7 ms·

While reading this, I couldn't help but feel like he wants the "more open" platforms to beat Apple mostly because it means that he (and others) can just leech o

While reading this, I couldn't help but feel like he wants the "more open" platforms to beat Apple mostly because it means that he (and others) can just leech off the work being done by the OS or hardware vendors so they don't have to bother with everything themselves. It feels lazy. Apple does everything themselves so they can offer a complete, cohesive, unified package that their customers want. The PC vendors always seem to be looking for an easy way out so they only have to do half as much work. Either they don't want to mess with hardware, or they don't want to mess with software. They want someone else to come and build stuff they can take and bundle rather than digging in and doing what it takes to make a complete product for their customers.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago
Apple uses basically the same stock hardware as everyone else, and when they don't they mostly contract them out to the same companies to build them. People don't like to believe this (see the fairytales people made up about the magical A4 chip before it was revealed to be Samsung's Hummingbird paired with a slightly less powerful GPU compared with Samsung's own version, which in itself is fairly equal to its Qualcomm and TI rivals) but it's just the way the world works. You might have a stronger case on the software side, but even there Apple recognizes the strength of building on standards and open source which allows them more time to focus on differentiation rather than reinventing wheels (though they still do on occasion if it suits them). Apple package these things together well, and I believe that's an important skill and adds value, but for whatever reason people don't value that so they need to invent secret sauces for Apple.
- BigZaphod 16y ago
  Apple uses most of the same components as everyone else, but not exactly identical and not always in standardized configurations. They are doing the work of coming up with solid, profitable, and interesting combinations of mostly-pre-existing hardware and combining it with a solid, profitable, and interesting combination of mostly-pre-existing software. (Some of which they own entirely, and plenty of open source stuff as you said.) Apple has a hell of an R&D department. As far as I know, their retina display, unibody laptop manufacturing processes, and touch-based trackpad tech are unique to them. It's been shown a number of times that their touch screens are way more accurate than others, and somehow their battery life is quite remarkable compared to competitors as well. With the exception of the display and the unibody cases, the stuff I've listed here all require hardware and software to work closely together to achieve the perfect experience. It's areas like that which the PC makers will always suffer in if they don't change their approach, IMO.
  - elai 16y ago
    Making an LCD have a high ppi is not difficult. You had lcds with greater ppi's 10 years ago for LCD projectors and what not. A unibody laptop isn't breaking ground from a manufacturing stand point, it's just specifically shaped piece of aluminum.
    - BigZaphod 16y ago
      If it's so easy, why had no one else put them in their phones or built their laptops out of them?
      - ergo98 16y ago
        Probably because they couldn't convince people that it was magical. Why did the iPhone run at such a low resolution while Windows Mobile and Android phones were coming out with 3x more pixels? Yet when they increase the DPI game slightly, brand it as a Retina Display, you think they're innovative?
        BigZaphod 16y ago
        It was a just bit more than a "slight" increase. I think Apple had been planning on being able to double it all along - hence the initially lower dpi. But of course they'll never say for sure.
        ergo98 16y ago
        I meant they accomplished a slight increase in DPI across the genre (not relative to the iPhone 3GS) -- a large number of phones that came out months earlier are within spitting distance of the iPhone 4's DPI, but it just was never a big deal.
      - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
        Several manufacturers had high dpi screens about 300dpi in phones before Apple. None that I'm aware of matched Apples exact dpi but then again, they had no need to exactly quadrupel the pixel count in the original iPhone while still being roughly the same size. As far as the aluminium goes Apple has fetishised their materials choices for a long time and had as many hits as misses e.g. "Titanium" paint that flakes off, White iBooks that discolored, white iPhone 4s that they can't manufacture. Others generally don't bother as their customers don't want or need it. I'm not sure Apple users do before they are trained to by Apple.
