next decade or two.
Forget about TSLA's market cap for a second and look at their actual manufacturing quality, where defect rates are higher than almost all other automakers:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/24/tesla-lags-auto-industry-in-...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/edgarsten/2020/11/19/tesla-reli...
While I appreciate that it's exceptionally difficult to build an automobile manufacturing and supply chain from scratch, let's not pretend they've somehow overtaken conventional auto companies and that's why their stock price is high.
Given the disproportionate share price when considering comparable EV sales, I'd say TSLA market cap is a function of the MDF - the Musk Distortion Field - rather than actual tangibles.
That's not to say the two are completely disconnected. The MDF explains why TSLA doesn't spend a cent on advertising, which obviously boosts margins.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/24/tesla-lags-auto-industry-in-...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/edgarsten/2020/11/19/tesla-reli...
While I appreciate that it's exceptionally difficult to build an automobile manufacturing and supply chain from scratch, let's not pretend they've somehow overtaken conventional auto companies and that's why their stock price is high.
Given the disproportionate share price when considering comparable EV sales, I'd say TSLA market cap is a function of the MDF - the Musk Distortion Field - rather than actual tangibles.
That's not to say the two are completely disconnected. The MDF explains why TSLA doesn't spend a cent on advertising, which obviously boosts margins.
> Apple no longer needs another Steve Jobs at the throne...
Much as I respect Steve Jobs’ innovations, I tend to agree. As others have pointed out (though I can’t remember who or where), the iPad and iPhone marked an end point in several decades of advances in personal computing. A thin flat tablet that you operate with one finger! And it listens and talks and sees!
Whenever I have read people lamenting the lack of similar revolutionary advances under Tim Cook—and I have lamented that lack myself—I have wondered what exactly those advances might be. While something may be lurking ahead in the AI/health/direct-brain-interface space, I don't blame Cook for not having taken us there yet.
Much as I respect Steve Jobs’ innovations, I tend to agree. As others have pointed out (though I can’t remember who or where), the iPad and iPhone marked an end point in several decades of advances in personal computing. A thin flat tablet that you operate with one finger! And it listens and talks and sees!
Whenever I have read people lamenting the lack of similar revolutionary advances under Tim Cook—and I have lamented that lack myself—I have wondered what exactly those advances might be. While something may be lurking ahead in the AI/health/direct-brain-interface space, I don't blame Cook for not having taken us there yet.
They're only an end point because Apple stopped innovating. Tim Cook is great as a process leader but he doesn't have an innovative vision.
For all his personal flaws Steve Jobs was all about innovation and didn't mind risking the company to achieve it.
Now Apple is in a stronger position than ever financially but it must the drive to innovate right now at any cost. It was really what made Apple great IMO.
For all his personal flaws Steve Jobs was all about innovation and didn't mind risking the company to achieve it.
Now Apple is in a stronger position than ever financially but it must the drive to innovate right now at any cost. It was really what made Apple great IMO.
What’s the incentive to innovate?
Other smartphone companies are “innovating” with many failed attempts. Apple gets to avoid the failures, refine the feature and deliver successfully.
“Playing catch up” isn’t an issue because Apple can bring any Android feature (hardware or software) to the iPhone in 2-3years.
For example the Swipe keyboard. I needed to wait a few years to get it after I switched from Android to iPhone, but I didn’t mind too much. Meanwhile, thank goodness my phone doesn’t currently fold and break right now. I’m happy to have a folding phone when the tech is 10x better.
Other smartphone companies are “innovating” with many failed attempts. Apple gets to avoid the failures, refine the feature and deliver successfully.
“Playing catch up” isn’t an issue because Apple can bring any Android feature (hardware or software) to the iPhone in 2-3years.
For example the Swipe keyboard. I needed to wait a few years to get it after I switched from Android to iPhone, but I didn’t mind too much. Meanwhile, thank goodness my phone doesn’t currently fold and break right now. I’m happy to have a folding phone when the tech is 10x better.
I think that is fantasy land thinking on the part of all 3, and I am sure past companies all thought the same thing until someone did out compete them...
Telsa is even more fantasy to believe Ford, VW, or Toyota will never be able to out compete them in manufacturing. Ohh sweet child.....
Telsa is even more fantasy to believe Ford, VW, or Toyota will never be able to out compete them in manufacturing. Ohh sweet child.....
The other guys problem is they can’t design anything worth manufacturing at a price that is competitive to Tesla
Clearly that is not the case just looking at the sales volume of each.
Tesla is a niche product catering to a small subset of Auto buyers. As other manufacturer ramp up their EV lines it will be clear that Telsa is not going to take over this market.
For example in the US the standard Pickup Truck is still the most popular vehicle, Tesla's "Cyber Truck" as no chance of unsetting the F150 for that title, and F150 Electric will be out in 2022/2023 and most likely will be the fastest selling EV in the US
and it will be interesting to see how the Mach-E does against Tesla
Tesla is a niche product catering to a small subset of Auto buyers. As other manufacturer ramp up their EV lines it will be clear that Telsa is not going to take over this market.
For example in the US the standard Pickup Truck is still the most popular vehicle, Tesla's "Cyber Truck" as no chance of unsetting the F150 for that title, and F150 Electric will be out in 2022/2023 and most likely will be the fastest selling EV in the US
and it will be interesting to see how the Mach-E does against Tesla
Tesla's market share in Europe has been falling over the last year. The other manufacturers are catching up, VW in particular.
"The 2014 iPhone 6 was “the poster child” of this transformation, according to a person involved in the product’s development. While the device had complex internal components and a larger screen, it dropped the diamond-polished edges and the precisely cut glass parts of the back of the iPhone 5 and 5s, which had been difficult to produce."
well, that explains why the iPhone went from such a unique design to generic plastic android. Glad the 5-esque design is back for the 12 series at least.
well, that explains why the iPhone went from such a unique design to generic plastic android. Glad the 5-esque design is back for the 12 series at least.
> well, that explains why the iPhone went from such a unique design to generic plastic android.
I agree that some of the flagship iPhones since the iPhone 6 have had less unique designs, but what are you describing as "generic plastic android?" None of the flagship iPhones after the iPhone 3GS have had any significant exterior plastic. Are you talking about the iPhone 5C? I'm pretty sure that's the only one that ever had a plastic enclosure.
I agree that some of the flagship iPhones since the iPhone 6 have had less unique designs, but what are you describing as "generic plastic android?" None of the flagship iPhones after the iPhone 3GS have had any significant exterior plastic. Are you talking about the iPhone 5C? I'm pretty sure that's the only one that ever had a plastic enclosure.
I think they mean it's just a brick with smooth edges. Nothing fancy. Nothing truly iPhone. The iPhone X only differentiated itself from others with a beautiful new notch and the iPhone 11 with a wonderful electric-shaver-like camera setup. Take those away and you can barely tell it's an Apple device.
The iPhone 4 through 5s felt like luxury devices.
The iPhone 4 through 5s felt like luxury devices.
> The iPhone 4 through 5s felt like luxury devices.
The glass back panel on my 4s was totally* impractical. I was afraid to set the phone down on any rough surface, afraid the glass would crack, smudges were now something to avoid on two surfaces instead of just one.
And I liked it and I miss it.
* Well, okay: one practical advantage of the glass back is how secure it felt in my hand. Fingertips don't slip on glass like they do on a matte metal surface.
IMO, the 4 and 4S are still the nicest designs in the iPhone lineup.
The glass back panel on my 4s was totally* impractical. I was afraid to set the phone down on any rough surface, afraid the glass would crack, smudges were now something to avoid on two surfaces instead of just one.
