Tim Cook: Technology Should Serve Humanity, Not the Other Way Around(technologyreview.com)
technologyreview.com
Tim Cook: Technology Should Serve Humanity, Not the Other Way Around
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608051/tim-cook-technology-should-serve-humanity-not-the-other-way-around/
86 comments
humanity serves technology... like being glued to a screen all day
This is a pretty ironic statement, given their entire product design is built to serve apple, and the users are often secondary to that or ignored entirely; such as making UI more difficult on purpose so you're more inclined to use siri, or buying music instead of bringing your own.
I dont see AI at apple being any different. Its for them FIRST, us second, if at all. "humanity" may as well mean corporations since they are comprised of humans, but the general public will bare the costs in the end.
I dont see AI at apple being any different. Its for them FIRST, us second, if at all. "humanity" may as well mean corporations since they are comprised of humans, but the general public will bare the costs in the end.
The context of the statement was technology causing humans to become less relevant via automation. Hes not talking about users of Apple products.
To your statement though, Apple wants to make things less configurable with a large enough sandbox where the users don't complain about their restricted freedoms (applies more to their devices line). The earlier Apple wanted to give the best tools to their users, and let them use them as they saw fit.
I equate this with the shift in games, where earlier games simply gave you a good control system and let you figure things out, where as now, its more about ensuring that the player has a good experience by gently nudging them towards a goal.
To your statement though, Apple wants to make things less configurable with a large enough sandbox where the users don't complain about their restricted freedoms (applies more to their devices line). The earlier Apple wanted to give the best tools to their users, and let them use them as they saw fit.
I equate this with the shift in games, where earlier games simply gave you a good control system and let you figure things out, where as now, its more about ensuring that the player has a good experience by gently nudging them towards a goal.
> I equate this with the shift in games, where earlier games simply gave you a good control system and let you figure things out, where as now, its more about ensuring that the player has a good experience by gently nudging them towards a goal.
A bit off topic, but I always see this mentioned when it comes to modern gaming, but fail to see the evidence.
Older games came with instruction manuals (Nintendo had the most exquisite ones and they always came in color). When I was a kid, I would voraciously read it on the way home, heightening my anticipation for the ride home. Although I do wish more opening tutorials were optional and not tied into a game's story
Modern games are more mechanically complex, period. Compare the control system in Nier: Automata to any pre 3D Legend of Zelda game (or any other game really). Letting you figure things out would is an exercise in frustration. One example of this is the Dark Souls series which is more hands off. Every new game in the series, I have to go online to look up the controls, power attacks, etc. for every new game in the series and spend 4439 deaths getting the parry timing down. It's frustrating and breaks immersion. Having a npc sparring partner to hone your parrying instead of the enemy who kills you with two hits would have me from breaking a couple of controllers in frustration.Also, often times you can turn off the hand-holding by turning off UI/HUD elements in the options (this is the way to play Assassin's creed)
What I think has happened is that yersteryear's easy difficulty is the default normal, normal the default hard, etc. I feel that a lot of reviewers don't do games justice when they base it on easy or normal mode. In good games, the higher difficulties often require a higher level of tactics and more diverse gameplay. If you haven't played Halo on Legendary mode, you haven't really played Halo because you miss out on the brilliance of the set pieces and the increased tactical complexity required to survive. If you play the Last of Us on normal, the preponderance of ammo breaks the immersion and mood of the game. Same goes for Horizon: Zero Dawn...if you're not playing on the hardest level, you don't ever need to employ advanced tactics to take down/hunt the machines...no need to lay traps, plan out your attacks, etc. It especially becomes a very different game.
The Uncharted series, the Last of Us, the Bayonetta series, Horizon: Zero Dawn, etc. all have controls that, IMO, are superior to (or at least equal) older games
A bit off topic, but I always see this mentioned when it comes to modern gaming, but fail to see the evidence.
Older games came with instruction manuals (Nintendo had the most exquisite ones and they always came in color). When I was a kid, I would voraciously read it on the way home, heightening my anticipation for the ride home. Although I do wish more opening tutorials were optional and not tied into a game's story
Modern games are more mechanically complex, period. Compare the control system in Nier: Automata to any pre 3D Legend of Zelda game (or any other game really). Letting you figure things out would is an exercise in frustration. One example of this is the Dark Souls series which is more hands off. Every new game in the series, I have to go online to look up the controls, power attacks, etc. for every new game in the series and spend 4439 deaths getting the parry timing down. It's frustrating and breaks immersion. Having a npc sparring partner to hone your parrying instead of the enemy who kills you with two hits would have me from breaking a couple of controllers in frustration.Also, often times you can turn off the hand-holding by turning off UI/HUD elements in the options (this is the way to play Assassin's creed)
What I think has happened is that yersteryear's easy difficulty is the default normal, normal the default hard, etc. I feel that a lot of reviewers don't do games justice when they base it on easy or normal mode. In good games, the higher difficulties often require a higher level of tactics and more diverse gameplay. If you haven't played Halo on Legendary mode, you haven't really played Halo because you miss out on the brilliance of the set pieces and the increased tactical complexity required to survive. If you play the Last of Us on normal, the preponderance of ammo breaks the immersion and mood of the game. Same goes for Horizon: Zero Dawn...if you're not playing on the hardest level, you don't ever need to employ advanced tactics to take down/hunt the machines...no need to lay traps, plan out your attacks, etc. It especially becomes a very different game.
