5 ms·

Why do you think the era is over? Are people buying less cellphones and laptops?

noir-york 10y ago
The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones. Isn't google still not a search company, but its moved past its 'search' era and now its focus on other things. Apple will always sell hardware, but it needs to orient to its next phase of growth, and that ain't hardware.
- rocky1138 10y ago
  It may be hardware, but might not be computers, phones, and tablets.
  - noir-york 10y ago
    Apple is amazing when it puts its mind to hardware for which there is an "ideal" Form; the macbook is the "perfect" form for a laptop, the iPhone is the "perfect" form for a smartphone. Take watches however, there is no one perfect form - different needs demand different forms. Or cars, or fridges or planes. So yes it may not be computers, phones or tablets, but the number of multi-billion dollar aspirational hardware products that Apple will be good at is not by any means a large number.
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      > the iPhone is the "perfect" form for a smartphone Heh, I remember time when a 4-inch screen was declared was the "perfect" size for a phone (with intentionally malformed Photoshopped thumb-reachability evidence to buttress the argument) and "no one would buy 'the hummers' of phones"
- allisthemoist 10y ago
  As a company that has a huge grip on higher end hardware sales, I definitely think they will stay in the space. That being said, product innovation certainly needs to happen for them to retain their dominance.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Depends. They're the quality leader of the hardware market, but that means they'll need to be present in new hardware markets. This includes VR/AR, less someone else gets to the the brand reputation throne first (like HTC or Microsoft).
    - studentrob 10y ago
      > This includes VR/AR, less someone else gets to the the brand reputation throne first (like HTC or Microsoft). I think HTC's got it for at least a year. It may continue longer. They'd need to do something wrong to lose the lead. MS Hololens is too expensive at the moment to get much reach. And I could make many comments about how Oculus/FB messed up a bit recently. However, I think everyone, including HTC, hopes that Oculus finds its stride again. More competition is better for everyone and will advance VR tech and the market reach faster. Gates and Jobs are on record saying Microsoft, Apple, and the world wouldn't have been as good without each other.
      - bduerst 10y ago
        Don't you think you're projecting? It's easy to romance competition, but I seriously doubt HTC hopes the OR finds it's feet. Just as its easy for Gates and Jobs to reminisce after the PC boom after the dust has settled, I doubt they were so romantic during.
        studentrob 10y ago
        > Don't you think you're projecting? It's easy to romance competition, but I seriously doubt HTC hopes the OR finds it's feet. Sure, this is my opinion on the internet. I've no idea if the HTC and Facebook CEOs feel the same way about competition helping each other as Jobs [1] and Gates [2] said. But I imagine those at the top of massive organizations know a few things about being successful that might not be obvious to the rest of us. What Jobs and Gates said does ring true about their history. Jobs explicitly pointed out that there was a toxic anti-Microsoft attitude at Apple when he returned, and getting rid of that was critical to their success [1]. > Just as its easy for Gates and Jobs to reminisce after the PC boom after the dust has settled, I doubt they were so romantic during. That's also discussed in the Jobs/Gates interview. There were good and bad times, and historically speaking, they were not always so against each other. MS invested in Apple several times, and Apple took some risk partnering with them. Jobs pointed out Apple (really, himself) wasn't good at partnering with people, but Gates was, and he admired that [3]. [1] https://youtu.be/wvhW8cp15tk?t=23m42s https://youtu.be/wvhW8cp15tk?t=23m42s [2] https://youtu.be/wvhW8cp15tk?t=1h8m25s https://youtu.be/wvhW8cp15tk?t=1h8m25s [3] https://youtu.be/wvhW8cp15tk?t=1h24m6s https://youtu.be/wvhW8cp15tk?t=1h24m6s
- zepto 10y ago
  Google hasn't moved past anything - almost all of its money comes from search still. Everything else is just 'bets' none of which have paid off. Apple makes bets too - they just aren't public.
