5 ms·

"A company shouldn't get addicted to being shiny, because shiny doesn't last." This may be true of some companies, but we can see that Apple is quite successfu

"A company shouldn't get addicted to being shiny, because shiny doesn't last." This may be true of some companies, but we can see that Apple is quite successful at making products which continuously make last year's invention seem outdated. Of course, if making highly polished products takes a huge toll on your resources and impedes your greater strategy, then you may be better off not being "shiny".

njharman 13y ago
"Last" means 25, 50, 100 years. Apple is the poster child, cause they only have "shiny"(well and customer service) and must continually be shinnyer, it's not sustainable. The new iPhones failed to achieve a sufficient shininess delta.
- pazimzadeh 13y ago
  I don't think that I said anything particularly controversial, though I realize that every company can't be like Apple. Apple has lasted 37 years, and has a cash balance of 150 billion dollars. Jeff Bezos' Amazon is 19 years old and has a low cash balance due to famously razor thin margins. Apple's model is clearly sustainable for them, but not necessarily for others. Do you disagree with that? With regards to the new iPhones not being shiny enough, perhaps you should withhold judgement until the devices go on sale. See also: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/rethinking-the-iphone-5c http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/rethinking-the-ipho... http://www.marco.org/2013/09/15/iphone-reactions http://www.marco.org/2013/09/15/iphone-reactions
  - sirmarksalot 13y ago
    But Apple stopped being shiny in the late '80s, and didn't get shiny again until Steve Jobs came back. Even so, it took many years after that to regain its luster. The iMac looked shiny in some circles, but most technically-minded people I knew thought it was stupid. The iPod, in 2001, was the first thing they made that was truly disruptive, and even then it didn't quite sway public opinion to think Apple was an innovation powerhouse. Personally, my perception of Apple switched when the iPhone came out in 2007. Other people became interested in 2003 or so. Either way, Apple's shine is around 10 years old, and is starting to fade already.
    - pazimzadeh 13y ago
      I agree with most of what you've said. My interest in Apple was piqued when I saw Steve Jobs' presentation of the 2006 Intel Macbook Pro. I think that the iPod taught Apple how to perfect their iterative process and release their innovations in discrete amounts which maximize profits and gives them time to work on their next big product category. I too believe that Steve Jobs played a great role in making Apple exciting in the first place and bringing that excitement back after it faded away. However, don't you think that we should wait a few more years before determining whether or not Steve set up any precautions or learned from Apple's mistakes the first time around? Apple's second wind is also correlated with the amount of influence that Jonathan Ive has had at Apple, which as we know is higher than ever right now.
      - sirmarksalot 13y ago
        Agreed. I'm not counting them out, I'm just saying that the current public perception isn't what it used to be. At least that's what I mean by "shininess."
anjc 13y ago
If people's reactions to iOS7, and the keynote, are anything to go by, you could possibly argue that their pursuit of 'shininess' has overtaken their pursuit of innovation and novelty, which now makes it look like they're playing catchup with other companies. I'm not saying that this is the case, but it seems to be an increasingly pervasive and snowballing attitude. The comments in the iOS6 vs iOS7 thread are almost all variations of "now it looks like Android/WP8". That's not a good perception for Apple, even if it's not a fair perception for people to have.
- melange 13y ago
  Those comments are self selecting and don't represent anything meaningful other than that all three OS's no longer rely on textures. Given that most people say that WP8 is radically different from Android, it makes no sense that people would say that iOS7 looks like both of them simultaneously, unless it has somehow captured the best of all 3 operating systems.
  - anjc 13y ago
    Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's just bad news that it's being said in the first place. I don't think many people on HN would have belittled Apple's design strengths over the last decade. I was rabidly anti-Apple myself, while still admitting that they knew what they were doing design wise. So if some significant percentage of people start seeing them as behind the curve now, that's bad. And I don't think there'd be as much self selection compared to say, /r/android. We should have a pretty general group of people here.
    - melange 13y ago
      Apple can't control the quality of discussion in forums. It's not 'bad news' for them in particular that people have illogical discussions. As to self selection - I don't know what the composition of HN in general is, but once a thread starts echoing an illogical emotive position, people who have a different view that is complex to articulate just stay away. I'm not saying HN itself is biased (although it may be), just that individual submissions become self selecting based on the tenor of early comments.

