4 ms·

The true simplicity actually lies below those abstractions. It seems reasonable to assume that people would not buy Apple products if they were too difficult t

The true simplicity actually lies below those abstractions. It seems reasonable to assume that people would not buy Apple products if they were too difficult to use. It seems reasonable to assume people do not buy them for ease of use. Other competing systems are also easy to use. It seems reasonable to assume they buy them because they "look cool", much more so than any competing product. It seems reasonable to assume the initial attraction to Apple products is the hardware design, not the software. But none of this can be proved or disproved unless Apple were to unbundle the two and hackers were allowed to write software to run on the bare metal, not necessarily on top of Apple's development platform. If Apple is afraid to try this then it shows they have something to fear. It shows they feel the need to exercise command and control over how users use Apple computers. Apparently Apple's hardware design patents are not enough.

parasubvert 14y ago
Things can seem reasonable and not be true. Lots of hackers continue to use Apple laptops because the software and hardware has combined what they perceive as the best quality in the industry. They don't do this because they look cool. One can't also assume the iPad is the only runaway tablet success because of a cool factor or hardware design. The iPad was laughed at on first release by most geeks and pundits. But then people got to using one and found it more useable than a laptop for many daily tasks. One also can't look at the iPhone margins without noting the key differentiator: iOS and iOS Apps. Software, in other words. All companies have something to fear - they're in a competitive business. Apple just seems to be better at it than most (this generation).
- userdeveloper 14y ago
  As I said, we have no way to say whether the assumptions are true or not unless consumers are given the choice. As you admit, no one can predict what consumers will choose. However, a company can actively work to limit consumer choice. They can attempt to control how a consumer uses a product so as to benefit the company, not necessarily the consumer. I ask you, "What would hackers do if they had choice?" It's easy to look upon "success" after the fact and conclude a company is good at what they do. Apple has failed many times. And they may fail again in the future. I'd like to buy stuff from a "fearless company", not one that places ridiculous restrictions on users (fear of competition?), even when they are at the top. Hackers use Apple products and endure the annoyances because there are no other choices. Apple is the new Microsoft. Success? Maybe. But at what cost to the consumer and the computing world at large? Apple is trying to prevent people from freely programming and experimenting. Sure, people will still buy and use their products, but Apple cannot stop competition. Arguments that hackers should just accept Apple as the new Microsoft are good for a laugh. Keep them coming.

parasubvert 14y ago

Things can seem reasonable and not be true. Lots of hackers continue to use Apple laptops because the software and hardware has combined what they perceive as the best quality in the industry. They don't do this because they look cool. One can't also assume the iPad is the only runaway tablet success because of a cool factor or hardware design. The iPad was laughed at on first release by most geeks and pundits. But then people got to using one and found it more useable than a laptop for many daily tasks. One also can't look at the iPhone margins without noting the key differentiator: iOS and iOS Apps. Software, in other words. All companies have something to fear - they're in a competitive business. Apple just seems to be better at it than most (this generation).

userdeveloper 14y ago
As I said, we have no way to say whether the assumptions are true or not unless consumers are given the choice. As you admit, no one can predict what consumers will choose. However, a company can actively work to limit consumer choice. They can attempt to control how a consumer uses a product so as to benefit the company, not necessarily the consumer. I ask you, "What would hackers do if they had choice?" It's easy to look upon "success" after the fact and conclude a company is good at what they do. Apple has failed many times. And they may fail again in the future. I'd like to buy stuff from a "fearless company", not one that places ridiculous restrictions on users (fear of competition?), even when they are at the top. Hackers use Apple products and endure the annoyances because there are no other choices. Apple is the new Microsoft. Success? Maybe. But at what cost to the consumer and the computing world at large? Apple is trying to prevent people from freely programming and experimenting. Sure, people will still buy and use their products, but Apple cannot stop competition. Arguments that hackers should just accept Apple as the new Microsoft are good for a laugh. Keep them coming.