10 ms·

> "Apple's ultimate plan is to introduce the technologies on its iPhone, which is its key revenue source and has much bigger volume, to justify the investments

> "Apple's ultimate plan is to introduce the technologies on its iPhone, which is its key revenue source and has much bigger volume, to justify the investments over the years," said one of the sources who has seen samples of the company's microLED screen. One thing I really appreciate when it comes to Apple is that despite all their shortcomings they don't "sleep on the job". Over the years they never hesitated to cannibalize their own product lines (iPod), or go through several tough technological transitions (68K/PPC/x86/ARM) if it meant building a better product. And bigger profits of course. For example I'm sure Google would just rather stuff your phone to the gills with ads in order to drive revenue than actually bother with a coherent investment in a long term strategy to make a better product. And bigger profits of course.

dehrmann 3y ago
> cannibalize their own product lines (iPod) I disagree on this. The iPhone was a potential iPod replacement when it launched, but the choice was selling $200 iPods or $500 iPhones. The iPhone felt like a leap of several generations, but the hardware and business model were still similar. Where Apple actually cannibalized something was Apple Music and the iTunes store, but they drug their feet on it.
- buran77 3y ago
  > but the choice was selling $200 iPods or $500 iPhones I don't think we are in disagreement. But the fact is very few companies do this regardless. When it comes to the product that's their bread and butter they tend to put it on a pedestal never to be touched until it falls into irrelevance. Apple didn't launch an improved iPod and retire the old. They didn't try to sell a phone and a music player by artificially differentiating them, or by sabotaging one of them. They didn't try to make $250 off the iPod and another $250 from a phone that "shouldn't compete too well". They launched 2 product lines made by different parts of the company, knowing that the iPhone may undermine the iPod userbase and then still fail, possibly souring those customers. They wouldn't necessarily do this today. iDevices now are clearly (and artificially) differentiated from the Macs: different OS, no options to use them in a way they truly compete despite having such similar hardware theoretical capabilities. Again to give the Google example, when they tried to have competing lines (Google/Nest) they managed to fail at both and lose the customers completely.
  - macintux 3y ago
    I disagree somewhat with the characterization of the differences as artificial. I think Apple genuinely believes that, despite their excellent touchpads, a cursor-driven interface is not the same as a touch interface. They’re gradually bridging them (Catalyst, and adding cursor support to iPadOS), and speaking as a fan of both product lines I’m glad they’re trying to make them each more powerful without just slapping them into a single UI. Could they do a better job of supporting external devices on iPad? I imagine so, but there’s such a long road from the extremely-protective/simplistic/sandboxed iOS 1.0 to a full-fledged workstation operating system I have to think it’s not all that easy.
- no_wizard 3y ago
  I think this had more to due with negotiations with the record labels[0]. All the major record labels have investments in Spotify[1] which I imagine lends more credence to Spotify being able to negotiate good deals with the labels, since they can act more like partners [0]: https://www.cultofmac.com/325034/apples-music-streaming-negotiations-are-coming-down-to-the-wire/ https://www.cultofmac.com/325034/apples-music-streaming-nego... [1]: https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/spotify-at-days-close-what-are-sony-warner-and-universals-shares-worth-a-lot-1202743146/ https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/spotify-at-days-close-what...
  - scarface74 3y ago
    How are they “good deals” for Spotify when Spotify is losing money?
    - spacetime_cmplx 3y ago
      For starters, Spotify exists
- dwaite 3y ago
  One of the classic examples I've heard was how Apple cannibalized their iPod (classic) with the iPod Mini and the iPod nano. These were smaller and cheaper due to the flash storage, but did not replace their more expensive cousin. The iPod Classic got relatively little updates toward the end of the iPod line because while it had a dedicated fan base due to its ability to store truly massive music libraries, it just wasn't selling much. This was also the first time we really saw the scale Tim Cook could push for - competitors had difficulty going up against Apple because they hadn't just bought out all the available flash in the channel - they had funded building new factories for building denser/cheaper flash, in return for their entire initial production.
kccqzy 3y ago
Is Google launching Bard a perfect example of displaying the willingness to cannibalize Search? Google Brain was formed in 2011. If that's not coherent investment in a long term strategy I don't know what would qualify.
- __hello__ 3y ago
  This is a bad example - bard just seems to halucinate and make up 50% of the answers.
- buran77 3y ago