The Uncharted series, the Last of Us, the Bayonetta series, Horizon: Zero Dawn, etc. all have controls that, IMO, are superior to (or at least equal) older games
I agree that the controls in modern games are much more complex, and so are the games. My argument was more about things like "go into town and talk to X" or "find this thing to unlock the door" type of game elements.
Do you have any examples of them making bad UI to get people to use siri?
That's easy. The most common thing to do with my iPHone is hit the button.
They overloaded the button to load Siri if its held for even a fraction of a second too long. 99 times out of 100 I don't want to use siri but she continually pops up.
Trying to click to get back to the home screen.... here's Siri.
Trying to double click the button, to kill an app..... here comes Siri
So to answer the question....
1) They made Siri enabled by default, something that I can't see myself ever wanting.
2) They made Siri come up using the button, again something that almost always means when siri comes up its by accident and not indented.
Apple isn't immune from "dark patterns" in their UI. The Siri example above being the most egregious example I can think of.
They overloaded the button to load Siri if its held for even a fraction of a second too long. 99 times out of 100 I don't want to use siri but she continually pops up.
Trying to click to get back to the home screen.... here's Siri.
Trying to double click the button, to kill an app..... here comes Siri
So to answer the question....
1) They made Siri enabled by default, something that I can't see myself ever wanting.
2) They made Siri come up using the button, again something that almost always means when siri comes up its by accident and not indented.
Apple isn't immune from "dark patterns" in their UI. The Siri example above being the most egregious example I can think of.
When I setup my iPhone, it asked me if I wanted Siri up front, instead of sneaking the functionality in.
Later, I was able to go to Settings and switch it on or off.
I don't see how your above example is at all egregious -- people retain full control.
Compare this to Windows 10 (at launch) turning on a whole host of privacy-compromising features and not giving clear control to the user (but I was glad to see at a more recent setup I did that I now can toggle it off even at first install, and that I can look it up later)
To steelman your argument, I would propose instead talking about lack of browser rendering engine control or lack of ability to install arbitrary executables. That's actually something people have no/little control over. But even then, there is a reasonable debate to be had.
Later, I was able to go to Settings and switch it on or off.
I don't see how your above example is at all egregious -- people retain full control.
Compare this to Windows 10 (at launch) turning on a whole host of privacy-compromising features and not giving clear control to the user (but I was glad to see at a more recent setup I did that I now can toggle it off even at first install, and that I can look it up later)
To steelman your argument, I would propose instead talking about lack of browser rendering engine control or lack of ability to install arbitrary executables. That's actually something people have no/little control over. But even then, there is a reasonable debate to be had.
I've been using iPhone's with Siri since it debuted and this has never once happened to me. Is this really something you experience regularly?
I'm sure being able to access Siri from a prominent button was boon to users that have little or no eye sight. Also, recall this was added to iPhones before any other major phone had similar built-in functionality.
I have the google assistant on my galaxy s3, stock.
Siri was added to the iPhone in 2011, the Galaxy S3 came out in 2012.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siri
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S_III
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siri
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S_III
I stand corrected.
Thanks.
Uhh, I have never enabled Siri on my iPhone 7 and everything just works. It's easy to install, but asking a question does not make it the default.
Turn it off then? It's in the settings. Can't say I particularly like Siri either but not using it works so far.
So what's a real example of Apple making the UI worse to further their agenda (i.e. selling more stuff)?
So what's a real example of Apple making the UI worse to further their agenda (i.e. selling more stuff)?
Allowing the user to choose their default assistant (Google, Cortana, Siri, ) would be a good start.
EDIT: I didn't read the question carefully enough. I don't believe Apple has dumbed down the UI to push people to Siri.
That being said, giving users a choice over the assistant, browser, etc. would be a good thing.
EDIT: I didn't read the question carefully enough. I don't believe Apple has dumbed down the UI to push people to Siri.
That being said, giving users a choice over the assistant, browser, etc. would be a good thing.
[deleted]
This smells more like you're frustrated with "business as usual" these days and less Apple specifically.
Every org I have been with has had to maintain a level of "can't resolve 100% of the numerous customer complaints, because gotta ship."
Can't Tim be pointing to a path forward? Why so negative. If they can't fix it all today, they're not good at their work, and completely incompetent?
