17 ms·

Apple Used to Be an Inventor. Now It’s Mainly a Landlord

• techsocial 8y ago
  I like this part: Apple is milking its essentially captive audience. I hesitate to call it “loyal” — these are, essentially, people who look with trepidation at the idea of moving years of photos and other data to a different system. My wife gnashed her teeth when she got one of the new, wildly overpriced iPhones — but she just can’t imagine switching to Android.
  • yeswecould 8y ago
    The main Android dealbreaker for me is all the viruses, followed by OS fragmentation and finally the fact there is no privacy protection ( i.e. secure enclave )
    • jfim 8y ago
      Viruses: doesn't really apply if you just download non shady things from the play store OS fragmentation: doesn't apply if you're not a developer, just pick a phone that will have a reasonable amount of updates over its lifetime Privacy protection: really depends how you feel about Google on this one Presence of a secure element: this one really depends on your threat profile
      • Cyph0n 8y ago
        > Viruses: doesn't really apply if you just download non shady things from the play store Easier said than done, especially when looking for more obscure apps. Also, it's not easy for non-technical folks to tell the difference... > OS fragmentation: doesn't apply if you're not a developer, just pick a phone that will have a reasonable amount of updates over its lifetime How long is "reasonable" relative to iOS? I recently moved from Android to iOS mainly because of this. > Privacy protection: really depends how you feel about Google on this one I'm not sure feelings are relevant here. The truth is simply the truth. > Presence of a secure element: this one really depends on your threat profile Agreed, but it's good to have the extra security guarantees.
        • lazaroclapp 8y ago
          > How long is "reasonable" relative to iOS? I recently moved from Android to iOS mainly because of this. 4 years, basically. Nexus 6 was supported for all security updates from launch in November 2014 to this month (November 2018). In terms of feature updates, it got up to Android 7.1.1, and I am not aware of any major app that wouldn't run on that today. Not exactly great, but certainly not a new phone per year. I believe Apple's policy is 5 years, rather than 4, with a reported risk of iOS updates purposefully making the original hardware performance worse (e.g. battery life). Strictly as a geeky side note, if you have the time to spend DIYing your primary mobile OS (which, admittedly, very few people would prefer doing), there are pretty cool third-party Android distros and other OSes that will keep a Nexus 4 (2012, 6 years old) alive and well. Possibly a Galaxy Nexus (2011, 7 years old) too, but I am less sure about that... Edit: To clarify, what I am saying is that, for most users, iOS' long term support is better than Android's. But, for Google phones and the like, it is only slightly better, not day-and-night better.
      • jdauriemma 8y ago
        Some users buy a new phone every year; for those users I would agree that OS fragmentation is a trivial issue. But if you keep your phone longer, it becomes more important. Many OEMs don't keep their promises to push OTA upgrades in a timely way. Many more OEMs don't make any promises at all. A lack of updates can leave users vulnerable to widely-known attack vectors.
      • ar0 8y ago
        > OS fragmentation: doesn't apply if you're not a developer, just pick a phone that will have a reasonable amount of updates over its lifetime Can you make a recommendation here? I am an iPhone user who might be inclined to switch to Android, but I still haven't found a phone that would satisfy this criterion. To clarify: "reasonable" for me means ~5 years, as this is how long I expect to keep using the same phone.
        • jakamau 8y ago
          What generation of iPhone are you currently using? I have and enjoy the Pixel 2 and plan on keeping it for at least another two years. The Pixel 3 (non-xl) would be an ideal phone if you are moving from iPhone and are looking for a long term, well-supported phone.
        • MAGZine 8y ago
          iPhones already don't get full updates. They get progressively trimmed updates as time goes on. Stock android does a similar thing. If you get a Pixel, you get 2 years of OS updates (my Pixel from 2016 is running the latest Android), at least 3 years of security updates, and many software updates in the meantime (most of Android's functionality can be upgraded without an OS update). FWIW, phones aren't designed to last 5 years. The batteries aren't, the screens aren't, the casing isn't, and the hardware generally doesn't (newer software = more demanding). That said, if you do require to use the same device for five years, and need the latest software on it, than Apple is probably your only option.
          • colinjoy 8y ago
            > FWIW, phones aren't designed to last 5 years. The batteries aren't, the screens aren't, the casing isn't, and the hardware generally doesn't (newer software = more demanding). FWIW I’m typing this on a 4 year old iPhone and I expect it to easily last another year. Battery was replaced once. Modern smart phones are complex, expensive, ressource intensive assemblies. Swapping them out every 2 years is crazy (... and yet common, sadly)
      • pkaye 8y ago
        With Google being forced to open up then platform, I expect the viruses and OS fragmentation to get worse as various manufacturers put out half baked software which they don't properly design with security in mind. While even Google has their problems but they do have a seriously strong security team.
      • JustSomeNobody 8y ago
        > OS fragmentation: doesn't apply if you're not a developer, just pick a phone that will have a reasonable amount of updates over its lifetime Define reasonable. In order to get Android updates for any amount of time, you mostly have to pick higher end phones. Well, If I am expected to pay laptop prices for a phone, I should be able to keep it for as long as I keep a laptop. Two years of updates isn't cutting it anymore.
      • scarface74 8y ago
        OS fragmentation: doesn't apply if you're not a developer, just pick a phone that will have a reasonable amount of updates over its lifetime So which Android phone could I have bought in 2013 that would still be getting updates like the iPhone 5s?
    • jsight 8y ago
      There really aren't significant virus concerns on Android. This concern has been overblown. I'm not sure what you mean by OS fragmentation. Different vendors offer their own branches so maybe you will find that you like one vs the other? Some people prefer Samsung's Android, others prefer the stock experience. Its really just a matter of personal preference for most people. Privacy can definitely be a problem, though. It is getting a little bit better, but the pace of improvement is not great.
    • tensor 8y ago
      The main iOS dealbreaker for me is the lack of strong AI offering. Google's ecosystem is just so good on that front. Siri is not competitive with the google assistant. I don't have update issues as I only buy Nexus/Pixel. I've yet to encounter a single piece of malware in the years I've been using android, so this seems like an overblown issue. Mind you, I don't download that many apps, just use some of the more mainstream ones. I believe Google protects my privacy just fine, but I do admire the extra security that iOS has built into the OS. Wish android did better here.