  The only thing Bard shows is that Google doesn't want OpenAI to eat into their Search. There's no indication it was ever planned to compete with Search or that they had a clear plan for it before OpenAI walked that path. When you have all you need theoretically in house but your moves are rushed and come only as a reaction to the competition you are the very example I was trying to make, of milking your cash cow and waiting too long. Google had to change the strategy [0], reorganize [1], and struggle to launch your product in an emergency as a response to competition. This is the very definition of not having a well thought out long term strategy, isn't it? Google owned Brain and DeepMind as rival divisions since before OpenAI existed. They didn't cooperate, didn't launch any revolutionary product, and didn't compete in any way with Google's main offering. They were left to their own devices like side projects until the competition dashed in front and hit Google's most sensitive area and dictated their strategy. I don't know if Bard is a good or bad product. But we may have different definitions of a coherent investment in a long term strategy to make a better product. None of the above shouts "coherent", "long term strategy", or even necessarily "better product". [0] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/01/fearing-chatgpt-google-enlists-founders-brin-and-page-in-ai-fight/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/01/feari... [1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/04/googles-ai-panic-forces-merger-of-rival-divisions-deepmind-and-brain/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/04/googles-ai-panic-for...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - 3y ago
m463 3y ago
The other side of that coin is that apple navel gazes, shunning the rest of the world. I think the most recent apple golden age was around 2007 when they switched to intel. This allowed folks to use apple hardware and macos, but also run windows on their systems. mac os was more open. The mac pro embraced the PC ecosystem, hard drives, pcie cards and more. Nowadays the pendulum is swinging the other way and though it might be good for apple's bottom line, I don't think it's better for customers (or apple long term)
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > though it might be good for apple's bottom line, I don't think it's better for customers The M1 MacBook Pro is the best laptop I’ve ever used.
  - josephg 3y ago
    Yep, my M1 macbook pro is the best laptop I've ever owned too. And if asahi linux is anything to go by, its a surprisingly open system from a software perspective. But I also think the abusive, controlling behaviour they exhibit when it comes to their hardware is shockingly bad. (See: any of Louis Rossman's videos). I also think its awful how controlling Apple is over the software that runs on iPhones. For example, apparently the city of SF needs to pay Apple millions of dollars a year to allow iphones to be used as clipper tickets. Why is apple paid money for this? Users have already bought the NFC chips in their phones from Apple. Installing themselves as an unaccountable, monopolistic middleman is disgusting behaviour.
    - idopmstuff 3y ago
      I genuinely don't understand how you can describe a company as abusive, controlling and disgusting and yet give them $1000+ dollars of your money for a computer. Why would you support a disgusting abuser?
      - rowanG077 3y ago
        Because the abuse is obviously not the whole story, The product is still the best laptop you can buy in spite of the abuse, control and disgusting behavior of Apple.
yunohn 3y ago
> Over the years they never hesitated to cannibalize their own product lines (iPod) The iPod was subsumed by the iPhone, not cannibalised. Parents were obligated to buy their kids a device with tracking/communication capabilities, so iPods became irrelevant. Now everyone buys the 2x more expensive device. Now, if Apple were to merge the iPad and Macbook, I would agree with you readily.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  There's no replacement for the Nano. iPhone doesn't cover that use case.
  - fsckboy 3y ago
    but that doesn't represent cannibalization, they didn't introduce a product that competes in that niche you're talking about but if you're going to carry a phone anyway, like digital handheld cameras, you don't need an extra device on top of your phone
  - glowingly 3y ago
    For the ones that used later gen Nanos (same form factor as early Shuffles) as music devices during running/jogging, the Watch supplanted that role with the added benefit of combining the Nano and fitness bands (GPS, heart rate). I agree, a full phone was annoying large and hard to carry (tried forearm straps at one point) and often ran without one. Though I know people who still ran with a phone anyways.
    - r00fus 3y ago
      I bought specific athletic shorts or shirts (cycling jerseys with back pockets did great) so that I could run with my phone. Stopped working so well when the iPhone 6 Plus came out.
  - scarface74 3y ago
    The cellular Apple Watch.
howinteresting 3y ago
Which has more ads in the settings menu, an iPhone or a Pixel?
- jayd16 3y ago
  No undismissable ads as notification bubbles on a Pixel either.
cubefox 3y ago
I'm not sure that's true overall. Consider their strange design decisions with iPhone screens: - They waited years longer than the competition to switch to larger screens. They only really got to it with the iPhone 6. - They completely slept on OLED and stuck to LCD until the iPhone X, when all mid to high range Android phones had already used OLED for years. Their iPads still use LCDs for apparently no good reason (lower price presumably), around ten years after Samsung sold their first OLED tablets. - They slept on the screen-to-body ratio. They were years behind their Android competition when they finally changed their course with the iPhone X.
- californical 3y ago
  It’s just a different set of values. If you want the latest tech specs, like OLED or whatever else, then you’ll find that in other brand. But if you prefer a system that just gets out of your way so you don’t need to think about it, and just use it as a tool to do something else then Apple is nearly unbeatable. And I say this as a recent Apple convert. I reluctantly started using their tech a few years ago when a Macbook was the laptop given to me at a new job. But since embracing the idea of “meh I’ll just use the defaults and let the system get out of my way”, I feel like I get to spend more time on things where I add value. I switched to an iPhone for the first time in 2020 with the SE, and it is still running fine today with no problems, on the latest software update. I don’t care about the screen-to-body ratio, I just want it to work well as a tool