Every org I have been with has had to maintain a level of "can't resolve 100% of the numerous customer complaints, because gotta ship."
Can't Tim be pointing to a path forward? Why so negative. If they can't fix it all today, they're not good at their work, and completely incompetent?
I'm sympathetic to that idea and feel like it could potentially hold a lot of weight, yet Tim did turn the tech juggernaut he was bequeathed into a watch band and sticker company.
> yet Tim did turn the tech juggernaut he was bequeathed into a watch band and sticker company.
That's such an incredibly simplistic view of Apple's strategy. I expected more out of the HN crowd.
I honestly think the moderation team should crack down more on these types of casual and innocuous statements that provide no value that they might as well be memes.
It's so incredibly easy to trivialize anything, especially when you don't understand it - and you see this happening more as a forum or subreddit grows bigger and the audience gets broader and less informed.
It's frustrating to say the least because instead of an actually interesting conversation, we're left with this drivel which isn't even fun to respond to or even entertain as a thought.
That's such an incredibly simplistic view of Apple's strategy. I expected more out of the HN crowd.
I honestly think the moderation team should crack down more on these types of casual and innocuous statements that provide no value that they might as well be memes.
It's so incredibly easy to trivialize anything, especially when you don't understand it - and you see this happening more as a forum or subreddit grows bigger and the audience gets broader and less informed.
It's frustrating to say the least because instead of an actually interesting conversation, we're left with this drivel which isn't even fun to respond to or even entertain as a thought.
> I expected more out of the HN crowd.
Don't underestimate the variance in small samples (especially when the sample size is 1).
The best thing you can do it is to not respond, or create a well argued thread about it, at least then it's on neutral ground.
Don't underestimate the variance in small samples (especially when the sample size is 1).
The best thing you can do it is to not respond, or create a well argued thread about it, at least then it's on neutral ground.
It's ironic, and hilarious frankly, that your reply about vapidity was much more vapid than what you were complaining about.
Why don't you offer something of substance rather than complaining about substance.You are part of the 'HN crowd' you speak of and what you contribute literally forms part of this living, breathing community.
Why don't you offer something of substance rather than complaining about substance.You are part of the 'HN crowd' you speak of and what you contribute literally forms part of this living, breathing community.
I specifically wanted to call out this particular statement because it can be so innocuous and it served as a great example of the problem I've been seeing more and more in comments.
I specifically wanted to float the idea about moderation intervention as a possible solution to the problem I pointed out. It's perhaps not the best solution, but it's a starting point.
How many more "Facebook is stupid and evil, Apple no innovation lol watch bands" statements should we suffer through as a community?
I specifically wanted to float the idea about moderation intervention as a possible solution to the problem I pointed out. It's perhaps not the best solution, but it's a starting point.
How many more "Facebook is stupid and evil, Apple no innovation lol watch bands" statements should we suffer through as a community?
Fair enough. Yet I think you must ask yourself: Why does something become a successful meme?
I would argue that memes are, in effect, a form of data compression that condenses a (A) wide scope of information, that (B) many people feel is true into (C) a very small nugget of memorable text.
So, I could've spent a few paragraphs arguing the lack of meaningful product development, highlight the overlapping and often confusing product catalog (iPad, iPad Pro, iPad Pro 13", iPad Air, MacBook, MacBook Air, etc etc). Spent a few more sentences talking about Beats acquisition, Apple Music, etc....but in the end it saves everyone time to just say "Watch Bands + Stickers" and the meme imbues the rest.
I think you'd agree that its not the use of a meme that bothers you, but its the use of a meme that you don't agree with, yet still holds an uncomfortable truth in it.
For instance, if the meme was about how Elon Musk was upsetting the entrenched oil oligarchs, I doubt you'd want that censored.
I would argue that memes are, in effect, a form of data compression that condenses a (A) wide scope of information, that (B) many people feel is true into (C) a very small nugget of memorable text.
So, I could've spent a few paragraphs arguing the lack of meaningful product development, highlight the overlapping and often confusing product catalog (iPad, iPad Pro, iPad Pro 13", iPad Air, MacBook, MacBook Air, etc etc). Spent a few more sentences talking about Beats acquisition, Apple Music, etc....but in the end it saves everyone time to just say "Watch Bands + Stickers" and the meme imbues the rest.
I think you'd agree that its not the use of a meme that bothers you, but its the use of a meme that you don't agree with, yet still holds an uncomfortable truth in it.
For instance, if the meme was about how Elon Musk was upsetting the entrenched oil oligarchs, I doubt you'd want that censored.
I would love to hear your thoughts on their lack of meaningful product development, confusing product catalog, Beats Acquisition, etc.
