Apple is regressing to their 1990s identity(triosdevelopers.com)
triosdevelopers.com
Apple is regressing to their 1990s identity
https://triosdevelopers.com/jason.eckert/blog/Entries/2019/8/1_Apple_is_reverting_to_their_1990s_disposition.html
136 comments
Apple could sell the iPhone for a million dollars, and I'm sure at least one person would buy it.
Similarly, they could sell the iPhone for $10k and maybe sell a million of them.
I guess "overpriced" is a subjective term. But if Apple sold the iPhone at cost, Apple could certainly sell a lot more of them. If Apple sold it for a margin more in line with other manufacturers, Apple could still probably sell a lot more...
Apple doesn't care that much about total shipments, though. They care more about total revenue & profits.
I think it's fair for people to call something overpriced even if tons of people are buying it -- especially if there's an argument to be made that a substantial portion of consumers are buying an alternative based mostly on price, and that the comparison product has a much higher margin than the alternative.
Again, this doesn't make it a bad business decision. If there's one thing I guarantee Apple knows more than anyone on Hacker News, it's what the optimal price is for their product to meet their business objectives.
Similarly, they could sell the iPhone for $10k and maybe sell a million of them.
I guess "overpriced" is a subjective term. But if Apple sold the iPhone at cost, Apple could certainly sell a lot more of them. If Apple sold it for a margin more in line with other manufacturers, Apple could still probably sell a lot more...
Apple doesn't care that much about total shipments, though. They care more about total revenue & profits.
I think it's fair for people to call something overpriced even if tons of people are buying it -- especially if there's an argument to be made that a substantial portion of consumers are buying an alternative based mostly on price, and that the comparison product has a much higher margin than the alternative.
Again, this doesn't make it a bad business decision. If there's one thing I guarantee Apple knows more than anyone on Hacker News, it's what the optimal price is for their product to meet their business objectives.
Apple could not sell the phone at a price more in line with other manufacturers, because they spend a shit ton of money on R&D and other costs that the other manufacturers don’t bother to do — because they know Apple will do it, and they can leach off the work Apple has done.
There will always be lower priced competitors who are happy to be in a race to the bottom. Apple is smart to recognize that they cannot do this, for it would spell the doom of the company.
Luxury brands don’t do races to the bottom. To do so would violate their entire reason for existence.
Sure, you might want that Ferrari or Lamborghini to be given to you on a silver platter, or sold to you for just $10.00 each, but do you really honestly expect them to be that stupid?
There will always be lower priced competitors who are happy to be in a race to the bottom. Apple is smart to recognize that they cannot do this, for it would spell the doom of the company.
Luxury brands don’t do races to the bottom. To do so would violate their entire reason for existence.
Sure, you might want that Ferrari or Lamborghini to be given to you on a silver platter, or sold to you for just $10.00 each, but do you really honestly expect them to be that stupid?
A minor point, Apple's R&D spend is significantly lower as a percent of budget compared to most of the market. I found this article really interesting:
https://www.ped30.com/2019/03/10/defense-apples-14-billion-r...
Edit for context: in 2018, 11.6bn or 5.1% of revenue. Compare to Amazon it's half as many dollars and 1/3 the percent.
https://www.ped30.com/2019/03/10/defense-apples-14-billion-r...
Edit for context: in 2018, 11.6bn or 5.1% of revenue. Compare to Amazon it's half as many dollars and 1/3 the percent.
What is it compared to other phone manufacturers? Percentages don’t really matter as much as raw numbers. You can only throw so much money at any technology without having a diminishing rate of return.
It's difficult to say what they spend on Phone R&D, but Samsung spends about 11-12% on R&D in general. Huawei and Google clock in around 15% by public numbers and Intel for comparison sits about 20%. Microsoft is somewhere around 12-13%.
Apple's total R&D spending is well below their contemporaries as a % of revenue.
Apple's total R&D spending is well below their contemporaries as a % of revenue.
Samsung has a lot more products and verticals as does Google.
Looking at all of the money that Google spends on research - they still make 90% of their revenue on ad sales and have had a string of failures and also rans.
No one can seriously argue that Apple’s ARM processor designs aren’t top notch, they just took over Intel’s modem division and they still depend on Intel for much of their computer hardware - except for the T2 chips that are part of their ARM designs
What else do you propose that Apple spend money on?
Horace Deidu just posted a graph on twitter showing that just their services revenue is larger than all of Apple’s revenue a decade ago.
Looking at all of the money that Google spends on research - they still make 90% of their revenue on ad sales and have had a string of failures and also rans.
No one can seriously argue that Apple’s ARM processor designs aren’t top notch, they just took over Intel’s modem division and they still depend on Intel for much of their computer hardware - except for the T2 chips that are part of their ARM designs
What else do you propose that Apple spend money on?
Horace Deidu just posted a graph on twitter showing that just their services revenue is larger than all of Apple’s revenue a decade ago.
I'm not suggesting anything about Apple's quality of engineers or what they should spend money on. I am only observing that their R&D spending is below other companies that are considered in the same class or industry as a percent of revenue.
Their spending (as percent) is approximately 1/3 of other phone makers, 1/3 of software developers, or 1/4 of other chipset manufacturers.
These numbers are all very rough of course because, as you point out, all of these companies work in multiple sectors and R&D spending is not disclosed in that much detail.
Their spending (as percent) is approximately 1/3 of other phone makers, 1/3 of software developers, or 1/4 of other chipset manufacturers.
These numbers are all very rough of course because, as you point out, all of these companies work in multiple sectors and R&D spending is not disclosed in that much detail.
Then their engineers are not very good, because all the improvements now come from Google (Night Sight, 3D gestures), Huawei (5x zoom), Samsung (60MP sensor), Oppo/Xiaomi (front camera behind the display) and so ones.
Without commenting specifically on the features you mentioned, I'll just observe that being first to market with a particular feature doesn't mean that you have the best implementation of that feature.
So either Apple is a class-leader in R&D or they wait till others have cut their teeth on tech before adopting it, thereby minimize their costs but are also not leaders in R&D and dont have others stealing from their work. Which is it?
They also put more effort into their products in ways that a lower price point wouldn't support.
Like for example, this: https://www.redmondpie.com/why-most-2018-smartphones-have-ch...