njharman 13y ago

"Last" means 25, 50, 100 years. Apple is the poster child, cause they only have "shiny"(well and customer service) and must continually be shinnyer, it's not sustainable. The new iPhones failed to achieve a sufficient shininess delta.

pazimzadeh 13y ago
I don't think that I said anything particularly controversial, though I realize that every company can't be like Apple. Apple has lasted 37 years, and has a cash balance of 150 billion dollars. Jeff Bezos' Amazon is 19 years old and has a low cash balance due to famously razor thin margins. Apple's model is clearly sustainable for them, but not necessarily for others. Do you disagree with that? With regards to the new iPhones not being shiny enough, perhaps you should withhold judgement until the devices go on sale. See also: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/rethinking-the-iphone-5c http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/rethinking-the-ipho... http://www.marco.org/2013/09/15/iphone-reactions http://www.marco.org/2013/09/15/iphone-reactions
- sirmarksalot 13y ago
  But Apple stopped being shiny in the late '80s, and didn't get shiny again until Steve Jobs came back. Even so, it took many years after that to regain its luster. The iMac looked shiny in some circles, but most technically-minded people I knew thought it was stupid. The iPod, in 2001, was the first thing they made that was truly disruptive, and even then it didn't quite sway public opinion to think Apple was an innovation powerhouse. Personally, my perception of Apple switched when the iPhone came out in 2007. Other people became interested in 2003 or so. Either way, Apple's shine is around 10 years old, and is starting to fade already.
  - pazimzadeh 13y ago
    I agree with most of what you've said. My interest in Apple was piqued when I saw Steve Jobs' presentation of the 2006 Intel Macbook Pro. I think that the iPod taught Apple how to perfect their iterative process and release their innovations in discrete amounts which maximize profits and gives them time to work on their next big product category. I too believe that Steve Jobs played a great role in making Apple exciting in the first place and bringing that excitement back after it faded away. However, don't you think that we should wait a few more years before determining whether or not Steve set up any precautions or learned from Apple's mistakes the first time around? Apple's second wind is also correlated with the amount of influence that Jonathan Ive has had at Apple, which as we know is higher than ever right now.
    - sirmarksalot 13y ago
      Agreed. I'm not counting them out, I'm just saying that the current public perception isn't what it used to be. At least that's what I mean by "shininess."

anjc 13y ago

If people's reactions to iOS7, and the keynote, are anything to go by, you could possibly argue that their pursuit of 'shininess' has overtaken their pursuit of innovation and novelty, which now makes it look like they're playing catchup with other companies. I'm not saying that this is the case, but it seems to be an increasingly pervasive and snowballing attitude. The comments in the iOS6 vs iOS7 thread are almost all variations of "now it looks like Android/WP8". That's not a good perception for Apple, even if it's not a fair perception for people to have.

melange 13y ago
Those comments are self selecting and don't represent anything meaningful other than that all three OS's no longer rely on textures. Given that most people say that WP8 is radically different from Android, it makes no sense that people would say that iOS7 looks like both of them simultaneously, unless it has somehow captured the best of all 3 operating systems.
- anjc 13y ago
  Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's just bad news that it's being said in the first place. I don't think many people on HN would have belittled Apple's design strengths over the last decade. I was rabidly anti-Apple myself, while still admitting that they knew what they were doing design wise. So if some significant percentage of people start seeing them as behind the curve now, that's bad. And I don't think there'd be as much self selection compared to say, /r/android. We should have a pretty general group of people here.
  - melange 13y ago
    Apple can't control the quality of discussion in forums. It's not 'bad news' for them in particular that people have illogical discussions. As to self selection - I don't know what the composition of HN in general is, but once a thread starts echoing an illogical emotive position, people who have a different view that is complex to articulate just stay away. I'm not saying HN itself is biased (although it may be), just that individual submissions become self selecting based on the tenor of early comments.