9 ms·

Doesn't the fact that the iPad is itself a closed...errr, integrated...system counter your argument? I'm all for open standards, API's and community cooperatio

Doesn't the fact that the iPad is itself a closed...errr, integrated...system counter your argument? I'm all for open standards, API's and community cooperation of course. I just don't think that Apple is necessarily the antithesis. The fundamental difference between Apple's position today to Microsoft's monoculture of the previous decade lies in their motivations. Apple wants to make great stuff. Microsoft wanted to control the world. btw PG: I rfs8.html is not on the rfs.html page yet.

dnsworks 16y ago
Right, Apple's shareholders are out there saying "I'm so glad we're making great stuff". Apple wants to make money, no matter how much fandom we bestow upon Apple for having a great design aesthetic, Apple is a corporation whose aim is to make money. Apple is a golden boy because they aren't Microsoft, and if we keep comparing the two, we never give Apple an honest shake.
- Azuldolphin 16y ago
  I don't know. I've always gotten the feeling that Jobs is a perfectionist to the point of it almost being a pathology. I doubt his motivations are primarily focused on money, especially at this point.
  - mortenjorck 16y ago
    It's probably safe to say titans of industry tend to have a diversity of motivations. In markets like finance, I don't doubt that it's often as simple as money, but the cultural currencies of other markets can be equally alluring pursuits. Industrial design, and in the last few decades, tech, have a currency of having a positive impact on users' lives. UX, basically, specifically with the opportunity cost of bad UX. If there were any way to quantify this -- "quality-of-life improvement credits" -- Apple would likely be quite rich in these as well as simply in financial currencies.
  - ABrandt 16y ago
    Jobs may be a perfectionist, but he is ultimately just the CEO. As such, he's an agent to the true owners (shareholders). His laser sharp focus on design has been extremely profitable and thus his interests are aligned with those of shareholders. When these interests get out of sync, see ya Steve. Its hard to imagine now but there will be Apple without their fearless leader one day. They are a profit seeking venture like any other--brilliant marketing has people convinced otherwise.
  - mikecane 16y ago
    It was never, ever about money: http://thinkexist.com/quotation/i_want_to_put_a_ding_in_the_universe/218895.html http://thinkexist.com/quotation/i_want_to_put_a_ding_in_the_...
- chc 16y ago
  Apple's aim is to make money in the same way that your aim is to reproduce before you die. It's technically true — that's what all lifeforms here for — but it obliterates a lot of important detail about you as a person.
- sunbash 16y ago
  I agree - Apple is a business, and it strives to make money - should it not??? The fact that they have realized that great user experience (which MS is also now making a priority-office 2007-10 is a perfect example)is a form of added value that consumers will pay heavily for is simply a testament to Apple's leadership (NOT just jobs!). Having an unbelievably talented marketing team doesn't hurt either. My question is: what has Apple done to directly propel the world (particularly the 3+ billion people in the "third world" - impoverished and middle class) towards globalization? Microsoft (perhaps in their bid for control) has donated & sold (or subsidized) millions of products to this group of people. In some countries, apple hasn't even attempted to sell their products at reasonable prices despite the opportunity. Isn't ushering all parts of the world into the next decade as important as creating the next great iOS?
  - recoiledsnake 16y ago
    Also disturbing is the fact that Apple is sitting on a pile of $50 billion in cash while the actual Foxconn workers in China who make iPhones have very bad working conditions and pay. Cmon Apple, a few dollars go a long way in China.