Or literally designing their own chips for use in their products which very few other manufacturers can do.
Like for example, this: https://www.redmondpie.com/why-most-2018-smartphones-have-ch...
Or literally designing their own chips for use in their products which very few other manufacturers can do.
There are costs that people overlook, or might not even make use.
Previously my dad (who's basically tech illterate), kept getting talked into getting Nexus phones by the local carrier. And once he gets the phone, and he's got questions, the staff that sold him the phone would hardly extend the help.
I got him (and my mom) iPhones, knowing that they cost a lot (and in my eyes, overpriced) because once they both are on the same phones, he could walk into an Apple Store, and get issues resolved. They could share with one another about how to use the phone, etc...
If it breaks, he could talk to a person to sort out what to do, and get swapped with a replacement.
I sold an old Nexus 6 to a friend, and eventually an OTA update borked it. He was on the phone getting the run around to recover it.
I know I could work with a much cheaper phone, but for the use cases above, I'm not just paying for the R&D and the hardware and a margin on top, but the services and peace of mind.
I got him (and my mom) iPhones, knowing that they cost a lot (and in my eyes, overpriced) because once they both are on the same phones, he could walk into an Apple Store, and get issues resolved. They could share with one another about how to use the phone, etc...
If it breaks, he could talk to a person to sort out what to do, and get swapped with a replacement.
I sold an old Nexus 6 to a friend, and eventually an OTA update borked it. He was on the phone getting the run around to recover it.
I know I could work with a much cheaper phone, but for the use cases above, I'm not just paying for the R&D and the hardware and a margin on top, but the services and peace of mind.
This is actually quite important. After supporting my family and relatives with Linux and Windows for 15 years, I decided that I’ll only support them if they buy Macs. My time has become more precious to myself than it was without family and work. Some bought Macs and basically I may need to install some updates when visiting and point them to some software, nothing annoying or time consuming and no late-night helpdesk support calls.
Of course some relatives like my mom were cheapskates and did not buy Macs but then their problems are now somebody else’ problems. My personal life quality improved a lot after drawing the clear line.
And no, Macs are not completely problem-free but anecdatally a lot easier :)
Of course some relatives like my mom were cheapskates and did not buy Macs but then their problems are now somebody else’ problems. My personal life quality improved a lot after drawing the clear line.
And no, Macs are not completely problem-free but anecdatally a lot easier :)
When my grandmother's old PC laptop finally died, I got here a chromebook... absolutely bog simple and no virii. After my mom saw it, she switched to one too. IMHO even easier than a mac, though lower support. My other grandmother who lived local (before she passed last year) I had running on linux, with wine for a couple of her mid-90's era games, would stop by and run updates every few months.
Definitely would not suggest windows for non-technical people if you can avoid it. And if you don't need local apps, omg chromebooks are great.
Definitely would not suggest windows for non-technical people if you can avoid it. And if you don't need local apps, omg chromebooks are great.
> Consumers determine the price of something based on the single factor of “what they are willing to pay”. If Apple can sell devices at that price, and consumers are willing to pay it, then it is by definition not overpriced.
Luxury brands are either one of two things, they're either a superior quality product over engineered for the consumer's use case, or they're a $40 chinese made t-shirt with a logo on it.
When people learn about the problems with the butterfly keyboard, and the display connectors shorting out -- The luxury good becomes more like an overpriced t-shirt.
Companies don't typically buy $40 abercrombie t-shirts for their employees. Nor will they buy $2000 laptops with a 10% failure rate over 2 years or ownership.
Luxury brands are either one of two things, they're either a superior quality product over engineered for the consumer's use case, or they're a $40 chinese made t-shirt with a logo on it.
When people learn about the problems with the butterfly keyboard, and the display connectors shorting out -- The luxury good becomes more like an overpriced t-shirt.
Companies don't typically buy $40 abercrombie t-shirts for their employees. Nor will they buy $2000 laptops with a 10% failure rate over 2 years or ownership.
Cheap t-shirts are from Bangladesh. China does skilled manufacturing.
How is this relevant?
I think you’re right about the feeling. I know I fit the bill rather perfectly at least. I’ve had an/off preference for Apple products for about 30 years and it’s mainly been driven by branding. I don’t think price has ever been a serious stopping point for me personally. Not because I blindly throw my money away, but because it’s usually felt worth it. My old iBook g4 was expensive, but it still works, sure it runs Linux now, and it’s too slow for 2019, but it works perfectly fine. So does my original iPod, that now lives it’s life as a hopelessly ineffective external HDD for third-backups.
Recently though, Apple has lost the ability to make me feel good about their products (again I might add). It’s gotten so bad that I sold my MacBook Pro 13” i5 2018 edition and replaced it with a Surface Pro 6 also i5. The MPB never felt right, while the surface feels like something that was designed by Apple. This is completely anecdotal of course, but I find that I’m often not very unique. I mean, I’ve mainly bought Apple products because they “felt right”, so I’m fairly mainstream that way. If I’m not the only one who’s fallen off the bandwagon like this, then Apple might be headed for another no-jobs slump on the computer front.
You’re probably also right about the closed eco-system. I mean, I’ve personally been looking for an alternative because iOS is too closed for me, but I do agree that most people probably don’t care. It’s not like there is an alternative anyway, at least not if you want security, privacy or the ability to install your banking app.
Recently though, Apple has lost the ability to make me feel good about their products (again I might add). It’s gotten so bad that I sold my MacBook Pro 13” i5 2018 edition and replaced it with a Surface Pro 6 also i5. The MPB never felt right, while the surface feels like something that was designed by Apple. This is completely anecdotal of course, but I find that I’m often not very unique. I mean, I’ve mainly bought Apple products because they “felt right”, so I’m fairly mainstream that way. If I’m not the only one who’s fallen off the bandwagon like this, then Apple might be headed for another no-jobs slump on the computer front.
You’re probably also right about the closed eco-system. I mean, I’ve personally been looking for an alternative because iOS is too closed for me, but I do agree that most people probably don’t care. It’s not like there is an alternative anyway, at least not if you want security, privacy or the ability to install your banking app.
How is it too many SKUs for the iPad? I think the iPad lineup is the most sensible it has been in years.