  • sigzero 8y ago
    I hear you. I decided this last summer to move out of "Apple Land" to Android. Didn't know much about it but I just didn't want the walled garden anymore. I have moved everything over. Got the Pixel because I wanted "stock" and "updates" and the camera. Haven't had any issues. Next step is moving my wife over as well. It's been a pretty good experience.
    • brobdingnagians 8y ago
      My first smart phone was an iPhone, because it was the cool thing to do and nicely integrated everything, but I wanted to dip into app programming and couldn't justify $99/year for experimentation, so when my iPhone died, I just swapped to Android. If it had been more open and at least let me easily program for my own phone at the time, I probably never would have switched.
      • distances 8y ago
        Same for me -- I wouldn't mind developing for iPhones, but I have no intention to fully switch to the Apple ecosystem. It's a no go as long as I can't use my Linux desktop for this.
  • ummonk 8y ago
    Weird. I recently moved from Android to iOS, for privacy reasons as well as wanting a phone that would be supported with software updates for a long time. I've really really enjoyed the switch. Admittedly, it helped that I got the iPhone SE which hadn't been discontinued yet; I might have been less happy with the newer X-series phones, particularly given the sticker price.
    • jandrese 8y ago
      The thing that kills me isn't the photos/songs, those are trivial to transfer. It's finding suitable replacements for all of my apps. Heck, I'm still on iOS 10 because I havn't found 64 bit versions of some of my most used apps.
    • yodsanklai 8y ago
      > I've really really enjoyed the switch. How so? I've been a mac user for many years but can't really justify the price of an iphone. I've been considering making the switch though, for better integration, privacy and smaller phone. Not sure it's worth it.
      • ummonk 8y ago
        Basically just a more intuitive and polished overall user interface. There was definitely some learning time, but once I'd learned some of the common actions, I found it much simpler to work with. But it's probably something that is subjective, so I can't vouch that everyone will feel the same way (indeed, I have some friends who have switched from iOS to Android and found the latter more intuitive). Of course, the price issue was a little different for me since I prefer not to replace devices often, so the longer software support actually means if I amortize the cost of the phone over the time that I use it, iPhones actually come out ahead of Android phones on price.
      • theshrike79 8y ago
        There's no rule that you need to buy the latest iPhone model with top specs. A two-year-old iPhone still gets about 3 years of updates - more than most flagship Androids.
  • Theodores 8y ago
    I wonder if Apple have a demographics problem looming. The teeth-gnashing wife probably has had iPhones since the beginning and her reasons for not wanting to switch are understandable enough. She can also look after her phone and not need so many replacement devices. But the kids who didn't get on the Apple bandwagon when iTunes was a groundbreaking exciting thing with an Apple ecosystem that made it all work wonderfully? I suspect that the kids who expect parents to pay for everything might be burdened with commodity Android devices that cost a lot less than the deluxe Apple phones. Lose the phone too often and it becomes a distinctly mid to low end commodity Android device. If that happens then they get to be outside the Android ecosystem and grow up not needing Apple. Meanwhile, the parents just don't replace their phones often enough as what they have is good enough. Apple can't produce a low-end device as this would cannibalise their premium sales so they are stuck in the realm of hardware and need to push this services model on their customer base. As time goes on an a phone is just a commodity 'hand rectangle' with little class value. Having the latest and greatest doesn't make you one of the cool kids any more than having a fancy laptop makes you special. There are no queues outside the stores on launch day anymore and there is no returning to that. A further problem that Apple have is the amount of markets affected by currencies that have gone south or are protected by tariffs. This affects their competitors too, slowing down the upgrade cycle. The UK is a significant market for Apple and after the Brexit vote the pound lost 20% of value making the latest and greatest iphone cost a pretty penny. Unless you are rich enough for these things to not matter then you do have to ask what you are getting for paying five times as much for a fancy iPhone rather than a similarly sized screen on an Android budget device, particularly when signal strength/battery is a huge part of what the product is.
• adamrezich 8y ago
  You could say the same or similar things about other companies with similar business models today who rose to prominence because of repeated innovation yet have since become seemingly stagnant: Google, Valve, ...
  • hunta2097 8y ago
    I wouldn't say Google is stagnant... Apple users can thank them for forcing Apple to make their phone OS better (and vice-versa with regard to hardware). Google's problem isn't innovation, it's supporting and following-through on their innovations past the honeymoon period.
    • adamrezich 8y ago
      They keep making new messaging apps that compete with each other instead of providing users with one great messaging app. Gmail's getting objectively crappier and they're killing off the much better Inbox interface. I'm not saying they make unilaterally bad decisions and I'm decently happy with my cheap Android phone but ten years ago Google was making new and exciting stuff and I haven't felt that way about them in years.
      • matwood 8y ago
        Google is also milking their moat. Look at the 10x price increase for using map APIs in the middle of this year.
    • hinkley 8y ago
      Google seems stuck in the Xerox Parc trap. They babysit a bunch if twenty something kids while they daydream but they don’t have the tools or drive to mature those efforts into product roadmaps. Only google is in the uncanny valley. They go far enough to get people engaged a bit then cancel or reimagine the projects (or people wander off and their replacements have different theories?) and so instead of having no product or engagement they get just enough to draw negative attention, pissing people off who thought something good was going to happen and never did. Like Fox Networks with Joss Whedon...
• gmiller123456 8y ago
  I wish I could say Android was different. Yea, Google and Samsung et. al. do make a lot of other products, so their entire business model isn't the same as Apple. But in the phone market, customers don't have all that much choice regardless of who they pick. I'm an Apple hater myself, but I fear the day Apple finally goes away.
• mjfl 8y ago
  Apple used to be a slave to the gods of productivity. Now it's living its best life using the 4 hour work week strategy!
  • themodelplumber 8y ago
    Just riffing on that metaphor, which is true in a lot of ways, Apple could really, _really_ benefit the world by publishing "Apple standards for business" or something similar, a reference point for other corporations who will frankly never be Apple, but could at least kick things up a notch in terms of overall professionalism and impact. A few very successful corporations have come to the point where they are practically worshiped and almost universally admired, but we are not getting all the cultural benefit from them that we can. That needs to be part of the deal--we give you our markets and cultural attention, you return to us your cultural technology in a more concrete form, at the very least by publishing standards that can be applied to other human organizations. This will help us accelerate human cultural evolution and we'll all benefit.