And I liked it and I miss it.
* Well, okay: one practical advantage of the glass back is how secure it felt in my hand. Fingertips don't slip on glass like they do on a matte metal surface.
IMO, the 4 and 4S are still the nicest designs in the iPhone lineup.
It was pretty obvious at the time - after the iPhone 6 with the round edges and ugly antenna colors, the comically giant 6 plus, then a few months later the first Apple Watch (which few people wanted because it was advertised as a notification device) - many people thought that Apple were on a downward trajectory because they've run out of Steve Jobs ideas.
Both product lines seem much healthier now - last year's redesign of the iPhones was solid and the watch looks much more attractive with all of the health features.
Both product lines seem much healthier now - last year's redesign of the iPhones was solid and the watch looks much more attractive with all of the health features.
It wasn't just the design, Pre iPhone 6 was the era when Steve Jobs insisted on JIT supply chain management. And no manufacture could cope with the iPhone volume. Even when Apple have fully prepared for iPhone 6 launch, which was the first iPhone to have a phablet size display as it was called at the time. Production still couldn't keep up due to demand from China. iPhone 6 still remains the best selling iPhone in unit volume if you combine two quarter after launch.
And that is part of the reason why you see lots more leaks from Supply Chain in post iPhone 4 era.
And that is part of the reason why you see lots more leaks from Supply Chain in post iPhone 4 era.
Pretty sure it’s the supply crunch that made the older phones more “interesting”. New easily obtainable stuff is boring and common, no fomo.
Agreed, I think the 4S was my favorite version — felt substantial without being excessively heavy and easy to use with one hand. The 7 and 2020 SE I’ve had since then were all just purchases because they were the smallest option when my last phone died out. I’ve never really liked either of them.
When I heard “iPhone mini” rumours last year I was like “Finally! I can get a much more powerful 4S!”
Unfortunately that’s not what happened.
Unfortunately that’s not what happened.
I'm using one now. This "mini" is huge.
the iPhone 12 mini is slightly smaller by volume than the iPhone 4.
iPhone 4: 115.2 x 58.6 x 9.3 mm or 62.781 cm^3
iPhone SE: 138.4 x 67.3 x 7.3 mm or 67.994 cm^3
iPhone 12 mini: 131.5 x 64.2 x 7.4 mm or 62.473 cm^3
[1] https://support.apple.com/kb/SP587?locale=en_US
[2] https://support.apple.com/kb/SP820?locale=en_US
[3] https://www.apple.com/iphone-12/specs/
iPhone 4: 115.2 x 58.6 x 9.3 mm or 62.781 cm^3
iPhone SE: 138.4 x 67.3 x 7.3 mm or 67.994 cm^3
iPhone 12 mini: 131.5 x 64.2 x 7.4 mm or 62.473 cm^3
[1] https://support.apple.com/kb/SP587?locale=en_US
[2] https://support.apple.com/kb/SP820?locale=en_US
[3] https://www.apple.com/iphone-12/specs/
The iPhone 12 mini is larger in height and width, which is what matters most for one-handed use.
Exactly. As well, the screen is a much larger percentage of the body which is also important for one-handed use.
The new SE is bigger than the 12 mini, I just switched from a 2016 SE to a 12 mini and have been happy.
Funny, I’ve exchanged the 12 mini for the 2020 SE because the overall screen size fits my thumb better and it was cheaper. They should have made the overall size of the mini the same size as the SE’s screen.
It is wild just how quickly I got used to the SE's "antiquated" 16:9 screen and button based navigation when I switched to one from my previous edge-to-edge S10e. Turns out, an all-screen display wasn't as much of an upgrade as it's made out to be.
I don't buy Apple products and I don't use a smartphone. But in 2014 I borrowed an iPhone 5 from a friend and I found it truly well designed. Thickness and weight were very satisfying for 1-handed operation. I haven't found the successors to be anywhere close.
The iPhone 5 was nice but I have to admit the screen seems tiny to me today. I do use phones one-handed a lot but I find I can still do that with an iPhone 12 Pro with my (admittedly large) right hand. Have never been really interested in the Plus models because IMO they don't really work one-handed.
The 12 mini is comparable in size and weight.
And its probably going to go away and future minis sidelined, as its sales are poor.
I feel like the story would have been different if they made it the size of the 4... Right now the “mini” would have still been considered a large phone in the 3GS days.
That would make things even worse. A lot of people only use smartphones for computing and they want large screens. Making the screen even smaller would have doomed the mini even harder.
Also, the smaller you make it, the smaller the battery is. The mini already has battery life complaints. This product would likely be doomed if it was any smaller and didn't compromise on other things.
Doubt it just yet. People aren’t moving yet, people lost jobs. So if the market properly recovers, it will stick around.
Only roughly comparable: if you line them up back to front you can see the whole notch of the mini behind the 5.
I agree that the design of the 6 regressed from the 4/5, but the build quality is much higher than that of the average android.
I'm still using a 6 as my daily phone, which means my phone is closer in generation to the original iPhone that it is to the latest one. I wish the (equally expensive) android phones I use at work had anywhere near that longevity.
I'm still using a 6 as my daily phone, which means my phone is closer in generation to the original iPhone that it is to the latest one. I wish the (equally expensive) android phones I use at work had anywhere near that longevity.
It's not just about physical longevity; whether the software (iOS) still "works" is also important. With older versions of iOS, you have two options:
1. Upgrade to the latest version, which makes the iPhone slower (arguably intentionally).
2. Don't upgrade, but many apps require an updated iOS version to install, so you won't be able to install/update your apps anymore.
Since there's no third party app store, older iphones are just doomed to die slowly. I have a 4s and downgraded as soon as I could to iOS 5. The os is faster but I can install very few apps.
1. Upgrade to the latest version, which makes the iPhone slower (arguably intentionally).
2. Don't upgrade, but many apps require an updated iOS version to install, so you won't be able to install/update your apps anymore.
Since there's no third party app store, older iphones are just doomed to die slowly. I have a 4s and downgraded as soon as I could to iOS 5. The os is faster but I can install very few apps.
Does it make sense to compare an iPhone to "the average Android"? iPhones are a premium product; they're not available in the wide range of prices and qualities that Androids are. People who buy iPhones are the type of people who, if they bought an Android, would most likely buy a top-of-the-line Android at a high price. Those are the Androids we should be comparing iPhones to.
The good thing for them is that Microsoft Windows' quality decreased so much that I decided to buy a Macbook for the first time in my life.
Decreased... recently? I feel like Windows 10 has been a pretty predictable experience. If you didn't hate it in 2016, then I'm wondering what happened in the five years of marginal and incremental changes since then that would cause such a change of heart
I feel like the quality hasnt decreased, but the amount of UI bugs I get on Microsoft's own Surface Pro is infuriating and makes me miss the days of having an always great experience with my mid 2012 MacBook Pro. Im definitely thinking about going back to a MBP next year
Compared to Windows 7 times, when I loved the Mac hardware, but bought Windows / Linux laptops all the time because of the software ecosystem.
I love the 12 Pro. The updated 5-esque design really withstands the test of time.
For what it's worth, I don't think Steve Jobs would have ever allowed the charging port for the Magic Mouse to ever be on the bottom and forced the user to have to leave the mouse on it's side to charge.
Maybe you don't know Steve Jobs but it is exactly the thing he would do without even a shred of doubt.
He's using the design to make you use it wirelessly (the way he wants). You're not supposed to use it like a normal mouse. The fact people moan about this would even make him more sure about it..