- iPad Mini (compact)
- iPad 9.7 (cheap, mainstream)
- iPad Air (Larger screen still affordable)
- iPad 11 (edge to edge display, more expensive features. Not everyone wants a larger/ more expensive iPad)
- iPad 12 (if you really want a large screen)
The laptop line is also simpler since they killed off the 12 inch MacBook, and got rid of the no Touch Bar 13”.
- iPad Mini (compact)
- iPad 9.7 (cheap, mainstream)
- iPad Air (Larger screen still affordable)
- iPad 11 (edge to edge display, more expensive features. Not everyone wants a larger/ more expensive iPad)
- iPad 12 (if you really want a large screen)
The laptop line is also simpler since they killed off the 12 inch MacBook, and got rid of the no Touch Bar 13”.
Can't tell if you're being facetious or not.
Why would I be? What’s wrong with having choices of the size/price you want in iPads? Which ones would you propose they get rid of? Have you looked at the product line up of other computer and phone manufacturers?
If you want a choice of Android phones, laptops or Windows PCs you have dozens of choices. Apple has to cater to all of the market segments that it cares about.
If you want a choice of Android phones, laptops or Windows PCs you have dozens of choices. Apple has to cater to all of the market segments that it cares about.
Well, I'm not one of those "not if Steve Jobs was alive" guys, but reportedly, for instance, when Steve Jobs came back to Apple, they had a lot of products with poor differentiation, and he did this:
http://www.howtoanalyst.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Steve...
They create one option in each category. That's all.
5 is really kind of pushing for one consumer focused product if you don't want your buyers to feel like they could've made a better choice, or at least feel like they've missed out on something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice
In general, people like a few good options. Given a lot of good options, they can get an equally good outcome, and feel less good about it at the end.
I think Apple has banked on that in the past, but not so much with 5 active models of iPad, in my opinion.
http://www.howtoanalyst.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Steve...
They create one option in each category. That's all.
5 is really kind of pushing for one consumer focused product if you don't want your buyers to feel like they could've made a better choice, or at least feel like they've missed out on something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice
In general, people like a few good options. Given a lot of good options, they can get an equally good outcome, and feel less good about it at the end.
I think Apple has banked on that in the past, but not so much with 5 active models of iPad, in my opinion.
Two points.
While Steve Jobs was alive, they had four iPods by 2011: the shuffle, the Nano, the Classic, and the Touch. The iPhone was really just an iPod with cellular capabilities during its first four years and it was treated as such - same connector, still required iTunes, and to this day it still can use the old iPod protocol to connect to iPod compatible devices.
When Jobs came back they were a struggling company. Worth $4 billion. Now they are worth $1 trillion depending on the month. He had to focus Apple. He had to focus Apple.
While Steve Jobs was alive, they had four iPods by 2011: the shuffle, the Nano, the Classic, and the Touch. The iPhone was really just an iPod with cellular capabilities during its first four years and it was treated as such - same connector, still required iTunes, and to this day it still can use the old iPod protocol to connect to iPod compatible devices.
When Jobs came back they were a struggling company. Worth $4 billion. Now they are worth $1 trillion depending on the month. He had to focus Apple. He had to focus Apple.
I think the 9.7 and Air should be merged to become the simple, affordable non-Pro iPad.
- iPad ==> Mini
==> Regular (preferably 10.5")
- iPad Pro ==> 11"
==> 12.9"
And then leave out the Air that gives them an affordable larger iPad with a smart connector.
What benefit is there from doing that for either Apple or consumers?
What benefit is there from doing that for either Apple or consumers?
Second point: why would they get rid of the 9.7” $329 iPad? When they introduced it, they saw an uptick in sells.
I don't think it's a fair assessment to say that consumers don't care about price. It might not matter as much as other factors, but it definitely still matters to a lot of people. Price was a major factor in why I sold my Macbook Pro. Why am I going to pay $1,000 more for an inferior laptop (I can afford it, it just doesn't make any logical sense)? A young art student friend of mine wants an iPad, but after I told her you can get a Samsung for only $180 (vs. $400+) she's looking at Samsung, especially since the iPad is known to have heating problems.
I will say that quality is the biggest factor though. Apple sabotaged its Macbook Pro with that stupid touchbar and terrible keyboard. My (female) friend who's only ever owned iPhones is going to switch to Samsung next time unless Apple makes a small iPhone because she said the next design is really ugly.
Apple deserves their current troubles because they destroyed their formerly top of the line products. Closed systems might not matter to the average consumer, but it's one of the main reasons I've never owned an iPhone and refused to buy a Mac until I had to for work. Perhaps I'm in an even smaller minority there, but it's certainly false to say that all customers don't care about that.
I will say that quality is the biggest factor though. Apple sabotaged its Macbook Pro with that stupid touchbar and terrible keyboard. My (female) friend who's only ever owned iPhones is going to switch to Samsung next time unless Apple makes a small iPhone because she said the next design is really ugly.
Apple deserves their current troubles because they destroyed their formerly top of the line products. Closed systems might not matter to the average consumer, but it's one of the main reasons I've never owned an iPhone and refused to buy a Mac until I had to for work. Perhaps I'm in an even smaller minority there, but it's certainly false to say that all customers don't care about that.
You're really doing her a disservice by recommending an Android tablet.
The iPad has excellent, pro-level graphics apps (and a pretty nifty pen from what I've heard).
It's an excellent media creation device.
The iPad has excellent, pro-level graphics apps (and a pretty nifty pen from what I've heard).
It's an excellent media creation device.
Cant agree with this more. The whole idea of techies recommending “some cheap android thing” to their non-tech savvy friends and family is mind boggling. The entire point of Apple devices is because they just work for those kinds of people.
Yeah, a young artist would be so much better served by getting even a used iPad. It will make her familiar with the tools that the pros use, and is massively better than its competitors. I hope she consults another person.
First of all you never explained why an iPad is superior and worth the $200+ price premium. You and the 5 other comments here just come off like you're working for Apple's marketing team.
Second off I didn't tell her to buy it, just to check it out. Perhaps I should've clarified that she told me first that she was considering alternatives to the iPad due to its hefty price and heating issues. I simply presented her an alternative to research.
Also, the Samsung tablet was recommended to me by another artist who uses it exclusively. I was just passing the message along.
