Apple at Its Best(stratechery.com)
stratechery.com
Apple at Its Best
https://stratechery.com/2017/apple-at-its-best/
120 comments
To me, the thing that gives the game away is that every time a company talks about "AI" both current and near future in general terms it's blue-sky, the-future-is-robots glorious (not really) automated future. Then when they talk specifics it's "language translation" which is still pretty awful and "image processing" which has been the purview of AI for many many years with no indication it'll be breaking out of that box anytime soon.
Yes I know there's massive advancements in using ML to make things seem more advanced than they are. But at the end of the day consumer AI today is: Language recognition and translation and photo recognition and manipulation. Everything else is snake oil.
So pardon me if I don't start portending Apple's doom because they may have to spend a little more of their untold billions to buy an AI startup to make photo enhancements slightly more cool for the next version of IOS. I don't think there's a game-changing AI breakthrough waiting to happen that the big companies are all going to have to fight for market space with because I can't find any evidence of it anywhere.
Yes I know there's massive advancements in using ML to make things seem more advanced than they are. But at the end of the day consumer AI today is: Language recognition and translation and photo recognition and manipulation. Everything else is snake oil.
So pardon me if I don't start portending Apple's doom because they may have to spend a little more of their untold billions to buy an AI startup to make photo enhancements slightly more cool for the next version of IOS. I don't think there's a game-changing AI breakthrough waiting to happen that the big companies are all going to have to fight for market space with because I can't find any evidence of it anywhere.
I think personal assistant AI's are still very much in their alpha state. It will get better as time passes. Google and Amazon have been aggressively investing in Research into AI (Google probably more so through Google Research, but Amazon has ramped up recently).
Apple has recently been hiring aggressively as well; and I'm more optimistic about Apple than the article, simply because Apple has amazing amount of hardware experience. I hope that they leverage that to make better AI-enabled devices... the future is going to be VERY interesting.
Apple has recently been hiring aggressively as well; and I'm more optimistic about Apple than the article, simply because Apple has amazing amount of hardware experience. I hope that they leverage that to make better AI-enabled devices... the future is going to be VERY interesting.
The biggest difference with the iPhone X, that it can recognise your face and expressions does seem to be AI that changes at least some stuff. As an iPhone 5 owner I've picked up the 6 and 7 and thought meh, same stuff, bulkier handset but the face thing on the X has an element of wow.
There's still a lot of unpicked hanging fruit though.
For years I was an Android user, loved them. Now I use two iPhones (one is a corporation phone).
I depend on Google Assistant on both iPhones. Siri is getting better and I sometimes use it, but I find it convenient enough to tap the Google Assistant icon on home screen as hit the hardware home button for Siri.
I expect Apple to continue to invest a ton of money in AI, AR, etc. But, Google has some advantages: when I asked for driving directions to the DMV yesterday Google Assistant immediately warned me they were closed. I worked at Google with the Knowledge Graph, and it with superior AI really is a great competitive advantage.
That said, I am never going back to Android phones; I like iPhones and the integration with my iPad and MacBook is useful.
Best of both worlds.
I depend on Google Assistant on both iPhones. Siri is getting better and I sometimes use it, but I find it convenient enough to tap the Google Assistant icon on home screen as hit the hardware home button for Siri.
I expect Apple to continue to invest a ton of money in AI, AR, etc. But, Google has some advantages: when I asked for driving directions to the DMV yesterday Google Assistant immediately warned me they were closed. I worked at Google with the Knowledge Graph, and it with superior AI really is a great competitive advantage.
That said, I am never going back to Android phones; I like iPhones and the integration with my iPad and MacBook is useful.
Best of both worlds.
Apple has hamstrung itself because of their stance on privacy. Most of the operations are done on-device or in some other way obfuscated on the server side.
Google, on the other hand, has no qualms about merging user data in the cloud and can create better results that way. On the plus side, their assistant stuff is uncannily (even creepily) accurate. On the minus side, all your shit is in the Alphabet Database now.
Whether this bothers you or not is up to you. (The generic you, not the 'you' you)
Google, on the other hand, has no qualms about merging user data in the cloud and can create better results that way. On the plus side, their assistant stuff is uncannily (even creepily) accurate. On the minus side, all your shit is in the Alphabet Database now.
Whether this bothers you or not is up to you. (The generic you, not the 'you' you)
>> (The generic you, not the 'you' you)
That was what "one" was used for originally. "Whether this bothers one or not..." etc [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_(pronoun)
That was what "one" was used for originally. "Whether this bothers one or not..." etc [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_(pronoun)
"Whether this bothers [one] or not is up to [them]" ?
What's going on here. The following seems incorrect:
"Whether this bothers [one] or not is up to [one]"
What's going on here. The following seems incorrect:
"Whether this bothers [one] or not is up to [one]"
I think the latter is more correct, but the first is allowable now.
> Google has some advantages [..]
Advantages mainly coming from a far reaching disregard for privacy.
Advantages mainly coming from a far reaching disregard for privacy.
Many of them do come from a disregard for privacy. That bothers me, but some people are happy to make that trade-off for better services.
I would suggest that MOST people are happy to make that trade off. At least until your personal information is hacked and taken from googles servers.
To be fair, practically speaking, it's more likely that your "personal information" will be hacked if it is in your possession vs. when in Google's cloud.
In my case, it's not that I don't trust Google's cloud security. It's the unknown third parties they sell my info to's security that bothers me.
Which the market, and consumers’s revealed preference, has demonstrated doesn’t matter one whit.
Apple Maps will tell you the DMV is closed.
Yes, but which DMV?
I kid, but honestly, Google Maps is just so much better.
I kid, but honestly, Google Maps is just so much better.
Apple Maps is used more in iOS than Google Maps. TomTom has been in the market a lot longer than Google.
I feel like you're arguing a different point.
Apple Maps will not even tell me their is a DMV on the reservation. It points to the one in a neighboring town. Of course Apple Maps still mislabels the town I am in, so I guess it is part of a larger problem.