• jiveturkey 8y ago
  Admittedly I'm not even going to read the article to see if the headline is just clickbait. The premise is absurd. Apple still sets the bar for innovation. The fact that it is also incredibly good at monetizing its efforts does not take away from that fact.
  • jimbokun 8y ago
    You should read it, it's more about how everyone has a phone already, and there are fewer must have improvements to drive new sales, so revenue growth is coming mostly from services instead.
• ilovecaching 8y ago
  Eh... I mean Google's entire business model is to essentially rent you out services in exchange for your personal information. Also, I contend that Apple's "invention" has been to repackage computing in a premium package. Smart phones, music players, tablets all existed before Steve flashed them on stage, he just made you want to use them by making them sexy and cool, which wasn't that hard, because the early days of computing is about as unsexy as it gets.
  • rhacker 8y ago
    I don't think something like the iphone specifically existed before its debut, but I could be wrong.
    • ilovecaching 8y ago
      Yes, check out the LG Prada. It was actually thought at the time that Apple had copied that design. Microsoft also pushed tablets long before Apple ever did. Like I said, Apple repackages things.
      • fulafel 8y ago
        Apple was in the tablet game pretty early with the Newton.
        • ilovecaching 8y ago
          Granted the Newton was the predecessor of the ipad, although it was more a PDA like device. The Microsoft tablet was very much an early ipad.
          • sbuk 8y ago
            Sculley coined the term “PDA” in direct reference to Newton.
          • fulafel 8y ago
            What do you feel makes tablets like the iPad and PDAs different categories?
• askafriend 8y ago
  I think people in the mainstream media and even most people period just don't understand innovation cycles. They expect novelty every year, but they don't realize that revolutions are created by consistently great evolution over a long period of time. We're nearing the top of the S curve with regards to the smartphone business. Upgrade cycles are getting longer. Phones are getting as powerful as laptops and people are finding them good enough for most things, for longer periods of time. You can't expect the same level of novelty and change every single year. This headline also under-appreciates just how much the world has changed in the past 10 years because of the smartphone. Everything is wildly different and even as I type this, it's really hard to have perspective about just how significant the changes have been especially since we experience them incrementally. 10 years isn't even that long of a time period. It's all about the ecosystem and services now. Companies are investing deeply into integrated bundles of services and ecosystem add-ons (HomePod, Watch, Apple Music, iCloud etc) with the smartphone sitting at the center tying everything together. Each piece might not be the iPhone in terms of size, but that's unrealistic. The iPhone is probably one of the greatest single business lines of all time. That type of step function product doesn't come along every year let alone every decade. It's not about any single product anymore. It's about integrating technology deep into your life with the smartphone at the center (or in Amazon's case, Alexa since they missed the Smartphone era). Ecosystems are inventions in their own. How they grow matter. What values they espouse matter. Focusing on the individual parts instead of how the pieces tie together to make a powerful whole is missing the forest for the trees. Apple also isn't the same company they were in 2007. Just look at the iPhone install base growth: https://www.valuewalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Screenshot_3-4.png https://www.valuewalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Screens... That's just iPhone. If you count all iOS devices (iPad, iPod Touch, etc), they're well over a billion users globally. They serve more customers, in more countries, with more preferences than ever before in the company's history. If you're expecting the company to move the same way they did when they were barely international and had a tiny fraction of the operations and customers they have today, then that's also unrealistic. Look at complex multinational products like Apple Pay and how difficult it is for anyone to deliver a service like that seamlessly in every country in the world (even Apple hasn't launched it everywhere). Services like that require multi-year planning, complex dealmaking, geopolitical factors, operational risk, complex financial operations, etc. Things like Apple Pay are severely under-appreciated because it doesn't make for a good headline and it doesn't make for a fun product review on The Verge or YouTube. If Apple can make iPhone your only wallet and convince banking partners and retailer around the world to accept Apple Pay AND do it in a way that respects the privacy of every transaction. THAT is innovation. THAT is magical. But that is also hard to appreciate and it will happen incrementally over the years. We'll take it for granted, move on, and demand more. As Bezos said in his previous shareholder letter: "Customers are divinely discontent"
• xiphias2 8y ago
  I look at Tesla as the next Apple. There's not much room for fast innovation in the smart phone space, but cars are outdated, and self driving / electric cars with better robotic manufacturing methods give an opportunity for new entrants to appear. It's too late for Apple though at this point to manufacture the full hardware (and also behind Waymo in self driving software).
  • JustSomeNobody 8y ago
    Self driving cars are a way to fleece investors for 5 or 10 more years until everyone realizes it just isn't happening.
• solidrake 8y ago
  What has Apple invented? As far as I'm aware, they have patents of re-purposing other inventions, or design patents. But cannot think of anything they "invented" that didn't already exist before.
  • bsimpson 8y ago
    They were the first to mass market capacitive touch/multitouch. I believe they acquired many of the underlying technologies, but so far as I know, they were the first to ship a multitouch user interface with a capacitive touchscreen.
    • briandear 8y ago
      Multitouch was an Apple invention. http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1036701/US7479949.pdf http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1036701/US7479949.pdf
• Confusion 8y ago
  Meanwhile geeks are marvelling at the speed improvements of their latest SoC's over the previous generation and over their competitors.
  • based2 8y ago
    https://liliputing.com/2018/11/qualcomm-snapdragon-8150-apple-a12x-bionic-benchmarks-leaked.html https://liliputing.com/2018/11/qualcomm-snapdragon-8150-appl...
    • Skunkleton 8y ago
      Tinfoil hat theory: Is apple holding back their x86 offerings so that their in-house arm processors can catch up performance wise? Perhaps in preparation for an all-arm line up?
  • JustSomeNobody 8y ago
    In benchmarks, sure. But day to day, the new phones only really show their speed in things like games. The Everyman is good with a 6S. That's about when peak phone happened. That's when phones got "fast enough". That's why the 6S is still one of the most used iPhones (14% last number I read.)