Second off I didn't tell her to buy it, just to check it out. Perhaps I should've clarified that she told me first that she was considering alternatives to the iPad due to its hefty price and heating issues. I simply presented her an alternative to research.
Also, the Samsung tablet was recommended to me by another artist who uses it exclusively. I was just passing the message along.
If only consumers wore a badge stating "what they are willing to pay" then it would be so much simpler!
It is not a magic number, it is all the work of the company creating the desire, brand and product to create demand for the price they want to charge.
It is not a magic number, it is all the work of the company creating the desire, brand and product to create demand for the price they want to charge.
I don’t see how that’s relevant to the post or my reply. I did not mention anything about how you find the price, only that the common complaint about Apple being overpriced isn’t really valid based on standard market theory.
I'm probably missing something, but other than retrospectively observing that people are paying a price, how does market theory comes up with the price without the 'how?'
Re: Openness. I think what ultimately matters to most consumers (including techies) is stability. This includes a) continuous accessibility over time (say, for 30 years) and b) consistent usability / compatibility / affordability etc. This can be achieved by closed technology and openness does not guarantee that. Excitement or feel-goodness is another factor as you mentioned, but I don't think it's not a universal issue as some (most) people don't have to be excited about the tech.
I really don’t think anyone, including tech people, expects devices to last 30 years. Maybe hardcore collectors do for their media, but not for devices.
Though I will say my 14 year old Palm TX is still alive and kicking...
Though I will say my 14 year old Palm TX is still alive and kicking...
Yes and No.
I do agree Openness is overrated. Who cares if Mac are using Metal or proprietary Secure Chips if every thing is working well, and all software had its support. The last part needs working on....
>The thing is that consumers (clearly)....
But Consumers don't buy Mac any more. Most of them don't. It is either business, Software development, aka Professionals / Prosumers and Students. Most of the Consumers went or are going to iPad or Smartphones.
And this obviously screws the Sales Data a lot, Business like Fortune 500 doesn't care about the price tag much, they care about TCO / Total Cost of Ownership, and whether their employees are happy or more productive with their equipment. So business will continue to replace them every few years. And that is why these Enterprise business are so lucrative, they stick to the ecosystem for a long time and don't change very often. There is also a huge hallow effect from iPhone.
I have seen some of these argument all around, it is selling, and therefore it is good. Windows is still the number one selling OS on the planet, do you agree Windows's experience is any good or worth the price?
I do agree Openness is overrated. Who cares if Mac are using Metal or proprietary Secure Chips if every thing is working well, and all software had its support. The last part needs working on....
>The thing is that consumers (clearly)....
But Consumers don't buy Mac any more. Most of them don't. It is either business, Software development, aka Professionals / Prosumers and Students. Most of the Consumers went or are going to iPad or Smartphones.
And this obviously screws the Sales Data a lot, Business like Fortune 500 doesn't care about the price tag much, they care about TCO / Total Cost of Ownership, and whether their employees are happy or more productive with their equipment. So business will continue to replace them every few years. And that is why these Enterprise business are so lucrative, they stick to the ecosystem for a long time and don't change very often. There is also a huge hallow effect from iPhone.
I have seen some of these argument all around, it is selling, and therefore it is good. Windows is still the number one selling OS on the planet, do you agree Windows's experience is any good or worth the price?
The last time that Apple reported volume sales, Macs were at their highest volume ever. The revenue from Macs still is holding steady.
Seeing that Windows is still the mainstream OS, the market must think it’s good...
Seeing that Windows is still the mainstream OS, the market must think it’s good...
You addressed the overpriced issue, which I agree with, but what about how closed systems ultimately caused the self-combusting laptops of 1990s prior to Jobs' return?
...the release of the Mac OS X operating system, which was essentially a rebranded version of NeXTSTEP UNIX. Because Mac OS X was UNIX, it was fundamentally open...
I truly appreciate the UNIX foundation and heritage of OSX, but "fundamentally open" is not a phrase I have ever associated with either or with UNIX.
OSX is UNIX the way AIX, Irix, Solaris, HPUX, etc. are (were) UNIX. None of these are open in any meaningful sense (Solaris being an exception, but that's relatively recent.) The author seems to under the impression that because OSX is UNIX, it's suddenly in the same category of openness as the BSDs and Linux.
To tech-minded people in the 2000s, Apple was no longer this closed, proprietary, expensive tinker toy. They were a decent UNIX workstation manufacturer that fostered openness.
UNIX workstation? Yes. Fostering openness? No. The Apple of the 00's was essentially, and arguable remains, a closed, proprietary, expensive, consumer oriented UNIX workstation.
But since then, it seems as if Apple has continually made decisions to move back in time to the 1990s. Rather than adopting open standards in their operating systems, they started focusing on developing their own, intended to work within their own ecosystem only.
Maybe I'm missing the point. There certainly are Apple hardware changes and trends that I've not been happy about. I also recognize that there are software changes and standards deviations that are unfortunate. However, the idea that Apple was somehow a bastion of openness, and that their OS was open and now isn't seems inaccurate.
I truly appreciate the UNIX foundation and heritage of OSX, but "fundamentally open" is not a phrase I have ever associated with either or with UNIX.
OSX is UNIX the way AIX, Irix, Solaris, HPUX, etc. are (were) UNIX. None of these are open in any meaningful sense (Solaris being an exception, but that's relatively recent.) The author seems to under the impression that because OSX is UNIX, it's suddenly in the same category of openness as the BSDs and Linux.
To tech-minded people in the 2000s, Apple was no longer this closed, proprietary, expensive tinker toy. They were a decent UNIX workstation manufacturer that fostered openness.
UNIX workstation? Yes. Fostering openness? No. The Apple of the 00's was essentially, and arguable remains, a closed, proprietary, expensive, consumer oriented UNIX workstation.
But since then, it seems as if Apple has continually made decisions to move back in time to the 1990s. Rather than adopting open standards in their operating systems, they started focusing on developing their own, intended to work within their own ecosystem only.
Maybe I'm missing the point. There certainly are Apple hardware changes and trends that I've not been happy about. I also recognize that there are software changes and standards deviations that are unfortunate. However, the idea that Apple was somehow a bastion of openness, and that their OS was open and now isn't seems inaccurate.