I have the complete opposite experience having just started to use an iPhone7 for work. It's a horrible experience.
Who designs a phone that requires a restart to raise the volume?
Who designs a phone that requires a restart to raise the volume?
Nobody, there is clearly an issue with yours.
Yes I guess mine is broken. There are severe limitations on my filemanager too, it might be related.
We get these claims with every new release of iPhones, but each time sales are as good or better.
What does worry me a bit about Apple of today vs Apple before Jobs passed away, is that they seem to be to quick to compromise design when they are face with difficult engineering problems.
For example the camera sticking out and the iPhone X screen notch.
What does worry me a bit about Apple of today vs Apple before Jobs passed away, is that they seem to be to quick to compromise design when they are face with difficult engineering problems.
For example the camera sticking out and the iPhone X screen notch.
I don’t know where the idea came from that a featureless rectilinear slab is somehow the ideal design for a phone.
Of course people are perfectly welcome to their own opinions, but there’s a deeper design principle here to let an object be what it is.
If all you do with a phone is look at it and tap on it then a plain rectangle is very good.
But you also hold the phone up to your head to talk into it and hear the person on the other side. Orientation is important.
It’s also probably the best camera you’ve ever owned, which intrinticly have a lens and depth. Why try to pretend one of the most important aspects of the phone doesn’t exist? (There have been some truely great camera designs over the years... how many of those were featureless, symmetrical rectangles? But now we think that’s somehow the ideal design??)
And the phone looks back at you, listens to you, and senses your environment. All key features. So why try to sweep those important sensors under the rug? Orientation is important here too, so again you want an orientation, not a symmetric featureless slab.
Sorry to jump on you, but I think your examples aren’t good.
Of course people are perfectly welcome to their own opinions, but there’s a deeper design principle here to let an object be what it is.
If all you do with a phone is look at it and tap on it then a plain rectangle is very good.
But you also hold the phone up to your head to talk into it and hear the person on the other side. Orientation is important.
It’s also probably the best camera you’ve ever owned, which intrinticly have a lens and depth. Why try to pretend one of the most important aspects of the phone doesn’t exist? (There have been some truely great camera designs over the years... how many of those were featureless, symmetrical rectangles? But now we think that’s somehow the ideal design??)
And the phone looks back at you, listens to you, and senses your environment. All key features. So why try to sweep those important sensors under the rug? Orientation is important here too, so again you want an orientation, not a symmetric featureless slab.
Sorry to jump on you, but I think your examples aren’t good.
I guess we are trapped by lack of UI innovation so the form will be the driver still. for me I like many "sci fi" representations where the phone is everything, it just happens to work for calls. need a bigger display, point at something appropriate. need it to be private, well with tracking and directional displays we can get there.
With regards to the X, +, and other phones, its not the form factor that was important, it was how you gained access. I think Apple emphasized the edge to edge screen too much when it was evident the notch was in violation, and should have wholly focused on what face id would give us. I do not understand why they cannot move some gestures only on X to other devices though.
With regards to the X, +, and other phones, its not the form factor that was important, it was how you gained access. I think Apple emphasized the edge to edge screen too much when it was evident the notch was in violation, and should have wholly focused on what face id would give us. I do not understand why they cannot move some gestures only on X to other devices though.
I see what you're saying, and agree, but the description you give reminds me of this:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QNmG5af9rFs/R3ypiFV0XaI/AAAAAAAAAu...
Or, to be a bit less flippant about it:
So I also understand the ambivalence toward deviating from the featureless slab.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QNmG5af9rFs/R3ypiFV0XaI/AAAAAAAAAu...
Or, to be a bit less flippant about it:
* flip phones
* phones with slideout keyboards
* blackberries
* palm pilot stylus
So I also understand the ambivalence toward deviating from the featureless slab.
Or maybe the slab just had a big pretty screen and all of the potential of soft keys. Screen took up as much space as possible, ergo it was a slab.
What you're speaking about may not be a question of aesthetic, but rather a question of functionality (hidden keyboard - clean, no-accidental-presses keyboard) and size.
There were a lot of factors, but I think aesthetics was a major component. The iPhone was a lot more than one more addition to the smart phone wars. IMO it created a product class for a bunch of consumers who probably never would've bought a blackberry or palm pilot. For a lot of reasons, some related to timing and others related to design. But a big component was the marketing, and aesthetics was a big reason for the success of the marketing.
Sadly, I've got to disagree with your point of view, and you do seem to have a hugely engineer-y viewpoint on what is "aesthetic".
There's a functional aspect going together with the novelty factor in introducing a new, touchable screen that does not require physical buttons to be controlled - but it is just a matter of driving the wave of what is fashionable today (or well, tomorrow).
The lack of detail _can_ be aesthetic, but it does not mean that something with a huge amount of detail could not be as aesthetic.
Depending on when and where you're introducing your product:
There's a functional aspect going together with the novelty factor in introducing a new, touchable screen that does not require physical buttons to be controlled - but it is just a matter of driving the wave of what is fashionable today (or well, tomorrow).
The lack of detail _can_ be aesthetic, but it does not mean that something with a huge amount of detail could not be as aesthetic.
Depending on when and where you're introducing your product:
- single-button switch supporting voice control for your lights? Works for me.
- voice-controlled power drill? Not so much (unless it's actually a hired human handling the power drill with his own hands and listening to my commands).> but it does not mean that something with a huge amount of detail could not be as aesthetic
Yes, that's why my initial comment indicated I agree with jmull.
Yes, that's why my initial comment indicated I agree with jmull.
Isn't kind of weird that what is considered good aesthetic is removal of (visual) features? Why is that considered good looking?