Also it came out back when and he probably saw it and approved it
He's using the design to make you use it wirelessly (the way he wants). You're not supposed to use it like a normal mouse. The fact people moan about this would even make him more sure about it..
Also it came out back when and he probably saw it and approved it
Original Magic Mouse used regular batteries that you could change out. Magic mouse 2 has to worst design apple has come up for a mouse except for puck mouse. Flip it upside down every month to charge it. I am sure Jobs would cringe if he walked through the office at night saw people's mice upside down charging.
Steve might have actually loved it if he'd see it. It is rumoured that Apple put the charging port in such an awkward place to force people to unplug the cable as soon as the mouse is charged.
I can imagine customers using the wireless mouse with the cable attached is something that would grind Steve's gears as well. Preventing the situation with a flipped tortoise design is a Steve thing to do.
I can imagine customers using the wireless mouse with the cable attached is something that would grind Steve's gears as well. Preventing the situation with a flipped tortoise design is a Steve thing to do.
> It is rumoured that Apple put the charging port in such an awkward place to force people to unplug the cable as soon as the mouse is charged.
You say this as if it's absolutely typical of Steve Jobs. I read it and think exactly the opposite. Jobs was certainly a stickler for aesthetics, but also for usability. I've read numerous accounts of him lashing out when he found a workflow noticeably frustrating.
What decisions made during Jobs's tenure would you consider comparable to the Magic Mouse's charging port?
You say this as if it's absolutely typical of Steve Jobs. I read it and think exactly the opposite. Jobs was certainly a stickler for aesthetics, but also for usability. I've read numerous accounts of him lashing out when he found a workflow noticeably frustrating.
What decisions made during Jobs's tenure would you consider comparable to the Magic Mouse's charging port?
We can talk about a Jobs diaster without even leaving the field of mice. The puck mouse was an absolute usability nightmare. It had a circular shape and would always end up twisting slightly so you could never consistently move the direction you expected.
You're holding your phone wrong, mate.
Did you ever use an original iMac? That mouse would create RSI just looking at it.
Their keyboards got progressively worse as well.
Another great example was the iBooks that soaked up skin oils and became gross and disgusting.
Their keyboards got progressively worse as well.
Another great example was the iBooks that soaked up skin oils and became gross and disgusting.
> Their keyboards got progressively worse as well.
During Jobs's tenure? The 2010-era Apple Bluetooth Keyboard is actually my favorite keyboard to type on. I'm currently using one I tracked down on eBay after my original finally broke.
> Another great example was the iBooks that soaked up skin oils and became gross and disgusting.
That's a long term problem. It's not the same type of general workflow issue that Jobs was really good at identifying.
During Jobs's tenure? The 2010-era Apple Bluetooth Keyboard is actually my favorite keyboard to type on. I'm currently using one I tracked down on eBay after my original finally broke.
> Another great example was the iBooks that soaked up skin oils and became gross and disgusting.
That's a long term problem. It's not the same type of general workflow issue that Jobs was really good at identifying.
> The 2010-era Apple Bluetooth Keyboard is actually my favorite keyboard to type on.
Ugh. I absolutely hated that keyboard. Felt like tapping on a slab of granite all day long.
Ugh. I absolutely hated that keyboard. Felt like tapping on a slab of granite all day long.
Yeah, I can't imagine him endorsing some sort of forced dark pattern behavior like that. His biography talked about going to great lengths to make his jet bathroom door toggle instead of using two separate lock and unlock buttons.
It's not a forced dark pattern. Others are leaving out a lot of detail about the product design.
* The mouse supports fast charging - 2mins on the charger gives you all day use.
* A full charge will give you more than 2mo of battery life - nearly 3.
* In 24 months, you will have to put it on the charger between 6 and 8 times TOTAL.
With that context, the design makes perfect sense for a wireless mouse.
* The mouse supports fast charging - 2mins on the charger gives you all day use.
* A full charge will give you more than 2mo of battery life - nearly 3.
* In 24 months, you will have to put it on the charger between 6 and 8 times TOTAL.
With that context, the design makes perfect sense for a wireless mouse.
This still sounds pointlessly inconvenient compared to a wired mouse, not to mention reliability and latency issues that come part and parcel with wireless peripherals.
I tried a wireless keyboard once and every 10 minutes it would hang and repeat the last key I pressed for 10 seconds. How much better is the situation today?
I tried a wireless keyboard once and every 10 minutes it would hang and repeat the last key I pressed for 10 seconds. How much better is the situation today?
It is obviously not the case with all the wireless peripheral devices out there or they would not exist. Did you really believe that there is people out there putting up with keys being repeated randomly?
I'm sure it's better now, I just asked how much better.
How long ago was this? You make it sounds like you last tried wireless peripherals in the 90s, gave up, and never tried again.
I started using Apple wireless peripherals over a decade ago and haven’t experienced anything like what you describe once. I remember PC peripherals doing that kind of thing in the 90s though, back before everything switched to Bluetooth and everything used proprietary IR dongles etc.
I started using Apple wireless peripherals over a decade ago and haven’t experienced anything like what you describe once. I remember PC peripherals doing that kind of thing in the 90s though, back before everything switched to Bluetooth and everything used proprietary IR dongles etc.
Some time in the early 2010s, but it was from a clearance store.
I’m not sure about keyboards, but as far as mice are concerned, wireless mice have become the standard for professional gamers.
Jobs wasn't perfect - rumor was the one button mouse exists because he picked it from an unfinished mock. The magic mouse also sucks (though I do like the large trackpad).
I think their argument for the charging port on the bottom is because they didn't want people to be able to use it plugged in (so people wouldn't just leave it plugged in), it was intentional.
I think their argument for the charging port on the bottom is because they didn't want people to be able to use it plugged in (so people wouldn't just leave it plugged in), it was intentional.
I thought the reason (for the one-button mouse) was so that you'd never have to think about which button to click.
"Farag recalls a prototype presentation meeting with Jobs where he and the design team presented possibilities for what would be the next Apple mouse. The team had several versions to show Steve, some of which "were fully done, with all the parting lines cut in for buttons and different plastic parts, and all the colors just right," according to Farag. At the last moment the team decided to include a prototype that echoed the look of the previous gen Apple mouse, but it was not finished and didn't include cut-outs for the buttons.
“We were going to put that model into a box so people wouldn’t see it.” Farag said.
Jobs darted right for the unfinished one saying, “That’s genius…We don’t want to have any buttons,” according to Farag.
As one would expect, someone from the design team quickly jumped up and agreed with Jobs as if that was one of the options all along."
https://www.techspot.com/news/55958-how-a-misunderstanding-w...
As far as not thinking about a button to click - that only works if the idea of 'right-click' doesn't exist. In the real world where it does now you just have to know to control-click, which seems strictly worse.
“We were going to put that model into a box so people wouldn’t see it.” Farag said.
Jobs darted right for the unfinished one saying, “That’s genius…We don’t want to have any buttons,” according to Farag.
As one would expect, someone from the design team quickly jumped up and agreed with Jobs as if that was one of the options all along."
https://www.techspot.com/news/55958-how-a-misunderstanding-w...
As far as not thinking about a button to click - that only works if the idea of 'right-click' doesn't exist. In the real world where it does now you just have to know to control-click, which seems strictly worse.
Believe me or not.
Big retailers don't like Bluetooth mouses because they have huge returns from them.
Usually they will place a few unconspiciously in the corner, but otherwise give most of shelf space to non-bt mouses.
Why so? People can't freaking press the PAIR button, even if you slap a big red sticker on it.