- jonhohle 16y ago
  What Apple is doing is not dissimilar to what Unix vendors have always done: provide a custom UI on top of Unix, bundle the whole setup with proprietary (typically RISC) hardware. In the mobile space, this proprietary hardware is remarkably similar to other vendors in terms of silicon used, but only in Apple's case (and perhaps Nokia) are they providing the customized OS as well. On the other hand (and this is just my opinion), Apple's design engineers are wiping the floor with essentially everyone else. They have had the most robust feeling (in terms of weight, rigidness, materials, etc.) device on the market for 3 years straight. In fact, I have not handled a non-Apple device that feels as solid as any iPhone model.
  - dkarl 16y ago
    They have had the most robust feeling (in terms of weight, rigidness, materials, etc.) device on the market for 3 years straight. In fact, I have not handled a non-Apple device that feels as solid as any iPhone model. So why does everybody have a case on their iPhone? Apple made a beautiful but fragile phone, and everybody gives them credit for micromanaging the physical aesthetics of the iPhone even though most users experience the physical aesthetics of a third-party case. Evidently they didn't like the aesthetic compromises required to make it robust against normal usage scenarios like dropping the phone onto a hard surface, so they just punted. They disclaimed responsibility and let the third-party case makers handle it. I'd much rather they had applied their design prowess to solving the complete problem, even if the resulting product wasn't as beautiful.
    - nanairo 16y ago
      This is trolling of the highest form. Think of other goods, maybe even other goods that people really really like. Do they not protect them? What about computers? Do we not put them in protective cases? Cars and motorbike? Ever seen one of those guys who covers their car/bike when not in use? Or what about pens, that some people like to keep inside their case. Heck: I've seen military grade equipment that was still handled and carried with the care you'd reserved for an egg shell or a soap bubble!
      - 16y ago
- pohl 16y ago
  BigZaphod: Apple does everything themselves so they can offer a complete, cohesive, unified package that their customers want. The PC vendors always seem to be looking for an easy way out so they only have to do half as much work. ZeroGravitas: Apple package these things together well, and I believe that's an important skill and adds value This smells like violent agreement to me. The R&D that goes into packaging, component selection, and materials is exactly the sort of investment that low-margin PC manufactures avoid on the hardware side.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Wait, is that a fair comment? I understood Intrinsity to have designed the chip we're calling the A4, and to have licensed it to Samsung. Apple later bought Intrinsity. If that's the case, there's nothing shady about them branding the A4 as a house design; they own the house that designed it.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- nanairo 16y ago
  The processors are similar, true. Although even that is not completely right. I believe Apple managed to get Intel to produce a couple of CPUs spec they way they wanted... but a few months later Intel was free to sell it to others too. (I am thinking the original Macbook air, for example). They also use pretty standard graphics cards, CD/DVD drivers (although not always), hard disks and so on. But there are still a few differences. First: they case is most definitely something that sets them apart, and they are not "off the shelf". Second: they pick good combinations, which in a way it's easier for them since they are selling the computer as a whole and not for its specs. Hence if they think it's better value for money they may go with a camera that has lower megapixels despite having better images (e.g. more sensitive sensors). Or decide if it's better to invest in more RAM, faster GPU or faster CPU. And so on. Many (though not all) PC manufacturer are in a much more cut-throat market, and in such hyper-competitive environment it's not surprising that easily quantifiable numbers (e.g. MHz, megapixels, contrast, resolution, etc...) becomes the key point. Third: Apple has often thinks outside of the box, so to speak, and backs up new technologies much before others. Wifi was an example, floppy drive, USB, Firewire, multi-track, etc... They can do that because they control the whole stack, but it's still a hardware advantage in the end. Forth and last: they innovate some small details such as the mag-safe power supply, or the way it closes, or some other small touches...

