11 ms·

> ...this is a time when Amazon is pushing innovations that don’t solve any real-world problems but may create some: like smart speakers, with their threat of b

> ...this is a time when Amazon is pushing innovations that don’t solve any real-world problems but may create some: like smart speakers, with their threat of big brother-style surveillance in exchange for a minimal increase in convenience, or complex and expensive cashierless stores that won’t deliver much of an improvement to our shopping experience but may cost underprivileged people their jobs. This is a time when an entire driverless car industry is trying to convince the world that its products are safe before it can even come up with convincing stats – or prevent deadly accidents like the one in Tempe, Arizona earlier this year. This is a time when Google is trying to subvert new privacy regulations to turn them against content producers. A time when Facebook, blasted by media and regulators for ignoring people’s privacy concerns, starts a dating service which will collect people’s most intimate data. That is a really pointed indictment of our current industry. Wow. I don't agree with some of the assumptions, but it really points to how rarely an innovation like the iPhone really occurs.

pier25 8y ago
> but it really points to how rarely an innovation like the iPhone really occurs Yeah, but don't forget that the pieces to be able to create the iPhone had to be there first.
- IncRnd 8y ago
  > Yeah, but don't forget that the pieces to be able to create the iPhone had to be there first. Like the LG Prada?
  - blhack 8y ago
    Like Palm's existing smartphone with existing smartphone apps, or blackberry.
    - IncRnd 8y ago
      Thank you. Yes - that is my exact point!
    - neuromantik8086 8y ago
      Or General Magic's work in the early 90s.
    - r00fus 8y ago
      I migrated from a Palm Treo 650 to an OG iPhone. Superficially they're similar in functionality (I didn't really need a stylus for most Palm apps) but there was so much you could do with an iPhone that the Palm just couldn't touch. Execution details like Apple contracting with Cingular/ATT to provide unlimited 2G for $20/mo was a huge substantive usability difference. I had to pay $40-$45/mo for similar ubiquitous signal on my Palm - needless to say I didn't - so Palm apps weren't built on that assumption.
  - pier25 8y ago
    No, like touch screens, ARM, Wifi, etc.
    - IncRnd 8y ago
      :) That was my point. All of those were on the LG Prada.
- wmeredith 8y ago
  The innovation of the iPhone was in the execution. The ideas were around, along with a ton of failed attempts at it. A computer in your pocket had been an idea for decades. Apple made one that a critical mass of people could/would actually use.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    Not really. The main innovation was business one that allowed Apple to steal US markets. They convinced two major carriers to offer expensive big data plans.
  - ordinaryradical 8y ago
    This is so dead-on. Having the idea is often the easy part—it's the execution that makes or breaks it. Yes a great idea can be valuable but it's nothing without the execution to bring it into reality. Conversely, ideas which appear shitty or idiotic in their failure (Juicero, for eg.) might have thrived with sensible, correct execution. This is why having the right team matters more than having the right idea and one should take a hard look at oneself as much as the product when facing failure.
  - tokyodude 8y ago
    I am still not convinced. I had Windows CE pocket computer in 1998 and several others after. They all start up just like an iPhone with a grid of icons to tap on. The only thing missing from them vs iPhone for me at the time was a good data connection. They didn't exist except for more than I was willing to pay. I'm not saying the iPhone wasn't amazingly better in execution and had great design. What I'm rather saying is if Apple hadn't released when they did with in a year or two the existing PDAs would have gotten cellular added and it would have been far clearer to everyone the progression was from PDA -> iPhone, an incremental step, rather than the more common mis-conception of feature phone -> iPhone that everyone mis-interprets as coming out of nowhere. There's a long history of PDAs before iPhone and if you take any one of them the jump to iPhone is not nearly as big a jump as people make out.
  - pier25 8y ago
    Yes, but Apple couldn't have made the iPhone without a touch screen, ARM, Wifi, etc, hence claiming that Apple is the sole responsible of past and future innovation in their product line is naive.