Look I'm a huge Apple fanboy - no doubt, but at the same time I think the company is intrinsically interesting to try and understand from all different angles. They don't do a lot of things right and that's worth discussing. On the flip side they also do a lot of things very right, and that's also worth discussing. In fact, it's this very dichotomy that makes Apple...Apple, and Google...Google. Their incredible strengths are borne out of their very weaknesses, and these balances creates very different products.
But take Apple out of the equation. Let's just talk memes.
A lot of the things you mentioned are incredibly nuanced and make for fantastic discussions about branding, marketing, technology, privacy, platforms, org structures, etc. Memes effectively strip conversations of their nuance and conversation cannot be efficiently driven forward to a new level of understanding. That's my whole issue with this. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with your statement or not, and it has everything to do with what new ideas we can come up with together if we have a real, nuanced conversation. That applies to Elon Musk as well.
So bring on the paragraphs, it's not too late!
Look I'm a huge Apple fanboy - no doubt, but at the same time I think the company is intrinsically interesting to try and understand from all different angles. They don't do a lot of things right and that's worth discussing. On the flip side they also do a lot of things very right, and that's also worth discussing. In fact, it's this very dichotomy that makes Apple...Apple, and Google...Google. Their incredible strengths are borne out of their very weaknesses, and these balances creates very different products.
But take Apple out of the equation. Let's just talk memes.
A lot of the things you mentioned are incredibly nuanced and make for fantastic discussions about branding, marketing, technology, privacy, platforms, org structures, etc. Memes effectively strip conversations of their nuance and conversation cannot be efficiently driven forward to a new level of understanding. That's my whole issue with this. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with your statement or not, and it has everything to do with what new ideas we can come up with together if we have a real, nuanced conversation. That applies to Elon Musk as well.
So bring on the paragraphs, it's not too late!
As a general comment I personally wouldn't mind if 1) moderation is a bit stricter, combined with 2) less of the 'nudging' type of moderation. Too often I click on a user's comment history and I find pages upon pages of almost fully greyed-out comments, or mostly comments that are not greyed out but (from my point of view, admittedly) unambiguously low-quality.
I enjoy HN and am thankful for the time spent on moderating it though, so it's a minor concern at this point.
I enjoy HN and am thankful for the time spent on moderating it though, so it's a minor concern at this point.
They irony here being that attacking others isn't at all "something of substance".
Anger troll undermines anger troll
Anger troll undermines anger troll
> given their entire product design is built to serve apple, and the users are often secondary to that or ignored entirely; such as making UI more difficult on purpose so you're more inclined to use siri, or buying music instead of bringing your own.
That's simply not true, and it's a really offensive statement for pretty much anybody working at Apple. There's no company I can think of that cares more about the user experience than Apple, and here you are claiming that they're doing the exact opposite.
That's simply not true, and it's a really offensive statement for pretty much anybody working at Apple. There's no company I can think of that cares more about the user experience than Apple, and here you are claiming that they're doing the exact opposite.
This is my first thought as well. Apple has done wonderful things as far as accessibility for the handicapped, and usability in general. I can't think of a more incorrect statement than the one claiming otherwise.
Apple is extremely user-hostile, they make it hard to do anything they don't want you to do with YOUR device. It's simple things like using uncommon screws internally, or soldering in the ram, or requiring a certain set of bits at the front of your hard drive, or making it so the batteries cannot be removed.
All the things you mentioned present significant downsides but also provide very significant upsides. So if we want to talk about them, we need to talk about both.
* Torx screws: More stable and more resistant to stripping. With Amazon, you can get a set of screwdrivers delivered to you in 2 days and they probably cost a couple bucks. Most people never ever ever open their devices.
* Soldering RAM: A thinner, lighter, more portable device. On most of their consumer desktop machines, they still allow users to upgrade RAM.
* Non-removable batteries: Allows tight, custom battery layouts that take advantage of every inch of space to allow devices like the Macbook 12" to be possible. Basicaly allows for thinner, lighter, more portable devices while not sacrificing battery life as much. For the segment of the population that wants more battery life, you have external iPhone cases that come with batteries built (at expense of weight/bulk). With USB-C charging, you can now charge Macbooks with external battery packs. So in both cases, optionality is preserved for both segments of consumers.
* Torx screws: More stable and more resistant to stripping. With Amazon, you can get a set of screwdrivers delivered to you in 2 days and they probably cost a couple bucks. Most people never ever ever open their devices.
* Soldering RAM: A thinner, lighter, more portable device. On most of their consumer desktop machines, they still allow users to upgrade RAM.
* Non-removable batteries: Allows tight, custom battery layouts that take advantage of every inch of space to allow devices like the Macbook 12" to be possible. Basicaly allows for thinner, lighter, more portable devices while not sacrificing battery life as much. For the segment of the population that wants more battery life, you have external iPhone cases that come with batteries built (at expense of weight/bulk). With USB-C charging, you can now charge Macbooks with external battery packs. So in both cases, optionality is preserved for both segments of consumers.
