7 ms·

Is "quietly" really the appropriate word here? Do stores typically put out announcements when they stop stocking certain products? If not, "quietly" just seems

Is "quietly" really the appropriate word here? Do stores typically put out announcements when they stop stocking certain products? If not, "quietly" just seems to be a way to create an air of vague menace and treachery without saying it.

lstamour 6y ago
I thought it was an appropriate description. I did not read any “menace” or “treachery” into the use of the word “quiet”. The rest of the article mentions that new headphones are on the way according to rumour, that only Logitech’s headphones and portable speakers were pulled rather than the entire line of Logitech accessories, and that up until now, Apple has been comfortable selling both its first party headphones and third party ones, “and let the best product win” and then publicly asks “what changed?” The implications are strong, no need for “vague menace” here. Apple will sell more of their product if the only headphones you can buy from them are their own headphones, assuming they have a captive audience, of course. The obvious undertone is that their headphones might not be as good as third party ones — more expensive, fewer features, but who knows until they’re actually announced, of course. In the big picture, this could also indicate a pivot away from Apple selling third-party devices that don’t directly act as accessories for their own products first and best.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  This sounds like exactly the sort of vague menace the headline is designed to drum up. Nobody is captive to the Apple store. There is literally thousands of other places anybody could buy peripherals from. And if you’ve spent much time looking at what they stock, you might notice that Apple tends to stock more peripherals in the categories that it’s not very good at making in house, so the exact opposite inference could also be made.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Adding the word "quietly" screams clickbait to me. I guess they have to earn their money too, so it's just part of the world now.
    - rob74 6y ago
      Well, it's a headline, and making headlines sound more interesting is what newspapers have done for centuries, well before clicking on links was a thing. And the word "quietly" is fully justified, because Apple didn't announce that it was removing these items. So, it's only "borderline clickbait" in my opinion...
  - lstamour 6y ago
    I think you’ve misunderstood my points in your second paragraph. I’m only suggesting a captive audience as in “those browsing to buy on Apple.com what is compatible with their iPhone/iPad/Mac/etc.” And the exact opposite inference is: “a pivot toward Apple selling more third-party devices that don’t directly act as accessories for their own products first and best” — which doesn’t make sense. Maybe the confusion is over first and best? I meant that Apple is entrenching its ecosystem play by making automatic headphone connection a feature exclusive to Apple-built headphones, and that they could do the same in other markets. For instance, why sell an FLIR add-on infrared camera when you could make it an iPhone Pro feature in 2-3 years? My suggestion is that the Apple Store is quickly becoming a place that serves Apple more than its customers, and Apple seems to be okay with that, for now at least. It’s the retail store equivalent to not being able to buy digital books from anywhere but the Apple Books store. Just as you have to use Safari to buy books from your iPhone, you’ll have to visit third-parties for more accessories that don’t directly attach to or increase the value of your Apple device. Because the addons Apple most wants to sell you are the ones they make themselves, and thus have the most profit margin for...
    - AmericanChopper 6y ago
      > I’m only suggesting a captive audience as in “those browsing to buy on Apple.com what is compatible with their iPhone/iPad/Mac/etc.” This is even more outright ridiculous than your last claim. Nobody is help captive at the Apple store. If you're browsing apple.com for a product, your captivity ends buy opening the website of any other online retailer. Yet, you somehow manage to go further into some insane rabbit hole by suggesting that because a few 3rd products were dropped by the online Apple store, that this is a signal that Apple is start dropping support for 3rd party peripherals? When people say that HN just automatically hates anything Apple does, this is exactly what they're talking about. There's no rationale to a comment like this, it literally just comes off as deranged. Apple often does make "the best" accessories for it's own devices, but it doesn't always, and the 3rd party ones work just as well. My Sony headphones work just as well with my iPhone as my Beats ones do. Apple doesn't even make the best mouse for Macbooks or iPads. Logitech does. There is not a single ounce of reality in anything you just said.
inopinatus 6y ago
I thought it was a pun in re. audio equipment, especially the noise cancelling headphones.
- hexbinencoded 6y ago
  WHAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU WITH THESE NOISE CANCELLING HEADPHONES ON. HANG ON... Okay, that's better. Yes, the GP r/woosh'ed themselves.
dheera 6y ago
> air of vague menace and treachery (a) Considering their track record of wanting to monopolize and control markets, I wouldn't put it past them. (b) Many stores do put out announcements if they remove products for ideological reasons.
- echelon 6y ago