The Darwin kernel and many other macOS components are open. Just take a look at https://opensource.apple.com/ Are they perfect? No... but a lot further along than the Unix of old.
My job is deploying and configuring Macbooks at reasonable scale (2000-5000). This article is nonsense.
[deleted]
I actually like that Apple moves at its own pace and doesn’t wait for standards to evolve. If you are willing to adopt the Apple ecosystem, it’s a bliss. If you can’t then just ignore them. I’ve been on both sides of the fence during the last decade.
Apple waits till a company does something then copies it. Even their Window system features have been copied from Linux. Their hardware is overpriced and you are essentially just paying for an Apple logo and aesthetic pushed by a marketing company. It is like the Nike of computers.
NeXTStep (September 18, 1989) predates Linux (September 17, 1991)and it's window managers. I'd suggest you also look at Apple's work on ARM processors. They were first to 64 bit in that space.
Apple was one the companies that created ARM as well.
”The company was founded in November 1990 as Advanced RISC Machines Ltd and structured as a joint venture between Acorn Computers, Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.) and VLSI Technology.”
”The company was founded in November 1990 as Advanced RISC Machines Ltd and structured as a joint venture between Acorn Computers, Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.) and VLSI Technology.”
Crucially, Apple usually copies it better. They drive niche or poorly implemented technologies and make them mainstream.
From Linux? Are you sure about that?
What?!?
Modern Apple platforms are an evolution from NeXTSTEP.
Modern Apple platforms are an evolution from NeXTSTEP.
Could you elaborate the two different phases where you were on two different sides? What made you change?
You don't have to wait for "standards to evolve" to be and open system. You can open your API and see if community wants to adopt it as a standard.
Just like Apple promised to do with Facetime.
https://www.cnet.com/news/steve-jobs-promised-to-make-faceti...
https://www.cnet.com/news/steve-jobs-promised-to-make-faceti...
That was stopped by the patent troll I believe https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/29/apple_fifth_facetim...
The latest in that saga: https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/07/09/virnetx-reverses-...
What is FaceTime doing that you can't do with WebRTC? And that's already open.
Whether FaceTime is doing things that can't easily be done with WebRTC, I don't know, but when FaceTime came out, WebRTC didn't even exist. Hell, it wasn't stable until just a year ago.
Major difference between the 90s and now is the market dominance that Apple has with their iOS platform. As a company having a closed ecosystem which they can push in their own direction. The most important piece is that it drives their revenue either from app purchases, in-app purchases, subscriptions, and Apple services.
I'm speaking mostly about their mobile platform... Mac laptops / desktops are another thing... Specifically, I think the lack of a reasonably affordable desktop solution for developers is kind of a bumper. We need upgradability and openness for drivers to make it viable. There are use cases for a less expensive desktop that developers would buy.
I'm speaking mostly about their mobile platform... Mac laptops / desktops are another thing... Specifically, I think the lack of a reasonably affordable desktop solution for developers is kind of a bumper. We need upgradability and openness for drivers to make it viable. There are use cases for a less expensive desktop that developers would buy.
Does the Mac Mini not satisfy this need? At least for the desktop requirement, I’m aware it may not satisfy your driver requirements.
The new Mac Mini starts at $700+ and still requires a separate monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers etc. Certainly not meant to be portable, so if you're a developer and want a laptop (as many developers do) your next choice is a MacBook which is well over $1k.
You can buy some shitty Windows laptop to make Android apps on for $400. Will it be a good experience? Absolutely not; but at least you can get it done.
You can buy some shitty Windows laptop to make Android apps on for $400. Will it be a good experience? Absolutely not; but at least you can get it done.
Apple no longer sells the MacBook; the cheapest portable they sell today is the MacBook Air.
The latest MacBook Air starts at $849 refurbished. Quite a good value even compared to Windows laptops.
https://www.apple.com/shop/product/FREA2LL/A/refurbished-133...
https://www.apple.com/shop/product/FREA2LL/A/refurbished-133...
It’s essentially five year old technology and I don’t see it being supported for much longer. I’m not sure I can recommend it anymore :/
Not really. It'd be nice to have a Nvidia eGPU but that's not supported anymore. Apple controls this and there isn't much we can do to change their choice of which GPUs are supported in the OS.
PS: My use case would be for CUDA stuff. It being a Mac is nice because I can directly use it as a development machine. So having a Linux desktop at home is the best alternative and SSHing into it.
PS: My use case would be for CUDA stuff. It being a Mac is nice because I can directly use it as a development machine. So having a Linux desktop at home is the best alternative and SSHing into it.
The Mac Mini is sort of limited by the lack of any graphics horsepower and the lack of stand-alone displays from Apple. You also can't get one with a really powerful CPU.
It's a cool machine, but the tiny form factor is fairly limiting.
It's a cool machine, but the tiny form factor is fairly limiting.
Mac Mini supports Thunderbolt 3 which has enough throughput to run a powerful external GPU with minimal (~10%) efficiency loss.
* for interpretations of GPU not to include NVidia
Ha!
That's fair. From what I hear, thunderbolt GPUs are a fair bit more finicky than internal PCIe ones, so for a desktop I'd still say having an internal GPU is better, but it should at least be a reasonably good workaround.
It's a bit sad to trade reliability, GPU performance, tidiness (since the external enclosure adds more boxes and wires and power supplies), price, and CPU power just for a smaller core computer though.
It gets even worse when you want a couple of big HDDs which would have just gone in drive bays with a traditional computer. With the mac mini, you'd have to add even more expensive external enclosures to your desk, which is expensive and messy. Suddenly, instead of a nice self-contained smallish desktop, you have an impressively small core machine box, with a wire to your GPU box (which has to be on top of the desk due to the short length of thunderbolt cables), a wire to your HDD box, and you still have the slower CPU.
I don't really mean to say the Mac mini is a poor choice, it probably fits a bunch of desktop use cases reasonably well. It's just not as optimal as it could be.
To illustrate how a real small and powerful desktop from Apple could've been: I'm using a really small (though not as small as the mac mini) Fractal Design Node 304 [0], with a 2.5 slot width, full length GPU, a 3.5" drive, two 2.5" drives, an m.2, and a standard ITX card with regular RAM and CPU slots. I have a 1080Ti and an i7 6700k in it with no thermal issues. Apple could've made a similarly expandable machine in a smaller form factor with better thermals and looks, but they... don't.
