6 ms·

> It's almost as if Apple aren't even basing their hardware strategy on what developers are complaining about on Hacker News. I’m imagining someone who went in

> It's almost as if Apple aren't even basing their hardware strategy on what developers are complaining about on Hacker News. I’m imagining someone who went into a fallout shelter about 10 years ago, somehow only had HN as a source of news, and suddenly re-entered the world. What would such a person be suprised to learn? I suspect Apple still being a successful company would come as a huge shock to such a person. So would the success of SystemD and Docker and Kubernetes and Dropbox and microservices, the complete takeover of widescreens in the display market, and the continued survival of Tesla. I bet a stock picking strategy that invests in companies and ideas that HN users hate, and shorts the ones that HN users love, would be right far more often than it is wrong and would make tons of money.

sophistication 8y ago
Who doubted Apple would be successful in ~2008? The iPhone and the MacBook Air were phenomenal products.
- lowtolerance 8y ago
  Neither were guaranteed hits when they were introduced. Apple’s biggest claim to fame at that point was the iPod. Even after the iPhone was released, it was years before critics looked at it as a product that could withstand the test of time.
- kofejnik 8y ago
  in 2007, it was a widespread analyst consensus that iPhone will fail, since competing phones have obv. better specs
- batiudrami 8y ago
  In 2008 the iPhone was a $500 subsidised device (at a time when other phones were "free" or up to $200) which really didn't do anything. It didn't do MMS, third party apps didn't exist, google maps didn't have turn-by-turn. I'm sure the user experience of a reasonable sized capacitive touch screen was great compared to the alternatives - but I never even saw one in real life and on paper it was very expensive and didn't have anything to sell me on it. Once the iPhone 3G came it out was clear the device was a phenomenon and not a rich people toy, but initially the market was pretty confused, from what I remember.
  - pxeboot 8y ago
    The original iPhone was unsubsidized. It required a contract until it was unlocked, but you could only buy it at the full retail price, forfeiting any subsidies.
    - batiudrami 8y ago
      $500 with a required contract is a subsidised device; it doesn't really matter how you phrase it. AT&T paid for it to be exclusive and the retail price would have been set taking that into account. If it wasn't there'd be no reason for Apple to allow a carrier exclusive with a required contract - the buyer would own the device.
      - alwillis 8y ago
        The original iPhone was unsubsidized and it was GSM only, so there wasn't an option to offer it on Sprint and Verizon then. The 4 Gb iPhone was $499 and the 8Gb one was $599. Because Apple was new to phones, they only wanted to deal with one carrier initially. Back then, you could get a Treo or a Blackberry for less than half as much, as they were subsidized by the carriers. And because paying that much for a phone at that time impeded sales, Apple discontinued the 4 Gb model and dropped the price of the 8 Gb model to $399 two months after it was released. They also "gave in" to the subsidy model, since that was the standard practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_(1st_generation)#Release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_(1st_generation)#Releas...
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    It was clear to me that there was a phase change when the iTunes store came out - wow, was that 2003? Anyway, the reason I am not rich is because I didn't believe in Steve Jobs, so I didn't have the faith to hold AAPL stock forever. But the iTunes store was the point at which it was clear something spectacular was happening and Apple was moving in to a new world, compared to the days when the WSJ constantly called them "beleaguered".
  - joakleaf 8y ago
    I think, that you didn’t see it in person was the reason you didn’t expect it to be a success. The 3G had 3G, but otherwise same hardware specs as the original. What sold me was that Apple got the UI right (“smooth as butter”), the webbrowser and email actually worked, and jailbroken it was almost Unix in your pocket! It really felt like a phone with so much potential and a far ahead of anything I had seen. The things you mention were just a matter of software updates. Btw. 3G and App Store both came out in 2008.
- Kurtz79 8y ago
  The first Macbook Air was a seriously limited device, style over substance. Expensive, weak CPU, mechanical hard drive, low battery life. It was with the second generation (2011) that they knocked it out of the park, where they added fast Core i5/i7 CPUs, SSD, greatly improved battery life, two (!) USB ports, choice between 11' and 13' models. And most of all they sold it at an entry level price (for Apple standards). Considered that the competition at the time were bulky Sony Vaio, HP and Dell "bricks", it was like a laptop from the future.
  - vostok 8y ago
    The Apple's MBA11 was a fantastic device, but they stopped improving it and Dell came out with the XPS13. It is a similar form factor, has a bigger display, and runs Linux.
    - icemelt8 8y ago
      no one buys XPS13
  - PostThisTooFast 8y ago
    You're bitching that it had a "mechanical hard drive" 10 years ago? Get over yourself. By the way: SSDs wear out, or hadn't you heard?
  - fiblye 8y ago
    The Macbook Air wasn't in any way intended for developers, though. All the people I knew buying Airs (even first gen) were the frequent travelers and types of people who do loads of work involving email, text documents, and slideshows. Nothing that required heavy processing, but work that involves being out of your desk and having to haul your work with you. A lightweight PC small enough to slip in a folder was what they wanted. The Macbook Pro was generally for more of the processing-intensive work and development side. Recently I've been seeing/hearing more and more dissatisfaction from that crowd.
    - Kurtz79 8y ago
anovikov 8y ago
Tesla? Why would anyone on HN doubt survival of Tesla? Except making impossible claims about delivery deadlines, they weren't mentioned in any especial sins worth mentioning. And Tesla Roadster looked definitely like the big future in 2008.
- martin-adams 8y ago
  Probably because they are burning through cash and aren’t profitable yet. They’ve had some close calls with running out of money in the past.
  - anovikov 8y ago
    That's fine, why not? Isn't this the whole startup thing? Burn money until you IPO or get acquired? Otherwise it is look down at as 'revenue business'.
- sophistication 8y ago
  Because Tesla was David vs Goliath. The laptop market and especially the phone market were much more open to newcomers.
badpun 8y ago
> So would the success of (...) Docker and Kubernetes and (...) and microservices It's hard to tell if they're a success. With enough time and money you can make almost everything work. It does not mean that there weren't better alternatives available.