ZeroGravitas 16y ago

Apple uses basically the same stock hardware as everyone else, and when they don't they mostly contract them out to the same companies to build them. People don't like to believe this (see the fairytales people made up about the magical A4 chip before it was revealed to be Samsung's Hummingbird paired with a slightly less powerful GPU compared with Samsung's own version, which in itself is fairly equal to its Qualcomm and TI rivals) but it's just the way the world works. You might have a stronger case on the software side, but even there Apple recognizes the strength of building on standards and open source which allows them more time to focus on differentiation rather than reinventing wheels (though they still do on occasion if it suits them). Apple package these things together well, and I believe that's an important skill and adds value, but for whatever reason people don't value that so they need to invent secret sauces for Apple.

BigZaphod 16y ago
Apple uses most of the same components as everyone else, but not exactly identical and not always in standardized configurations. They are doing the work of coming up with solid, profitable, and interesting combinations of mostly-pre-existing hardware and combining it with a solid, profitable, and interesting combination of mostly-pre-existing software. (Some of which they own entirely, and plenty of open source stuff as you said.) Apple has a hell of an R&D department. As far as I know, their retina display, unibody laptop manufacturing processes, and touch-based trackpad tech are unique to them. It's been shown a number of times that their touch screens are way more accurate than others, and somehow their battery life is quite remarkable compared to competitors as well. With the exception of the display and the unibody cases, the stuff I've listed here all require hardware and software to work closely together to achieve the perfect experience. It's areas like that which the PC makers will always suffer in if they don't change their approach, IMO.
- elai 16y ago
  Making an LCD have a high ppi is not difficult. You had lcds with greater ppi's 10 years ago for LCD projectors and what not. A unibody laptop isn't breaking ground from a manufacturing stand point, it's just specifically shaped piece of aluminum.
  - BigZaphod 16y ago
    If it's so easy, why had no one else put them in their phones or built their laptops out of them?
    - ergo98 16y ago
      Probably because they couldn't convince people that it was magical. Why did the iPhone run at such a low resolution while Windows Mobile and Android phones were coming out with 3x more pixels? Yet when they increase the DPI game slightly, brand it as a Retina Display, you think they're innovative?
      - BigZaphod 16y ago
        It was a just bit more than a "slight" increase. I think Apple had been planning on being able to double it all along - hence the initially lower dpi. But of course they'll never say for sure.
        ergo98 16y ago
        I meant they accomplished a slight increase in DPI across the genre (not relative to the iPhone 3GS) -- a large number of phones that came out months earlier are within spitting distance of the iPhone 4's DPI, but it just was never a big deal.
    - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
      Several manufacturers had high dpi screens about 300dpi in phones before Apple. None that I'm aware of matched Apples exact dpi but then again, they had no need to exactly quadrupel the pixel count in the original iPhone while still being roughly the same size. As far as the aluminium goes Apple has fetishised their materials choices for a long time and had as many hits as misses e.g. "Titanium" paint that flakes off, White iBooks that discolored, white iPhone 4s that they can't manufacture. Others generally don't bother as their customers don't want or need it. I'm not sure Apple users do before they are trained to by Apple.
jonhohle 16y ago
What Apple is doing is not dissimilar to what Unix vendors have always done: provide a custom UI on top of Unix, bundle the whole setup with proprietary (typically RISC) hardware. In the mobile space, this proprietary hardware is remarkably similar to other vendors in terms of silicon used, but only in Apple's case (and perhaps Nokia) are they providing the customized OS as well. On the other hand (and this is just my opinion), Apple's design engineers are wiping the floor with essentially everyone else. They have had the most robust feeling (in terms of weight, rigidness, materials, etc.) device on the market for 3 years straight. In fact, I have not handled a non-Apple device that feels as solid as any iPhone model.
- dkarl 16y ago
  They have had the most robust feeling (in terms of weight, rigidness, materials, etc.) device on the market for 3 years straight. In fact, I have not handled a non-Apple device that feels as solid as any iPhone model. So why does everybody have a case on their iPhone? Apple made a beautiful but fragile phone, and everybody gives them credit for micromanaging the physical aesthetics of the iPhone even though most users experience the physical aesthetics of a third-party case. Evidently they didn't like the aesthetic compromises required to make it robust against normal usage scenarios like dropping the phone onto a hard surface, so they just punted. They disclaimed responsibility and let the third-party case makers handle it. I'd much rather they had applied their design prowess to solving the complete problem, even if the resulting product wasn't as beautiful.
  - nanairo 16y ago
    This is trolling of the highest form. Think of other goods, maybe even other goods that people really really like. Do they not protect them? What about computers? Do we not put them in protective cases? Cars and motorbike? Ever seen one of those guys who covers their car/bike when not in use? Or what about pens, that some people like to keep inside their case. Heck: I've seen military grade equipment that was still handled and carried with the care you'd reserved for an egg shell or a soap bubble!
    - 16y ago
pohl 16y ago
BigZaphod: Apple does everything themselves so they can offer a complete, cohesive, unified package that their customers want. The PC vendors always seem to be looking for an easy way out so they only have to do half as much work. ZeroGravitas: Apple package these things together well, and I believe that's an important skill and adds value This smells like violent agreement to me. The R&D that goes into packaging, component selection, and materials is exactly the sort of investment that low-margin PC manufactures avoid on the hardware side.
tptacek 16y ago
Wait, is that a fair comment? I understood Intrinsity to have designed the chip we're calling the A4, and to have licensed it to Samsung. Apple later bought Intrinsity. If that's the case, there's nothing shady about them branding the A4 as a house design; they own the house that designed it.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
nanairo 16y ago
The processors are similar, true. Although even that is not completely right. I believe Apple managed to get Intel to produce a couple of CPUs spec they way they wanted... but a few months later Intel was free to sell it to others too. (I am thinking the original Macbook air, for example). They also use pretty standard graphics cards, CD/DVD drivers (although not always), hard disks and so on. But there are still a few differences. First: they case is most definitely something that sets them apart, and they are not "off the shelf". Second: they pick good combinations, which in a way it's easier for them since they are selling the computer as a whole and not for its specs. Hence if they think it's better value for money they may go with a camera that has lower megapixels despite having better images (e.g. more sensitive sensors). Or decide if it's better to invest in more RAM, faster GPU or faster CPU. And so on. Many (though not all) PC manufacturer are in a much more cut-throat market, and in such hyper-competitive environment it's not surprising that easily quantifiable numbers (e.g. MHz, megapixels, contrast, resolution, etc...) becomes the key point. Third: Apple has often thinks outside of the box, so to speak, and backs up new technologies much before others. Wifi was an example, floppy drive, USB, Firewire, multi-track, etc... They can do that because they control the whole stack, but it's still a hardware advantage in the end. Forth and last: they innovate some small details such as the mag-safe power supply, or the way it closes, or some other small touches...