If you take it to its extreme conclusion, the best environment to live in from an aesthetic perspective would be a big white box with each side being made up of a material that changes its hardness based on what you want to do (lie down to sleep and becomes soft, walk on it, becomes hard, sit on a corner and becomes slightly soft on the floor with very soft walls) and all your communication and entertainment is done via floating images that materialize at a comfortable distance from your face so you can talk with your peers, watch videos, holograms and whatever else. Getting outside would have a part of the wall disintegrate (we'd call that a door, for historical reasons), although "outside" would now just be an aesthetically pleasing sea of white featureless cubes.
If you take it to its extreme conclusion, the best environment to live in from an aesthetic perspective would be a big white box with each side being made up of a material that changes its hardness based on what you want to do (lie down to sleep and becomes soft, walk on it, becomes hard, sit on a corner and becomes slightly soft on the floor with very soft walls) and all your communication and entertainment is done via floating images that materialize at a comfortable distance from your face so you can talk with your peers, watch videos, holograms and whatever else. Getting outside would have a part of the wall disintegrate (we'd call that a door, for historical reasons), although "outside" would now just be an aesthetically pleasing sea of white featureless cubes.
The removal of visual features may make some things more aesthetically appealing, but it also allows the objects to be more easily fit into your particular preferences.
As an example, I have a digital photo frame. It has a large bezel that's silver/grey with black trim. It does not fit well on my desk. I have a minimalist style in my home. Removing that bezel would allow the object to sit on my desk and actually look like it belonged.
On the other hand, my girlfriend's home has a beach/Caribbean thing going on. Most of her photos and art are in wood frames (with an unfinished look). The bezel on this digital frame makes putting it inside a wooden frame of that sort difficult (it would need to be too large, or strategically positioned so you didn't realize it was just a façade).
Reducing the bezel, for her, would allow the frame to be placed inside of a wooden frame that fit her styling much better. The object would not stand out, it would blend into the environment.
My view: A minimalist aesthetic for objects is not desirable because the minimalist aesthetic is desirable. It is desirable because objects of this form are more easily placed inside any environment. An object with an opinionated appearance will stand out unless it fits the rest of your possessions. This may or may not be desirable. But it should be up to the owner of the object whether attention is drawn to it, not up to the creators of the object.
EDIT: Fixed a word or two. This was my 3rd write-up of this because they kept disappearing so I wrote it rather hastily.
As an example, I have a digital photo frame. It has a large bezel that's silver/grey with black trim. It does not fit well on my desk. I have a minimalist style in my home. Removing that bezel would allow the object to sit on my desk and actually look like it belonged.
On the other hand, my girlfriend's home has a beach/Caribbean thing going on. Most of her photos and art are in wood frames (with an unfinished look). The bezel on this digital frame makes putting it inside a wooden frame of that sort difficult (it would need to be too large, or strategically positioned so you didn't realize it was just a façade).
Reducing the bezel, for her, would allow the frame to be placed inside of a wooden frame that fit her styling much better. The object would not stand out, it would blend into the environment.
My view: A minimalist aesthetic for objects is not desirable because the minimalist aesthetic is desirable. It is desirable because objects of this form are more easily placed inside any environment. An object with an opinionated appearance will stand out unless it fits the rest of your possessions. This may or may not be desirable. But it should be up to the owner of the object whether attention is drawn to it, not up to the creators of the object.
EDIT: Fixed a word or two. This was my 3rd write-up of this because they kept disappearing so I wrote it rather hastily.
I would live in that (Ikea?) house in a heartbeat, though not your white-featureless-cube dystopian horror outside. My ideal house has almost nothing in it.
For some, aesthetic is certainly greeblies[0], but I think minimalism is widely accepted as one aesthetic ideal. Why? Why does anyone prefer anything? I'm not sure we exactly know yet, from an art/design/aesthetic perspective.
Edit: OTOH, I am pretty sure my dad's mother preferred a mass of junk and clutter and mess in her house, to make it feel alive.
[0]https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=greeblies
For some, aesthetic is certainly greeblies[0], but I think minimalism is widely accepted as one aesthetic ideal. Why? Why does anyone prefer anything? I'm not sure we exactly know yet, from an art/design/aesthetic perspective.
Edit: OTOH, I am pretty sure my dad's mother preferred a mass of junk and clutter and mess in her house, to make it feel alive.
[0]https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=greeblies
There are a lot of cliches in design about this. "Take things away until you cry." "Perfection is achieved when there is nothing left to take away."
The point is not minimalism for the sake of minimalism, and not always to be aesthetically pleasing (although with cell phones, it is). The point is to find where form meets function, to make something with no superfluous elements.
The point is not minimalism for the sake of minimalism, and not always to be aesthetically pleasing (although with cell phones, it is). The point is to find where form meets function, to make something with no superfluous elements.
Invisibility is minimalism is simplicity is easy is good.
Apple before Tim Cook makes me more concerned about an Apple without Tim Cook. They seem to have a magical ability to keep squeezing more and more profit out of everything while making (large) incremental improvements on every iteration of each product: phone, computer, watch, headphone. I attribute this more to Cook than to Jobs. It can be argued that a Jobs and Cook Apple would be ideal but their continued success is an impressive thing to be a part of.
the following things have occurred under Cooks tenure:
I agree with you that an Apple without Tim Cook would be in trouble indeed. However, I think that Cook's record indicates that he is truly leading the company in the same way Jobs did: a focus on truly personal, well-designed products.
I hope the "Cook is Ballmer" trope will quickly die.
- Apple Watch
- AirPods
- Apple Pencil
- Apple Music
- HomePod
- ARKit
I agree with you that an Apple without Tim Cook would be in trouble indeed. However, I think that Cook's record indicates that he is truly leading the company in the same way Jobs did: a focus on truly personal, well-designed products.
I hope the "Cook is Ballmer" trope will quickly die.
Cook is Bill Gates, not Ballmer. He's a genius level CEO who compromises on design and user experience while advancing the company in the right direction - well enough and fast enough that he crushes the competition.
The notch may have been a compromise, but in practice it just isn’t very noticeable. In portrait orientation moving the status bar items on either side gives the app more room. In landscape it’s a piece of screen real estate that can’t be used but is much smaller than where the home button would have been.
