Apple Maps: Steve Jobs must be rolling over in his grave (2 Viewers)

[Sam Posten]

Inexpensive = less profits & cannibalized sales.

Yeah, cause that worked out horribly for the iPod Mini and uh, the iPad mini.

 

[Hanson]

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/12/12/ipad-shipments-lowered-because-of-ipad-mini-cannibalization/

 

[Sam Posten]

The same thing happened on the iPod, what's your point? If you are still making a premium product with a legitimate profit margin you can afford to do that.... http://www.apple.com/pr/products/ipodhistory/ Number of iPods sold through 2003: two million iPod, 2003 January Apple introduces iPod mini, available in five colors Number of iPods sold through 2004: 10 million Number of iPods sold through 2005: 42 million Number of iPods sold through 2006: 88 million Number of iPods sold through 2007: 141 million When did this acceleration slow down? When the iPhone matured... No big deal.

 

[Sam Posten]

+1 to this:

What interests me more is why does this stuff keep happening in Apple’s name? No one comes out and says this crap about Samsung, Google, Nokia, RIM, Microsoft or any other big name in technology. It’s all Apple, all the time. One possible answer is that Apple’s headlines are perfect link bait. Write something disparaging about Apple and everybody who follows technology clicks the link. Posts get written about it for weeks. The irony is that all the commentary keeps the story alive, drives more traffic to the original writer’s web site, which gets them to write more of this garbage. The second possible answer is that we thrive on building up companies (and people) then tearing them down. Apple was the underdog for so long and now that it is one of the biggest and most successful companies in the world, well, we can’t root for them anymore. A third is that the company is just that divisive. These have been talked about endlessly; none ring perfectly true to me. They all strike me as symptoms, not causes. I have come to believe that the true cause is something bigger than all of this. I think the right answer is that Apple just fails to pass the gut test for most people. It’s an incredulous reaction to Apple’s success. Look, how is it even remotely possible that a company with such a small market share could really be doing so well? How can a company that had so little success, a company that survived by the skin of its teeth in the PC era, be one of the largest companies in the world now? How can a company with so few products be such a behemoth?

http://eliainsider.com/2013/01/16/apples-churning-gut/

 

[DaveF]

I've been wondering... What happens when Google grows weary of paying for Samsung's mobile OS?

 

[Sam Posten]

I honestly don't think they care. Forks is forks if it comes down to that. Anyway, next time you are tempted to think SJ might be rolling in his grave remember this:

it wasn't magic, it was hard work, thoughtful design, and constant iteration. Doing the best we knew how with what was available, shaping each release into a credible, solid, useful, product, as simple and direct as we could make it. And we shipped those products, most importantly.

http://inventor-labs.com/blog/2011/10/12/what-its-really-like-working-with-steve-jobs.html It's the iteration that matters. Just look at how iOS has matured. And it still is. But that NARROW focus at the start had the focus and from their it was built upon. Had they done apps and copy and paste and all the other things people crucified them for without it being fully baked it would never have gotten the start it did. Ask anyone who uses FCPX how that app has iterated past the issues that drove the pros nuts. There are still a ton who have an attitude of "never again" but those who have given it a chance seem to find more and more to like. Apple is littered with things that aren't great to start with and continue to get better and better. Often in surprising ways. But those surprises are found via focus on what matters at the heart of the problems they solve, the itches they scratch, not just because a million different variants were tossed out on the shelves to "let the market decide". That's not engineering. More importantly Apple are able to toss out things that aren't working (iPod hifi and socks anyone?) AND to even kill their biggest sellers when they are impediments to the future they see, Nothing is ever perfect. But unlike their competitors Apple doesn't throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks. They pick at things and iterate and improve while still being narrowly focused. Again that can drive people nuts when they have the attitude that depth matters. Depth of ways to work, depth of product, depth of -choice-. But Apple's philosophy is different: Depth kills focus. You can read that as "be reasonable, do it my way" or you can read it as "We think this is the best way to do things but we are not done yet".

 

[Hanson]

There needs to be a Android to goad Apple into innovating instead of iterating and stagnating. If it weren't for Android, iOS wouldn't have changed much from iOS 3 because there would be no need to do anything other than release dribs and drabs. Why is Siri on iPhones? Android.
"In the fall of 2009, several months before Apple approached Siri, Verizon had signed a deal with the startup to make Siri a default app on all Android phones set to launch in the new year. When Apple swooped in to buy Siri, it insisted on making the assistant exclusive to Apple devices, and nixed the Verizon deal. In the process, it narrowly avoided seeing Siri become a selling point for smartphones powered by its biggest rival, Google. (Somewhere in the vaults of the wireless giant, there are unreleased commercials touting Siri as an Android add-on.)"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/siri-do-engine-apple-iphone_n_2499165.html
And if you think that this had nothing to do with Apple's purchase, then why did they buy the tech only to neuter most of the features?
"most failed to realize that Apple's version of Siri lacked many of the features once built into the program. This, after all, was no ordinary iPhone app, but the progeny of the largest artificial intelligence project in U.S. history: a Defense Department-funded undertaking that sought to build a virtual assistant that could reason and learn."

 

[RobertR]

unlike their competitors Apple doesn't throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks. They pick at things and iterate and improve while still being narrowly focused. Again that can drive people nuts when they have the attitude that depth matters. Depth of ways to work, depth of product, depth of -choice-. But Apple's philosophy is different: Depth kills focus. You can read that as "be reasonable, do it my way" or you can read it as "We think this is the best way to do things but we are not done yet".