  - studentrob 10y ago
    > Google hasn't moved past anything Yeah. This doesn't seem so bad to me. Search has improved tremendously over the years. Things are easier to find. Google is making more content discoverable. Advertising is arguably the biggest revenue generator for internet tools. Everyone can use things that are free, and companies want to reach everyone. So long as Google is the most frequently visited site in the world, they remain in control of the biggest revenue stream. One could argue Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat etc. are making up ground by giving people access to more readers than the likes of Blogger or WordPress. These isolated worlds feel a little like AOL's heydays to me. There ought to be an easy way to publish somewhere, then take your content and network and move to another service if you want. At the moment, it's possible but not easy. I think anyone who makes such an open social network, with easily exportable contacts and content, would find a lot of success. But it's a really hard problem to solve and I understand why this doesn't exist yet.
    - zepto 10y ago
      It seems to me that this idea of portability is relevant to almost nobody Most regular people I know enjoy Facebook, and are accustomed to how it works. I'm curious about where you see the demand?
      - studentrob 10y ago
        > Most regular people I know enjoy Facebook I enjoy Facebook. I just see opportunity for something next-generation. Also, I disagree with the notion that Facebook will be fine forever as the dominant player in social networking. They are better off with more competition. Gates and Jobs are quoted saying that Microsoft and Apple's existence helped each other become better companies [1] [2], and helped get more useful computers into people's homes and businesses faster. Gmail offers an export feature of its emails and contacts in formats that are importable by other tools. Facebook could do this for your friends list. They don't because they've never had competition that provides such a feature. When internet explorer became free for everyone, Netscape was forced to become free for everyone. > I'm curious about where you see the demand? Demand doesn't make or break a new product. There wasn't demand for cars or iPods before they came out. That's the best I can explain it. If you don't agree that's fine. [1] https://youtu.be/wvhW8cp15tk?t=23m42s https://youtu.be/wvhW8cp15tk?t=23m42s [2] https://youtu.be/wvhW8cp15tk?t=1h8m25s https://youtu.be/wvhW8cp15tk?t=1h8m25s
- brisance 10y ago
  You know what is Apple's #2 source of revenue? Services, which was $6 billion. This was more than Facebook's Q1 revenue.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones. Isn't google still not a search company, but its moved past its 'search' era and now its focus on other things. Apple will always sell hardware, but it needs to orient to its next phase of growth, and that ain't hardware.

rocky1138 10y ago
It may be hardware, but might not be computers, phones, and tablets.
- noir-york 10y ago
  Apple is amazing when it puts its mind to hardware for which there is an "ideal" Form; the macbook is the "perfect" form for a laptop, the iPhone is the "perfect" form for a smartphone. Take watches however, there is no one perfect form - different needs demand different forms. Or cars, or fridges or planes. So yes it may not be computers, phones or tablets, but the number of multi-billion dollar aspirational hardware products that Apple will be good at is not by any means a large number.
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > the iPhone is the "perfect" form for a smartphone Heh, I remember time when a 4-inch screen was declared was the "perfect" size for a phone (with intentionally malformed Photoshopped thumb-reachability evidence to buttress the argument) and "no one would buy 'the hummers' of phones"
allisthemoist 10y ago
As a company that has a huge grip on higher end hardware sales, I definitely think they will stay in the space. That being said, product innovation certainly needs to happen for them to retain their dominance.
- bduerst 10y ago
  Depends. They're the quality leader of the hardware market, but that means they'll need to be present in new hardware markets. This includes VR/AR, less someone else gets to the the brand reputation throne first (like HTC or Microsoft).
  - studentrob 10y ago
    > This includes VR/AR, less someone else gets to the the brand reputation throne first (like HTC or Microsoft). I think HTC's got it for at least a year. It may continue longer. They'd need to do something wrong to lose the lead. MS Hololens is too expensive at the moment to get much reach. And I could make many comments about how Oculus/FB messed up a bit recently. However, I think everyone, including HTC, hopes that Oculus finds its stride again. More competition is better for everyone and will advance VR tech and the market reach faster. Gates and Jobs are on record saying Microsoft, Apple, and the world wouldn't have been as good without each other.