Sorry, I meant soldering closed the unused ram slots, so that you can't upgrade in the future.
Wasn't just torx screws, but tri-wings as well. They're not using them for the non-stripping properties, since they're not even places where they're holding things together.
You didn't mention the bits at the front of the hard drive.
If it wasn't so many things then maybe I could get past it, but when it happens so frequently, it becomes evident what they're doing.
Wasn't just torx screws, but tri-wings as well. They're not using them for the non-stripping properties, since they're not even places where they're holding things together.
You didn't mention the bits at the front of the hard drive.
If it wasn't so many things then maybe I could get past it, but when it happens so frequently, it becomes evident what they're doing.
I don't know why gnaritas is being downvoted, but they're absolutely correct.
If you want to open up your device and swap out the RAM, well, you're not even remotely representative of Apple's userbase and you should not be surprised that Apple doesn't cater to your wishes.
If you want to open up your device and swap out the RAM, well, you're not even remotely representative of Apple's userbase and you should not be surprised that Apple doesn't cater to your wishes.
That's not user hostile, that's user friendly, those things enable them to delivery a standard experience (something you cannot get on a droid) on their appliance to users who by the way love the shit out of them for how well their phones work. You might not like Apple, but their users do precisely because of those things. Apple sees their phones as appliances, not as personal computers to be customized; that approach has earned them die hard loyal fans who love those appliances as is. We don't all want to hack our phones, I'll take an iPhone over a droid any day, it's a much better experience.
I think you're right, but that kind of thinking is what leads to less open devices and software, which in turn leads to technology serving whoever controls it first and foremost.
An open market requires choice, including the choice for closed appliances. As long as alternatives exist, there's nothing wrong with closed platforms, those who want choice have Droid. Open devices and software come at a cost, they don't deliver the same experience you can get on a closed appliance that due to tight control over hardware and software can deliver a consistence experience impossible to deliver otherwise, this has always been Apple's way and it's how they deliver the experience they do.
It's not impossible to deliver otherwise.
Apple could open source IOS and it wouldn't preclude them from doing exactly what they're going to do.
Non sequitur. They could not deliver "their" experience without locking down "their" hardware/software on "their" devices to keep it under control thus avoiding all the issues faced by the droid camp. Whether they could or should release iOS to run on other hardware has nothing to do with anything being discussed.
Bullshit. No one loves apple because of using torx screws and requiring certain bits at the front of their hard drives or soldering the empty ram slots shut so that you can't upgrade it later. It doesn't provide a "standard experience", or make their "phones" work any better.
I didn't say that, I said they love the standard experience, and that standard experience is enabled by making the phone an appliance that isn't meant to be hacked on or tampered with, i.e. those things. They are not personal computers to be "upgraded" or hacked to your hearts desire, they're toasters, use them as is, that's the intended experience and that's exactly what their customers by in large prefer. If they didn't do that, they'd be droid with all droids inconsistencies and weirdness from phone to phone having to deal with all kinds of different hardware.
If you want that kind of control over your phone, Apple isn't for you, use a droid.
If you want that kind of control over your phone, Apple isn't for you, use a droid.
>That's not user hostile, that's user friendly
It really isn't.
It really isn't.
Screws are the straw that will break the camels back?
Everyone knows torx are better anyway. They are less prone to stripping.
I used them on the house I built.
Any curious nerd will have torx bits already. Anyone else won't care enough to even want to open their Mac.
Everyone knows torx are better anyway. They are less prone to stripping.
I used them on the house I built.
Any curious nerd will have torx bits already. Anyone else won't care enough to even want to open their Mac.
It's not just torx screws, there are Y shaped "tri-wing" screws as well. They're not even used for things in which need to be screwed, ie: the chassis for the hard drive. It's just one of many many things that Apple does that are user hostile, and that's just in hardware.
But not pentalobe ones..
Part of the 24 hr marketing response team?
Seriously, I've never met a real person who didn't feel screwed by the planned obsolescence and painfully staggered hardware updates that lag behind the curve. Apple's beginning ideals != to the Apple of today.
Seriously, I've never met a real person who didn't feel screwed by the planned obsolescence and painfully staggered hardware updates that lag behind the curve. Apple's beginning ideals != to the Apple of today.
What planned obsolescence? The iPhone 4s received 5 years of software updates, ending years after sales ended for that model. Same with the iPhone 5. The 5s is 5 years and going strong. I don't know of any android device which receives nearly that level of support.
Apple is great at UX, the person you responded to didn't say otherwise. What they aren't great at is empowering the subset of their users who want to use the machine on their own terms.
Instead, Apple shoehorns whatever they think is the right thing. The headphone jack is one example, the buy vs bring your own music is another. They do this because of both UX concerns and business reasons. But that's not all that matters, as Tim Cook just said, which is ironic.