• reacharavindh 8y ago
  May be people are disappointed with innovation in iPhones compared to previous years' or for the last few years, but every time I use my AirPods, I can't but feel good about the innovation it took to make it as easy to use and comfortable. * If I open the case near my phone, it automatically pairs and shoes battery levels. * They sound decent for earbuds (not in-ear plugs which I hate) * Lasts reasonable amount of time on its battery and quickly charges while in case. I could not get this experience ever before and honestly, even after I have had it for a year. I don't know of a better competition to it. But, letting the Mac lineup vanquish with old internals for years and gouging prices on soldered SSDs and memory - no excuse, that's just shitty.
  • izzydata 8y ago
    All those terrible things would be fine if people stopped buying them. You vote for what you want with money and if people are willing to buy terrible things then they will continue making it.
    • lotsofpulp 8y ago
      People aren't buying terrible things, they're buying the best thing available to them. Edit: Samsung/Microsoft/Google are free to come up with their own ecosystem and quality hardware devices that don't have the drawbacks that Apple's do. But for some reason they don't.
      • Green_man 8y ago
        edit: Apple isn't the best choice. (previously: I think it's increasingly obvious that for everyone except osx stans, it's not the best choice available) and it hasn't been for a long time. Apple was at their peak imo with the MacBook pro a generation or two back. They took out the disk drive (everyone said that was radical, but hadn't used it in years) and worked with the single piece of aluminum. Nowadays, that's not just familiar, it's pedestrian. There's plenty of options in the PC world that have that. What has apple done since? Removed magsafe and usb a??? Made the worst laptop keyboard to be on a flagship in memory? It used to be that Apple was the only place you could get great design, a phenomenal screen, and good battery life in the same package. But other manufacturers (especially Dell, Lenovo, and Microsoft) have seriously stepped up.
• Nokinside 8y ago
  This partially explains why Berkshire Hathaway is now largest stock holder in Apple. They prefer companies with 'moat'. Ability to innovate is unpredictable.
  • lisper 8y ago
    Of course they do. Moats are great for investors. Not so great for consumers.
    • toasterlovin 8y ago
      Depends on the company. Moats extract additional value from customers. I think Google, Apple, and Amazon are all examples of companies that use that extra value to invest in innovation (benefitting customers in the end). Comcast is a great example of a company that doesn’t.
• bloorp 8y ago
  Two months ago, Apple announced an ECG sensor for your wrist. A year before that, they announced face detection for the purposes of identity with enough accuracy that it can be used for financial transactions. Also, AirPods are incredible. I'm not saying Apple has a monopoly on invention, but to say they 'used to be an inventor'? That's weird.
  • SomeHacker44 8y ago
    Personally, I find FaceID to be vastly inferior to TouchID for many of my regular use cases. Perhaps the worst one is that you cannot easily unlock your phone while it lays on a conference room table to see the contents of a message. You need to picking it up and point it at your face. Likewise when using the phone while it is in a stand/holder. The one and only benefit I found is during the winter, it is easier to unlock the phone with gloves on. Both of them are terrible for security.
    • matthewmacleod 8y ago
      Both of them are terrible for security. Please stop propagating this falsehood, or at least accept that it comes with caveats. Biometric ID on Apple devices is likely to be a significant improvement for many users.
      • Skunkleton 8y ago
        It _always_ depends on your threat model. Most people need protection from snooping family members, or people who find your phone if you lose it. For these use cases Face/Touch ID both work great. If you are trying to secure your data from the NSA, well you have probably already lost, but by all means, turn off Face ID.
        • natch 8y ago
          "for many users" I think the OP is signaling they were already aware of the threat model point before your comment.
        • 8y ago
• berbec 8y ago
  This draws parallels to Valve, for me.
• raverbashing 8y ago
  Do you know what really worries me about Apple now? So, when SJ came back to Apple, he reorganized their (then at the time) computer lines into more streamlined ones. Something like (I might get some of the names wrong), into consumer/pro and portable/desktop iBook/Powerbook, iMac/Powermac Now look at their line now What the F is an iPhone XR? Is the XS "better" than the X or not? Why are there 2 iPad Pros? Is an iPad 4 better than an iPad? Which one is which? Not to mention the dongles, USB-C mess, etc
  • adpirz 8y ago
    A few quick thoughts: >What the F is an iPhone XR? Is the XS "better" than the X or not? Somewhat agree about the XR, though I guess the idea is it's one less than an S, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say their "S" naming scheme has been consistent since it was introduced after the iPhone 4. > Why are there 2 iPad Pros? Steve once said netbooks were dead, then released a laptop in exactly that form factor (11 in MBA). Clearly there was market demand for it, and I assume their must be demand for both sizes here as well. > Is an iPad 4 better than an iPad? Agree here, they've changed this particular convention a lot, but looks like we're settling on Pro and base. > Not to mention the dongles, USB-C mess, etc Very much agree here. I really, really hope dongle hell will be a short lived phenomenon and USB-C adoption in peripherals and the rest of the industry picks up. Apple has been right about big bets like this before, so hopefully here too, but right now, it is definitely a mess.
    • saghm 8y ago
      > Somewhat agree about the XR, though I guess the idea is it's one less than an S I certainly don't find it obvious that XR means "less" than XS. I could just as easily see it meaning "greater", in the way that the 18th rank is greater" than the 19th rank (in this case the ranked things being letters). Until I actually learned the difference, I actually had thought that the XR was the more expensive one.
    • elsonrodriguez 8y ago
      > Steve once said netbooks were dead, then released a laptop in exactly that form factor (11 in MBA). Clearly there was market demand for it, and I assume their must be demand for both sizes here as well. Just a point of clarification on netbooks. Netbooks were a flop because they were bulky, slow, hard to type on, had terrible screens, and came with minuscule trackpads. The air was none of those things, and was the progenitor of a new class of laptop that would be known as "Ultrabooks".
• acomjean 8y ago
  I thought this was interesting. Although its charging for services, it fits in apples slightly more privacy focused business model. "Rent extraction from a user base that finds it hard to go away may sound a bit like extortion. But it’s more honest and upfront than extracting data from users in ways they often don’t understand and then making money off the data, as Facebook does. That honesty is in itself a competitive advantage for Apple as it gradually reimagines itself as more of a services company."
• ProfessorLayton 8y ago
  The most unfortunate part for me is that Apple's service apps like Apple Music are pretty awful to use. Their stock Music app on iOS takes far too many taps to do anything, is buggy, and overall not a great experience. The same is true on my MacBook, the only way for me to use Apple Music is through iTunes, a complete dumpster fire of an app on OSX. Apple Music is an otherwise fantastic service, but it is hobbled by terrible UX.