  - cubefox 3y ago
    I'm not denying they are great at other aspects, but that's a point which is independent of the points I made. Them using outdated design approaches in the past didn't make their products more reliable.
    - californical 3y ago
      Fair, I guess I forgot to mention my point, so sorry about that haha The point that I was trying to make is that a general Apple consumer doesn’t really care about those things, but does like consistency. So Apple waits until they are pretty sure that something is actually valuable to customers, before releasing it.
Barrin92 3y ago
>Google would just rather stuff your phone to the gills with ads I see literally more ads on my iphone than I see on my Google Pixel, and it is one of Apple's fastest growing sources of revenue.
- m3kw9 3y ago
  Ads don’t matter unless they are intrusive. Most part Apple does well, but Apple News is the worst
  - foobarian 3y ago
    You ran out of space on your iCloud account! Now your phone won't be backed up and your data will be in danger! <spooky sounds>
    - dwaite 3y ago
      What part of that isn't a legitimate and valid warning? I've had multiple relatives with broken/stolen phones who lost very important photos because they were no longer being backed up. You can always turn iCloud backup off if you think notices that the feature is failing are annoying, but the notices themselves are hardly misleading.
      - foobarian 3y ago
        I'm sure the CTA to pay for upgraded storage included in that warning is just a convenient coincidence, eh. I don't like the dark-patterness of it - it feels like blackmail.
  - howinteresting 3y ago
    lmao is this the newest excuse? Ads don't matter because it's Apple who runs them?
pkasting 3y ago
Hmm. Over in the browser space, I'd say Google's shown significant, long-term investment in Chrome/Blink, especially compared to Apple's relative disinterest in putting significant engineering resources on WebKit. Perhaps instead of this being about Apple vs. Google (or others), it's about companies investing in their core competencies and areas where they have a business interest.
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  I think people underestimate Safari. IIRC "back in the day" they were the first to get 100% in supporting all of ES6. Conviently, they were first in supporting the things I care about - like backdrop-filter and css scroll snap. Safari/Webkit/JSC is faster at executing javascript as well.
  - fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
    Yes, as a user I prefer Safari to all be alternatives on macOS.
  - MBCook 3y ago
    First to pass the Acid 3 CSS test suite too, IIRC.
  - jimbob45 3y ago
    You could swap “Safari” for IE6 and tell the same story. I don’t know what it is about OS dominance that drives such disinterest in upgrading browsers outside of wanting to push native apps for that App Store revenue.
    - dwaite 3y ago
      You could also say that Chrome had a huge _interest_ in pushing for browser-alternatives to native Apps because of Chromebooks. Some of that died down once Android support was added. The position on many of these by other browser vendors were that they were harmful for the web. You will likely never see implementations of these non-standard API outside chromium-based browsers. The other thing which they are very slow to support is new codecs on the video tag. Presumably this is because they want to keep their "video playback" power metrics. the WebKit team is incredibly metrics-driven, which is one reason for their performance and power-efficiency.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
I keep wondering what would happen if Apple were to license iOS. I know that's a sore spot (Jobs is dead though), but could they actually fuck over Android if they did? A whitebox iOS could be downgraded enough that they could still service the snob market, but maybe undercut Google completely. I mean, how much does it even have to cost per unit when each sold drives traffic to their own app store?
- aledalgrande 3y ago
  It would be a nightmare for iOS devs, now swamped by tons of device formats and missing capabilities depending on the model, like it is for Android.
  - ohgodplsno 3y ago
    Now I kinda want to see how badly Apple would reinvent androidx libraries. NSPermissionCompat would be a beauty to behold in 2045 when they finally decide to do it. Unless they don't and leave it up to the iOS community to (badly) do it.
- MBCook 3y ago
  > A whitebox iOS could be downgraded enough[…] And that’s a huge part of the problem. Any move like that would tarnish iOS in everyone’s eyes. Apple wants you to buy a real iPhone, even if it’s the model from 2 years ago, instead. If BMW started selling a ton of $18,000 cars do you think that would help or hurt sales of the M3 and the 5 Series? That bit then with the clones. The competition undercut them. You know what that high Apple price does? Help pay to develop iOS. They would have to charge enough to make up for the money they would lose on the list phone sales. And seriously risk their reputation in the process. Apple has been through a lot in their 40 years. They have an atavistic reaction at this point against anything that prevents them from controlling their own destiny. It’s hurt them too many times. I suspect that’s why they’re doing this. They don’t want to be beholden to Samsung, LG, or anyone else for displays.
- scarface74 3y ago