This is also the reason retailers insist on having batteries inserted into the mouse at factory, or have internal batteries charged to full before shipping.
Big retailers don't like Bluetooth mouses because they have huge returns from them.
Usually they will place a few unconspiciously in the corner, but otherwise give most of shelf space to non-bt mouses.
Why so? People can't freaking press the PAIR button, even if you slap a big red sticker on it.
This is also the reason retailers insist on having batteries inserted into the mouse at factory, or have internal batteries charged to full before shipping.
How little people read instructions (or read at all) is depressingly common. This pattern cuts across socioeconomic lines. I long ago stopped making fun of meme'ish cartoons and symbology around controls.
There is no “pair” button on the mAgIk keyboard or mouse. I’m an Apple fan but, when you have 6 macs in an office and you administer them, you have to carry around a PC keyboard and mouse to tell your iMac which mouse to connect to.
They are getting ridiculous.
I like MX mouses better, but none of the mice on the market has... horizontal scrolling. Horizontal, true, scrolling.
They are getting ridiculous.
I like MX mouses better, but none of the mice on the market has... horizontal scrolling. Horizontal, true, scrolling.
I think you're misunderstanding the article you linked at least a bit here; it's not the origin story of Apple's original one-button mouse. It's describing the "no button" Pro Mouse circa 2000, which still functioned like a one-button mouse in practice. Macs had one-button mice since they first shipped in 1984.
> As far as not thinking about a button to click - that only works if the idea of 'right-click' doesn't exist.
Well, when you adjust your timeline back to when that first one-button mouse came out in 1984, one can argue whether the idea of right-click as we know it today really existed! There were multi-button mice already, but there wasn't any standardization as to what the buttons did, so Apple's insistence on "there is just one button and it does THE THING" was at least defensible. And IIRC early versions of Windows pretty much ignored anything but the left button, although applications could receive clicks from them. I'm pretty sure the "right-click for a context menu" idea that's become standard today actually started with OS/2.
> In the real world where it does now you just have to know to control-click, which seems strictly worse.
Or you could just right-click. :) Every mouse Apple has sold since 2005 supports right-clicking (and OS X actually supported right-clicking from the start if you plugged in somebody else's mouse!). Their trackpads lets you click with two fingers for a right-click effect.
> As far as not thinking about a button to click - that only works if the idea of 'right-click' doesn't exist.
Well, when you adjust your timeline back to when that first one-button mouse came out in 1984, one can argue whether the idea of right-click as we know it today really existed! There were multi-button mice already, but there wasn't any standardization as to what the buttons did, so Apple's insistence on "there is just one button and it does THE THING" was at least defensible. And IIRC early versions of Windows pretty much ignored anything but the left button, although applications could receive clicks from them. I'm pretty sure the "right-click for a context menu" idea that's become standard today actually started with OS/2.
> In the real world where it does now you just have to know to control-click, which seems strictly worse.
Or you could just right-click. :) Every mouse Apple has sold since 2005 supports right-clicking (and OS X actually supported right-clicking from the start if you plugged in somebody else's mouse!). Their trackpads lets you click with two fingers for a right-click effect.
I had the “no button” mouse where the entire top was the button - I thought it was pretty.
Fair point that when this started the right click menu wasn’t super established. That said, at some point it was, probably more than 20 years ago.
Today the Magic Mouse supports right click, but is still a bad mouse in my (and many others) opinion. It’s form over function. The Magic Trackpad is great though.
I’m about as big an Apple fan as exists so this isn’t some tribal argument. It’s just not a good design and I think they do it because multi-click mice look ugly. They pretend it’s for other reasons with some rationalized explanation, but in the mouse case I don’t think it is.
Fair point that when this started the right click menu wasn’t super established. That said, at some point it was, probably more than 20 years ago.
Today the Magic Mouse supports right click, but is still a bad mouse in my (and many others) opinion. It’s form over function. The Magic Trackpad is great though.
I’m about as big an Apple fan as exists so this isn’t some tribal argument. It’s just not a good design and I think they do it because multi-click mice look ugly. They pretend it’s for other reasons with some rationalized explanation, but in the mouse case I don’t think it is.
I'm definitely much more a fan of the trackpad, too. I like the Magic Mouse more than you do, evidently, but I don't actually like mice that much in general. :)
Right/control click didn't exist on MacOS until 8. You could implement it by hand in an application but there was no system right support. Even once it was added the HIG stressed it should only be used for contextual shortcuts and not any primary functionality.
> In the real world where it does now you just have to know to control-click, which seems strictly worse.
The Mac didn't support context menus (control-click) until MacOS 8 in 1997 (13 years after the original Mac), and even then it was solely for shortcuts, and never for required functionality (unlike on Windows where some apps locked features behind that button)
All Apple input devices sold today support an alternative click (two finger tap on touch devices)
The Mac didn't support context menus (control-click) until MacOS 8 in 1997 (13 years after the original Mac), and even then it was solely for shortcuts, and never for required functionality (unlike on Windows where some apps locked features behind that button)
All Apple input devices sold today support an alternative click (two finger tap on touch devices)
I don’t know, I feel like Steve Jobs hated mice in general, or at least didn’t understand the use of them.
Look at the “puck“ for example.
Look at the “puck“ for example.
The puck-mouse was a good mouse if you're a person that moves the mouse by flicking fingers or with hand movements rather than with arm movements - and if you tuned the mouse speed and acceleration curve - but most people don't set their mouse speed to their liking though, hence the ergonomic issues.
How does that “flicking finger” style combat the issue of returning your hand to the mouse to find that it’s rotated a few degrees?
(Right-handed user) I never release my thumb and pinky-finger from the sides of the mouse, so I'm always in control of its rotation.
I should better describe it as "controlled-flicking": kinetic energy is imparted onto the mouse via the fingers - not the palm - but the mouse never loses finger contact.
I should better describe it as "controlled-flicking": kinetic energy is imparted onto the mouse via the fingers - not the palm - but the mouse never loses finger contact.
Sharp learning curves aren't a feature of good, mainstream UX.
I think there needs to be a name for this type of baseless argument. COMPANY would never do UNPOPULAR_CHOICE under OLD_BOSS.
Apparently it happened a lot at Disney after Walt Disney was gone.
No True CEO!
I used to make fun of this until I actually used one. The charging takes about an hour or two, and then the battery lasts for months. So this is not an actual issue.
The real issue is the horrible sensor and tracking. It is absolutely unusable as a mouse.
The real issue is the horrible sensor and tracking. It is absolutely unusable as a mouse.
It shipped in 2009.
The 1st generation Magic Mouse took AA batteries, the 2nd gen had the charging port.
Ah nvm, 2nd gen was in 2015.
That’s a certainty.
It's so retarded. I have 2 magic mice. One is always charging so I can swap them out
One charge of mine lasts months, why on Earth would you need 2 mice? Worse case it runs out of battery and you take a 20min break to get enough charge to last you the rest of the day then make sure to charge overnight.
[deleted]
What kind of duty cycle are you using with your mouse? You get several hours of use from (literally) one minute of charging, and if you charge it overnight it will last for weeks.
Leaving batteries on a charger can wear them out much faster than just leaving it in a drawer. This is avoided by "optimized battery charging" on phones/watches/airpods now but I don't know if mice do it.
In that specific case it looks like Apple did in fact made the right decision :D. 2 > 1
Why would you buy two of the same terribly designed item instead of getting, I don't know, an MX Master (3)?
The MX Master 3 is a wonderful piece of hardware but I personally couldn’t get used to it. I find the Magic Trackpad, though obscenely expensive, seems to fit my needs much better. I used the MX 3 for about a year. I do love some features it has.