  (Of course you got downvoted...) How can Apple be, 1. An operating system and business software company 2. A cell phone company 3. An exclusive marketplace for apps 4. A movie studio and streaming service 5. A music studio and streaming service 6. A hardware company whose products predominantly work with and favor other Apple branded hardware 7. ... How can Google, Amazon, and Apple all do this? Pretty soon they're going to be providing us insurance, doing our dentistry work, and selling us caskets and cremation services. These monopolies are sucking the air out of so many industries. And they honestly do a lackluster job at the random spaces they enter - they just happen to have the money and weight to push out the smaller players and not have to worry about actually competing. I don't want America to have three Samsungs. It's not healthy. I don't want the arts to be dominated by advertising, grocery, and luxury computing/accessory brand companies.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    I mean the answer to all of these and more is having lots of cash needing investment vehicles that do better than just passively investing it in the market. None of these companies are menacingly laughing in board rooms, they’re just seeing other companies prove markets for them and betting that they can compete. If you want to get that first party integration/advantage these companies are happy to partner with you, but you have to have a product that can’t be replicated with 5 devs, a PM, and a Domino’s gift card. And don’t expect to charge a premium, if you try to ask for any more than a sliver above cost the numbers work out in favor of building it in-house.
    - echelon 6y ago
      So you're saying Sonos'/Bose's efforts are trivial? Audio is a solved problem for five people and a pizza? What isn't? I mean, Apple is building a Hollywood studio. That's insane. I get the feeling nothing is safe. If Apple wants to do it, they'll do it. Same for Amazon.
joegahona 6y ago
It’s the new clickbait word du jour. Make mundane and extremely ordinary things sound nefarious.
theshrike79 6y ago
It has the same connotation as a "secret" celebrity wedding. It makes it seem like the wedding was clad in huge secrecy, when in actuality they just didn't put out a press release announcing it and didn't invite the media. Makes for good headlines though.
Angostura 6y ago
I don't think it's there to create an air of menace of treachery, but rather a sense of intrigue - which is appropriate, because it is intriguing.
magma17 6y ago
yes it is appropriate because it's a failure.
mpclark 6y ago
It's tech media shorthand for "we just noticed this, but we're not sure when it actually happened"
- yitchelle 6y ago
  Why does it matter even if you knew when it happened?
  - wtallis 6y ago
    When a product disappears from the market, that's often a sign that a successor or replacement is on the way in the near future. In this case, it's possible that Apple is planning to step up their game in the product segments where these third-party devices compete. Of course, it's also possible that Apple simply doesn't find those third-party accessory sales to be worth the trouble any more.
ghgdynb1 6y ago
I initially agreed, but after some thought I've changed my mind; it is appropriate. If you want an example of Apple not doing something quietly, consider how they stopped carrying Fortnite on the App Store, or the policy they tried to implement wrt the Unreal Engine. If there had been some public spat with Bose in the run-up to this, and/or they announced a policy decision related to selling their hardware, it would not be quietly.
- acoard 6y ago
  >If there had been some public spat with Bose in the run-up to this, and/or they announced a policy decision related to selling their hardware, it would not be quietly. That's a tautology, or at least a trivial claim. It can be reduced to, "if it were a public spat, it would be a public spat." Hope I'm not being uncharitable here. Apple didn't advertise they were dropping FortNite. It was not on the front of the App Store (outside of conspicuously recommending competitors). Apple only released legal and policy statements. These are only warranted when there are policy infractions Apple wants to enforce (eg violating App Store Guidelines). Dropping Bose or Sonos was not due to policy infractions, anymore than Walmart dropping Amazon products is. There is a fundamental difference between "We dropped this product for economic reasons, but it may return" and "We have banned this product because it violates the policies and terms we have set out, and it is no longer welcome." Apple _has_ to respond to policy infractions. Otherwise they're effectively abandoning the policy. [0] [0] Note: I'm not defending the App Store policies here, but rather saying that the App Store policies discussion doesn't pertain to this discussion.
  - ghgdynb1 6y ago
    I appreciate the tone, and I don’t think you’re being uncharitable. While it may be true that my claim is tautological (especially if we understand a tautology as a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form), that doesn’t make it false or irrelevant, which seems to be the implication. When you say ‘That's a tautology, or at least a trivial claim. It can be reduced to, "if it were a public spat, it would be a public spat,’” I agree. It’s pretty self-evident. What I’m doing is highlighting that it was a public spat in the case of Fortnite, and wasn't in the case of Bose. I think the bit you’re missing is that once we’ve established that there is a difference between something being a public spat and something not being a public spat, we can use a phrase (like quietly stops) to add that information into a statement. Thus there’s a point to saying quietly, and the word is appropriate. That’s the point I’m making.
stevenwliao 6y ago
stevenwliao quietly stops posting for 6 days.