[0]: https://www.fractal-design.com/home/product/cases/node-serie...
It's a bit sad to trade reliability, GPU performance, tidiness (since the external enclosure adds more boxes and wires and power supplies), price, and CPU power just for a smaller core computer though.
It gets even worse when you want a couple of big HDDs which would have just gone in drive bays with a traditional computer. With the mac mini, you'd have to add even more expensive external enclosures to your desk, which is expensive and messy. Suddenly, instead of a nice self-contained smallish desktop, you have an impressively small core machine box, with a wire to your GPU box (which has to be on top of the desk due to the short length of thunderbolt cables), a wire to your HDD box, and you still have the slower CPU.
I don't really mean to say the Mac mini is a poor choice, it probably fits a bunch of desktop use cases reasonably well. It's just not as optimal as it could be.
To illustrate how a real small and powerful desktop from Apple could've been: I'm using a really small (though not as small as the mac mini) Fractal Design Node 304 [0], with a 2.5 slot width, full length GPU, a 3.5" drive, two 2.5" drives, an m.2, and a standard ITX card with regular RAM and CPU slots. I have a 1080Ti and an i7 6700k in it with no thermal issues. Apple could've made a similarly expandable machine in a smaller form factor with better thermals and looks, but they... don't.
[0]: https://www.fractal-design.com/home/product/cases/node-serie...
If Apple could do it, then so can other companies.
So, where are the other companies that manufacture the Not-Apple Super Mac Mini that you’re talking about?
EDIT: More importantly, where are the other companies that are selling billions of dollars worth of this kind of hardware?
EDIT: More importantly, where are the other companies that are selling billions of dollars worth of this kind of hardware?
I don't see how other companies are relevant? There's a lot of people selling bigger computers with a lot of power and expand ability, so there's clearly a market for that. I showed that it's not that hard to make a computer with that expandability, while not making a big tower computer; that it's not a binary choice between a powerful big tower and a really limited tiny mac mini-style computer. It also wasn't my comment's main point.
I'm actually really curious, can someone please tell me why pointing out that the mac mini makes certain trade-offs for its form factor is apparently controversial?
There’s the Pro Display XDR, but it’s obviously quite expensive.
Yeah, I'd expect nobody to buy a $6000 display+stand for their $1000 machine, except for special circumstances where a movie studio or something needs a reference monitor and just a weak machine to just show images on it. That's not exactly the mainstream desktop use case.
IIRC, it's relatively cheap as a reference monitor for the price. Way more than I'd want to pay, but compared to some of the studio alternatives.
It is. I'm not saying it's a bad or overpriced monitor. I'm saying it absolutely doesn't fit the common somewhat budget-conscious desktop use case.
I wish this site support reader mode! Hard to read on my iPhone.
Well, it’s a perspective from tech outsiders looking down their noses on Apple, I guess. Macs had a role to play in the 90s, albeit the most interesting platforms were Unix and Linux.
The most interesting platforms were Atari ST, Amiga, PC, Macs and BeOS.
UNIX were interesting camouflaged as Irix and NeXTSTEP.
Linux interesting bit was trying not to toast the monitor while attempting to get X working at all.
UNIX were interesting camouflaged as Irix and NeXTSTEP.
Linux interesting bit was trying not to toast the monitor while attempting to get X working at all.
I disagree with one part.
The 1990s was when Apple didn’t have Jobs for many years. Then Jobs came back and saved the company. Now Apple is without Jobs again for many years.
But saying Apple chose closed solutions? That’s classic Jobs. He ended the open clones program and OpenDoc etc. and brought it all in-house. The only thing Apple ever did that was really open under Jobs was probably bringing NextStep UNIX onboard!
The 1990s was when Apple didn’t have Jobs for many years. Then Jobs came back and saved the company. Now Apple is without Jobs again for many years.
But saying Apple chose closed solutions? That’s classic Jobs. He ended the open clones program and OpenDoc etc. and brought it all in-house. The only thing Apple ever did that was really open under Jobs was probably bringing NextStep UNIX onboard!
> The only thing Apple ever did that was really open under Jobs was probably bringing NextStep UNIX onboard!
Nit: Jobs did not make this decision as he was not part of the company when it was made.
Nit: Jobs did not make this decision as he was not part of the company when it was made.
Late 1990's Apple was basically mired in technical debt. The original classic Mac OS was over a decade old and on very shaky foundations. No memory protection, cooperative multitasking (until OS 8, I think?), etc. Their own internal OS projects (Copeland, Taligent) were never completed.
NextStep was like night and day. It breathed new life into Apple.
NextStep was like night and day. It breathed new life into Apple.
Technically Apple bought NeXT, in reality it was an inverted takeover.
> … Apple stores told customers that small repair issues would cost thousands of dollars to fix (to encourage them to buy a new Mac).
Reference? That seems to be attributing malice when bad design (or design trade-offs) are more likely.
Reference? That seems to be attributing malice when bad design (or design trade-offs) are more likely.
I think this article accurately identifies Apple's moves towards a more closed ecosystem, but I don't think there's any particular reason to believe that "the future is open". Unlike in the past, Apple has a much broader ecosystem, to the point where you can use only Apple-approved products and services for almost everything you would want to do, so interoperability doesn't matter as much. Additionally, as computers have become more widespread, the demand for customization has declined significantly. Sure, there are still people that want to repair their computer, or install Linux, or customize it in some other way, but as a share of the overall market, it's a really tiny percentage.
As long as smartphones remain most people's primary form of computing, I don't really see Apple beig hurt in any significant way. They've effectively created a monopoly on iOS software, so that developers have to put up with the experience, no matter how bad it gets, if they want to make any money. And until some major new technology comes along that Apple doesn't have, it doesn't seem like there's any reason for consumers to abandon Apple's ecosystem in favor of something else.
As long as smartphones remain most people's primary form of computing, I don't really see Apple beig hurt in any significant way. They've effectively created a monopoly on iOS software, so that developers have to put up with the experience, no matter how bad it gets, if they want to make any money. And until some major new technology comes along that Apple doesn't have, it doesn't seem like there's any reason for consumers to abandon Apple's ecosystem in favor of something else.