If you're a hardcore mac user, I would agree, and even then if you like using trackpads in general. I switch between mac and linux all the time, plus I found using even the MBP 15"'s massive trackpad annoying to use for all-day work, so the MX Master was among the best investments I could've made.
The wheel on the MX Master is brilliant. It’s hard to leave that behind. I think the only reason I couldn’t stick with it was that I need to pan and zoom so often, and the pad makes it so much nicer without compromising too much.
I personally think the MX Master 3 is pretty ugly compared to a Magic Mouse. I've never used one but generally dislike mice that are that big.
I don't think I have ever cared about how my mouse looks (or how my laptop looks for that matter; it sits at home where no one will see it).
Something you use 8 hours a day should first of all be pleasant to use and reduce the risk of long term damage to your wrist (carpal tunnel syndrome or similar).
Something you use 8 hours a day should first of all be pleasant to use and reduce the risk of long term damage to your wrist (carpal tunnel syndrome or similar).
Everyone has different priorities.
I've never found the Magic Mouse uncomfortable to use. I generally use a trackpad anyway. I value that it's portable, looks nice, and works great with OS X. To each their own.
I've never found the Magic Mouse uncomfortable to use. I generally use a trackpad anyway. I value that it's portable, looks nice, and works great with OS X. To each their own.
Why? They charge to full in a few minutes and a full charge lasts weeks? You can charge your mouse in the time it takes to get a cup of coffee, let alone a night's sleep?
I loathe wireless keyboards and mice. If the bluetooth isn't giving me trouble, the batteries are.
Apple M1 is the kind of thing that truly impresses in the post-Jobs era, IMO.
Years of snapping up brilliant companies/minds[1]!
* PA Semi, 2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.A._Semi
* Licensing then hiring most of the Imagination Technologies GPU engineers, including setting up an office down the street from them in St Albans, 2017-2020.
* some of Dialog Semiconductor, 2018
* Intel's smartphone division, 2019
* Intrinsity, who had some cutting edge chip design, 2010
There's also an unbelievable ton of photography, micro-display, motion capture, ar, computer vision companies they've acquired. They're plucking up 3-5 promising talented players a year in terms of microminiature sensors/displays/optics.
Apple, the most exciting, gigantic, talent-acquiring behemoth that capital has ever given rise to. They do deserve accolades for doing great work, yes. But I also just am so very very sad to see so much talent disappear off the open market, distressed that the lead seems to only grow & grow over everyone else. At least if these engineers were working at Qualcomm or MediaTek the fruits of the labor could be shared, but Apple has total iron claims on their chips. It's imbalanced as it is, & Apple seems to have all the money & all the power to keep tipping.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...
* PA Semi, 2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.A._Semi
* Licensing then hiring most of the Imagination Technologies GPU engineers, including setting up an office down the street from them in St Albans, 2017-2020.
* some of Dialog Semiconductor, 2018
* Intel's smartphone division, 2019
* Intrinsity, who had some cutting edge chip design, 2010
There's also an unbelievable ton of photography, micro-display, motion capture, ar, computer vision companies they've acquired. They're plucking up 3-5 promising talented players a year in terms of microminiature sensors/displays/optics.
Apple, the most exciting, gigantic, talent-acquiring behemoth that capital has ever given rise to. They do deserve accolades for doing great work, yes. But I also just am so very very sad to see so much talent disappear off the open market, distressed that the lead seems to only grow & grow over everyone else. At least if these engineers were working at Qualcomm or MediaTek the fruits of the labor could be shared, but Apple has total iron claims on their chips. It's imbalanced as it is, & Apple seems to have all the money & all the power to keep tipping.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...
> But I also just am so very very sad to see so much talent disappear off the open market, distressed that the lead seems to only grow & grow over everyone else.
All that talent was up for grab: What were the other players waiting for?
All that talent was up for grab: What were the other players waiting for?
Exactly. Not just that, acquiring the talent is one thing. Providing the culture & resources for them to succeed over a long period of time? That's special & why most M&A activity results in a neutral or even negative result.
By open marketet I think he/she means producing products/services that can be used by multiple other companies. As opposed to being confined to the Apple silo.
Note: I'm not judging that analysis, just trying to refine the interpretation.
Note: I'm not judging that analysis, just trying to refine the interpretation.
In a lot of cases, it was probably something more insidious, as indeed is the case for a lot of acqui-hires in the software space: most of them probably didn't have anyone using their stuff (relatively speaking). A lot of these companies that produce these things are building things that simply aren't useful unless "deployed" or "applied" at scale.
The best way to put it is it's the difference between designing an AK-47, and designing a battleship. Most techies look at things, and assume they're like a AK-47; if the big players don't use it, DIY guys can still home-craft their own AKs and it'll have a profound impact on the world. But with many of these sorts of tech firms that are getting acquired, if they aren't actually having their stuff used by one of the big guys, it may as well not exist. If you design a battleship, and there's not a nation-state interested in building it, despite having what may be an excellent design, you've got ... nothing. Nobody can DIY that like they can a design for a rifle.
A very good analogy here would be graphics cards. If I come up with a software innovation, like a new rendering technology, it's viable for anyone to slot into a game engine somewhere and play with. If I come up with a new hardware design, and it doesn't get applied by one of the actual hardware vendors out there, it may as well not exist.
The best way to put it is it's the difference between designing an AK-47, and designing a battleship. Most techies look at things, and assume they're like a AK-47; if the big players don't use it, DIY guys can still home-craft their own AKs and it'll have a profound impact on the world. But with many of these sorts of tech firms that are getting acquired, if they aren't actually having their stuff used by one of the big guys, it may as well not exist. If you design a battleship, and there's not a nation-state interested in building it, despite having what may be an excellent design, you've got ... nothing. Nobody can DIY that like they can a design for a rifle.
A very good analogy here would be graphics cards. If I come up with a software innovation, like a new rendering technology, it's viable for anyone to slot into a game engine somewhere and play with. If I come up with a new hardware design, and it doesn't get applied by one of the actual hardware vendors out there, it may as well not exist.
Monopoly power from two sided markets. Apple is in the position where it outbid competition. They take 20% cut from app sales and sell 200 million units.
When the bought PA semi they were nowhere near the size they are now.
All that happened is that Apple made better investments than their potential competitors.
All that happened is that Apple made better investments than their potential competitors.
> All that talent was up for grab: What were the other players waiting for?
That's exactly the problem with monopolies. As one two or three companies get to be ever more outsized giants (Apple: 2.2T$, Amazon & Microsoft: 1.6T$), owning more of the talent pool, there's less other players with any chance to build up success, to acquire talent.
People can keep making small, successfully-acquired companies, but this idea that it's everyone elses fault for not challenging the monopoly is not a statement I'm very sympathetic to.
That's exactly the problem with monopolies. As one two or three companies get to be ever more outsized giants (Apple: 2.2T$, Amazon & Microsoft: 1.6T$), owning more of the talent pool, there's less other players with any chance to build up success, to acquire talent.
People can keep making small, successfully-acquired companies, but this idea that it's everyone elses fault for not challenging the monopoly is not a statement I'm very sympathetic to.
Apple’s market cap was less than 10% of what it is now when they bought PA Semi.
Monopolies have nothing to do with this.
Monopolies have nothing to do with this.
On the other hand, how many of these companies would have faded away and never been heard of again if Apple hand't stepped in? Was Samsung or Huawei about to invest in these technologies? Even on this thread I see people saying phones are commoditised now and the new models aren't interesting.