  • krrrh 8y ago
    It had a difficult version 1, but having been a subscriber to Rdio, Deezer, Spotify, and Apple Music. While they all have areas where they could improve, I prefer Apple Music to all of them from a UX perspective (especially in how it handles music that you upload to your library). I think a lot of it comes down to different UX being more or less appropriate to the way a person consumes and conceptualizes music.
    • ProfessorLayton 8y ago
      Difficult V1 is a generous way to put it, it was a mess, and I agree Apple Music has since improved on iOS. I came in from Spotify and moved to AM family plan, and while I found Spotify a little better in terms of UX, I wanted better integration into my device ecosystem. I understand that not all apps can be perfect for everyone, but I find the latest iOS app overall very regressed from the previous ones. For example, from a fresh start (as it often happens due to iOS nuking apps in the background) none of the tabs are cached whatsoever, so I have to wait for them to load every single time. Music.app has a completely different feel than other iOS system apps I use frequently, like Photos for example: All tabs are loaded upon start, and importantly, it remembers which tab I was last in, even from a cold start. I discover a lot of new music via the Radio tab, and I almost always find myself waiting for it to load. Often times when dealing with a bluetooth disconnect I have to go into system bluetooth settings to reconnect because for whatever reason, they won't be in the audio output menu in the Music app. This may seem like a rant, but I use their music service hours every day on my way to and from work, and while working. It's the little details that made me like Apple's ecosystem in the first place, and that seems to be missing lately. I'm not even talking about the mess that is iTunes.
• Nokinside 8y ago
  This is partly the reason why Berkshire Hathaway is now the largest owner of Apple stock. They believe that Apple has a 'moat' they can use to defend their position. It think they are correct. What can always happen is that they fail to see change coming and drop the ball like Nokia did. They had incredible moat in multiple areas: manufacturing, supply chain, technology and scale. They were able to produce high quality phones with the same cost as cheap brands and pocketed the difference in profits but they didn't see the revolution coming. The future of Apple's growth is pivot to services and rent from platform.
• robbiet480 8y ago
  Just like McDonalds... http://blog.wallstreetsurvivor.com/2015/10/08/mcdonalds-beyond-the-burger/ http://blog.wallstreetsurvivor.com/2015/10/08/mcdonalds-beyo...
  • mywittyname 8y ago
    The article didn't mean landlord in the older, literal sense of making money off of leasing land, but in the more modern, figurative sense of taking a cut of products and services provided through their platforms.
• mikestew 8y ago
  Yeah, that's a click-baity headline; but they're not wrong. There's a shift from the "line up at dawn for the new Apple Dingus" to an arguably more stable "tic-toc" upgrade cycle, with hopefully some Apple Music and iCloud subscriptions thrown in. That's where I'm at right now. Both of us are still on iPhone 6s. I have an iPad from last year that I expect to last a few more. Hers is the generation prior, and will get replaced when iOS no longer supports it (or I upgrade). Newest Mac is from 2012. Now, part of it is "good enough". The new phones aren't so outstanding as to warrant an upgrade, the 6s does the jobs we need just fine. Part of it is "there's nothing to buy"; see: laptops. But Apple still gets money for Apple Music, iCloud, and whatever we get off iTunes. But as for the click-bait headline, we both just bought our first Apple Watches, the Series 4. Strap one of those puppies on your wrist for a day and talk to me about "used to be an inventor". (Side note: AAPL might not have sold us phones for a while, but they did "invent" a watch that we'd buy. They still got our hardware money.)
  • rashkov 8y ago
    If it's not too off topic, what is it about the watch that you like so much? I've still got my iPhone 6 and was nodding my head in agreement until you got to the watch part, so just curious, what makes it a compelling product for you?
    • mikestew 8y ago
      Background: Pebble user since the original Kickstarter, had several of those. I've been using Garmin products for ages for running and cycling. Briefly flirted with the original Samsung Gear band (what a POS that was). Went to a Garmin Fenix 3 HR when they got iOS notifications, thus combining high-quality fitness watch with sorta-smartwatch. In short, I'm sold on smartwatches, and do endurance sports. Objectives: notifications so the phone can stay in bag/pocket. The more "phone stays in pocket" features, the better. Must function as a standalone fitness device (IOW, must have GPS; syncing later is an expected compromise). Series 4 is finally the perfect storm to get me to buy one. The first ones had no GPS or water resistance. I'm not paying that much if I still have to keep a Garmin around. Series 3 added LTE. Ah, now I can go for a long run in the woods and leave my phone at home. But I'd laid out big bucks for a Fenix 3, and meh, nothing about the 3 really grabbed me, and by then I was used to ignoring the Apple Watch. But with the 4, it looks like Apple decided to make the fitness aspects stop sucking. IOW, maybe I could use this as a running watch, too. As a person who has Wolfe-Parkinson (heart condition fixed with ablation), the ECG piqued my interest. Now, doc said I'm fixed, so ECG shouldn't be an important feature. But it got me thinking, which led to talking to the wife, which led to "well, why don't you just buy one, then?". "Well, maybe I just will." "Buy me one, too. Silver aluminum with nylon band." "Yes, dear." We've not had them but a week, but I'm more impressed than I expected to be. (I mean, I'm really impressed, but I don't want to drip fanboi on anyone, so I'll tone it down.) The stock workout app would do just fine for most folks. If you're not most folks, WorkOutdoors has been impressive the few times I've used it, and there's RunKeeper and the like. We used the LTE functionality first day we ran with them to co-ordinate (we run separately, with dogs). The screen, OMG, it's head-and-shoulders better than my Fenix. Raise-to-wake is reliably better than the Garmin (you'll need raise-to-turn-on-backlight for the Garmin in anything but outdoor sunlight or a bright room). It's gettin' dark here in the PNW, and for my old eyes the Apple OLED is easier to read on a dark run than the Garmin backlight reflective. As far as the "smartwatch" part, I'll just summarize and say that IMO it's the best smartwatch going right now. YMMV, or maybe that's not even all that important. Of the functionality the Garmin replicates, the Apple version is just much more refined. As one example, if there's a notification on the Garmin, better hurry and look before it goes away. Apple waits until you raise your wrist to look at it before the timer starts. The Garmin will stick around in the rotation. Even as a close-to-three-hours marathon runner, I wouldn't trust the Apple battery to go the distance, let alone anything longer. If I'm knocking around on wooded trails, the Garmin will probably take a hit better than the exposed glass on an Apple. IOW, serious outdoor work. But I'm not as adventurous as I used to be, so for everyday-carry I'm really enjoying Apple's offering.