sophistication 8y ago

Who doubted Apple would be successful in ~2008? The iPhone and the MacBook Air were phenomenal products.

lowtolerance 8y ago
Neither were guaranteed hits when they were introduced. Apple’s biggest claim to fame at that point was the iPod. Even after the iPhone was released, it was years before critics looked at it as a product that could withstand the test of time.
kofejnik 8y ago
in 2007, it was a widespread analyst consensus that iPhone will fail, since competing phones have obv. better specs
batiudrami 8y ago
In 2008 the iPhone was a $500 subsidised device (at a time when other phones were "free" or up to $200) which really didn't do anything. It didn't do MMS, third party apps didn't exist, google maps didn't have turn-by-turn. I'm sure the user experience of a reasonable sized capacitive touch screen was great compared to the alternatives - but I never even saw one in real life and on paper it was very expensive and didn't have anything to sell me on it. Once the iPhone 3G came it out was clear the device was a phenomenon and not a rich people toy, but initially the market was pretty confused, from what I remember.
- pxeboot 8y ago
  The original iPhone was unsubsidized. It required a contract until it was unlocked, but you could only buy it at the full retail price, forfeiting any subsidies.
  - batiudrami 8y ago
    $500 with a required contract is a subsidised device; it doesn't really matter how you phrase it. AT&T paid for it to be exclusive and the retail price would have been set taking that into account. If it wasn't there'd be no reason for Apple to allow a carrier exclusive with a required contract - the buyer would own the device.
    - alwillis 8y ago
      The original iPhone was unsubsidized and it was GSM only, so there wasn't an option to offer it on Sprint and Verizon then. The 4 Gb iPhone was $499 and the 8Gb one was $599. Because Apple was new to phones, they only wanted to deal with one carrier initially. Back then, you could get a Treo or a Blackberry for less than half as much, as they were subsidized by the carriers. And because paying that much for a phone at that time impeded sales, Apple discontinued the 4 Gb model and dropped the price of the 8 Gb model to $399 two months after it was released. They also "gave in" to the subsidy model, since that was the standard practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_(1st_generation)#Release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_(1st_generation)#Releas...
- perl4ever 8y ago
  It was clear to me that there was a phase change when the iTunes store came out - wow, was that 2003? Anyway, the reason I am not rich is because I didn't believe in Steve Jobs, so I didn't have the faith to hold AAPL stock forever. But the iTunes store was the point at which it was clear something spectacular was happening and Apple was moving in to a new world, compared to the days when the WSJ constantly called them "beleaguered".
- joakleaf 8y ago
  I think, that you didn’t see it in person was the reason you didn’t expect it to be a success. The 3G had 3G, but otherwise same hardware specs as the original. What sold me was that Apple got the UI right (“smooth as butter”), the webbrowser and email actually worked, and jailbroken it was almost Unix in your pocket! It really felt like a phone with so much potential and a far ahead of anything I had seen. The things you mention were just a matter of software updates. Btw. 3G and App Store both came out in 2008.
Kurtz79 8y ago
The first Macbook Air was a seriously limited device, style over substance. Expensive, weak CPU, mechanical hard drive, low battery life. It was with the second generation (2011) that they knocked it out of the park, where they added fast Core i5/i7 CPUs, SSD, greatly improved battery life, two (!) USB ports, choice between 11' and 13' models. And most of all they sold it at an entry level price (for Apple standards). Considered that the competition at the time were bulky Sony Vaio, HP and Dell "bricks", it was like a laptop from the future.
- vostok 8y ago
  The Apple's MBA11 was a fantastic device, but they stopped improving it and Dell came out with the XPS13. It is a similar form factor, has a bigger display, and runs Linux.
  - icemelt8 8y ago
    no one buys XPS13
- PostThisTooFast 8y ago
  You're bitching that it had a "mechanical hard drive" 10 years ago? Get over yourself. By the way: SSDs wear out, or hadn't you heard?
- fiblye 8y ago
  The Macbook Air wasn't in any way intended for developers, though. All the people I knew buying Airs (even first gen) were the frequent travelers and types of people who do loads of work involving email, text documents, and slideshows. Nothing that required heavy processing, but work that involves being out of your desk and having to haul your work with you. A lightweight PC small enough to slip in a folder was what they wanted. The Macbook Pro was generally for more of the processing-intensive work and development side. Recently I've been seeing/hearing more and more dissatisfaction from that crowd.
  - Kurtz79 8y ago

anovikov 8y ago

Tesla? Why would anyone on HN doubt survival of Tesla? Except making impossible claims about delivery deadlines, they weren't mentioned in any especial sins worth mentioning. And Tesla Roadster looked definitely like the big future in 2008.

martin-adams 8y ago
Probably because they are burning through cash and aren’t profitable yet. They’ve had some close calls with running out of money in the past.
- anovikov 8y ago
  That's fine, why not? Isn't this the whole startup thing? Burn money until you IPO or get acquired? Otherwise it is look down at as 'revenue business'.
sophistication 8y ago
Because Tesla was David vs Goliath. The laptop market and especially the phone market were much more open to newcomers.

badpun 8y ago

> So would the success of (...) Docker and Kubernetes and (...) and microservices It's hard to tell if they're a success. With enough time and money you can make almost everything work. It does not mean that there weren't better alternatives available.