lstamour 6y ago

I thought it was an appropriate description. I did not read any “menace” or “treachery” into the use of the word “quiet”. The rest of the article mentions that new headphones are on the way according to rumour, that only Logitech’s headphones and portable speakers were pulled rather than the entire line of Logitech accessories, and that up until now, Apple has been comfortable selling both its first party headphones and third party ones, “and let the best product win” and then publicly asks “what changed?” The implications are strong, no need for “vague menace” here. Apple will sell more of their product if the only headphones you can buy from them are their own headphones, assuming they have a captive audience, of course. The obvious undertone is that their headphones might not be as good as third party ones — more expensive, fewer features, but who knows until they’re actually announced, of course. In the big picture, this could also indicate a pivot away from Apple selling third-party devices that don’t directly act as accessories for their own products first and best.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
This sounds like exactly the sort of vague menace the headline is designed to drum up. Nobody is captive to the Apple store. There is literally thousands of other places anybody could buy peripherals from. And if you’ve spent much time looking at what they stock, you might notice that Apple tends to stock more peripherals in the categories that it’s not very good at making in house, so the exact opposite inference could also be made.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Adding the word "quietly" screams clickbait to me. I guess they have to earn their money too, so it's just part of the world now.
  - rob74 6y ago
    Well, it's a headline, and making headlines sound more interesting is what newspapers have done for centuries, well before clicking on links was a thing. And the word "quietly" is fully justified, because Apple didn't announce that it was removing these items. So, it's only "borderline clickbait" in my opinion...
- lstamour 6y ago
  I think you’ve misunderstood my points in your second paragraph. I’m only suggesting a captive audience as in “those browsing to buy on Apple.com what is compatible with their iPhone/iPad/Mac/etc.” And the exact opposite inference is: “a pivot toward Apple selling more third-party devices that don’t directly act as accessories for their own products first and best” — which doesn’t make sense. Maybe the confusion is over first and best? I meant that Apple is entrenching its ecosystem play by making automatic headphone connection a feature exclusive to Apple-built headphones, and that they could do the same in other markets. For instance, why sell an FLIR add-on infrared camera when you could make it an iPhone Pro feature in 2-3 years? My suggestion is that the Apple Store is quickly becoming a place that serves Apple more than its customers, and Apple seems to be okay with that, for now at least. It’s the retail store equivalent to not being able to buy digital books from anywhere but the Apple Books store. Just as you have to use Safari to buy books from your iPhone, you’ll have to visit third-parties for more accessories that don’t directly attach to or increase the value of your Apple device. Because the addons Apple most wants to sell you are the ones they make themselves, and thus have the most profit margin for...
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    > I’m only suggesting a captive audience as in “those browsing to buy on Apple.com what is compatible with their iPhone/iPad/Mac/etc.” This is even more outright ridiculous than your last claim. Nobody is help captive at the Apple store. If you're browsing apple.com for a product, your captivity ends buy opening the website of any other online retailer. Yet, you somehow manage to go further into some insane rabbit hole by suggesting that because a few 3rd products were dropped by the online Apple store, that this is a signal that Apple is start dropping support for 3rd party peripherals? When people say that HN just automatically hates anything Apple does, this is exactly what they're talking about. There's no rationale to a comment like this, it literally just comes off as deranged. Apple often does make "the best" accessories for it's own devices, but it doesn't always, and the 3rd party ones work just as well. My Sony headphones work just as well with my iPhone as my Beats ones do. Apple doesn't even make the best mouse for Macbooks or iPads. Logitech does. There is not a single ounce of reality in anything you just said.

inopinatus 6y ago

I thought it was a pun in re. audio equipment, especially the noise cancelling headphones.

hexbinencoded 6y ago
WHAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU WITH THESE NOISE CANCELLING HEADPHONES ON. HANG ON... Okay, that's better. Yes, the GP r/woosh'ed themselves.

dheera 6y ago

> air of vague menace and treachery (a) Considering their track record of wanting to monopolize and control markets, I wouldn't put it past them. (b) Many stores do put out announcements if they remove products for ideological reasons.