  What good is iOS on commodity hardware? The entire value proposition of any of Apple’s products are the right integration of hardware and software.
jayd16 3y ago
You're acting like Android isn't staying competitive. If Apple is moving forward how can you say Google isn't?
- MBCook 3y ago
  I think their point was, would Google move forward if they weren’t forced by Apple? Google News took over and they gave up. Gmail got huge and they stopped doing much other than adding ads. Maps slowed down, other than adding ads. Google search keeps getting worse, they can’t seem to fix the SEO/spam problem. But they can add more ads. Left to their own devices, Google seems happy to collect rent. Apple, historically, makes their money by selling new hardware, and that requires improving things enough people want to buy it.
  - rickdeckard 3y ago
    You compare services to products here. The market doesn't appreciate disruptive changes to services, hence all improvements done in services of both Apple and Google are iterative and subtle, additive not disruptive. Such changes are usually also not newsworthy, unless one has to do leaps to catch up with a competitor (looking at you, Apple Maps)... Google only has a few consumer products, but they made quite a few leaps in the past years for similar reasons (Pixel Phone has to catch up with Samsung, Pixel Watch has to catch up with Apple Watch), while Google/Nest Home is competing mainly with Amazon in an ecosystem war I'd say. One could argue that the iPhone is not moving forward much in user-experience for a few years now, it's mainly iterating to achieve further cost-reduction/profit and enhance additional revenue streams of Apple. - Apple Watch is mainly getting enhanced to create additional (healthcare/insurance/services) business for Apple. - The iPad is under no stress to evolve other than cost-reduction in HW/SW development by harmonization with the iPhone, main strategy seems to be to push customers towards more expensive variants. - The Macbook was indeed revolutionized, by applying the same supply-chain practice of the iPhone. Lots of leaps forward here in terms of tech, something only Apple could do. But Apple was also not leading this segment and is under strong competition, so they were forced to do something or dissolve into oblivion. - The Desktop-Mac trajectory seems to be to become a MacBook without battery. There's an easy explanation for that UX stagnation in iOS: iOS-products are actually not classical "products" anymore, but equipment for consuming services. The devices come bundled with a few free services from Apple and encouage you to consume other services from affiliates. Apple's main incentive is then not to sell new hardware, but to rollout new enabler-HW for selling additional services. And they are in an increasing struggle to keep consumers "entertained" to pay for new enabler-HW, so apart from keeping control over their supply-chain they now need to become more exclusive in HW-components to lock-out competitors. Of course that can all be beneficial to the consumer, but would Apple move forward if they weren't forced by their business model?
dmix 3y ago
It helps when you have so much power over suppliers they can't complain or cut you out when you overtly threaten to replace them with vertical integration.
lern_too_spel 3y ago
Despite what you're sure of, it's Apple that's stuffing your phone with more ads, and it won't let you use alternative apps without those ads on "your" phone.
- Keirmot 3y ago
  Can you elaborate what adds I have on my iPhone?
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    Apple News, which you cannot disable or uninstall. App Store ads, personalized using your app install history, which you cannot hide. Ads in phone settings (https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/10/07/apple-advertises-apple-music-apple-arcade-in-ios-settings-app https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/10/07/apple-advertises-...). This will continue to grow: https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddoty/2023/02/08/apple-the-story-behind-its-new-ad-offerings-to-retailers-restaurants-hotels-other-location-based-businesses/?sh=17e2716c4701 https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddoty/2023/02/08/apple-the-... The main difference between iOS and Android is that you have no choice but to use many of these first-party adware apps on iOS.
reacharavindh 3y ago
> Over the years they never hesitated to cannibalize their own product lines (iPod), or go through several tough technological transitions (68K/PPC/x86/ARM) if it meant building a better product. And bigger profits of course. Oh the mighty power ipad with M2 chip and 5G modem but a crippling ipadOS that prevents one from making good use of the CPU power would like a word to argue with you :-) I cannot think of any reason for Apple to not allow ipadOS to get proper multi-tasking than "oh this will start eating into our profits from the MacBook Air/Macbook Pro lines". I'm not advocating for MacOS on a touchscreen mode. I would have chosen the ipad Pro in a heatbeat if it could have real multi-tasking with a keyboard and a touchpad plugged in. I mean the chip is already there twiddling its thumbs..
- jibcage 3y ago
  I think they know this and may already be working on it, but if not, it’s likely they’ve done the math that the engineering investment to flesh out the iPad experience wouldn’t be worth the potential payout - people can always get a MacBook, as you rightly point out.
ksec 3y ago
>actually bother with a coherent investment in a long term strategy to make a better product. Pretty much every company on planet earth other than Apple. There are actually Three key points here, long term, correct strategy and better. Most company would do pretty well if they even have just one of the three. One could argue Intel didn't have any of the three for about 5 - 8 years.