Apple's competitors believe this, they aren't about to invest millions on these small technical innovations and improvements that by themselves are incredibly niche. Instead Apple brings these incremental innovations, which otherwise would be relegated to specialist parts if they survived at all, to hundreds of millions of customers all over the world. If Apple hadn't done this the chances these advanced technologies would be in so many people's hands right now would be close to nil.
Apple's competitors believe this, they aren't about to invest millions on these small technical innovations and improvements that by themselves are incredibly niche. Instead Apple brings these incremental innovations, which otherwise would be relegated to specialist parts if they survived at all, to hundreds of millions of customers all over the world. If Apple hadn't done this the chances these advanced technologies would be in so many people's hands right now would be close to nil.
This. This right here.
If it didn't get forcibly put into people's hands, it probably would have died on the vine.
One of the things apple's always understood is the idea of "across-the-board" availability. Take some specialist part, like, oh, say, a mouse, or a sound card, and make it so that all of your machines ship with it, period. It's the new "lowest common denominator". We had mice back in the DOS/Apple II era; good mice, even, it's just that nobody wrote anything that supported them (outside of a few specialist apps like some art programs), because only a few really rare people had them.
When apple made the mac, they'd learned this lesson, and made it mandatory - this is actually why they initially refused to put a CLI into the thing, even though their own MPW dev tools had one: they wanted to make it more difficult to do cheapass ports of stuff like VisiCalc than it would be to build a new, gui-based program to solve the same problem from scratch. (Amongst other things, this open-field helped a certain company launch a new gui-based spreadsheet app called Excel, which has done rather well for itself.)
If it didn't get forcibly put into people's hands, it probably would have died on the vine.
One of the things apple's always understood is the idea of "across-the-board" availability. Take some specialist part, like, oh, say, a mouse, or a sound card, and make it so that all of your machines ship with it, period. It's the new "lowest common denominator". We had mice back in the DOS/Apple II era; good mice, even, it's just that nobody wrote anything that supported them (outside of a few specialist apps like some art programs), because only a few really rare people had them.
When apple made the mac, they'd learned this lesson, and made it mandatory - this is actually why they initially refused to put a CLI into the thing, even though their own MPW dev tools had one: they wanted to make it more difficult to do cheapass ports of stuff like VisiCalc than it would be to build a new, gui-based program to solve the same problem from scratch. (Amongst other things, this open-field helped a certain company launch a new gui-based spreadsheet app called Excel, which has done rather well for itself.)
[deleted]
This comment has a negative tone, but this doesn't seem to me to be a tragedy. Acquiring talent and putting them on the bench to stave off would-be competitors stifles innovation (re: Palihapitiya's criticism of Google). Acquiring talent and putting them to use on projects that achieve more scale and impact, sooner, than could happen at a small company -- that seems like innovation and the free market market at its best.
It's not like these people had their work stolen -- they were compensated!! Presumably quite well.
It's not like these people had their work stolen -- they were compensated!! Presumably quite well.
> Acquiring talent and putting them to use on projects that achieve more scale and impact, sooner, than could happen at a small company -- that seems like innovation and the free market market at its best.
So, you're a fan of a free market, where free is defined as whatever direction Apple wants to go. Got it. Free for Apple to do as they please.
I don't know if there's quite "consensus", but definitely one of the top 3 greatest, most important events in all computing was the Gang of Nine taking & extending IBM's AT Compatible bus to build the new, intercompatible ISA[1] bus. It took the fractured, proprietary world of microcomputers by storm, savaged many great company, by creating a genuine open market for personal computers. It commodified the system, allowed anyone to compete & to deliver peripherals & changes & innovations. The Gang of Nine freed a locked down proprietary computing market. Without their actions, we might not be typing on laptops, we might not have smartphones today. They freed the market. Innovation churned greatly, because there was so much going on, so much creativity, so many different things being tried.
Today, only a very very few have the power to shape things. There are only two major smartphone OSes on the planet. There are only a couple scrappy hopefuls about, intent on freeing the market from this stagnancy, from everyone being on the same OSes for the entire next decade too: folks like Pine64, who are building a Linux PinePhone project, who are building great low cost open source dev boards, who are building DIY low-bandwidth long-distance LoRaWAN[2].
Society needs to support healthy competitive free market innovation. Simply measuring how quickly one company is free to do whatever it wants, how quickly it can iterate, is not enough. All great events in computing, the modern saga of computing as we know it, came from a genuine freedom to explore & tinker with what might be possible. Leaving Tim Cook in charge of this human project is drastically against the human spirit of liberty & progress, and there's no good in computing that has ever come from these kinds of totalizing powers, extreme vertical integration, & closed systems. These players have always ended up ossifying, off in some crystal palace they've built themselves, direly needing to be disrupted. Being free from competition, alone in your innovating, is a tragedy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Industry_Standard_Arc...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26145684
So, you're a fan of a free market, where free is defined as whatever direction Apple wants to go. Got it. Free for Apple to do as they please.
I don't know if there's quite "consensus", but definitely one of the top 3 greatest, most important events in all computing was the Gang of Nine taking & extending IBM's AT Compatible bus to build the new, intercompatible ISA[1] bus. It took the fractured, proprietary world of microcomputers by storm, savaged many great company, by creating a genuine open market for personal computers. It commodified the system, allowed anyone to compete & to deliver peripherals & changes & innovations. The Gang of Nine freed a locked down proprietary computing market. Without their actions, we might not be typing on laptops, we might not have smartphones today. They freed the market. Innovation churned greatly, because there was so much going on, so much creativity, so many different things being tried.
Today, only a very very few have the power to shape things. There are only two major smartphone OSes on the planet. There are only a couple scrappy hopefuls about, intent on freeing the market from this stagnancy, from everyone being on the same OSes for the entire next decade too: folks like Pine64, who are building a Linux PinePhone project, who are building great low cost open source dev boards, who are building DIY low-bandwidth long-distance LoRaWAN[2].
Society needs to support healthy competitive free market innovation. Simply measuring how quickly one company is free to do whatever it wants, how quickly it can iterate, is not enough. All great events in computing, the modern saga of computing as we know it, came from a genuine freedom to explore & tinker with what might be possible. Leaving Tim Cook in charge of this human project is drastically against the human spirit of liberty & progress, and there's no good in computing that has ever come from these kinds of totalizing powers, extreme vertical integration, & closed systems. These players have always ended up ossifying, off in some crystal palace they've built themselves, direly needing to be disrupted. Being free from competition, alone in your innovating, is a tragedy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Industry_Standard_Arc...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26145684
> Free for Apple to do as they please.
What other definition of free do you suggest?
The companies and employees they hired also had the freedom to reject the offers if they so chose. Freedom is consent.
What other definition of free do you suggest?
The companies and employees they hired also had the freedom to reject the offers if they so chose. Freedom is consent.
Which ultimately ends in monopoly or oligopoly, and strips consent from all but a tiny handful of beneficiaries.
May I suggest the term you're looking for might be "open market" more than "free market"? Everything Apple is doing is empowered by the free market.
As an aside, using the ISA bus as an example of the benefits of open systems is ... Kinda weird. ISA busses were open, but the remainder of the systems tended to be clones of a proprietary system, and they "took the world by storm" by snowballing on the success of said proprietary system.
PCs didn't only become successful after ISA created an open market for peripheral cards -- that enabled a slew of companies to expand and profit on an existing demand for PC compatibles running DOS/Windows.