• georgeecollins 8y ago
  This is completely unfair! It is not that the pace of innovation at Apple has slowed down, it is that the success of their innovative products is dwarfed by their legacy business. The Apple watch would be a game changer in terms of revenue for Apple circa 2003 (when it was presumably innovative). It is still an excellent and innovative product, like AirPods.
• GiorgioG 8y ago
  My issue with Apple is they continue to hold product launch events as if they've invented a new class of product(s), when they are incremental changes at best (with the exception of the ECG on the Apple Watch.) With the resources Apple has, they should be taking more risks. Tim has basically turned Apple into a boring incremental product company...like a traditional car company. New model year, this model is the best we've ever made...sure, fine but don't pretend that you've created something groundbreaking at every launch event.
• ronreiter 8y ago
  Same narrative since Jobs died. And yet, their stock keeps skyrocketing.
• kerng 8y ago
  Apples product line is not understandable anymore, it used to be simple but now there are too many dubious options and weird branding. Even Microsoft's Surface line (which is a similar mess) is easier to comprehend now.
  • dymk 8y ago
    Complexity in the names of devices has nothing to do with those devices being innovative, or Apple being inventive. And from sales numbers, clearly the naming of the new iPhone lineup hasn't deterred people from looking at apple.com and figuring out what device suits their needs.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• matthewmacleod 8y ago
  I’m not really sure I buy the premise - Apple has never been much of an inventor, instead being more of a “competent executor”. It’s true that Apple is likely to continue to increase its service offerings, but I don’t think that fundamentally changes the nature of the company. Since Apple has historically focused on executing extant ideas well, it’s quite possible that we won’t see any massive new markets until we know what the next “hot new tech” will be. AR maybe?
  • zjaffee 8y ago
    I disagree, when apple released the iphone, they changed the face of what smart phones would ultimately become. The touch experience they pioneered really shouldn't be overlooked, and add that on to future technologies like the ipad, where both were deeply immersive devices that people were able to generate new and exiting feelings towards. Since then, apple has migrated from being a brand focused on the shear love of using technology to essentially any other luxury brand (I disagree with the premise that they aren't still inventors in the engineering sense, but they certainly aren't innovating in the way they had prior). The closest thing we have today would be something like Alexa, where people young and old can be deeply immersed with a new, and further humanizing, piece of technology. Apple certainly had a head start with Siri, but they were never able to keep up and clearly misunderstood what people are getting out of digital assistants with their homepod since it's too much of a luxury sound product rather than something more utilitarian.
    • someone7x 8y ago
      > Since Apple has historically focused on executing extant ideas well... > I disagree, when apple released the iphone, they changed the face of what smart phones would ultimately become. It looks like you're actually agreeing: They (Apple) executed on an extant idea (smart phones) so well that they changed the face of the industry (app stores, etc etc).
    • Jtsummers 8y ago
      Many people probably don't recall that the Android interface Google was working on about the same time as the iPhone was released was a Blackberry clone. They adopted Apple's style afterwards. Of course, Apple's interface wasn't totally novel. A fullscreen (no keyboard) touch device already existed (to some degree, Palm Pilots reserved the lower portion of the screen for some input stuffs). The novel aspect was the multi-point touch support, where previous touch screen devices had support for a single touch point at a time, and often relied on a stylus (or fingernail) and were non-responsive to finger presses.
• talltimtom 8y ago
  People keep complaining that Apple isn’t bringing the next iPod, iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch level innovation, but honestly no one is pushing them so why should they? As far as moving markets they’ve done enough to coast a bit. Noone is complaining that companies like Ford and Toyota are “just making new cars instead og innovativt”
  • JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Poor examples - Ford reinvented itself recently, dropped sedans entirely from its product line, doubled down on trucks. Toyota brought its hybrid power train to Camry and Lexus product lines. They're innovating all the time.
    • talltimtom 8y ago
      Innovating by making new cars. Just like Apple is innovating by making new iPhones new laptops and new iPads. Have you seen the new iPad Pro? It’s a beast that almost deserves a new catagory all for itself. Yet people say Apple has stopped innovating because it’s “just another iPad” which is my point exactly.
• Jerry2 8y ago
  Is this article the payback for Cook asking the Bloomberg to retract that Supermicro story?
  • natch 8y ago
    Maybe, but weak-ass payback since it's so obviously dead wrong.
• baxtr 8y ago
  What's the point here? - There were mp3 files and player long before the first iPod - Before the iPhone there were other smartphones - Before the iPad there were other tablets - Don't get me started on the Watch... Apple was never an Inventor. Everything they've ever created was built around a technology or even products that existed before. Apple "just" gets the user experience right and and builds products that most people find accessible, easy to use, and reliable.
  • paulcole 8y ago
    I'll give you the watch but the iPod isn't an mp3 player, the iPhone isn't a smartphone, and the iPad isn't a tablet. The iPod is THE mp3 player, the iPhone is THE smartphone, and to a lesser extent the iPad is THE tablet. No, Apple didn't invent the concepts but they created the definitive product using those concepts.
    • baxtr 8y ago
      Could not agree more!
    • natch 8y ago
      Multi-touch input was an Apple invention, and it enabled the iPhone and the iPad.
      • paulcole 8y ago
        I think you'll find this isn't true. Invented in the 70s and in-use as early as 1985. But just like everything else, Apple was the game-changing commercial implementation of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch
        • natch 8y ago
          Yes multi-touch used in the context of a smartphone, I should have said.
• ForrestN 8y ago
  It's embarrassing that this doesn't include a massive, bold-faced disclaimer above the headline. Bloomberg is in the midst of a credibility-destroying fight with Apple over a sensational story that no other journalists can corroborate. Bloomberg has dug in, staking their reputation on Apple being wrong. Seemingly in response Bloomberg... publishes a hand-wavy piece of cultural criticism about the meaning of Apple doing iterative design?