dehrmann 3y ago

> cannibalize their own product lines (iPod) I disagree on this. The iPhone was a potential iPod replacement when it launched, but the choice was selling $200 iPods or $500 iPhones. The iPhone felt like a leap of several generations, but the hardware and business model were still similar. Where Apple actually cannibalized something was Apple Music and the iTunes store, but they drug their feet on it.

buran77 3y ago
> but the choice was selling $200 iPods or $500 iPhones I don't think we are in disagreement. But the fact is very few companies do this regardless. When it comes to the product that's their bread and butter they tend to put it on a pedestal never to be touched until it falls into irrelevance. Apple didn't launch an improved iPod and retire the old. They didn't try to sell a phone and a music player by artificially differentiating them, or by sabotaging one of them. They didn't try to make $250 off the iPod and another $250 from a phone that "shouldn't compete too well". They launched 2 product lines made by different parts of the company, knowing that the iPhone may undermine the iPod userbase and then still fail, possibly souring those customers. They wouldn't necessarily do this today. iDevices now are clearly (and artificially) differentiated from the Macs: different OS, no options to use them in a way they truly compete despite having such similar hardware theoretical capabilities. Again to give the Google example, when they tried to have competing lines (Google/Nest) they managed to fail at both and lose the customers completely.
- macintux 3y ago
  I disagree somewhat with the characterization of the differences as artificial. I think Apple genuinely believes that, despite their excellent touchpads, a cursor-driven interface is not the same as a touch interface. They’re gradually bridging them (Catalyst, and adding cursor support to iPadOS), and speaking as a fan of both product lines I’m glad they’re trying to make them each more powerful without just slapping them into a single UI. Could they do a better job of supporting external devices on iPad? I imagine so, but there’s such a long road from the extremely-protective/simplistic/sandboxed iOS 1.0 to a full-fledged workstation operating system I have to think it’s not all that easy.
no_wizard 3y ago
I think this had more to due with negotiations with the record labels[0]. All the major record labels have investments in Spotify[1] which I imagine lends more credence to Spotify being able to negotiate good deals with the labels, since they can act more like partners [0]: https://www.cultofmac.com/325034/apples-music-streaming-negotiations-are-coming-down-to-the-wire/ https://www.cultofmac.com/325034/apples-music-streaming-nego... [1]: https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/spotify-at-days-close-what-are-sony-warner-and-universals-shares-worth-a-lot-1202743146/ https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/spotify-at-days-close-what...
- scarface74 3y ago
  How are they “good deals” for Spotify when Spotify is losing money?
  - spacetime_cmplx 3y ago
    For starters, Spotify exists
dwaite 3y ago
One of the classic examples I've heard was how Apple cannibalized their iPod (classic) with the iPod Mini and the iPod nano. These were smaller and cheaper due to the flash storage, but did not replace their more expensive cousin. The iPod Classic got relatively little updates toward the end of the iPod line because while it had a dedicated fan base due to its ability to store truly massive music libraries, it just wasn't selling much. This was also the first time we really saw the scale Tim Cook could push for - competitors had difficulty going up against Apple because they hadn't just bought out all the available flash in the channel - they had funded building new factories for building denser/cheaper flash, in return for their entire initial production.

kccqzy 3y ago

Is Google launching Bard a perfect example of displaying the willingness to cannibalize Search? Google Brain was formed in 2011. If that's not coherent investment in a long term strategy I don't know what would qualify.

__hello__ 3y ago
This is a bad example - bard just seems to halucinate and make up 50% of the answers.
buran77 3y ago
The only thing Bard shows is that Google doesn't want OpenAI to eat into their Search. There's no indication it was ever planned to compete with Search or that they had a clear plan for it before OpenAI walked that path. When you have all you need theoretically in house but your moves are rushed and come only as a reaction to the competition you are the very example I was trying to make, of milking your cash cow and waiting too long. Google had to change the strategy [0], reorganize [1], and struggle to launch your product in an emergency as a response to competition. This is the very definition of not having a well thought out long term strategy, isn't it? Google owned Brain and DeepMind as rival divisions since before OpenAI existed. They didn't cooperate, didn't launch any revolutionary product, and didn't compete in any way with Google's main offering. They were left to their own devices like side projects until the competition dashed in front and hit Google's most sensitive area and dictated their strategy. I don't know if Bard is a good or bad product. But we may have different definitions of a coherent investment in a long term strategy to make a better product. None of the above shouts "coherent", "long term strategy", or even necessarily "better product". [0] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/01/fearing-chatgpt-google-enlists-founders-brin-and-page-in-ai-fight/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/01/feari... [1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/04/googles-ai-panic-forces-merger-of-rival-divisions-deepmind-and-brain/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/04/googles-ai-panic-for...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- 3y ago