As an aside, using the ISA bus as an example of the benefits of open systems is ... Kinda weird. ISA busses were open, but the remainder of the systems tended to be clones of a proprietary system, and they "took the world by storm" by snowballing on the success of said proprietary system.
PCs didn't only become successful after ISA created an open market for peripheral cards -- that enabled a slew of companies to expand and profit on an existing demand for PC compatibles running DOS/Windows.
And yet soviet computers were at best stolen western designs.
Where is AT&T defining the market today?
Where is General Motors in the world of operating systems today, despite being an early licensee of UNIX?
Where is AT&T defining the market today?
Where is General Motors in the world of operating systems today, despite being an early licensee of UNIX?
[deleted]
Buying PA Semi, for one, was an interesting move. They'd shipped their embedded PowerPC chip and it was both way over the promised power budget and the errata was crazy. That was not an obvious buy in any way.
Ditto Intrinsity.
Ditto Intrinsity.
> At least if these engineers were working at Qualcomm or MediaTek the fruits of the labor could be shared
Except these companies had a massive headstart over Apple, and failed to deliver. Furthermore Qualcomm generally act to suppress innovation through patents.
Except these companies had a massive headstart over Apple, and failed to deliver. Furthermore Qualcomm generally act to suppress innovation through patents.
[deleted]
I wish I cared about the battery life in my laptop, it might even make me want one of those M1 devices.
I think the biggest change Tim made from Steve is that Tim’s decision and management style seems more committee/group based, whereas Steve was much more autonomous; this is how it is now do it. I know he didn’t want everyone thinking what would Steve do, but I do often wonder what someone with Steve’s authority would do.
The impression I got was that Steve operated in a way that 'seemed' autonomous, but in terms of the results he was still letting folks around him do their thing, even if it went through him. Maybe it was the case of a strong personality / operational style that seemed more autonomous than it was?
I find that people often seem to read strong personalities as sort of autocratic by default, even if they're not. Often when in those situations I've had to explain to coworkers that "No, he wasn't shooting you down, that was your chance to explain further / show him more."
I find that people often seem to read strong personalities as sort of autocratic by default, even if they're not. Often when in those situations I've had to explain to coworkers that "No, he wasn't shooting you down, that was your chance to explain further / show him more."
That sounds about right. It was called 'management through walking around', and he got up in people's faces and demanded they perform better and compete with each other. He was the arbiter, and fickle, but he wasn't trying to get people to be subservient.
Guy Kawasaki described it as, Jobs was so confident he brought a guy into Apple who took the company away from him. He was so full of himself it was impossible for him to be in any way threatened by capable subordinates no matter HOW good they were: he'd just bully them and be mercurial and try to get their maximum performance out of them.
So in a sense, it was all the other people. Not him.
And in another sense, it took a very unusual person to be able to do that, and be constantly outclassed, and not begin to act defensively. There's a cost to it: Apple was doing the Newton way way before there were cellphones and such. Jobs wasn't that wise, just impossibly audacious, and as such he did manage to operate a team of exceptional people. He wasn't the team, but as far as a leader being the leader, he was about as intense as Gordon Ramsay, and absolutely he let the people around him shine: to him, that WAS him looking good.
And it wouldn't make you safe from criticism for even five minutes, but he did love it when people around him were great. Jobs was the 'A players hire A players. B players hire C players. You hired THAT GUY?' manager. He not only expected people around him to excel, he literally demanded it.
Guy Kawasaki described it as, Jobs was so confident he brought a guy into Apple who took the company away from him. He was so full of himself it was impossible for him to be in any way threatened by capable subordinates no matter HOW good they were: he'd just bully them and be mercurial and try to get their maximum performance out of them.
So in a sense, it was all the other people. Not him.
And in another sense, it took a very unusual person to be able to do that, and be constantly outclassed, and not begin to act defensively. There's a cost to it: Apple was doing the Newton way way before there were cellphones and such. Jobs wasn't that wise, just impossibly audacious, and as such he did manage to operate a team of exceptional people. He wasn't the team, but as far as a leader being the leader, he was about as intense as Gordon Ramsay, and absolutely he let the people around him shine: to him, that WAS him looking good.
And it wouldn't make you safe from criticism for even five minutes, but he did love it when people around him were great. Jobs was the 'A players hire A players. B players hire C players. You hired THAT GUY?' manager. He not only expected people around him to excel, he literally demanded it.
Newton was all Scully as I recall. Not Jobs.
"Management through walking around" comes from Hewlett-Packard. At least as practiced by at Packard and Hewlett, it was supposedly more about learning from individual contributors in labs and on factory floors -- without only getting information filtered through middle management -- not "getting up in people's faces and demanding they perform better."
I really liked this interview and discussion from two weeks back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26033689
That seems like a failure to express intent properly. You can have a strong personality and powerfully seek feedback or clarification. Not mutually exclusive.
I think it is different traditions and etc.
I'm from the midwest. When I worked my first 'real job' I worked with some folks from the east coast. They could be very blunt and harsh to my Midwestern ears.
Right until I realized that when they speak to you that way they're really engaging you and seeing if you'll respond in kind in order to demonstrate how certain you are about what you said.
The right words with the right emphasis and it was all "Well Tom seems to think..." and they're on board with you.
Took me like 12 months to figure that out, that and them kinda hassling me was a sign of respect ;)
I'm from the midwest. When I worked my first 'real job' I worked with some folks from the east coast. They could be very blunt and harsh to my Midwestern ears.
Right until I realized that when they speak to you that way they're really engaging you and seeing if you'll respond in kind in order to demonstrate how certain you are about what you said.
The right words with the right emphasis and it was all "Well Tom seems to think..." and they're on board with you.
Took me like 12 months to figure that out, that and them kinda hassling me was a sign of respect ;)
They put the onus on you to figure it out, and that's fine. I don't think it refutes what I said, which is that it is a failure to demonstrate what they are looking for. If they don't have the time or inclination to deal with people who don't "get it", that's up to them. They probably miss out on some opportunities because of it, but maybe avail themselves of others, or sidestep some distractions.
Steve's advice was "Dont think what he would do, but do what you think is right."
The problem is knowing what is right, and that is exactly the strength of Steve. Often by intuition, and some by experience where he made mistakes and he quickly correct. And right now the designed by committee seems to be lacking the latter attribute.
Tim Cook is also much more focused on Revenue and Profits with their Strategy. Steve is much more product based.
The problem is knowing what is right, and that is exactly the strength of Steve. Often by intuition, and some by experience where he made mistakes and he quickly correct. And right now the designed by committee seems to be lacking the latter attribute.
Tim Cook is also much more focused on Revenue and Profits with their Strategy. Steve is much more product based.
I think the focus on privacy might be the new face of Apple that will redefine it for the post Jobs era
It's a smart move, how can Google respond without undermining their whole business model.
Microsoft struggles with it as well, it's not something their enterprise customers are asking for.
Microsoft struggles with it as well, it's not something their enterprise customers are asking for.
Warren Buffet - “Tim may not have Steve Jobs’ design chops but he understands the world to a degree that very, very few CEOs I've met over the past 60 years could match"
The article seems to hinge around China and etc more than most things. I do wonder how capable any company is to move manufacturing out of China at any kind of large scale.
Boomberg was always very apologetic of China, if not to say bordering on lobbying for them.
No wonder, Bloomber is one of very, very, very few Western media operating in China through a franchise agreement.
No wonder, Bloomber is one of very, very, very few Western media operating in China through a franchise agreement.
You mean the Bloomberg that published the Super Micro chip story?
I’m in awe at how well China utilizes its soft power on the world stage.
Bloomberg also wrote the piece where they claimed China had infiltrated Apple, though.