  • carlosrg 8y ago
    What is embarrassing is believing there's now a conspiracy against Apple because Bloomberg got a scoop and decided to follow through. Don't worry, Apple can survive some criticism.
    • MaysonL 8y ago
      Scoops are usually considered first reports of true stories.
    • ForrestN 8y ago
      Who said anything about a conspiracy? It's a basic premise of journalism—if your outlet is embroiled in a war with a certain subject, you need to disclose that so your readers can properly contextualize your recycled lightweight column. I don't think there's a conspiracy. I don't know whether Bloomberg or Apple are right. I didn't comment on that. But I do think this article and the lack of a disclosure is a horrible look for Bloomberg.
    • albedoa 8y ago
      Your interpretation of the comment you are replying to is far from generous and from what our standard should be.
      • hammock 8y ago
        Thanks albedoa for always being there to point out how others misinterpret what different people are really saying.
• amelius 8y ago
  Why don't we all steer towards the IBM PC clone model, but for smartphones? Why do we have free/open Linux on PCs and not on phones? By the way, ironically, with its single user OS, an iPhone is more a "Personal Computer" than most PCs.
  • philwelch 8y ago
    > Why don't we all steer towards the IBM PC clone model, but for smartphones? Isn't that Android?
    • scarface74 8y ago
      What makes Android, Android to everyone outside of China is the proprietary Google Play Services and all of Google’s first party apps.
      • philwelch 8y ago
        And what made an IBM-compatible an IBM-compatible was the proprietary Microsoft DOS and Windows operating systems.
        • scarface74 8y ago
          And neither were ever considered “open” unlike the legendary tweet of by Rubin... https://twitter.com/arubin/status/27808662429?s=21 https://twitter.com/arubin/status/27808662429?s=21
    • Skunkleton 8y ago
      Not at all. A PC has a defined hardware interface that allows software to be created and ported easily between PCs. Arm is in a less-good position with this. There are newer efforts that make portability easier, but is still nowhere close to what can be done on PC.
    • amiga-workbench 8y ago
      Sadly not, IBM PC clones are software compatible from the BIOS up, Android phones are not. It is an absolute nightmare to install a newer version of the OS or to get another OS ported onto an Android phone. There is no common device architecture, OEM's violate the GPL constantly and do not release kernel sources. Smartphones are not PC's, they're just hobbled embedded devices.
• camdenlock 8y ago
  How utterly embarrassing for Bloomberg. My respect for them has plummeted recently.
• Tycho 8y ago
  Pretty amusing to read this on Bloomberg of all places. Practically the definition of innovator turned rent-seeker. One of the most entrenched incumbents in technology.
• Wavelets 8y ago
  What a silly article. How someone could look at Apple's chip developments (A, T, S, W, etc. series of processors) and think they aren't innovative is mind-boggling. Apple developing key silicon in their devices is a major security benefit for their users and I consider that an innovative model. The Apple ecosystem itself is innovative and I don't think there's a single company that does it better. They still lead in interfaces (biometrics...FaceID) and multi-touch gestures. I don't use Siri, but I'm glad they are developing that technology in a way that doesn't flat-out violate the privacy of their users. I just hope all the criticism comparing Siri versus Google Assistant and Cortana don't push them to change that posture. It feels like Apple hate is becoming a meme. You can certainly criticize the company... their product line is becoming confusing, but to say they "used" to be an innovator is ignorant.
  • lewisinc 8y ago
    > It feels like Apple hate is becoming a meme. Hasn't it always been, though? This probably comes off as conspiracy-theoretic, but I feel like there's a real financial incentive to keep their stock prices as in-flux as possible to allow for proper buy-in/cash-out gains.
    • oddevan 8y ago
      After seeing Jim Cramer mention on camera the idea of putting out a false Apple rumor (example given in 2006 was "The iPhone is being delayed"), I'm less inclined to write off conspiracies in this regard. Don't know that it's a full-blown Conspiracy™, but the financial incentives are there for the right people.
    • abalone 8y ago
      The financial incentive is much more pedestrian: hot take clickbait for struggling news organizations.
    • wtallis 8y ago
      I can certainly believe that there are plenty of people that try to manipulate the stock price, but most Apple haters aren't playing the stock market. By far the most common cause of Apple hate I see is what appears to be consumers who are essentially disgruntled that none of Apple's products are targeted at their own use case: eg. gamers who always decried the Mac Pro because they wanted a cheap traditional desktop, not a workstation; or people who wish Apple was competing in the $500 laptop market, or the 8+lbs mobile workstation or gaming laptop market. A large portion of complaints about Apple hardware being overpriced can be traced back to misunderstandings about what Apple's actually selling and how it differs from the Dell that somebody tries to compare it to. (Of course, there are plenty of things that Apple does over-charge for.) Next most common are probably the people who despise the "walled garden". They're quite vocal in these parts of the web, but I doubt they outnumber the previous category of Apple detractors.
• philwelch 8y ago
  Steve Jobs was, among many other things, both good and bad, an irreplaceable human being. The Apple that created the Apple II, Macintosh, iPod, and iPhone isn't coming back. That having been said, of the two post-Steve Jobs Apples that we've seen, this one is still pretty damn decent. They aren't killing the entire company by throwing all their software engineering resources at a Second System Effect technical quagmire like Copland, they aren't selling laptops that spontaneously burst into flames like the PowerBook 5300, and they aren't investing in solutions in search of a problem like OpenDoc. They also aren't selling dozens of indistinguishable products that are only distinguishable by arbitrary four-digit product numbers.
  • yashap 8y ago
    Agreed - they had tonnes of amazing, creative talent during both Jobs eras, and they still do, but Jobs was clearly a crucial piece in their revolutionary product development. Without him, they’re not going to be knocking out products that literally alter society every 5 years or so. He’s not replaceable. Still, I think their attention to detail and user experience is about as strong as ever, for both their hardware and software. Innovation will still come out of Apple, just not as game changing as it used to be. I think they’ll transition to being sort of a “Samsung with better UX and attention to detail”, which is a company I’ll continue to buy products from, even if it is a bit of a letdown from what they were with Jobs.