The next billion-plus people to come online won’t be using smartphones. They’ll be using feature phones that can just barely do the job.
I don’t see that Apple has a solution in this space, but maybe they can do something based on the Apple Watch platform.
Don’t look behind you to figure out where you’re going in the future.
I don’t see that Apple has a solution in this space, but maybe they can do something based on the Apple Watch platform.
Don’t look behind you to figure out where you’re going in the future.
Right. Apple became "open" as a competitive move. Catered to the tech folks with the UNIX-based OS.
Then when they developed a new competitive moat in iPhones, they were able to move back to closed.
Then when they developed a new competitive moat in iPhones, they were able to move back to closed.
And that was just an accident, if Jobs were at Be instead, not sure if they would have bothered with anything UNIX related.
Even NeXT wasn't that open to UNIX, for them that was just a way to have a foot on the young workstation market, NeXTSTEP hardly leveraged POSIX for the framework APIs.
Even NeXT wasn't that open to UNIX, for them that was just a way to have a foot on the young workstation market, NeXTSTEP hardly leveraged POSIX for the framework APIs.
I have to agree with this article. I’ve been a Mac User since the iBook G3 running both OS9 and OSX. Working as a video editor at the time Final Cut Pro was revolutionary and you could open up your G4/G5 and add RAM and hard drives.
But recently I have to shell out $3000 USD for something with limited ports, a touchbar without a clear use case, poorly designed keyboards, and constant upcharging for docks, dongles and services.
I get where they are going... appeal to pros who don’t care how much stuff costs and consumers who will pay anything for apple devices.
But recently I have to shell out $3000 USD for something with limited ports, a touchbar without a clear use case, poorly designed keyboards, and constant upcharging for docks, dongles and services.
I get where they are going... appeal to pros who don’t care how much stuff costs and consumers who will pay anything for apple devices.
No they're not. They're a different company serving a different, and now global audience. Consider that Apple is more than 5% of America's entire GDP, and 1% of the world's entire GDP. There are ~1 billion people in the Apple ecosystem and that number is an under-estimate. When Apple chooses to add Sapphire as a material to the Apple Watch or iPhone, they affect global prices for the raw material.
People still don't get it. It's not a game of pattern matching with their past. Not only have they and their customers changed, but the world has changed. Computing has changed.
These articles always fail to consider context in favor of the easy, selective, myopic pattern matching.
Don't take this to mean that Apple is above criticism. They're not. But articles like this are lazy.
People still don't get it. It's not a game of pattern matching with their past. Not only have they and their customers changed, but the world has changed. Computing has changed.
These articles always fail to consider context in favor of the easy, selective, myopic pattern matching.
Don't take this to mean that Apple is above criticism. They're not. But articles like this are lazy.
> Apple's market capitalization is more than 5% of America's entire GDP.
This compares apples to oranges. In case anyone else is curious:
Apple's worldwide revenue (258 billion) is 1.2% of America's GDP (19.9 trillion) or 0.3% of World GDP (84 trillion).
This compares apples to oranges. In case anyone else is curious:
Apple's worldwide revenue (258 billion) is 1.2% of America's GDP (19.9 trillion) or 0.3% of World GDP (84 trillion).
I'd argue it's not quite as bad as comparing Apples to Oranges.
Apple's value (market cap) is intrinsically tied to the stock market and America's growth.
But thanks for posting the revenue calculations as well. I think those numbers still support my point (because they too, are crazy)
Apple even just 15 years ago was a scrappy company trying to find its footing and had nowhere near the customer base it does today.
Apple's value (market cap) is intrinsically tied to the stock market and America's growth.
But thanks for posting the revenue calculations as well. I think those numbers still support my point (because they too, are crazy)
Apple even just 15 years ago was a scrappy company trying to find its footing and had nowhere near the customer base it does today.
Sorry, I was trying to explain why I was providing additional statistics.
It's technically a stock vs flow difference. Not trying to correct, just expand.
It's technically a stock vs flow difference. Not trying to correct, just expand.
The better comp for market cap would be US capital stock I think. The St Louis Fed puts it at around 60 trillion, which also puts Apple at ~1.6 percent of the economy.
I think it was helpful! Thank you for expanding on the numbers.
It blows my mind that 0.3% of the worlds "effort" goes to apple products.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Pet peeve: company market cap cannot and should not be compared to GDP of a country. The best comparable is the "Gross Value Added" GVA = delta in EBITDA + employee compensation, as outlined here by Matt Klein in FT Alphaville:
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2015/01/28/2103622/if-apple-were...
Others have recently estimated Apple GVA to be 0.5% of US GDP and 0.15% of world GDP.
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2015/01/28/2103622/if-apple-were...
Others have recently estimated Apple GVA to be 0.5% of US GDP and 0.15% of world GDP.
There are a ton of ways to slice these numbers, but no matter how you slice them the result is just insane as a percentage of America and the World - which was my point.
I appreciate you pointing out an alternate methodology though.
I appreciate you pointing out an alternate methodology though.
The magnitude matters a lot, though, and suggesting that Apple is more than 5% of the US GDP is incorrect and vastly overstates their contribution to the US economy.
The 1.2%/1.6% and even 0.5% figures quoted by others in this thread are still high numbers for a single company, but I submit that "more than 5%" would be a very different number (3x-20x, depending on which of the other numbers you believe) and is a gross exaggeration.
The 1.2%/1.6% and even 0.5% figures quoted by others in this thread are still high numbers for a single company, but I submit that "more than 5%" would be a very different number (3x-20x, depending on which of the other numbers you believe) and is a gross exaggeration.
> Apple's market capitalization is more than 5% of America's entire GDP.
Ugh. Comparing a dollar number with a dollars/year number is really ugly. It's not even the same unit!!
Ugh. Comparing a dollar number with a dollars/year number is really ugly. It's not even the same unit!!
>Consider that Apple is more than 5% of America's entire GDP, and 1% of the world's entire GDP.
When you put it like that it really does bring Apple's dominance into sharp relief.
When you put it like that it really does bring Apple's dominance into sharp relief.
It's a bit off, based off 2018 numbers they're a little over 1% of the US GDP and a little over 0.3% of the world's GDP. Could be more off, since I don't know where their products that are both made and sold in other countries are counted. Still insane that they could be close to a whole number percentage though, especially with their (relatively) limited product line.