m463 3y ago

The other side of that coin is that apple navel gazes, shunning the rest of the world. I think the most recent apple golden age was around 2007 when they switched to intel. This allowed folks to use apple hardware and macos, but also run windows on their systems. mac os was more open. The mac pro embraced the PC ecosystem, hard drives, pcie cards and more. Nowadays the pendulum is swinging the other way and though it might be good for apple's bottom line, I don't think it's better for customers (or apple long term)

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> though it might be good for apple's bottom line, I don't think it's better for customers The M1 MacBook Pro is the best laptop I’ve ever used.
- josephg 3y ago
  Yep, my M1 macbook pro is the best laptop I've ever owned too. And if asahi linux is anything to go by, its a surprisingly open system from a software perspective. But I also think the abusive, controlling behaviour they exhibit when it comes to their hardware is shockingly bad. (See: any of Louis Rossman's videos). I also think its awful how controlling Apple is over the software that runs on iPhones. For example, apparently the city of SF needs to pay Apple millions of dollars a year to allow iphones to be used as clipper tickets. Why is apple paid money for this? Users have already bought the NFC chips in their phones from Apple. Installing themselves as an unaccountable, monopolistic middleman is disgusting behaviour.
  - idopmstuff 3y ago
    I genuinely don't understand how you can describe a company as abusive, controlling and disgusting and yet give them $1000+ dollars of your money for a computer. Why would you support a disgusting abuser?
    - rowanG077 3y ago
      Because the abuse is obviously not the whole story, The product is still the best laptop you can buy in spite of the abuse, control and disgusting behavior of Apple.

yunohn 3y ago

> Over the years they never hesitated to cannibalize their own product lines (iPod) The iPod was subsumed by the iPhone, not cannibalised. Parents were obligated to buy their kids a device with tracking/communication capabilities, so iPods became irrelevant. Now everyone buys the 2x more expensive device. Now, if Apple were to merge the iPad and Macbook, I would agree with you readily.

kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
There's no replacement for the Nano. iPhone doesn't cover that use case.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  but that doesn't represent cannibalization, they didn't introduce a product that competes in that niche you're talking about but if you're going to carry a phone anyway, like digital handheld cameras, you don't need an extra device on top of your phone
- glowingly 3y ago
  For the ones that used later gen Nanos (same form factor as early Shuffles) as music devices during running/jogging, the Watch supplanted that role with the added benefit of combining the Nano and fitness bands (GPS, heart rate). I agree, a full phone was annoying large and hard to carry (tried forearm straps at one point) and often ran without one. Though I know people who still ran with a phone anyways.
  - r00fus 3y ago
    I bought specific athletic shorts or shirts (cycling jerseys with back pockets did great) so that I could run with my phone. Stopped working so well when the iPhone 6 Plus came out.
- scarface74 3y ago
  The cellular Apple Watch.

howinteresting 3y ago

Which has more ads in the settings menu, an iPhone or a Pixel?

jayd16 3y ago
No undismissable ads as notification bubbles on a Pixel either.

cubefox 3y ago

I'm not sure that's true overall. Consider their strange design decisions with iPhone screens: - They waited years longer than the competition to switch to larger screens. They only really got to it with the iPhone 6. - They completely slept on OLED and stuck to LCD until the iPhone X, when all mid to high range Android phones had already used OLED for years. Their iPads still use LCDs for apparently no good reason (lower price presumably), around ten years after Samsung sold their first OLED tablets. - They slept on the screen-to-body ratio. They were years behind their Android competition when they finally changed their course with the iPhone X.

californical 3y ago
It’s just a different set of values. If you want the latest tech specs, like OLED or whatever else, then you’ll find that in other brand. But if you prefer a system that just gets out of your way so you don’t need to think about it, and just use it as a tool to do something else then Apple is nearly unbeatable. And I say this as a recent Apple convert. I reluctantly started using their tech a few years ago when a Macbook was the laptop given to me at a new job. But since embracing the idea of “meh I’ll just use the defaults and let the system get out of my way”, I feel like I get to spend more time on things where I add value. I switched to an iPhone for the first time in 2020 with the SE, and it is still running fine today with no problems, on the latest software update. I don’t care about the screen-to-body ratio, I just want it to work well as a tool
- cubefox 3y ago
  I'm not denying they are great at other aspects, but that's a point which is independent of the points I made. Them using outdated design approaches in the past didn't make their products more reliable.
  - californical 3y ago
    Fair, I guess I forgot to mention my point, so sorry about that haha The point that I was trying to make is that a general Apple consumer doesn’t really care about those things, but does like consistency. So Apple waits until they are pretty sure that something is actually valuable to customers, before releasing it.