Instead, Apple shoehorns whatever they think is the right thing. The headphone jack is one example, the buy vs bring your own music is another. They do this because of both UX concerns and business reasons. But that's not all that matters, as Tim Cook just said, which is ironic.
Well, most of what Apple did for UI was low-risk for them, and self-serving.
And they did some more altruistic things beside.
But compared to their power and scale , has Apple been much more altruistic/benevolent compared to other companies ? Have they taken large risks for that ?
And they did some more altruistic things beside.
But compared to their power and scale , has Apple been much more altruistic/benevolent compared to other companies ? Have they taken large risks for that ?
I'm not really sure I understand your argument, but please consider that Apple's "power and scale" are really quite recent. It wasn't too long ago that they were in danger of failing as a company. They've gotten where they are now by taking a series of very bold risks that turned out well.
Apple is a big company, and I'm sure that there is a lot of diversity in how individual people and indeed teams or departments go about making their products.
But during the Jobs days at least, despite Apple's reputation for user experience excellence, I think it was a company that was at best indifferent towards the experience of its users per se. What it was focused on was delivering a clean, powerful, beautiful device.
In a lot of ways, that focus created, as a side effect, a good user experience. Things like really smooth scrolling were born out of a desire to not have the device ever seem janky or struggling, for example, but it resulted in a pleasant user experience.
The App Store featured extremely strong reviews and protections to make sure that people's dumb apps couldn't screw over your battery or slow down your phone or otherwise compromise your experience. That limited utility, but created a clear, consistent, easy user experience.
In other ways, it led to shitty user experiences. My wife could never tell when her phone was ringing. Its ring was soft compared to Android phones and the vibration was much more subtle. But a loud ring or an emphatic vibration don't lead to a prettier, more iconic device. They'll never be features that a tech reporter will do a feature on. They're easy for other phones to do as well. So Apple didn't care.
The keyboard for iPhones was awful for years. Only a single spelling suggestion, no ability to get anything other than letters without hitting a chord key, hard to tell if you were in capitalization or lower-case. But it was a pretty, uncrowded keyboard, despite being just incredibly slower and more painful to use than equivalent Android keyboards. So Apple didn't care.
It was an interesting time, full of UI highs and lows for Apple.
But during the Jobs days at least, despite Apple's reputation for user experience excellence, I think it was a company that was at best indifferent towards the experience of its users per se. What it was focused on was delivering a clean, powerful, beautiful device.
In a lot of ways, that focus created, as a side effect, a good user experience. Things like really smooth scrolling were born out of a desire to not have the device ever seem janky or struggling, for example, but it resulted in a pleasant user experience.
The App Store featured extremely strong reviews and protections to make sure that people's dumb apps couldn't screw over your battery or slow down your phone or otherwise compromise your experience. That limited utility, but created a clear, consistent, easy user experience.
In other ways, it led to shitty user experiences. My wife could never tell when her phone was ringing. Its ring was soft compared to Android phones and the vibration was much more subtle. But a loud ring or an emphatic vibration don't lead to a prettier, more iconic device. They'll never be features that a tech reporter will do a feature on. They're easy for other phones to do as well. So Apple didn't care.
The keyboard for iPhones was awful for years. Only a single spelling suggestion, no ability to get anything other than letters without hitting a chord key, hard to tell if you were in capitalization or lower-case. But it was a pretty, uncrowded keyboard, despite being just incredibly slower and more painful to use than equivalent Android keyboards. So Apple didn't care.
It was an interesting time, full of UI highs and lows for Apple.
> In other ways, it led to shitty user experiences. My wife could never tell when her phone was ringing. Its ring was soft compared to Android phones and the vibration was much more subtle. But a loud ring or an emphatic vibration don't lead to a prettier, more iconic device.
I'm really confused by this.
First off, iPhones ring perfectly loud. Maybe your wife just turned down the ringer volume and never bothered to check?
Secondly, I don't see how ringer volume has anything to do with a "prettier, more iconic device". And what's more, you haven't actually provided any evidence whatsoever to substantiate your claim that Apple only cares about having an "iconic" device rather user experience.
> The keyboard for iPhones was awful for years. Only a single spelling suggestion, no ability to get anything other than letters without hitting a chord key, hard to tell if you were in capitalization or lower-case. But it was a pretty, uncrowded keyboard, despite being just incredibly slower and more painful to use than equivalent Android keyboards. So Apple didn't care.
I disagree that the keyboard was "awful". When it was introduced, it was hands down the best software keyboard. And I completely disagree that it was "incredibly slower and more painful to use than equivalent Android keyboards". Android keyboards experimented with new approaches, but an Android keyboard that one person says is great another might say is awful (for example, the whole crazy about dragging your finger around the keyboard, which I forget what it's called - some people love that, some people hate it). Apple was conservative with changing their keyboard, but they had a very good reason to, which is that any change they make has to be an improvement for the millions of customers they have, and has to be enough of an improvement to offset the fact that change in general is bad (because it screws up people's habits, which is particularly important when it comes to typing). So it's not that Apple "didn't care", it's that they didn't want to change the keyboard, which millions of people loved, without having a clear benefit.
