4 ms·

> 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

> 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.

AckSyn 9y ago
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.
soperj 9y ago
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.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  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.
  - soperj 9y ago
    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.
    - gnaritas 9y ago
      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.
      - soperj 9y ago
        >That's not user hostile, that's user friendly It really isn't.
  - ErikBjare 9y ago
    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.
    - gnaritas 9y ago
      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.
      - soperj 9y ago
        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.
        gnaritas 9y ago
        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.
        soperj 9y ago
        What are you even arguing at this point? What's the difference between every android phone and an apple aside from the openness of the software? No one is providing open hardware.
        gnaritas 9y ago
- vapid8y98797 9y ago
  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.
  - 05 9y ago
    But not pentalobe ones..
  - soperj 9y ago
    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.
- eridius 9y ago
  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.
- askafriend 9y ago
  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.
  - soperj 9y ago
    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.
culturalzero 9y ago
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.
- kec 9y ago
  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.
ErikBjare 9y ago
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.
aetherson 9y ago
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.
- eridius 9y ago
  > 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.
petra 9y ago
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 ?
- swift 9y ago
  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.
jpk 9y ago
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.
mal808 9y ago
lol, fuck apple. They go out of their way to make things more difficult for their users. This whole one port thing is a fucking joke!
meesterdude 9y ago
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.
- askafriend 9y ago
  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.
  - meesterdude 9y ago
    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.

AckSyn 9y ago

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.

soperj 9y ago

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.

gnaritas 9y ago
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.
- soperj 9y ago
  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.
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    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.
    - soperj 9y ago
      >That's not user hostile, that's user friendly It really isn't.
- ErikBjare 9y ago
  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.
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    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.
    - soperj 9y ago
      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.
      - gnaritas 9y ago
        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.
        soperj 9y ago
        What are you even arguing at this point? What's the difference between every android phone and an apple aside from the openness of the software? No one is providing open hardware.
        gnaritas 9y ago
vapid8y98797 9y ago
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.
- 05 9y ago
  But not pentalobe ones..
- soperj 9y ago
  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.
eridius 9y ago
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.
askafriend 9y ago
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.
- soperj 9y ago
  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.

culturalzero 9y ago

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.

kec 9y ago
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.

ErikBjare 9y ago

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.

aetherson 9y ago

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.

eridius 9y ago
> 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.

petra 9y ago

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 ?

swift 9y ago
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.

jpk 9y ago

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.

mal808 9y ago

lol, fuck apple. They go out of their way to make things more difficult for their users. This whole one port thing is a fucking joke!

meesterdude 9y ago

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.

askafriend 9y ago
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.
- meesterdude 9y ago
  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.