I really don't understand the big deal about the notch. Does it cause any problems for anyone?
It has not caused any issues for me. And faceId, if I can channel my inner SJ, is magical. It’s like I have no security on the device.
My only complaint about the X, is that I want it in the frame of an iPhone plus.
My only complaint about the X, is that I want it in the frame of an iPhone plus.
Agreed. With the sacrifice in width it is, and very much feels like, a smaller phone, despite the increase in diagonal screen size measurement. I also find that it is not as bright as my 2014 iPhone 6 Plus.
> it is, and very much feels like, a smaller phone
Whereas for me, coming from a 7, it looks like a huge phone even though it's near-identical in size.
Whereas for me, coming from a 7, it looks like a huge phone even though it's near-identical in size.
Wait for the iPad mini X.
Interesting. As a non customer, one thing made me cringe is the workarounds.. the notch felt like a gizmo costing the full screen a lot. Should have made a screen with a translucent slit with the sensors behind. Call me Tim.
How do you know they didnt? What are the chances that you know more about hardware design at scale than Apple?
1) if they had that, they'd have put it
2) at 1300$ they have margin to allow for expensive parts
3) the notch forces backpedaling in other places
4) this kind of backpedaling is contradictory to luxury flagship high tech device
5) still loss of screen space
6) would have put Apple as the master of hardware and material again
I don't say Apple scale makes things easy, I think it was too much of a compromise
2) at 1300$ they have margin to allow for expensive parts
3) the notch forces backpedaling in other places
4) this kind of backpedaling is contradictory to luxury flagship high tech device
5) still loss of screen space
6) would have put Apple as the master of hardware and material again
I don't say Apple scale makes things easy, I think it was too much of a compromise
> still loss of screen space
Loss of screen space from what? The imaginary phone that doesn't have the notch? The X has got much more screen space than the 7 in the same form factor. Literally the opposite of a loss!
Loss of screen space from what? The imaginary phone that doesn't have the notch? The X has got much more screen space than the 7 in the same form factor. Literally the opposite of a loss!
yes I was talking about an imaginary phone, the right one
It’s not about “expensive parts”. How well would it scale to the volume that Apple has? Why would you think that you would have more manufacturing expertise than Apple?
I think exactly the same way. I'm not sure if Jobs were still alive, we would've seen any revolutionary products that we otherwise haven't. But I'm SURE, he wouldn't not greenlighted a camera that sticked out of the phone, nor the infamous screen notch on the iPhone X. Without those two issues, I'd get an X in a heartbeat. But those are seriously annoying issues to me (and the reason I for now am sticking with an SE).
The Touch Bar is also a ergonomic and UX catastrophe. Touching it accidentally happens way too often and your hands also tend to be in the way for reading it. It is also way too small and requires adjusting ones pose to read it properly.
Then there is the iPhone case with extra battery that looks absolutely hideous: https://i.imgur.com/VZM2SED.jpg
And not to mention the utter design flaw that the Mighty Mouse cannot be used during charging: https://i.redd.it/e5p6uoibkkkx.jpg
Why not change the design altogether when adding a charging port? The original design was known to be an ergonomic nightmare for years anyway.
Then there is the way the Apple Pen is supposed to be charged (and easily broken by accident): http://i.imgur.com/NjKqE2r.jpg
Why didn't they simply add a small cable accessory, or even better, a small 90° hinge like on an antenna? This is just such an awkward design decision.
The speaker grilles on the MacBook Pro with Touch Bar are also mostly merely cosmetics. Form follows form. What's next? Ornaments? http://i.imgur.com/aEz8pWN.jpg
I also thought the lack of indicators for buttons in iOS 7 was a really bad decision. Luckily, they are reversing that.
Then there is the iPhone case with extra battery that looks absolutely hideous: https://i.imgur.com/VZM2SED.jpg
And not to mention the utter design flaw that the Mighty Mouse cannot be used during charging: https://i.redd.it/e5p6uoibkkkx.jpg
Why not change the design altogether when adding a charging port? The original design was known to be an ergonomic nightmare for years anyway.
Then there is the way the Apple Pen is supposed to be charged (and easily broken by accident): http://i.imgur.com/NjKqE2r.jpg
Why didn't they simply add a small cable accessory, or even better, a small 90° hinge like on an antenna? This is just such an awkward design decision.
The speaker grilles on the MacBook Pro with Touch Bar are also mostly merely cosmetics. Form follows form. What's next? Ornaments? http://i.imgur.com/aEz8pWN.jpg
I also thought the lack of indicators for buttons in iOS 7 was a really bad decision. Luckily, they are reversing that.
Well, for mouse ergonomics Steve wasn't your guy; he's the one who insisted on the "hockey puck" design[1] for the original iMac's mouse.
[1] http://cdn.cultofmac.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/hockeypu...
[1] http://cdn.cultofmac.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/hockeypu...
Charging port at the bottom of the mouse is not even a problem, not to mention "ergonomic nightmare". The same goes for a lot of "problems" in your list.
And of course there is always someone who knows what Jobs would or would not do.
Oh really? I suppose that’s why the keyboard and touchpad both have it on the rear so you can use the device while it’s charging?
It’s clearly a problem.
It’s clearly a problem.
The whole charging port on the bottom of the mouse isn't just for visual design. It's intentionally made to force you into using it exclusively wireless. If it were allowed to be a wired mouse far more people will have crappy experiences with the cable constantly snagging on things. Yes, technically you could plausibly run it wired until its charged enough but now there's the extra inconvenience of managing a cable. I know this all comes off as 1st world problems - and it certainly is - but Apple has always been about refining the experience. Besides, if the battery on my mouse does die, I just plug it in, go make some coffee, and come back to a mouse that'll last me for at least another week before another recharge. Fully charged, I've had it run for at least a month. The whole charge from the bottom is one of the biggest non-issues ever.