Barrin92 3y ago

>Google would just rather stuff your phone to the gills with ads I see literally more ads on my iphone than I see on my Google Pixel, and it is one of Apple's fastest growing sources of revenue.

m3kw9 3y ago
Ads don’t matter unless they are intrusive. Most part Apple does well, but Apple News is the worst
- foobarian 3y ago
  You ran out of space on your iCloud account! Now your phone won't be backed up and your data will be in danger! <spooky sounds>
  - dwaite 3y ago
    What part of that isn't a legitimate and valid warning? I've had multiple relatives with broken/stolen phones who lost very important photos because they were no longer being backed up. You can always turn iCloud backup off if you think notices that the feature is failing are annoying, but the notices themselves are hardly misleading.
    - foobarian 3y ago
      I'm sure the CTA to pay for upgraded storage included in that warning is just a convenient coincidence, eh. I don't like the dark-patterness of it - it feels like blackmail.
- howinteresting 3y ago
  lmao is this the newest excuse? Ads don't matter because it's Apple who runs them?

pkasting 3y ago

Hmm. Over in the browser space, I'd say Google's shown significant, long-term investment in Chrome/Blink, especially compared to Apple's relative disinterest in putting significant engineering resources on WebKit. Perhaps instead of this being about Apple vs. Google (or others), it's about companies investing in their core competencies and areas where they have a business interest.

madeofpalk 3y ago
I think people underestimate Safari. IIRC "back in the day" they were the first to get 100% in supporting all of ES6. Conviently, they were first in supporting the things I care about - like backdrop-filter and css scroll snap. Safari/Webkit/JSC is faster at executing javascript as well.
- fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
  Yes, as a user I prefer Safari to all be alternatives on macOS.
- MBCook 3y ago
  First to pass the Acid 3 CSS test suite too, IIRC.
- jimbob45 3y ago
  You could swap “Safari” for IE6 and tell the same story. I don’t know what it is about OS dominance that drives such disinterest in upgrading browsers outside of wanting to push native apps for that App Store revenue.
  - dwaite 3y ago
    You could also say that Chrome had a huge _interest_ in pushing for browser-alternatives to native Apps because of Chromebooks. Some of that died down once Android support was added. The position on many of these by other browser vendors were that they were harmful for the web. You will likely never see implementations of these non-standard API outside chromium-based browsers. The other thing which they are very slow to support is new codecs on the video tag. Presumably this is because they want to keep their "video playback" power metrics. the WebKit team is incredibly metrics-driven, which is one reason for their performance and power-efficiency.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

I keep wondering what would happen if Apple were to license iOS. I know that's a sore spot (Jobs is dead though), but could they actually fuck over Android if they did? A whitebox iOS could be downgraded enough that they could still service the snob market, but maybe undercut Google completely. I mean, how much does it even have to cost per unit when each sold drives traffic to their own app store?

aledalgrande 3y ago
It would be a nightmare for iOS devs, now swamped by tons of device formats and missing capabilities depending on the model, like it is for Android.
- ohgodplsno 3y ago
  Now I kinda want to see how badly Apple would reinvent androidx libraries. NSPermissionCompat would be a beauty to behold in 2045 when they finally decide to do it. Unless they don't and leave it up to the iOS community to (badly) do it.
MBCook 3y ago
> A whitebox iOS could be downgraded enough[…] And that’s a huge part of the problem. Any move like that would tarnish iOS in everyone’s eyes. Apple wants you to buy a real iPhone, even if it’s the model from 2 years ago, instead. If BMW started selling a ton of $18,000 cars do you think that would help or hurt sales of the M3 and the 5 Series? That bit then with the clones. The competition undercut them. You know what that high Apple price does? Help pay to develop iOS. They would have to charge enough to make up for the money they would lose on the list phone sales. And seriously risk their reputation in the process. Apple has been through a lot in their 40 years. They have an atavistic reaction at this point against anything that prevents them from controlling their own destiny. It’s hurt them too many times. I suspect that’s why they’re doing this. They don’t want to be beholden to Samsung, LG, or anyone else for displays.
scarface74 3y ago
What good is iOS on commodity hardware? The entire value proposition of any of Apple’s products are the right integration of hardware and software.

jayd16 3y ago

You're acting like Android isn't staying competitive. If Apple is moving forward how can you say Google isn't?