echelon 6y ago
(Of course you got downvoted...) How can Apple be, 1. An operating system and business software company 2. A cell phone company 3. An exclusive marketplace for apps 4. A movie studio and streaming service 5. A music studio and streaming service 6. A hardware company whose products predominantly work with and favor other Apple branded hardware 7. ... How can Google, Amazon, and Apple all do this? Pretty soon they're going to be providing us insurance, doing our dentistry work, and selling us caskets and cremation services. These monopolies are sucking the air out of so many industries. And they honestly do a lackluster job at the random spaces they enter - they just happen to have the money and weight to push out the smaller players and not have to worry about actually competing. I don't want America to have three Samsungs. It's not healthy. I don't want the arts to be dominated by advertising, grocery, and luxury computing/accessory brand companies.
- Spivak 6y ago
  I mean the answer to all of these and more is having lots of cash needing investment vehicles that do better than just passively investing it in the market. None of these companies are menacingly laughing in board rooms, they’re just seeing other companies prove markets for them and betting that they can compete. If you want to get that first party integration/advantage these companies are happy to partner with you, but you have to have a product that can’t be replicated with 5 devs, a PM, and a Domino’s gift card. And don’t expect to charge a premium, if you try to ask for any more than a sliver above cost the numbers work out in favor of building it in-house.
  - echelon 6y ago
    So you're saying Sonos'/Bose's efforts are trivial? Audio is a solved problem for five people and a pizza? What isn't? I mean, Apple is building a Hollywood studio. That's insane. I get the feeling nothing is safe. If Apple wants to do it, they'll do it. Same for Amazon.

joegahona 6y ago

It’s the new clickbait word du jour. Make mundane and extremely ordinary things sound nefarious.

theshrike79 6y ago

It has the same connotation as a "secret" celebrity wedding. It makes it seem like the wedding was clad in huge secrecy, when in actuality they just didn't put out a press release announcing it and didn't invite the media. Makes for good headlines though.

Angostura 6y ago

I don't think it's there to create an air of menace of treachery, but rather a sense of intrigue - which is appropriate, because it is intriguing.

magma17 6y ago

yes it is appropriate because it's a failure.

mpclark 6y ago

It's tech media shorthand for "we just noticed this, but we're not sure when it actually happened"

yitchelle 6y ago
Why does it matter even if you knew when it happened?
- wtallis 6y ago
  When a product disappears from the market, that's often a sign that a successor or replacement is on the way in the near future. In this case, it's possible that Apple is planning to step up their game in the product segments where these third-party devices compete. Of course, it's also possible that Apple simply doesn't find those third-party accessory sales to be worth the trouble any more.

ghgdynb1 6y ago

I initially agreed, but after some thought I've changed my mind; it is appropriate. If you want an example of Apple not doing something quietly, consider how they stopped carrying Fortnite on the App Store, or the policy they tried to implement wrt the Unreal Engine. If there had been some public spat with Bose in the run-up to this, and/or they announced a policy decision related to selling their hardware, it would not be quietly.

acoard 6y ago
>If there had been some public spat with Bose in the run-up to this, and/or they announced a policy decision related to selling their hardware, it would not be quietly. That's a tautology, or at least a trivial claim. It can be reduced to, "if it were a public spat, it would be a public spat." Hope I'm not being uncharitable here. Apple didn't advertise they were dropping FortNite. It was not on the front of the App Store (outside of conspicuously recommending competitors). Apple only released legal and policy statements. These are only warranted when there are policy infractions Apple wants to enforce (eg violating App Store Guidelines). Dropping Bose or Sonos was not due to policy infractions, anymore than Walmart dropping Amazon products is. There is a fundamental difference between "We dropped this product for economic reasons, but it may return" and "We have banned this product because it violates the policies and terms we have set out, and it is no longer welcome." Apple _has_ to respond to policy infractions. Otherwise they're effectively abandoning the policy. [0] [0] Note: I'm not defending the App Store policies here, but rather saying that the App Store policies discussion doesn't pertain to this discussion.
- ghgdynb1 6y ago
  I appreciate the tone, and I don’t think you’re being uncharitable. While it may be true that my claim is tautological (especially if we understand a tautology as a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form), that doesn’t make it false or irrelevant, which seems to be the implication. When you say ‘That's a tautology, or at least a trivial claim. It can be reduced to, "if it were a public spat, it would be a public spat,’” I agree. It’s pretty self-evident. What I’m doing is highlighting that it was a public spat in the case of Fortnite, and wasn't in the case of Bose. I think the bit you’re missing is that once we’ve established that there is a difference between something being a public spat and something not being a public spat, we can use a phrase (like quietly stops) to add that information into a statement. Thus there’s a point to saying quietly, and the word is appropriate. That’s the point I’m making.

stevenwliao 6y ago

stevenwliao quietly stops posting for 6 days.