Sounds to me, like you are finding excuses to defend a bad design decision. If my mouse dies on me, then I expect to be able to plug it in and then continue to use it, with a minimal interruption of my workflow. Which, how you presented it, is not possible. I shouldn't be forced to bend my workflow around my devices, but my devices should bend to my workflow.
Yes, this is not always possible, but in this case it is just an unnecessary inconvenience. And if I decide, that I want to have the "crappy experience" of using my mouse while it's on a charging cable, then I should be able to make that decision.
This is not "refining experience", it is just bad design.
Yes, this is not always possible, but in this case it is just an unnecessary inconvenience. And if I decide, that I want to have the "crappy experience" of using my mouse while it's on a charging cable, then I should be able to make that decision.
This is not "refining experience", it is just bad design.
My only-slightly-tongue-in-cheek theory is that Apple thinks users should, with rare exception, be using trackpads instead.
I can't imagine ever using a mouse again. Such a miserable experience compared to a good trackpad.
I can't imagine ever using a mouse again. Such a miserable experience compared to a good trackpad.
My slightly tongue-in-cheek take is that Apple engineers and designers must have extremely tiny hands. One of my colleagues got one of the new 13' MBPs recently; I can't even get my hands to fit on the home row.
Huh. My personal experience is almost the opposite. I feel like I'm much faster with a mouse, and my hand cramps up when using the trackpad on my macbook for too long...
Interesting. One key for me is tap to click; I find that significantly reduces the (metaphorical) friction to using a trackpad.
>If it were allowed to be a wired mouse far more people will have crappy experiences with the cable constantly snagging on things.
Logitech and Razer's high-end wireless mice work in either wired or wireless mode. Their products are a pleasure to use in either configuration. Logitech have recently launched the PowerPlay system, which charges the mouse inductively through the mouse mat.
The Magic Mouse is absolutely awful IMO. The shape is an ergonomic disaster for palm and claw grippers, the sensor is poor and the multi-touch gestures are far less usable than a simple scroll wheel, let alone the dual scroll wheels on the Logitech MX Master. Like the old hockey puck mouse, it just isn't built to fit the human hand.
I've said this before, but I'll say it again - Apple are hugely successful, but they're playing a very risky long-term game. Their neglect of power users threatens to undermine the cultural cachet that their brand is built on. If you lose the influencers and the thought leaders, the rest of the market will eventually follow. The persistent neglect of the Mac Pro and the Mac Mini, the touch bar and the butterfly keys all send the message that Apple no longer cares about creative professionals.
Of the people I talk to, most continue to use Macs only under duress. They're dissatisfied with the hardware design choices, they're frustrated with the software quality and they feel that Apple is now a phone company with a legacy computer business. I was a Mac user from Jaguar to Mountain Lion, but I simply couldn't get the job done with Macs any more. I couldn't stomach paying a huge premium for a "pro workstation" that was anything but.
Logitech and Razer's high-end wireless mice work in either wired or wireless mode. Their products are a pleasure to use in either configuration. Logitech have recently launched the PowerPlay system, which charges the mouse inductively through the mouse mat.
The Magic Mouse is absolutely awful IMO. The shape is an ergonomic disaster for palm and claw grippers, the sensor is poor and the multi-touch gestures are far less usable than a simple scroll wheel, let alone the dual scroll wheels on the Logitech MX Master. Like the old hockey puck mouse, it just isn't built to fit the human hand.
I've said this before, but I'll say it again - Apple are hugely successful, but they're playing a very risky long-term game. Their neglect of power users threatens to undermine the cultural cachet that their brand is built on. If you lose the influencers and the thought leaders, the rest of the market will eventually follow. The persistent neglect of the Mac Pro and the Mac Mini, the touch bar and the butterfly keys all send the message that Apple no longer cares about creative professionals.
Of the people I talk to, most continue to use Macs only under duress. They're dissatisfied with the hardware design choices, they're frustrated with the software quality and they feel that Apple is now a phone company with a legacy computer business. I was a Mac user from Jaguar to Mountain Lion, but I simply couldn't get the job done with Macs any more. I couldn't stomach paying a huge premium for a "pro workstation" that was anything but.
I only like MBPs because of their battery life.
Apple’s dekstop offerings right now are just bad for me as a power user.
Apple’s dekstop offerings right now are just bad for me as a power user.
Yes, technically you could plausibly run it wired until
its charged enough but now there's the extra
inconvenience of managing a cable.
I can see defending it on aesthetic grounds, and maybe even from a condescending place of not wanting the user to feel what it's like to use it tethered (I like Apple but they do this "we know what you want better than you" dance a little too much). But the point I quoted is pretty silly.
> Then there is the way the Apple Pen is supposed to be charged
It's not quite that simple. The Apple Pencil is provided with a Lightning connector adapter, so that you can connect it to a Lightning cable and charge it in the same way you'd charge your phone. Conveniently, you can also quickly plug it in to an iPad for a quick boost, but I've never needed to do that.
It's not quite that simple. The Apple Pencil is provided with a Lightning connector adapter, so that you can connect it to a Lightning cable and charge it in the same way you'd charge your phone. Conveniently, you can also quickly plug it in to an iPad for a quick boost, but I've never needed to do that.
Steve Jobs also wanted the circuit boards of the Apple II to "look beautiful", but of course things don't work that way
I'd rather have a better camera with a small bump (though it could be improved) or a notch but bigger screen.
Note doing away with both of these items requires some compromise.
They could have had no notch but a smaller screen (like in any other phone), or have that section only be 'system usable'.
It's a choice and a compromise. It can look weird to some people but that's what compromises are.
I'd rather have a better camera with a small bump (though it could be improved) or a notch but bigger screen.
Note doing away with both of these items requires some compromise.
They could have had no notch but a smaller screen (like in any other phone), or have that section only be 'system usable'.
It's a choice and a compromise. It can look weird to some people but that's what compromises are.
The camera sticking out is not a problem when you use a case.