MBCook 3y ago
I think their point was, would Google move forward if they weren’t forced by Apple? Google News took over and they gave up. Gmail got huge and they stopped doing much other than adding ads. Maps slowed down, other than adding ads. Google search keeps getting worse, they can’t seem to fix the SEO/spam problem. But they can add more ads. Left to their own devices, Google seems happy to collect rent. Apple, historically, makes their money by selling new hardware, and that requires improving things enough people want to buy it.
- rickdeckard 3y ago
  You compare services to products here. The market doesn't appreciate disruptive changes to services, hence all improvements done in services of both Apple and Google are iterative and subtle, additive not disruptive. Such changes are usually also not newsworthy, unless one has to do leaps to catch up with a competitor (looking at you, Apple Maps)... Google only has a few consumer products, but they made quite a few leaps in the past years for similar reasons (Pixel Phone has to catch up with Samsung, Pixel Watch has to catch up with Apple Watch), while Google/Nest Home is competing mainly with Amazon in an ecosystem war I'd say. One could argue that the iPhone is not moving forward much in user-experience for a few years now, it's mainly iterating to achieve further cost-reduction/profit and enhance additional revenue streams of Apple. - Apple Watch is mainly getting enhanced to create additional (healthcare/insurance/services) business for Apple. - The iPad is under no stress to evolve other than cost-reduction in HW/SW development by harmonization with the iPhone, main strategy seems to be to push customers towards more expensive variants. - The Macbook was indeed revolutionized, by applying the same supply-chain practice of the iPhone. Lots of leaps forward here in terms of tech, something only Apple could do. But Apple was also not leading this segment and is under strong competition, so they were forced to do something or dissolve into oblivion. - The Desktop-Mac trajectory seems to be to become a MacBook without battery. There's an easy explanation for that UX stagnation in iOS: iOS-products are actually not classical "products" anymore, but equipment for consuming services. The devices come bundled with a few free services from Apple and encouage you to consume other services from affiliates. Apple's main incentive is then not to sell new hardware, but to rollout new enabler-HW for selling additional services. And they are in an increasing struggle to keep consumers "entertained" to pay for new enabler-HW, so apart from keeping control over their supply-chain they now need to become more exclusive in HW-components to lock-out competitors. Of course that can all be beneficial to the consumer, but would Apple move forward if they weren't forced by their business model?

dmix 3y ago

It helps when you have so much power over suppliers they can't complain or cut you out when you overtly threaten to replace them with vertical integration.

lern_too_spel 3y ago

Despite what you're sure of, it's Apple that's stuffing your phone with more ads, and it won't let you use alternative apps without those ads on "your" phone.

Keirmot 3y ago
Can you elaborate what adds I have on my iPhone?
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  Apple News, which you cannot disable or uninstall. App Store ads, personalized using your app install history, which you cannot hide. Ads in phone settings (https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/10/07/apple-advertises-apple-music-apple-arcade-in-ios-settings-app https://appleinsider.com/articles/21/10/07/apple-advertises-...). This will continue to grow: https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddoty/2023/02/08/apple-the-story-behind-its-new-ad-offerings-to-retailers-restaurants-hotels-other-location-based-businesses/?sh=17e2716c4701 https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddoty/2023/02/08/apple-the-... The main difference between iOS and Android is that you have no choice but to use many of these first-party adware apps on iOS.

reacharavindh 3y ago

> Over the years they never hesitated to cannibalize their own product lines (iPod), or go through several tough technological transitions (68K/PPC/x86/ARM) if it meant building a better product. And bigger profits of course. Oh the mighty power ipad with M2 chip and 5G modem but a crippling ipadOS that prevents one from making good use of the CPU power would like a word to argue with you :-) I cannot think of any reason for Apple to not allow ipadOS to get proper multi-tasking than "oh this will start eating into our profits from the MacBook Air/Macbook Pro lines". I'm not advocating for MacOS on a touchscreen mode. I would have chosen the ipad Pro in a heatbeat if it could have real multi-tasking with a keyboard and a touchpad plugged in. I mean the chip is already there twiddling its thumbs..

jibcage 3y ago
I think they know this and may already be working on it, but if not, it’s likely they’ve done the math that the engineering investment to flesh out the iPad experience wouldn’t be worth the potential payout - people can always get a MacBook, as you rightly point out.

ksec 3y ago

>actually bother with a coherent investment in a long term strategy to make a better product. Pretty much every company on planet earth other than Apple. There are actually Three key points here, long term, correct strategy and better. Most company would do pretty well if they even have just one of the three. One could argue Intel didn't have any of the three for about 5 - 8 years.