I'm really confused by this.
First off, iPhones ring perfectly loud. Maybe your wife just turned down the ringer volume and never bothered to check?
Secondly, I don't see how ringer volume has anything to do with a "prettier, more iconic device". And what's more, you haven't actually provided any evidence whatsoever to substantiate your claim that Apple only cares about having an "iconic" device rather user experience.
> The keyboard for iPhones was awful for years. Only a single spelling suggestion, no ability to get anything other than letters without hitting a chord key, hard to tell if you were in capitalization or lower-case. But it was a pretty, uncrowded keyboard, despite being just incredibly slower and more painful to use than equivalent Android keyboards. So Apple didn't care.
I disagree that the keyboard was "awful". When it was introduced, it was hands down the best software keyboard. And I completely disagree that it was "incredibly slower and more painful to use than equivalent Android keyboards". Android keyboards experimented with new approaches, but an Android keyboard that one person says is great another might say is awful (for example, the whole crazy about dragging your finger around the keyboard, which I forget what it's called - some people love that, some people hate it). Apple was conservative with changing their keyboard, but they had a very good reason to, which is that any change they make has to be an improvement for the millions of customers they have, and has to be enough of an improvement to offset the fact that change in general is bad (because it screws up people's habits, which is particularly important when it comes to typing). So it's not that Apple "didn't care", it's that they didn't want to change the keyboard, which millions of people loved, without having a clear benefit.
They care about user experience insofar as it attracts users to their platform -- just like every other company in the space. Apple (arguably) just happens to be a little better at it than Google, Microsoft, etc.
Oh but it is true, and I will happily offend them. Each and every one of them, on an individual basis. Who are they to be shielded from criticism?
Apple has often been secondary on UX. Not always - sometimes they can nail it. But it's been more often they miss, or backburner it over other priorities.
Do other companies suck more? sure. But apple has lost its way, or found a much more selfish one, and you see it play out in every gesture they make.
Sorry not sorry. Apple needs a kick in the pants.
Apple has often been secondary on UX. Not always - sometimes they can nail it. But it's been more often they miss, or backburner it over other priorities.
Do other companies suck more? sure. But apple has lost its way, or found a much more selfish one, and you see it play out in every gesture they make.
Sorry not sorry. Apple needs a kick in the pants.
Please, if you're going to make broad, sweeping, bold statements, back them up with something. Provide us examples, screenshots, something of substance for us to respond to.
Everything you've written so far is devoid of substance. I want to respond to your claims but I can't because you've given me nothing to drive the conversation forward with.
Everything you've written so far is devoid of substance. I want to respond to your claims but I can't because you've given me nothing to drive the conversation forward with.
Sorry, I'm expressing my opinion, which is a summation of being a lifelong apple user. Only recently, around the loss of steve timeframe wise, have things gotten bothersome.
Anyway, i'm not anti-apple. Just... disappointed.
Anyway, i'm not anti-apple. Just... disappointed.
I find myself pretty skeptical of the claim that Apple is "making the UI more difficult on purpose so you're more inclined to use siri".
I can't speak to Apple's internal motives, since I haven't worked there, but I've worked at another major tech company that has received similar accusations in another context, and I can tell you that in that case it was definitely not true. In reality the designers did their best to create a UI that worked for as many people as possible in the time they had available, and they performed extensive user studies to determine which problems needed to be fixed and to validate their solutions. Sometimes they didn't get it right the first time around, and sometimes for one reason or another there were technical issues that required some compromises until they could get sorted out, but there were absolutely no "dark patterns" involved in the process.
Designing a good UI is hard. I don't think we need to assume bad faith or malice when people get it wrong.
I can't speak to Apple's internal motives, since I haven't worked there, but I've worked at another major tech company that has received similar accusations in another context, and I can tell you that in that case it was definitely not true. In reality the designers did their best to create a UI that worked for as many people as possible in the time they had available, and they performed extensive user studies to determine which problems needed to be fixed and to validate their solutions. Sometimes they didn't get it right the first time around, and sometimes for one reason or another there were technical issues that required some compromises until they could get sorted out, but there were absolutely no "dark patterns" involved in the process.
Designing a good UI is hard. I don't think we need to assume bad faith or malice when people get it wrong.
So is he going to lobby for a massive overhaul of Foxconn's employment practices?
Presumably he'd point you toward https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/, especially the "2017 Progress Report" toward the top of that page.