The only "focus" that really matters is "is it a better product?". "Better" is determined by how many people use and enjoy something, and Apple is losing in that regard. I much prefer a company whose focus is on striving to please me to one that strives to please itself. And how are the Android versions not iterative improvements?

 

[Sam Posten]

There needs to be a Android to goad Apple into innovating instead of iterating and stagnating.

Needs, no. Helps, yes. I'm on record saying the same.

If it weren't for Android, iOS wouldn't have changed much from iOS 3 because there would be no need to do anything other than release dribs and drabs. Why is Siri on iPhones? Android.

Laughably wrong.

And if you think that this had nothing to do with Apple's purchase, then why did they buy the tech only to neuter most of the features?

Because those features are not ready for prime time integration OS wide and at scale? Iteration... Iteration.... Iteration.

"most failed to realize that Apple's version of Siri lacked many of the features once built into the program. This, after all, was no ordinary iPhone app, but the progeny of the largest artificial intelligence project in U.S. history: a Defense Department-funded undertaking that sought to build a virtual assistant that could reason and learn."

I don't think you understand how DARPA works.... The article goes over the history of the DARPA origins.... Did the original SIRI app have more features? Absolutely. As we all know "more" is not how Apple rolls. They took the best parts out first and are iterating again and again. They are not done, of course. Many suspect that iOS7 will have wide ranging support for SIRI to 3rd parties which would be even more powerful than keeping it all internal to Apple. But maybe they WILL keep it locked up. Which would you prefer? Which could they have put out in the first rev?

 

[Hanson]

So let me get this straight -- you can open Safari and search for hardcore pornography, and that's okay. But if you use 500px to look for artistic nudes, that's considered "pornography" and it's thrown out from the App Store:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/01/22/nude-image-search-gets-popular-photo-sharing-app-500px-pulled-from-app-store
Is Pat Robertson on the board of Apple now?

 

[Hanson]

If it weren't for Android, iOS wouldn't have changed much from iOS 3 because there would be no need to do anything other than release dribs and drabs. Why is Siri on iPhones? Android.

Laughably wrong.

And you know this because?
What's laughable is that you act like you actually can refute this.
To be clear, I'm referring to the connection between Siri's purchase and its planned release on Droids.

 

[RobertR]

Helps, yes.

Then you acknowledge that the more competitive pressure on Apple, the better.

 

[Sam Posten]

Apple is losing

http://www.fastcompany.com/3004989/verizon-reports-surprising-iphone-sales-immediately-apples-finances

Verizon, just reported that while it activated 9.2 million smartphones over the holiday quarter (up from 6.8 million the previous quarter) 6.2 million of them were iPhones.

What a big loser Apple is!

 

[Hanson]

Apple definitely looks to Android for "help" in what features to add. For example, almost all the features in iOS 5 & 6 were taken from Android. Which is pretty brazen for a company that sues other companies for copying their works.

 

[Sam Posten]

So let me get this straight -- you can open Safari and search for hardcore pornography, and that's okay. But if you use 500px to look for artistic nudes, that's considered "pornography" and it's thrown out from the App Store:

Yep, this is one area I agree with you that Apple is batshit crazy in the wrong. and it makes no sense except in the historical perspective of what they have restricted in the past. Still dumb.

 

[Sam Posten]

And you know this because? What's laughable is that you act like you actually can refute this.  To be clear, I'm referring to the connection between Siri's purchase and its planned release on Droids.

Sorry, meant to strip the last sentence. Can't refute that, don't have any details. The first part is obviously wrong tho. The iOS developer program didn't just spring up over night Hanson. You honestly believe Apple meant for us to have Web Apps for the entire life of smart phones? Cmon.

 

[RobertR]

http://www.fastcompany.com/3004989/verizon-reports-surprising-iphone-sales-immediately-apples-finances What a big loser Apple is!

15% market share for Apple vs. 75% for Android can't be called "winning" by any stretch of the imagination: http://venturebeat.com/2012/11/01/as-android-grabs-75-market-share-can-anyone-tell-me-why-this-is-not-mac-vs-pc-all-over-again/ BTW, I assume you're aware of the reports that Apple will report a decline in profits.

 

[DaveF]

I honestly don't think they care. Forks is forks if it comes down to that.

I'll rephrase: what happens to Samsung if they no longer get OS development for free? Maybe what google does is trivial, low cost programming and all the Android phone makers can take it in house. Or maybe google is glad to forever be the unpaid software division of Samsung.

 

[DaveF]

"Apple today posted its earnings for the final quarter of 2012, which was ‘disappointingly’ the largest corporate earnings year in human history by a tidy margin. The let-down caused many investors to panic as Apple clearly circles the drain in what will be the first step in a short road to the demise of the most valuable company in the world (If Exxon hasn’t indeed surpassed it tomorrow morning)." http://9to5mac.com/2013/01/23/apple-reports-the-largest-corporate-earnings-in-the-history-of-the-earth-stock-down-10/ I don't understand. If Apple were grossly overpriced like Amazon, I would understand a market correction. If it were slightly optimistically priced like google, who gives everything away and makes it up in volume, maybe a pull back is appropriate. But it was priced like a large stable company...and now is priced like large company nearing instability. We're not a stock site, but someone make sense of this?

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

It's all a game of perception and expectations en masse... _Man_