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  My list of the enabling technologies for the iPhone is: - USB 2.0 - developed by others, Apple's first use was in computers. - Flash memory - developed by others, Apple's first use was in iPods. - LCD screens - developed by others, Apple's first use was in laptops. - ARM chips - developed by others, Apple's first use was in... iPods? iPhone? Not sure. - Lithium ion batteries - developed by others, Apple's first use was in laptops. - High-speed cellular data networks and chips - developed by others, Apple's first use was in iPhone. - Multi-touch sensor and software - developed by Fingerworks, acquired and further developed by Apple. First use was in iPhone. - Mac OS X - developed by NeXT, acquired and further developed by Apple. - iTunes - developed by Soundjam, acquired and further developed by Apple. You can see why Steve Jobs used to say that Apple is really a software company, and only designs hardware so it can do the software it wants. Most enabling technologies for the iPhone were provided by other companies; the only ones Apple acquired for exclusive use and development were the software and UI. I'm thinking of the first iPhone here--Apple has obviously since moved a lot of chip technologies in-house too. Again, though, that seems to be tightly coupled to their focus on software. Yvon Chouinard has a definition of innovation that I really like, which is (paraphrasing) that innovation is the application of technologies in novel ways to create new products. Thus the iPhone was an innovative product, even though Apple themselves did not originally invent any of the enabling technologies, and only owned a few.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    The product wasn't even new. It was just popular due to Microsoft-class backroom negotiations with carriers to sell data plans and the fact that the launch perfectly coincided with launch of 3G networks in the USA.
  - dep_b 8y ago
    > ARM chips - developed by others, Apple's first use was in... iPods? iPhone? Not sure. ARM was created by Apple and Acorn to create low power chips for mobile devices like the Newton. You remember the Newton right? One of the first PDA's. Didn't make it but they did help shape the wave of PDA's that led to the iPhone.
    - 8y ago
fhood 8y ago
I occasionally loose sleep, wondering what products were lost due to Jobs' early death. Edit: Ok, fine. I loose sleep wondering what ideas were out there that languished because Jobs wasn't around to see their potential and capitalize on them. The argument "he wasn't that important because he didn't actually invent X" is played out, and it fundamentally misses the point.
- codehandle 8y ago
  > The argument "he wasn't that important because he didn't actually invent X" is played out, and it fundamentally misses the point. If I have a position to contribute it's that those ideas are still out there. Job's greatest gift was his sense of taste. He had refined a sense of good art. If more management had such sense they would be better patrons feeding good art and killing tasteless hacks projects.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  Steve Jobs did not single-handedly invent the iPhone.
  - primitivesuave 8y ago
    Even a 1% shift in the direction of something as massive as Apple, compounded over an additional decade of Steve Job's tenure (assuming retirement at 65), could make a massive difference - whether this would be good or bad for humanity is another question and still debatable.
  - beamatronic 8y ago
    For those of us who were PDA users in the late 90s and Treo users in the early 2000s, the iPhone is an incremental improvement on those ideas. The presence of ubiquitous wireless networking (I am lumping cellular wireless and WiFi in together) was the real game changer. If you are not convinced, try this thought experiment: Imagine yourself in 1998 standing on the street in a major city holding a Palm pilot. It has an SDK, a TCP/IP stack and a POP email client. But no wireless connection. Now add a wireless connection. Could you tweet or Facebook? Sure, if those things existed then.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Kalium 8y ago
> That is a really pointed indictment of our current industry. Wow. Is it? I read it as a series of attacks from someone who thought the status quo was just fine, and doesn't actually understand the value being delivered. Since they don't understand it, there must not be any. Since there isn't any value and it just hurts vulnerable people, it must just be callous evil. For example, Amazon's cashierless store sounds great to me! I absolutely loathe the forced smalltalk of dealing with cashiers. I adore automated checkouts. And Amazon has been amazing for driving down prices on daily goods. I'm happy to see them expand into something like grocery stores where high prices are a problem for everyone. Grocery store checkout jobs are not a basic human right that should be immune to attack. Neither are content producer business models. This isn't an indictment. It's an expression of incomprehension.
- c22 8y ago
  You don't have to talk to cashiers.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    True! I feel like the real point is that cashier jobs are not something to be taken for granted. They are not a constant of the universe. The position serves a purpose, and the purpose is not to employ the underprivileged.
- soared 8y ago
  It feels like it was written by an old man who doesn't understand how innovation in consumer technology works. Companies produce a bunch of seemingly pointless products, but some use of them sticks and is built upon until you get a product that sees widespread use. Ex. Tablets - everyone thought big phones were pointless, but now tablets are everywhere.
acchow 8y ago
> expensive cashierless stores that won’t deliver much of an improvement to our shopping experience Having to lineup to checkout is definitely the most time-consuming and unpleasant part of shopping. It's why I way prefer online shopping. At a busy time at the grocer, I take 3 minutes to pick up the 3 things I want. Then all of the checkout lanes are backed up for >10 minutes. Even self check-out.