Edit: I don't post that to defend Cook/Apple, just to point out that Apple has done quite a bit of talking about this topic since the bad old days when they really did need to make some changes. Have they done "enough"? I have no idea, and would love to hear someone knowledgable criticize the steps they've taken so far.
Edit: I don't post that to defend Cook/Apple, just to point out that Apple has done quite a bit of talking about this topic since the bad old days when they really did need to make some changes. Have they done "enough"? I have no idea, and would love to hear someone knowledgable criticize the steps they've taken so far.
I opened this up just for fun. I'll start by saying I do think Apple is doing quite a bit in this regard and are pushing things forward towards better working conditions. Having said that, what is still considered "acceptable" and worthy of touting is pretty sad, although I guess it is compared with where we they were just a few years ago.
Flipping to page 9, they list 98% compliance with international working hours limits, touting "Full-time doesn't mean you should work all the time." Compliant in this case is a 60-hour workweek with 1 day off every 7 days (presumably this is not an occasional duration but rather a normal week at a fixed wage). If this is the case, technology sure isn't serving these unlucky humans very well.
Flipping to page 9, they list 98% compliance with international working hours limits, touting "Full-time doesn't mean you should work all the time." Compliant in this case is a 60-hour workweek with 1 day off every 7 days (presumably this is not an occasional duration but rather a normal week at a fixed wage). If this is the case, technology sure isn't serving these unlucky humans very well.
Apple has done more than any other American company to improve working conditions in China.
Even if that's true, it does not mean they have done enough.
That's fair enough as long as other companies and their customers are held equally responsible. Just because we sometimes/always use linux does not mean the hardware we run it on has an equally "clean" background. Also, we buy too much stuff, meaning too much stuff is being produced... etc.
What do you base that claim on?
From your reading of the article, is that within the context of what the article was referencing? Because I'm reading nothing that indicates to me that the conversation/interview had anything to do with manufacturing or employment practices. Additionally, I would argue that "employment practices" have little or nothing to do with "technology".
That's a fair point - the article pretty clearly has a different focus than what I was alluding to. My point is more that if Tim Cook is going to make these sort of surface level musings about how AI/tech will need to remain tools of humans I think it's important for him to realize that ultimately there are still humans who are tools of other humans. Also I personally think that 'technology' permeates and oozes into nearly all aspects of our lives at this point. I think you're correct in that strictly domain knowledge regarding technology wouldn't involve discussing employment practices; however, real world applications of tech very much so involves a discussion of employment practices. When Cook makes comments that "he’s not comfortable with automating the human entirely out of the equation." -- I understand he's focusing on the integration of AI into human systems but I'd be more than willing to bet that he is perfectly comfortable with automating the labor out of the equation - and therefore a human out of the equation - by cutting costs through a fully automated production line.
So you think "a massive overhaul of Foxconn's employment practices" will serve humanity?
Yes.
Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.
If you have an app filling your database with bad data, do you just take an extra step of writing a tool to correct bad data after the fact?
I'd rather fix the app itself so that it isn't sending bad data.
"Fixing Foxconn" is taking bad output and correcting it. It's not fixing the app generating bad data.
I'd rather fix the app itself so that it isn't sending bad data.
"Fixing Foxconn" is taking bad output and correcting it. It's not fixing the app generating bad data.
[deleted]
more context for the headline quote. FTA:
"While he calls AI “profound” and increasingly capable of doing unbelievable things, on matters that require judgment he’s not comfortable with automating the human entirely out of the equation. “When technological advancement can go up so exponentially I do think there’s a risk of losing sight of the fact that tech should serve humanity, not the other way around.”
he's talking about AI here.
"While he calls AI “profound” and increasingly capable of doing unbelievable things, on matters that require judgment he’s not comfortable with automating the human entirely out of the equation. “When technological advancement can go up so exponentially I do think there’s a risk of losing sight of the fact that tech should serve humanity, not the other way around.”
he's talking about AI here.
Why is the Hacker News community up-voting these blatant PR pieces? This statement coming from Tim Cook seems like a joke.
Read the article. It's practically a death knell for iOS. If iOS can't come to grips with figuring out how to let AI get more access to the user, it could lose the AI race against Google.
Already, people are installing Google Assistant on their iPhones. You have to understand, that the future may make most apps other than games and entertainment, completely irrelevant. You just want a Web Browser and an AI Agent.
Already, people are installing Google Assistant on their iPhones. You have to understand, that the future may make most apps other than games and entertainment, completely irrelevant. You just want a Web Browser and an AI Agent.
Yeah, it's a platitude, not anything insightful.
Does it mean that technology companies should pay their taxes, to serve humanity, rather than playing tax optimization tricks ?
Intense article. If you read it carefully and between the lines, you see the real future battle lines between iOS and Android, and they center around AI and privacy.
What does humanity servicing technology mean? That depends on who is controlling the technology, and that often means corporations and the elite classes that control it on top.