Which most probably want to? Have to protect the expensive device somehow.
Which most probably want to? Have to protect the expensive device somehow.
I have used all my iPhones (3G, 3GS, 4S, currently 6S) without a case. Cases are pretty much always uglier than the phone itself. They add extra cost to an already expensive phone. They make the phone thicker, bulkier. They wear out and become very ugly/dirty after a few months. Ofcourse you can replace it, but that's more costs.
The 6S is unstable laying on its back, thanks to the camera. The unstableness removes a bit of the 'magic'. It feels bad using a wobbly product. You shouln't have to use a case. That's just bad design.
The 6S is unstable laying on its back, thanks to the camera. The unstableness removes a bit of the 'magic'. It feels bad using a wobbly product. You shouln't have to use a case. That's just bad design.
> That's just bad design.
It's _terrible_ design IMO. Of course all of Apple's promotional photography show the beautiful hardware, sans case. But in reality, the phones have glass backs, and are not designed to withstand any sort of physical abuse. So there's dissonance between what Apple is creating vs. how it is actually used.
It's _terrible_ design IMO. Of course all of Apple's promotional photography show the beautiful hardware, sans case. But in reality, the phones have glass backs, and are not designed to withstand any sort of physical abuse. So there's dissonance between what Apple is creating vs. how it is actually used.
I used my iPhone 5 without a case and I have to agree, the 5 was beautiful. The 6S I now have is too slippery to use without a case, though (even ignoring the 'unstable on its back' argument).
I would definitely buy a thicker phone though, especially if it gave me better battery life.
I would definitely buy a thicker phone though, especially if it gave me better battery life.
One of the major complaints about Apple is form over function. If they wanted a better camera, they needed a thicker lens. Either they would have had to increase the width of the entire phone,make it slanted, or have the bump.
Full ACK. Even without a case it never is or was a problem. It's just a little weird.
However, the notch is indeed problematic when the iPhone X is used in landscape mode (tested on simulator).
The iPhone isn't designed to be used with a case. In fact, I'm pretty sure Jony Ive stops talking to anybody he sees using a case. His last words to you will be "If I thought you should put in a case, I would've made the back from cheap industrial plastic".
Then he shouldn't have made the iPhone 7 so damn slippery. I hate the case, but I hate the fact that I have to replace the fucking screen for 150 Euros due to it slipping from my dry fingers even more.
Now I have an ugly case and a spider-web criss-crossing the screen at the same time. This absolute need for a case with the 7 is a real major design flaw.
Now I have an ugly case and a spider-web criss-crossing the screen at the same time. This absolute need for a case with the 7 is a real major design flaw.
remove the case.
Now you have a badass rock styled iphone.
Win win (that's my actual config :) )
Now you have a badass rock styled iphone.
Win win (that's my actual config :) )
Source?
Also note that some of the first iPhones had plastic backs.
I for one miss plastic, it is a hell of a lot more durable and doesn't have any of the issues with interference. There are lots of ways of making plastic feel premium as well.
Also note that some of the first iPhones had plastic backs.
I for one miss plastic, it is a hell of a lot more durable and doesn't have any of the issues with interference. There are lots of ways of making plastic feel premium as well.
Ever since having an iPhone 5S (now having 7) I've never had problems of it being slippery. I suppose it's how one holds a phone? I don't know, but I've never used a case either. Why would I pay a premium price for a premium looking phone when I'm going to hide it? I take care of my stuff, just as one would take care of a Lamborghini, but when the worst happens - like dropping the phone or wrecking your lambo - there's insurance. Every expensive device these days come with insurance, which any sane person will subscribe to.
Your imagined Jony Ive sounds like a real peach.
For what it's worth, Apple released some devices (iPod touch I think) with the camera-wart when Jobs was still around.
But I agree, lately I don't like what they do. My favorite is still the iPhone 5.
But I agree, lately I don't like what they do. My favorite is still the iPhone 5.
Both of the things you listed could just as easily be interpreted as distinctive visual design elements. Ultimately, in every sense, function, capability, and limitations guide visual design.
Look at the Made for iPhone badge [1]; the bezels of the older devices are prominently displayed; they + the home button are what enable someone to look at that picture and immediately know its an iPhone. How would that badge look if all they showed was a generic rectangle [2]?
Today, both the bezels and the home button are gone. Yet, take one look at this [3] and tell me it isn't just as distinctive.
Apple made the decision to rotate the camera apparatus on the back of the device by 90 degrees [4] relative to the original device. Is there a functional reason for this? Probably not. Its a visual choice; it differentiates the upper-end device as an almost status symbol. Think on that for a second; you want them to hide the cameras by making them flush, but they picked a completely opposite approach. They accentuated the cameras by making them a status symbol. Flush, hidden cameras could never do this.
Want to bet that the iPhone X won't be their best selling iPhone they've ever made? I doubt it. You know it will be.
Let's talk Pixel. Specifically, the glass part of the back [5]. Its there for a functional reason; improving radio connectivity by avoiding metal. But it could be much less distinctive and accomplish the same purpose. Apple did something similar by running less visible plastic trim around the device with the 6/6S/7/8. Pixel's way is a unique, differentiating design element.
You can try to make a perfectly functional device. No design elements, flush cameras, a beige rectangle. Perfectly functional. Now, you've lost something qualitative; distinction.
[1] https://support.apple.com/library/content/dam/edam/applecare...
[2] https://www.androidcentral.com/sites/androidcentral.com/file...
[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/technology/2017/07/31...
[4] http://assets.hardwarezone.com/img/2017/09/DSC_1461.jpg
[5] https://www.theandroidsoul.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/go...
Look at the Made for iPhone badge [1]; the bezels of the older devices are prominently displayed; they + the home button are what enable someone to look at that picture and immediately know its an iPhone. How would that badge look if all they showed was a generic rectangle [2]?
Today, both the bezels and the home button are gone. Yet, take one look at this [3] and tell me it isn't just as distinctive.