    - bduerst 10y ago
      Don't you think you're projecting? It's easy to romance competition, but I seriously doubt HTC hopes the OR finds it's feet. Just as its easy for Gates and Jobs to reminisce after the PC boom after the dust has settled, I doubt they were so romantic during.
      - studentrob 10y ago
        > Don't you think you're projecting? It's easy to romance competition, but I seriously doubt HTC hopes the OR finds it's feet. Sure, this is my opinion on the internet. I've no idea if the HTC and Facebook CEOs feel the same way about competition helping each other as Jobs [1] and Gates [2] said. But I imagine those at the top of massive organizations know a few things about being successful that might not be obvious to the rest of us. What Jobs and Gates said does ring true about their history. Jobs explicitly pointed out that there was a toxic anti-Microsoft attitude at Apple when he returned, and getting rid of that was critical to their success [1]. > Just as its easy for Gates and Jobs to reminisce after the PC boom after the dust has settled, I doubt they were so romantic during. That's also discussed in the Jobs/Gates interview. There were good and bad times, and historically speaking, they were not always so against each other. MS invested in Apple several times, and Apple took some risk partnering with them. Jobs pointed out Apple (really, himself) wasn't good at partnering with people, but Gates was, and he admired that [3]. [1] https://youtu.be/wvhW8cp15tk?t=23m42s https://youtu.be/wvhW8cp15tk?t=23m42s [2] https://youtu.be/wvhW8cp15tk?t=1h8m25s https://youtu.be/wvhW8cp15tk?t=1h8m25s [3] https://youtu.be/wvhW8cp15tk?t=1h24m6s https://youtu.be/wvhW8cp15tk?t=1h24m6s
zepto 10y ago
Google hasn't moved past anything - almost all of its money comes from search still. Everything else is just 'bets' none of which have paid off. Apple makes bets too - they just aren't public.
- studentrob 10y ago
  > Google hasn't moved past anything Yeah. This doesn't seem so bad to me. Search has improved tremendously over the years. Things are easier to find. Google is making more content discoverable. Advertising is arguably the biggest revenue generator for internet tools. Everyone can use things that are free, and companies want to reach everyone. So long as Google is the most frequently visited site in the world, they remain in control of the biggest revenue stream. One could argue Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat etc. are making up ground by giving people access to more readers than the likes of Blogger or WordPress. These isolated worlds feel a little like AOL's heydays to me. There ought to be an easy way to publish somewhere, then take your content and network and move to another service if you want. At the moment, it's possible but not easy. I think anyone who makes such an open social network, with easily exportable contacts and content, would find a lot of success. But it's a really hard problem to solve and I understand why this doesn't exist yet.
  - zepto 10y ago
    It seems to me that this idea of portability is relevant to almost nobody Most regular people I know enjoy Facebook, and are accustomed to how it works. I'm curious about where you see the demand?
    - studentrob 10y ago
      > Most regular people I know enjoy Facebook I enjoy Facebook. I just see opportunity for something next-generation. Also, I disagree with the notion that Facebook will be fine forever as the dominant player in social networking. They are better off with more competition. Gates and Jobs are quoted saying that Microsoft and Apple's existence helped each other become better companies [1] [2], and helped get more useful computers into people's homes and businesses faster. Gmail offers an export feature of its emails and contacts in formats that are importable by other tools. Facebook could do this for your friends list. They don't because they've never had competition that provides such a feature. When internet explorer became free for everyone, Netscape was forced to become free for everyone. > I'm curious about where you see the demand? Demand doesn't make or break a new product. There wasn't demand for cars or iPods before they came out. That's the best I can explain it. If you don't agree that's fine. [1] https://youtu.be/wvhW8cp15tk?t=23m42s https://youtu.be/wvhW8cp15tk?t=23m42s [2] https://youtu.be/wvhW8cp15tk?t=1h8m25s https://youtu.be/wvhW8cp15tk?t=1h8m25s
brisance 10y ago
You know what is Apple's #2 source of revenue? Services, which was $6 billion. This was more than Facebook's Q1 revenue.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]