3 ms·

The author seems to have concluded that engineering will cease to be a competitive advantage. I think that can only be true if engineering can no longer produce

The author seems to have concluded that engineering will cease to be a competitive advantage. I think that can only be true if engineering can no longer produce things that are truly new or qualitatively different than what could be produced before. And that sounds a little like saying "everything has already been invented". Sure, the consumer doesn't care about the difference between 2.8 and 3.2 GHz. But the difference between 1 MHz and 1GHz is so huge that it's a qualitative difference -- you can apply it in ways that just wouldn't be practical otherwise. I find it strange that he cites Apple, because they are a prime example of the success of engineering and design excellence. They take existing technology, imagine what can be done if they push it to the limits, and design products that deliver a lot of value (I don't happen to like Apple products much, but a lot of people do -- and not just because they look nice). But pushing the technology to the limits is a crucial aspect. Why do you think they care so much about their sources of technology? Sure, it's outsourced, but Apple always makes sure they get better products than their competitors can. If the iPhone were just a little bigger when it was launched, it would have failed -- because that's the difference between all your customers always carrying it around, and being happy about it; and them leaving it in their car or at their desk when they go to lunch.

makeramen 15y ago
I would argue Apple doesn't exactly "push engineering to the limits." That is the role of companies like Intel, nVidia, AMD, ARM, to name a few. Apple is precisely in the business the author describes, of tailoring the technology of those other companies to best fit the mass market of consumers. This is not to say Apple doesn't design and engineer either. Just not in the traditional sense. Apple engineered and designed OSX to take advantage of the cutting edge hardware they source from other more traditional "engineering" companies. Apple designs and engineers the retail experience, online and in-store, to better sell those products. Apple designs new and innovative ways to combine existing technology into innovative new products like the iPod, iPhone, iPad. But the real differentiator is the vision behind their actions. While Intel, nVidia, ARM battle to make the faster, stronger, cheaper, more power-efficient processors; Apple is asking "how do we make listening to music more enjoyable?" (iPod), "how do we make our 'smart'phones less annoying?" (iPhone), and "how do we make computers that actually get out of our way, so we can get our work done faster, and go home to our friends and families?" (Macs). The difference is in the driving questions behind their actions. The answers might still be provided by people we call engineers and designers, but they are definitely not the same kind of engineers as the ones at Intel creating the next generation processor architecture.
- jeffdavis 15y ago
  But what you are saying is essentially that they build on top of other engineering work. And that's all engineering is, anyway. Maybe in X years Intel will just be a manufacturing company and not an engineering company. But that's just the way of things -- when an industry is immature, engineers are needed to make stuff work; and when it's mature, they don't need so many engineers. But there are new industries, new applications, and new expectations that will need engineers. Or, maybe everything really has been invented this time, and we're just done.

makeramen 15y ago

I would argue Apple doesn't exactly "push engineering to the limits." That is the role of companies like Intel, nVidia, AMD, ARM, to name a few. Apple is precisely in the business the author describes, of tailoring the technology of those other companies to best fit the mass market of consumers. This is not to say Apple doesn't design and engineer either. Just not in the traditional sense. Apple engineered and designed OSX to take advantage of the cutting edge hardware they source from other more traditional "engineering" companies. Apple designs and engineers the retail experience, online and in-store, to better sell those products. Apple designs new and innovative ways to combine existing technology into innovative new products like the iPod, iPhone, iPad. But the real differentiator is the vision behind their actions. While Intel, nVidia, ARM battle to make the faster, stronger, cheaper, more power-efficient processors; Apple is asking "how do we make listening to music more enjoyable?" (iPod), "how do we make our 'smart'phones less annoying?" (iPhone), and "how do we make computers that actually get out of our way, so we can get our work done faster, and go home to our friends and families?" (Macs). The difference is in the driving questions behind their actions. The answers might still be provided by people we call engineers and designers, but they are definitely not the same kind of engineers as the ones at Intel creating the next generation processor architecture.

jeffdavis 15y ago
But what you are saying is essentially that they build on top of other engineering work. And that's all engineering is, anyway. Maybe in X years Intel will just be a manufacturing company and not an engineering company. But that's just the way of things -- when an industry is immature, engineers are needed to make stuff work; and when it's mature, they don't need so many engineers. But there are new industries, new applications, and new expectations that will need engineers. Or, maybe everything really has been invented this time, and we're just done.