Apple made the decision to rotate the camera apparatus on the back of the device by 90 degrees [4] relative to the original device. Is there a functional reason for this? Probably not. Its a visual choice; it differentiates the upper-end device as an almost status symbol. Think on that for a second; you want them to hide the cameras by making them flush, but they picked a completely opposite approach. They accentuated the cameras by making them a status symbol. Flush, hidden cameras could never do this.
Want to bet that the iPhone X won't be their best selling iPhone they've ever made? I doubt it. You know it will be.
Let's talk Pixel. Specifically, the glass part of the back [5]. Its there for a functional reason; improving radio connectivity by avoiding metal. But it could be much less distinctive and accomplish the same purpose. Apple did something similar by running less visible plastic trim around the device with the 6/6S/7/8. Pixel's way is a unique, differentiating design element.
You can try to make a perfectly functional device. No design elements, flush cameras, a beige rectangle. Perfectly functional. Now, you've lost something qualitative; distinction.
[1] https://support.apple.com/library/content/dam/edam/applecare...
[2] https://www.androidcentral.com/sites/androidcentral.com/file...
[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/technology/2017/07/31...
[4] http://assets.hardwarezone.com/img/2017/09/DSC_1461.jpg
[5] https://www.theandroidsoul.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/go...
I don’t understand the premise that “Google (or anybody) is better at AI”.
How can anyone make such an assertion? Because Google or Amazon’s AI efforts are more visible? Has someone totaled up all the AI innovation (secret and not) at these companies and scored them? Are we talking PhD head count? What is the measure?
This reminds me of when I was fighting in Baghdad in ‘04 and everyone back home was arguing about a war happening on Mars or somewhere. They sure as hell weren’t arguing about Iraq because nothing they were talking about seemed to have anything to do with the facts on the ground. Facts that were nearly impossible for them to obtain.
This is a narrative not an analysis.
How can anyone make such an assertion? Because Google or Amazon’s AI efforts are more visible? Has someone totaled up all the AI innovation (secret and not) at these companies and scored them? Are we talking PhD head count? What is the measure?
This reminds me of when I was fighting in Baghdad in ‘04 and everyone back home was arguing about a war happening on Mars or somewhere. They sure as hell weren’t arguing about Iraq because nothing they were talking about seemed to have anything to do with the facts on the ground. Facts that were nearly impossible for them to obtain.
This is a narrative not an analysis.
[deleted]
There's a quote from doom-sayers that I absolutely love:
> Consider Google’s Pixel 2 phone: Driven by AI-based technology, it offers unprecedented photo-enhancement features and deeper hardware-software integration, such as real-time language translation when used with Google’s special headphones…The shifting vector of differentiation to AI and agents does not bode well for Apple…
Basically, Pixel's camera is praised for the same capabilities for which it is dismissed on the iPhone. This will never cease to amaze me
> Consider Google’s Pixel 2 phone: Driven by AI-based technology, it offers unprecedented photo-enhancement features and deeper hardware-software integration, such as real-time language translation when used with Google’s special headphones…The shifting vector of differentiation to AI and agents does not bode well for Apple…
Basically, Pixel's camera is praised for the same capabilities for which it is dismissed on the iPhone. This will never cease to amaze me
It's no wonder important players are rushing to market premium segment prestigious smartphones: Notably, Google’s Pixel 2, Samsung S8/Note8, Xiaomi. In 3Q 2017, iphone got 12.5% flat market share with negligible YoY growth and runs to $900B valuations thanks to increased ASP price.
I'm curious why Dell/HP and some others aren't chasing the $1000+ smartphone segment.
I'm curious why Dell/HP and some others aren't chasing the $1000+ smartphone segment.
Because they're not inclined to produce a super expensive phone with Android on it. Apple's business model works because the software makes up where the hardware lacks and give it that premium feel. Depending on how well FUTURE android pans out, consumers usually don't think Android phones should be that expensive.
>Apple's business model works because the software makes up where the hardware lacks
Could you clarify? I thought hardware was where Apple had the largest lead over it's competitors.
Could you clarify? I thought hardware was where Apple had the largest lead over it's competitors.
Apple devices have almost always been laughably overpriced for the hardware specs. Android phones are normally more powerful with longer lasting batteries and better cameras. Windows computers are cheaper with more performance and are highly customizable. What Apple has is a great UI and near-seamless interoperability between all their devices. The hardware isn't (historically) incredible, it's the experience and environment that are great.
I would agree with that for their computers to a degree, but I was under the impression that their mobile processors are known for how far ahead of the competition they are.
Hardware is more than just processor though. They have had less storage, less memory, and worse cameras for many generations. I'd have to do some research into mobile processors specifically, but this is just broad statements. I'm not saying anything about the state of Apple today, but over the past 15+ years. In general, Apple hardware has been worse than their competitors despite costing more.
Technically speaking, how is Face ID different from previous facial detection security systems?
Technically, compared to say Android Face Unlock: Infrared instead of visible light, uses depth information, detects user attention, has specialized hardware to speed the vision processing.
So to an end user, it works in the dark, can’t be fooled by a photograph or a wax model, can see through veils and most sunglasses, and works really quickly. You also don’t have to see the selfie UI every time you unlock your phone.
The fact that iOS devices also have a Secure Enclave to store biometric information in a tamper-resistant area is nice too.
So to an end user, it works in the dark, can’t be fooled by a photograph or a wax model, can see through veils and most sunglasses, and works really quickly. You also don’t have to see the selfie UI every time you unlock your phone.
The fact that iOS devices also have a Secure Enclave to store biometric information in a tamper-resistant area is nice too.
It uses depth to map your face in 3d instead of using basic face detection or iris scan. So it's more flexible than iris scan (you don't have to align to the phone cameras) and can't be fooled by a picture like face detection.
What previous facial detection security systems?
Most face recognition systems i've seen are from movies.
Most face recognition systems i've seen are from movies.