    - redrobot5050 16y ago
      Apple actually pays a subsidy to Foxconn workers above and beyond the wage being paid to them by Foxconn, based on a device's profitability. That being said, the assembly workers manufacturing the iPhone 4 and iPad are the highest paid among all Foxconn's laborers. If the workers were not happy with their workplace and conditions, they are free to leave, or even better, organize a labor union. Also, be advised the GE could also pay their chinese laborers a bit more, if you would be willing to pay more for your microwave, you water heater, your light bulbs, your cookware, etc. It's not going to happen. Let China enjoy being the manufacturing capital of the world while we still have fossil fuels, k?
lukeschlather 16y ago
Microsoft's control was superficial, and that's how they like it. They don't want to control what you put on your computer, they just want you to pay them the same reasonable price. Apple on the other hand clearly does care what you put on your iOS device, and in ways that go beyond a desire for good UX to a desire to control what is acceptable for society: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/apple-finds-christianity-offensive-to-large-groups-of-people-removes-app http://www.ncregister.com/blog/apple-finds-christianity-offe...
- alanthonyc 16y ago
  Here's the difference: You don't have to use any Apple device if you don't want to. That choice is yours. I spent many years working in places where you had to use Microsoft products. There was no choice. Microsoft didn't care what you put on your machine because all they care about is making money selling you stuff.
  - iaskwhy 16y ago
    I'm just saying but who knows if in x years you also have to use Apple? You know, there was always an alternative for Microsoft products like there is for Apple ones but people actually vote on this with their wallet: if the vast majority chooses Apple you will be forced to use their products too. I'm sure of this because I would never think about working with Objective-C and here I am doing iOS apps because that's where money is.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      > I'm just saying but who knows if in x years you also have to use Apple? Then that's when I'll start to take issue with them.
      - iaskwhy 16y ago
        Oh, I agree but I also like to be conscious that it's happening (or might happen).
      - 16y ago
grav1tas 16y ago
It does not counter his argument, but this doesn't mean he's right, either. His argument states that given a platform function, developers have historically used/exploited said function in ways that its creator had not intended. In terms of device functionality, this comes in terms of new applications for and of that device. The OP surmises that increasing the number of "opened up" functions via providing an API for developers will increase the usefulness of the device via the previous statement. Following his reasoning, the ultimate functional and useful device is "open" in the sense of FOSS because developers have the ability to exploit all functions of the device. My question to that conclusion would be, what if hackers made changes to the device that ran counter to the initial design philosophy of the device...which is what the users initially purchased the device? Is this a good thing always? Is this a bad thing always? The answer is neither, and this is why the implied (as interpreted by myself) conclusion is false. The OP's argument doesn't necessarily follow because usefulness does not equate to functionality and hack-ability. Good design is not something you can quantify by "featurefulness". If it were, users would have stopped buying new copies of Microsoft Office years ago. Following from the end line of Paul Graham's post, if you give hackers an inch, they will take you a mile. PG doesn't state whether or not that is a mile in the direction your preferred direction of travel.
wakeup 16y ago
What the fuck is wrong with your opinion generation mechanism? Ever heard of reason?