China recently arrested Bloomberg editor Haze Fan, so robust criticism of China could adversely affect her case.
In the past I have found Bloomberg pretty impartial on China, with good criticism and analysis of China's policies.
In the past I have found Bloomberg pretty impartial on China, with good criticism and analysis of China's policies.
Foxconn will just build a factory wherever Apple asks them to. Most recently, India. Next option, Vietnam.
It’s not hard to leave China. It’s hard to leave China for the US.
It’s not hard to leave China. It’s hard to leave China for the US.
Samsung moved most or all of their factories from China recently.
But Korea is more export oriented than China (proportionally) and actually has expertise in these matters.
Samsung are vertically integrated, but Apple just outsource manufacturing to Foxconn, which has more expertise in the manufacturing of small electronics than Samsung.
And Foxconn have been told to bring up Apple supply lines in India.
And Foxconn have been told to bring up Apple supply lines in India.
Steve Jobs and Tim Cook both have their strengths that they play to. Steve was a master marketeer and Tim is a great operational guy. I don't feel one skill is greater than the other.
All these great minds at work yet somehow clicking on this link in iOS with the Bloomberg app installed takes me to its homepage instead of the actual article
I hope between Tim Cook's and Michael Bloomberg's successors we can finally invent the technology to make that work as expected
I hope between Tim Cook's and Michael Bloomberg's successors we can finally invent the technology to make that work as expected
Not really on topic, but hilariously on point with the tech industry.
that's Bloomberg when one hits the free article limit. open the URL in a private safari tab.
But it takes you to the wrong page faster than any Android!
I, for one, hate the expanded product lineup. I'm looking to buy an iPad and I have no idea which one is best suited for my case. Air? Pro? Mini?
Have you seen Apple's comparison page? It's useful for this sort of decision making:
https://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/
https://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/
While I don't think it's quite that bad, it does remind me of how Steve slimlined the Mac product line almost immediately upon his return.
I know buying a Lenovo is an infuriating experience. So many models with tiny differences in specification.
Any of them are going to be better for you than when there was only one option. Just get the cheap one to start.
Anyways, I doubt the management style of Mr. Jobs (that worked well in 80s and 90s with subsequent momentum) would work today.
It didn't work so well for him either, he got fired. When he came back, he was different, because he'd gotten married.
The terrible official biography of him actually notices that he was better the second time around and totally ignores it, but this is the reason.
The terrible official biography of him actually notices that he was better the second time around and totally ignores it, but this is the reason.
[deleted]
What other things were terrible about the biography? It's my favorite biography of all time. I'd love to know better what important parts were left out.
It's been a few years but I also found Walter Isaacson's Steve Jobs biography to be terrible.
I was looking for deeper analysis of what made Steve Jobs' tick, and how he approached building products. Walter Isaacson didn't have a technological understanding of Apple's products of the time, so I found his history pretty superficial.
I learned much more about Steve Jobs approach from listening to the interviews he did over the years.
I was looking for deeper analysis of what made Steve Jobs' tick, and how he approached building products. Walter Isaacson didn't have a technological understanding of Apple's products of the time, so I found his history pretty superficial.
I learned much more about Steve Jobs approach from listening to the interviews he did over the years.
It doesn't enquire into anything technically, directly misquotes people (Bill Gates at one point says a disk drive has "too low latency"), ignores his wife, and seems to be really invested in embarrassing his kids. One of his sons Reed is quoted like three times and every time he's making a dick joke.
It's well-written, but reads like fan fiction. Isaacson seems to be unable to separate himself from the "reality distortion field" he describes Jobs having.
Tesla and SpaceX seem to be doing ok.
Seemed to work well in the 2000s...
Tim Cook just tortures us with port changes and overpriced dongles
Isn't it a bit silly to wonder why Apple did well under Trump? Didn't Trump cripple Huawei, presumably one of Apple's biggest competitor in the phone space? Stopped reading after that...
Steve Blank compared Cook to Ballmer and analyzed the situation pretty well IMHO:
https://steveblank.com/2016/10/24/why-tim-cook-is-steve-ball...
TLDR: When the visionary CEO (Gates, Jobs) leaves, a guy from operations (Ballmer, Cook) gets promoted to CEO, and keeps doing what he does best, operate and keep profits climbing.
When the next CEO (Nadella, ?) comes, there can be focus on innovation again.
https://steveblank.com/2016/10/24/why-tim-cook-is-steve-ball...
TLDR: When the visionary CEO (Gates, Jobs) leaves, a guy from operations (Ballmer, Cook) gets promoted to CEO, and keeps doing what he does best, operate and keep profits climbing.
When the next CEO (Nadella, ?) comes, there can be focus on innovation again.
By "transformed," they meant "over-monetized" and "ruined." TC snatched uncool, buggy, and wonky products from the jaws of material success.
Dongles.
From product innovation and design focused company into shareholders and politics first driven company. Closing the product ecosystem further, ignoring pro user needs, giving priority for dark pattern designs - dongle nightmare, giving access to user data to governments, censoring and creating barriers for OSS. I fully expect Apple to be the front-line operator in the new world envisioned by The Dirty Bunch Planners in Davos. And yes, Apple apologists like their toys and will love to be controlled in the name of ........insert politically correct, billionaire driven, tech-fetishist, pseudo-leftist, lgbt, blm, “woke”...agenda. And I don’t give a flying F. We, humanity as a whole, deserve what we get, and the psychopaths are here only because we are weak, lazy, naive and stupid.
The first half of your comment contained pretty legit complaints about Apples anti-consumer choices and genera direction. You completely lost me in the second where you just lost your temper and griped about things that bothered you personally
about the world like BLM movement and (something about?) LGBT.
I respectfully disagree. You are missing the part “in the name of”. I will refine further: corporations don’t care for anything than profit and power. Period. Corporations use genuine societal processes for marketing and political purposes, government contracts, lobbying etc. There is a ton of data in support of my point of view. And please, there is nothing “personal”, I just genuinely hate hypocrisy.
Well that went south fast.
Sir, this is a Wendy's
[deleted]
I love my Apple pencil in combination with the iPad
I might be wrong, but what, a watch, and different size iPhones and iPads?
I've seen many guys like Tim Cook, most worse off ones.
He squeezes suppliers, and know what he is doing.
Others squeeze suppliers, and don't know what they are doing.
On one of my first jobs, I've been witness to one such negotiations down to single cents, and microns of plastic for a few million units customized charger order.
The order was such a whopper for a small sourcing agency, that higher ups were willing to do just anything to not to spook the client.
Our guys quickly understood that the consultant guy doing negotiations on behalf of the client was a round idiot with a level of engineering knowledge of a first year dropout.
He kept insisting on completely bizarre design changes, and ridiculous cost cutting on design like using 2 cheaper through hole diodes in parallel instead of one a cent more expensive (did not believe my ears, the guy failed EE101 right here,) dispensing with NTC inrush limiters, removing safety caps (he did not know what they are for) and asked us to redo the mold 6! times in order to save some grams of plastic per run.
We managed to at least push back on safety critical parts, on a point that it will fail the certification.
Many years later I found out that the design of the first Kindle charger exactly matched the one we did in everything, but having an extra label.
And 5 years ago I learned that Kindles had multiple issues with melting chargers, and safety recalls.
9 out of 10 companies in the supply chain will just shoot themselves in the foot if they go on doing it like that.
Nobody will point how unreasonable your demands are if you are a giant multinational corporation, moreover so in China. If you do this, and don't know yourself if you are asking a for something stupid, who will know? No one will.