It's weird to compare unlike things.
(the only attribute of apple that is 5% of US GDP is market cap.)
(the only attribute of apple that is 5% of US GDP is market cap.)
I think the criticism that a closed ecosystem is myopic and a competitive disadvantage is a fair one, though. Apple used to have a monopolistic stronghold on smartphones, but that is no longer the case. As in the nineties, a walled garden is going to look less appealing if there are cheaper, more open competitors offering as-good or better hardware.
Outside of phones, their MacBooks are teetering on the edge of no longer being competitive. The sole reason I most recently bought a MacBook instead of a different PowerBook with a tablet screen is that Linux support for tablet screens is still lacking, and my desire for POSIX overrode my desire for a touch screen. The next time I buy, I doubt that will be true of Linux. Either Apple will come late to the game with touch screen laptops (rather exemplifying the article's point that their hardware lags the competition), or they won't, and it will make far more sense to get a faster third party tablet book and put a free OS on it. And I doubt the average customer will care as much about POSIX as I do, but again, as in the nineties, serious developers aren't going to take Apple seriously forever if this keeps up.
Outside of phones, their MacBooks are teetering on the edge of no longer being competitive. The sole reason I most recently bought a MacBook instead of a different PowerBook with a tablet screen is that Linux support for tablet screens is still lacking, and my desire for POSIX overrode my desire for a touch screen. The next time I buy, I doubt that will be true of Linux. Either Apple will come late to the game with touch screen laptops (rather exemplifying the article's point that their hardware lags the competition), or they won't, and it will make far more sense to get a faster third party tablet book and put a free OS on it. And I doubt the average customer will care as much about POSIX as I do, but again, as in the nineties, serious developers aren't going to take Apple seriously forever if this keeps up.
Apple still owns most of the profit in smartphones, and they don’t really care about so-called market share that really just applies to the loss leaders.
Thing is, POSIX doesn't matter at all for developers that target Apple platforms.
Our devs on Macs use them for Objective-C, Swift, Java and .NET Core.
Our devs on Macs use them for Objective-C, Swift, Java and .NET Core.
There have only ever been two or three quarters in the entire history of the iPhone that Apple was even the number one smartphone maker and it never had more than around 25% market share.
I think Jobs learned from Atari that having an open platform for people to produce all kinds of junk for may not be in your or your customer's best interest.
Just as a datapoint. I'm running Linux on the Surface Pro and outside some initial tweaking it runs great.
"And in today’s age of open source, it’s clear that the future is open"
Apple's is the third most valuable company in the world. You'd have to be delusional to think the future is open.
Pack it in, fellow tech-priests, we lost this one.
Apple's is the third most valuable company in the world. You'd have to be delusional to think the future is open.
Pack it in, fellow tech-priests, we lost this one.
Not sure I agree on this one... a significant portion of the internet, and other devices (that aren't thought of as computers) are running Linux underneath. Android being the most popular user facing variant (custom UI/UX).
There's a lot to be said for open platforms. I'd also be surprised if given a few years that WebAssembly doesn't bring more open application options, even to closed ecosystems like Apple's iThings.
There's a lot to be said for open platforms. I'd also be surprised if given a few years that WebAssembly doesn't bring more open application options, even to closed ecosystems like Apple's iThings.
Apple today is not the company it was 10 years ago, let alone 20 years ago. Comparison is not useful. People buy equipment for different reasons from different levels of expertise. Some people like to hack their hardware, some don't. I've grown out of hacking hardware and software and prefer high availability. Like cars, I guess, buy a Ford or a Merc. Customer's choice.
Does Apple even matter anymore?
From article: "Rather than adopting open standards in their operating systems, they started focusing on developing their own, intended to work within their own ecosystem only."
I'm glad they did. MacOS is more clean and secure than Windows and Linux, and is a primary driver for Apple hardware sales. You can make Linux almost as secure, with enough tinkering, but it is not out of the box experience. Think Gatekeeper code signing.
I'm glad they did. MacOS is more clean and secure than Windows and Linux, and is a primary driver for Apple hardware sales. You can make Linux almost as secure, with enough tinkering, but it is not out of the box experience. Think Gatekeeper code signing.
Are there even good examples of "intended to work within their own ecosystem only"? I'm constantly surprised to the extent Apple embraces openness and interoperability (compared to my personal expectation of what they would do). It seems to me that they just totally ignore it in favor of building a "perfect" (by their own definition) product.
If anything, I would describe that behavior as "extreme NIH syndrome".
If anything, I would describe that behavior as "extreme NIH syndrome".
> Are there even good examples of "intended to work within their own ecosystem only"?
AirDrop, AirPlay, iMessage, FaceTime
AirDrop, AirPlay, iMessage, FaceTime
Apple is regressing to a Prada or Fendi identity. Now that they've become a "lifestyle brand" whose revenues come largely from Veblen goods they have much less incentive to foster technical excellence, engage with the technical community, or market products for use by professionals.
At least 1990s Apple users were computer fans in an era when that was a rare thing. Today, strippers and drug dealers carry iPhones (and are proud of it).
At least 1990s Apple users were computer fans in an era when that was a rare thing. Today, strippers and drug dealers carry iPhones (and are proud of it).
The thing is that consumers (clearly) don’t care about that stuff. There is no such thing as “overpriced” as long as the item is selling. Consumers determine the price of something based on the single factor of “what they are willing to pay”. If Apple can sell devices at that price, and consumers are willing to pay it, then it is by definition not overpriced.
Opennes is also overvalued for techies. While I am on the side of openness myself, the vast majority of consumers don’t care about it. They only care about the value they are getting from the product. There might be a few people who really want to crack open the case, but they do not have any significant presence in the market.
What consumers do care about is feeling good about their purchase, and the Apple of the 1990s had so many products and was so unfocused that none of the products were good, and consumers felt bad when they bought them.
The SKU problem is the same as today. Now you have half a dozen iPads to choose from, and a number of laptops that all seem to be the same except for half an inch between models. No matter what you pick, you leave the store with a sense of FOMO, not knowing if you really picked the right model. That is really what Steve did — you went in and bought the only option they gave you, and you felt confident you got the right one.