pier25 8y ago

> but it really points to how rarely an innovation like the iPhone really occurs Yeah, but don't forget that the pieces to be able to create the iPhone had to be there first.

IncRnd 8y ago
> Yeah, but don't forget that the pieces to be able to create the iPhone had to be there first. Like the LG Prada?
- blhack 8y ago
  Like Palm's existing smartphone with existing smartphone apps, or blackberry.
  - IncRnd 8y ago
    Thank you. Yes - that is my exact point!
  - neuromantik8086 8y ago
    Or General Magic's work in the early 90s.
  - r00fus 8y ago
    I migrated from a Palm Treo 650 to an OG iPhone. Superficially they're similar in functionality (I didn't really need a stylus for most Palm apps) but there was so much you could do with an iPhone that the Palm just couldn't touch. Execution details like Apple contracting with Cingular/ATT to provide unlimited 2G for $20/mo was a huge substantive usability difference. I had to pay $40-$45/mo for similar ubiquitous signal on my Palm - needless to say I didn't - so Palm apps weren't built on that assumption.
- pier25 8y ago
  No, like touch screens, ARM, Wifi, etc.
  - IncRnd 8y ago
    :) That was my point. All of those were on the LG Prada.
wmeredith 8y ago
The innovation of the iPhone was in the execution. The ideas were around, along with a ton of failed attempts at it. A computer in your pocket had been an idea for decades. Apple made one that a critical mass of people could/would actually use.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Not really. The main innovation was business one that allowed Apple to steal US markets. They convinced two major carriers to offer expensive big data plans.
- ordinaryradical 8y ago
  This is so dead-on. Having the idea is often the easy part—it's the execution that makes or breaks it. Yes a great idea can be valuable but it's nothing without the execution to bring it into reality. Conversely, ideas which appear shitty or idiotic in their failure (Juicero, for eg.) might have thrived with sensible, correct execution. This is why having the right team matters more than having the right idea and one should take a hard look at oneself as much as the product when facing failure.
- tokyodude 8y ago
  I am still not convinced. I had Windows CE pocket computer in 1998 and several others after. They all start up just like an iPhone with a grid of icons to tap on. The only thing missing from them vs iPhone for me at the time was a good data connection. They didn't exist except for more than I was willing to pay. I'm not saying the iPhone wasn't amazingly better in execution and had great design. What I'm rather saying is if Apple hadn't released when they did with in a year or two the existing PDAs would have gotten cellular added and it would have been far clearer to everyone the progression was from PDA -> iPhone, an incremental step, rather than the more common mis-conception of feature phone -> iPhone that everyone mis-interprets as coming out of nowhere. There's a long history of PDAs before iPhone and if you take any one of them the jump to iPhone is not nearly as big a jump as people make out.
- pier25 8y ago
  Yes, but Apple couldn't have made the iPhone without a touch screen, ARM, Wifi, etc, hence claiming that Apple is the sole responsible of past and future innovation in their product line is naive.
snowwrestler 8y ago
My list of the enabling technologies for the iPhone is: - USB 2.0 - developed by others, Apple's first use was in computers. - Flash memory - developed by others, Apple's first use was in iPods. - LCD screens - developed by others, Apple's first use was in laptops. - ARM chips - developed by others, Apple's first use was in... iPods? iPhone? Not sure. - Lithium ion batteries - developed by others, Apple's first use was in laptops. - High-speed cellular data networks and chips - developed by others, Apple's first use was in iPhone. - Multi-touch sensor and software - developed by Fingerworks, acquired and further developed by Apple. First use was in iPhone. - Mac OS X - developed by NeXT, acquired and further developed by Apple. - iTunes - developed by Soundjam, acquired and further developed by Apple. You can see why Steve Jobs used to say that Apple is really a software company, and only designs hardware so it can do the software it wants. Most enabling technologies for the iPhone were provided by other companies; the only ones Apple acquired for exclusive use and development were the software and UI. I'm thinking of the first iPhone here--Apple has obviously since moved a lot of chip technologies in-house too. Again, though, that seems to be tightly coupled to their focus on software. Yvon Chouinard has a definition of innovation that I really like, which is (paraphrasing) that innovation is the application of technologies in novel ways to create new products. Thus the iPhone was an innovative product, even though Apple themselves did not originally invent any of the enabling technologies, and only owned a few.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  The product wasn't even new. It was just popular due to Microsoft-class backroom negotiations with carriers to sell data plans and the fact that the launch perfectly coincided with launch of 3G networks in the USA.
- dep_b 8y ago
  > ARM chips - developed by others, Apple's first use was in... iPods? iPhone? Not sure. ARM was created by Apple and Acorn to create low power chips for mobile devices like the Newton. You remember the Newton right? One of the first PDA's. Didn't make it but they did help shape the wave of PDA's that led to the iPhone.
  - 8y ago