  • ken 8y ago
    > killing the entire company by throwing all their software engineering resources at a Second System Effect technical quagmire like Copland They bought themselves out of this, of course, by buying NeXT (managed by SJ). But NeXTstep itself could have easily fallen prey to the second system effect. Was it luck or skill that saved it? Back in 2000, SJ said that Mac OS X would set up Apple "for the next 20 years". It's 18 years later. What's next? I'm an avid Mac user but these days it pretty much just looks like a good implementation of a 1980's Unix workstation. The ways I wish it were improved are not easy to add to the current architecture. When Apple decides that it has run its course, who's going to lead the team to make its successor? There isn't another SJ startup to buy. Then again, I don't see Microsoft or the various Linux-based groups or even DARPA taking the lead on next-generation operating system design, either. I don't think it's fair to single out Apple. The whole industry has put all its eggs in the basket of "basically a Unix workstation". That was a great design for its day but I wouldn't use it if I were starting from scratch today. Are we going to just keep adding new syscalls and userspace layers for every new idea we have? Is this the endgame for computer science?
• mothsonasloth 8y ago
  Its sad state of affairs that companies are tying and locking down their hardware to specific software: You cant modify the new Xboxes or Playstations. Some Android phones are dependant on the manufacturers customised version of the AOSP. On Macs it is not easy to install another operating system, like you can do with a PC (although I have managed to get Ubuntu 18.10 running on my Macbook Pro 13,1) Consumers are going to be really challenged at some point and think, "hey, I have very little control over this thing I bought. Am I ok with this or am I going to start hacking?" We could see another renaissance like you had in the early 80s with hackers sharing and porting software onto the weird and wonderful computers they were building back then.... who knows?
  • max76 8y ago
    Sorry, I think consumers are perfectly fine with severe limitations of control over their hardware. The percentage of hacked consumer electronics is slim.
• CM30 8y ago
  Sounds like a good description of Valve after Steam too. Used to focus on products and invent new series, now mostly cashes in on services and microtransactions relating to its older works. Wonder if this is a trend, especially for larger companies.
• ChuckMcM 8y ago
  My particular pain point here is Apple music. I've got gigabytes of music that I've curated over the years, and had on iPods, then on my iPad. But Music has gone from a library first approach to a store first approach, it is getting pretty difficult to keep a set of tunes physically on your device. That makes me sad.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• eruci 8y ago
  Apple died with Steve Jobs. No new products just same shit with double and triple price. Shrinking customer base due to overpricing is the death of any company and utter betrayal of Jobs vision.
• Bjorkbat 8y ago
  From the comments I see a lot of people are confused by the headline. Apple still invents, but only for the sake of improving existing products, and not really in a way that makes you imagine what you can do, thus it's not the type of invention that matters. There, I said it. I made the mistake of buying a Macbook with a touch bar because I thought it was kind of cool when I finally got to see it in person. The novelty that came from this cheap gimmick wore off in a matter of minutes, even though the technical obstacles that had to be overcome must've been great. The face-tracking cameras in the latest iPhones and iPads? Impressive on their own, but Apple has failed to do anything really fascinating with them besides using them to unlock your device or to puppet an emoji. Apple invents only for the sake of creating additional cheap gimmicks without creating genuinely exciting products. As I fumble with the awful keyboard on my Macbook I question just how capable they are of even creating quality products.
• pl0x 8y ago
  Apple has botched the Mac lineup and is becoming anti-consumer. I've been a Mac users since the 80's and this is a very different Apple today.
• redwyvern 8y ago
  I've learned that some of Bloomberg's journalism is bullshit, and this article helps me stand by my opinion. FaceID? ECG monitor? AirPods and the general continuity between Apple products? Seems like Bloomberg is just an attention whore. I can see an argument for the Apple customer market becoming saturated, but Apple has not lost its inventiveness. The idea of becoming a landlord who is unable to bring in new people with exciting technology is only true if you consider
• nil_pointer 8y ago
  Steve Jobs was Apple's inventor. They've been trying to emulate him since his passing, which is showing obviously to not be the same thing.
• coldtea 8y ago
  Yeah, the kind of landlord that designs its own CPUs, GPUs and co-processors, has its own language (Swift), solves several difficult engineering problems with every new product, and so on. Meanwhile, since I was watching Apple in 2000-2007, when they "used to be an inventor", they used to put out barely incremental updated for the iPod, the OS, and Mac laptops every year. People would circulate rumors for months, and then cheer, for tiny generational spec updates on iPods. Now we get 10x the technological change we got every year of that era between iPhone models, and people are blaze about it. Also, Google aside (and them only on the software assistant side) who solves any interesting consumer problems in the space Apple works?
• aibrahem 8y ago
  Apple always seemed to have had four things going for them; Product Innovation, Developing extremely high-quality HW and SW with attention to both details and user experience, a world-class supply chain and finally a technological edge. I would argue that under Steve Jobs both the supply chain and the technological edge had some focus but there wasn't a huge gap with the competition, This could be either because it required time to achieve this gap and Steve simply wasn't at the helm for that long or it wasn't his main focus and is currently the focus of Tim Cook considering his background, either way, I think Apple is currently and going to continue to blow everyone out of the water with technologies like their SOC's and will continue having the most efficient supply chain and manufacturing capacity in the world churning out products that beat the industry margins by a mile. Regarding the quality, design and user experience it mostly stagnated, don't get me wrong they're still way higher than the industry average and I can see Johnny Ives touch in most of their products, but I don’t see the kind of passion that went into designing the interface of a device like the iPhone with ideas like pinch to zoom and the spring effect. Apple seems to have a design team that is world class but uninspired and just doing their job. Now the most important point and this is what I honestly believe is the problem with Apple is the Product Innovation, this appears to have completely stopped after Steve, I try not to believe that Steve Jobs was THE product manager at Apple and avoid the cult of personality, but it's very hard to shake this idea when during his tenure they've released multiple industry-changing products, and they've failed to release a single one after he left. I think Apple is going to continue to release high-quality, well designed, cutting edge and high margin products, but I highly doubt with the current leadership they'll be able to release a single new product that changes the status quo like Steve used to.
• dano 8y ago
  This morning I watched two non-technical Apple users be amazed by something automatic - WiFi credential sharing. User 1 wanted to connect her MacBook Pro to the Wifi. User 2 picked up her phone and was prompted to share her WiFi credentials with the MacBook - it was almost like magic and it worked.