The fact that with this title and date, neither the article nor the comments mention the Paradise Papers surprises me.
> [Apple] has not embraced the open-source and collaborative approach that Google and Amazon are pioneering in AI
Oh yes? So where can I download the open-source Alpha Go Zero?
Oh yes? So where can I download the open-source Alpha Go Zero?
Most of the source components are publicly available:
https://github.com/deepmind/
Based on the Alpha Go Zero paper and these open source repositories, people are quickly approximating AGZ (without Google's proprietary weights):
https://github.com/gcp/leela-zero
https://github.com/deepmind/
Based on the Alpha Go Zero paper and these open source repositories, people are quickly approximating AGZ (without Google's proprietary weights):
https://github.com/gcp/leela-zero
Also, does anyone know where to download swift's source?
I am no expert in technology analysis but I always thought Apple's strength lay in superior hardware and/or software created around them.
In which case, the whole FaceId thing feels a bit of downer. The explanation - "you see how the notification is closed when the screen is off and opens up when you look at it", is at best a nifty trick for people who are more technically oriented. Others might not be able to tell the difference at all.
And on the point of:
" The most attractive customers to Google’s advertisers are on the iPhone — just look at how much Google is willing to pay to acquire them — and while Google could in theory convince them to switch by keeping its superior services exclusive, in reality such an approach is untenable."
Isn't this more to do with demographics of an average iPhone user rather than iPhone as a platform? One might argue that both are related but using this as a reason seems kind of superfluous.
In which case, the whole FaceId thing feels a bit of downer. The explanation - "you see how the notification is closed when the screen is off and opens up when you look at it", is at best a nifty trick for people who are more technically oriented. Others might not be able to tell the difference at all.
And on the point of:
" The most attractive customers to Google’s advertisers are on the iPhone — just look at how much Google is willing to pay to acquire them — and while Google could in theory convince them to switch by keeping its superior services exclusive, in reality such an approach is untenable."
Isn't this more to do with demographics of an average iPhone user rather than iPhone as a platform? One might argue that both are related but using this as a reason seems kind of superfluous.
> Isn't this more to do with demographics of an average iPhone user rather than iPhone as a platform? One might argue that both are related but using this as a reason seems kind of superfluous.
Of course they are related. Why does the iPhone have this specific demographic, if not for the platform?
Of course they are related. Why does the iPhone have this specific demographic, if not for the platform?
I don't think it is related to platform but segmentation. The segment being premium phone users. If there was a way to segment Android Flagship users the results will be similar. Apple and iPhone users makes this segmentation much easier.
iPhone users have been conditioned to pay for stuff, even if it is just $1. They've had a working App Store from day one.
Google screwed the pooch by not having paid apps on huge parts of the world for years. People got so used to side-loading their apps that getting them to pay is an ordeal.
Google screwed the pooch by not having paid apps on huge parts of the world for years. People got so used to side-loading their apps that getting them to pay is an ordeal.
The first iPhone didn't have an app store from day one. For a bit, Cydia was the only option for third-party apps.
[deleted]
Apple is notorious for releasing not completely finished "revolutionary" products. They rush for the first release but get the marketing right, then they incrementally polish the product in the following years until it's really good.
I'll probably wait two iteration of the X. And in the meantime if my phone breaks, i'll take the opportunity to experiment with other brands and OS.
PS : anyone knows if ubuntu or sailfish or any other mobile OS is any good ?
I'll probably wait two iteration of the X. And in the meantime if my phone breaks, i'll take the opportunity to experiment with other brands and OS.
PS : anyone knows if ubuntu or sailfish or any other mobile OS is any good ?
No. They are not.
I almost want one, but the product was accelerated, which means rushed, and that has never been a good thing. I’ll let everyone else be a guinea pig.
I agree that AI is the future for interfaces so I think this screen size obsession is a distraction from innovation.
How many hours has Apple spent to make yet another fragile phone with a battery life that is too short? Now add in the rest of the industry because they just making a slightly worse version of the same thing.
I just got back from Shenzhen where no one is complaining about this. I am certain I laid eyes on over a million (each) battery packs, replacement screens, screen protectors, protective cases, and bluetooth earphones.
So it leaves me with a simple desire for a refreshed iPhone SE with wireless charging and a much better Siri.
One last thing, I picked up a new flip phone for my Dad while I was there. He can’t find a decent one at the store anymore, but there are still many new models of candy bar style and flip phones being made and sold so there must still be a lot of people buying them...
I just got back from Shenzhen where no one is complaining about this. I am certain I laid eyes on over a million (each) battery packs, replacement screens, screen protectors, protective cases, and bluetooth earphones.
So it leaves me with a simple desire for a refreshed iPhone SE with wireless charging and a much better Siri.
One last thing, I picked up a new flip phone for my Dad while I was there. He can’t find a decent one at the store anymore, but there are still many new models of candy bar style and flip phones being made and sold so there must still be a lot of people buying them...
> but the product was accelerated, which means rushed
Got credible sources for that?
> yet another fragile phone with a battery life that is too short?
My X has been off charge for 6 hours, with reasonable amounts of use, and I'm only down at 50% battery - that's with nothing turned off and at least 3 background GPS tracking things running, btw.
Got credible sources for that?
> yet another fragile phone with a battery life that is too short?
My X has been off charge for 6 hours, with reasonable amounts of use, and I'm only down at 50% battery - that's with nothing turned off and at least 3 background GPS tracking things running, btw.
Many people seem to believe this meme of AI changing everything. I have trouble being excited. It seems like Google Translate has improved a bit over the past few years, but it can't be relied on more than before. Personal assistant fail to understand very simple queries (they're way beyond Wolfram Alpha, which is itself cool but far from awe-inspiring).
It seems that with neural networks and what not, you can get really impressive results from the get-go. But once the low-hanging fruits have been reaped, it's hard to make quantum leaps.
There is also a lot of conflation. Sure Google Maps and Waze really do change things. But that's not AI in the sense that is meant today.