fhood 8y ago

I occasionally loose sleep, wondering what products were lost due to Jobs' early death. Edit: Ok, fine. I loose sleep wondering what ideas were out there that languished because Jobs wasn't around to see their potential and capitalize on them. The argument "he wasn't that important because he didn't actually invent X" is played out, and it fundamentally misses the point.

codehandle 8y ago
> The argument "he wasn't that important because he didn't actually invent X" is played out, and it fundamentally misses the point. If I have a position to contribute it's that those ideas are still out there. Job's greatest gift was his sense of taste. He had refined a sense of good art. If more management had such sense they would be better patrons feeding good art and killing tasteless hacks projects.
emodendroket 8y ago
Steve Jobs did not single-handedly invent the iPhone.
- primitivesuave 8y ago
  Even a 1% shift in the direction of something as massive as Apple, compounded over an additional decade of Steve Job's tenure (assuming retirement at 65), could make a massive difference - whether this would be good or bad for humanity is another question and still debatable.
- beamatronic 8y ago
  For those of us who were PDA users in the late 90s and Treo users in the early 2000s, the iPhone is an incremental improvement on those ideas. The presence of ubiquitous wireless networking (I am lumping cellular wireless and WiFi in together) was the real game changer. If you are not convinced, try this thought experiment: Imagine yourself in 1998 standing on the street in a major city holding a Palm pilot. It has an SDK, a TCP/IP stack and a POP email client. But no wireless connection. Now add a wireless connection. Could you tweet or Facebook? Sure, if those things existed then.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Kalium 8y ago

> That is a really pointed indictment of our current industry. Wow. Is it? I read it as a series of attacks from someone who thought the status quo was just fine, and doesn't actually understand the value being delivered. Since they don't understand it, there must not be any. Since there isn't any value and it just hurts vulnerable people, it must just be callous evil. For example, Amazon's cashierless store sounds great to me! I absolutely loathe the forced smalltalk of dealing with cashiers. I adore automated checkouts. And Amazon has been amazing for driving down prices on daily goods. I'm happy to see them expand into something like grocery stores where high prices are a problem for everyone. Grocery store checkout jobs are not a basic human right that should be immune to attack. Neither are content producer business models. This isn't an indictment. It's an expression of incomprehension.

c22 8y ago
You don't have to talk to cashiers.
- Kalium 8y ago
  True! I feel like the real point is that cashier jobs are not something to be taken for granted. They are not a constant of the universe. The position serves a purpose, and the purpose is not to employ the underprivileged.
soared 8y ago
It feels like it was written by an old man who doesn't understand how innovation in consumer technology works. Companies produce a bunch of seemingly pointless products, but some use of them sticks and is built upon until you get a product that sees widespread use. Ex. Tablets - everyone thought big phones were pointless, but now tablets are everywhere.

acchow 8y ago

> expensive cashierless stores that won’t deliver much of an improvement to our shopping experience Having to lineup to checkout is definitely the most time-consuming and unpleasant part of shopping. It's why I way prefer online shopping. At a busy time at the grocer, I take 3 minutes to pick up the 3 things I want. Then all of the checkout lanes are backed up for >10 minutes. Even self check-out.