dnsworks 16y ago

Right, Apple's shareholders are out there saying "I'm so glad we're making great stuff". Apple wants to make money, no matter how much fandom we bestow upon Apple for having a great design aesthetic, Apple is a corporation whose aim is to make money. Apple is a golden boy because they aren't Microsoft, and if we keep comparing the two, we never give Apple an honest shake.

Azuldolphin 16y ago
I don't know. I've always gotten the feeling that Jobs is a perfectionist to the point of it almost being a pathology. I doubt his motivations are primarily focused on money, especially at this point.
- mortenjorck 16y ago
  It's probably safe to say titans of industry tend to have a diversity of motivations. In markets like finance, I don't doubt that it's often as simple as money, but the cultural currencies of other markets can be equally alluring pursuits. Industrial design, and in the last few decades, tech, have a currency of having a positive impact on users' lives. UX, basically, specifically with the opportunity cost of bad UX. If there were any way to quantify this -- "quality-of-life improvement credits" -- Apple would likely be quite rich in these as well as simply in financial currencies.
- ABrandt 16y ago
  Jobs may be a perfectionist, but he is ultimately just the CEO. As such, he's an agent to the true owners (shareholders). His laser sharp focus on design has been extremely profitable and thus his interests are aligned with those of shareholders. When these interests get out of sync, see ya Steve. Its hard to imagine now but there will be Apple without their fearless leader one day. They are a profit seeking venture like any other--brilliant marketing has people convinced otherwise.
- mikecane 16y ago
  It was never, ever about money: http://thinkexist.com/quotation/i_want_to_put_a_ding_in_the_universe/218895.html http://thinkexist.com/quotation/i_want_to_put_a_ding_in_the_...
chc 16y ago
Apple's aim is to make money in the same way that your aim is to reproduce before you die. It's technically true — that's what all lifeforms here for — but it obliterates a lot of important detail about you as a person.
sunbash 16y ago
I agree - Apple is a business, and it strives to make money - should it not??? The fact that they have realized that great user experience (which MS is also now making a priority-office 2007-10 is a perfect example)is a form of added value that consumers will pay heavily for is simply a testament to Apple's leadership (NOT just jobs!). Having an unbelievably talented marketing team doesn't hurt either. My question is: what has Apple done to directly propel the world (particularly the 3+ billion people in the "third world" - impoverished and middle class) towards globalization? Microsoft (perhaps in their bid for control) has donated & sold (or subsidized) millions of products to this group of people. In some countries, apple hasn't even attempted to sell their products at reasonable prices despite the opportunity. Isn't ushering all parts of the world into the next decade as important as creating the next great iOS?
- recoiledsnake 16y ago
  Also disturbing is the fact that Apple is sitting on a pile of $50 billion in cash while the actual Foxconn workers in China who make iPhones have very bad working conditions and pay. Cmon Apple, a few dollars go a long way in China.
  - redrobot5050 16y ago
    Apple actually pays a subsidy to Foxconn workers above and beyond the wage being paid to them by Foxconn, based on a device's profitability. That being said, the assembly workers manufacturing the iPhone 4 and iPad are the highest paid among all Foxconn's laborers. If the workers were not happy with their workplace and conditions, they are free to leave, or even better, organize a labor union. Also, be advised the GE could also pay their chinese laborers a bit more, if you would be willing to pay more for your microwave, you water heater, your light bulbs, your cookware, etc. It's not going to happen. Let China enjoy being the manufacturing capital of the world while we still have fossil fuels, k?

lukeschlather 16y ago

Microsoft's control was superficial, and that's how they like it. They don't want to control what you put on your computer, they just want you to pay them the same reasonable price. Apple on the other hand clearly does care what you put on your iOS device, and in ways that go beyond a desire for good UX to a desire to control what is acceptable for society: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/apple-finds-christianity-offensive-to-large-groups-of-people-removes-app http://www.ncregister.com/blog/apple-finds-christianity-offe...

alanthonyc 16y ago
Here's the difference: You don't have to use any Apple device if you don't want to. That choice is yours. I spent many years working in places where you had to use Microsoft products. There was no choice. Microsoft didn't care what you put on your machine because all they care about is making money selling you stuff.
- iaskwhy 16y ago
  I'm just saying but who knows if in x years you also have to use Apple? You know, there was always an alternative for Microsoft products like there is for Apple ones but people actually vote on this with their wallet: if the vast majority chooses Apple you will be forced to use their products too. I'm sure of this because I would never think about working with Objective-C and here I am doing iOS apps because that's where money is.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    > I'm just saying but who knows if in x years you also have to use Apple? Then that's when I'll start to take issue with them.
    - iaskwhy 16y ago
      Oh, I agree but I also like to be conscious that it's happening (or might happen).
    - 16y ago

grav1tas 16y ago

It does not counter his argument, but this doesn't mean he's right, either. His argument states that given a platform function, developers have historically used/exploited said function in ways that its creator had not intended. In terms of device functionality, this comes in terms of new applications for and of that device. The OP surmises that increasing the number of "opened up" functions via providing an API for developers will increase the usefulness of the device via the previous statement. Following his reasoning, the ultimate functional and useful device is "open" in the sense of FOSS because developers have the ability to exploit all functions of the device. My question to that conclusion would be, what if hackers made changes to the device that ran counter to the initial design philosophy of the device...which is what the users initially purchased the device? Is this a good thing always? Is this a bad thing always? The answer is neither, and this is why the implied (as interpreted by myself) conclusion is false. The OP's argument doesn't necessarily follow because usefulness does not equate to functionality and hack-ability. Good design is not something you can quantify by "featurefulness". If it were, users would have stopped buying new copies of Microsoft Office years ago. Following from the end line of Paul Graham's post, if you give hackers an inch, they will take you a mile. PG doesn't state whether or not that is a mile in the direction your preferred direction of travel.

wakeup 16y ago

What the fuck is wrong with your opinion generation mechanism? Ever heard of reason?