5 ms·

I think it's incredibly interesting that Apple is one of but a handful of companies that seems to enjoy a steady proliferation and preservation of its past comp

I think it's incredibly interesting that Apple is one of but a handful of companies that seems to enjoy a steady proliferation and preservation of its past company lore, both in the popular media and amongst technologists. People take a great deal of interest in the historical artifacts this company produces; for an outsider, it really stands out as unusual. I can only think of a few other companies that manage this feat. Nintendo's history seems to be rather frequently circulated (and I don't follow video gaming blogs, though I do occasionally play their games). Intel, Compaq, and IBM also see historical items published, but it's mostly concerning events that predate the 90's, a time when these companies were either much more visible or had a more prominent role. I've not seen much published about the past two decades of history for any other tech company at the same level as Apple. The histories of other companies seem to be given a much more technical treatment: hardware schematics, design constraints, sourcing problems, blow-by-blow accounts, etc. That might just be because many of the Apple anecdotes are published as "fluff" for non-technologists; Apple also sees its share of technical history published, too. Maybe I'm just blind to everything else or I'm biased in a particular way, but it certainly feels like we're telling a particular narrative here. If I were a future historian looking back, this might cloud my perspective. Everything seems to be about Apple. Am I wrong?

tonylemesmer 12y ago
You're right. Other companies are doing the same thing as Apple: prototyping, testing, iterating. Just not at the scale or speed that Apple does it. The media interest in Apple justifies the approach - with the curtains and the smoke and mirrors, other companies don't have to bother with all that. Apple has the scale, diligence and is being held up as the blueprint of how to do things the right way. There's no harm in it being a story about Apple, as long as historians realise that Apple didn't invent or make the only smartphones. Perhaps for reasons of cost, the prototypes of the phones from non-Apple companies were "re-purposed" e.g. for destructive testing and therefore no longer exist. edit: perhaps if other companies had the mindset Apple has (no limits, not even scale) then they would have to start introducing smoke and mirrors.
- davb 12y ago
  Another thing I see is that Apple, unlike the vast majority of competitors, have very limited product ranges. This means that as a new iteration is developed, every Apple fan is focussed on that team's output. More so when the company decides to venture into a new area altogether (smartphones). When Samsung produces a new flagship phone (let's say a new Galaxy smartphone), there's a good chance that a Samsung fan will actually have their eyes on another of the companies lines - the Ace, the Note, etc. This very narrow product focus has helped them direct the attention of users and the media. Ask any loyal Apple smartphone user worldwide which smartphone they're looking forward to most, it'll be the next iPhone. Ask the same of any loyal Samsung/Sony/LG user and there's a good chance it won't be the global flagship device they mention. (FWIW, I say this as someone who isn't very fond of Apple or their products, but I appreciate their design and marketing prowess, in most cases)
  - jawr 12y ago
    Haven't they moved away from this trend with the watch? I feel like it's way too customisable to be an Apple product.
    - arrrg 12y ago
      It’s still only one product. The innards and the software are exactly the same, no matter which watch you buy. Functionally they are all identical. The customisability of the exterior is something new, sure.
      - Retric 12y ago
        Don't forget, the iMac G3 had five plastic color cases for some reason. Apple also sells a range of iPhone/iPad cases. Also, a major early selling point on the iPad was the magnates to better integrate with a case.
        autism_hurts 12y ago
        "for some reason" Yeah, cars should only come in one color, right?
dzhiurgis 12y ago
It is because it is still relevant. Apple and most of it's history will be forgotten once it's products start to suck or better ones come up. And looking at mistakes they are making under Cook I hope it's further than I expect.
Htsthbjig 12y ago
It has nothing to do with Apple. It has to do with a successful product. I saw how the iPhone was received at the time. In my environment of Nokia enthusiastics in Europe it was received with extreme skepticism. Everybody said: "A phone where your fingers cloud the screen never will take off". "The battery lasts so little for a phone". "No way I am using a phone with the battery soldered". "I can't type while in the class, meeting or whatever", "glass phones are so fragile"... Three years later, all of them will be using an iPhone or iPhone-like phone. People value success histories, because knowing what is going to success is really useful. E.g I bought Apple stock before the iPhone launch because there were rumors that Apple would be launching it, and I supposed that Apple were going to do it right after the people of "Telefonica"(a european telecomunications company) offering me something like 60 dollars for the entire rights of my smartphone App, which took months to make and won a big contest as people loved it. It was so monopolized market that was a big opportunity for disruption. I won a lot of money with the Apple stock, after that I bought stock from companies like ARM holdings and device sensors as I supposed that were going to benefit from a boom in smartphones and tablets later. I supposed it right and the money I earned was extremely useful in making my own company later. On the other hand, I personally met the guy that founded twitter and did not invested on his company, because it was a startup like any other. There is value in knowing what is going to success, and this is the reason people is interested in success stories, as learning about them let them identify future success. People care about Apple products only because Apple has a surprisingly high level of recent successes.
- rmc 12y ago
  It wasn't just the iPhone. Remember the Slashdot review of the iPod? "No wireless, less space than a Nomad. Lame."
  - vacri 12y ago
    A lot of the ipods were overpriced and underfeatured. They were shiny, but didn't always work as well as competitors. I once bought a video ipod - that was a mistake. And no radio? Crazy.
frogpelt 12y ago
It may be because Apple's mission has been to design what they consider to be revolutionary products, not from a hardware specifications standpoint, but from a design and UX standpoint. At least Steve Jobs' Apple did that with iPod, iPhone, and iPad and even the iMac to some degree. The Apple Watch may be viewed that way in a few years but it doesn't seem like it yet.
- XorNot 12y ago
  The problem with the watch is that it's in a space where its not clear there's any relevant need for that product to exist, commercially. The MP3 player was the evolution of the CD player, which was the evolution of the walkman, which was the evolution of the boom box etc...going all the way back to minstrels. Music and its transportability have always been a big deal and improving that core function is a big deal. The watch....time is important, but it is solved problem in that space, and it's not clear that it makes any thing else better (i.e. you implicitly need to use two-hands to control a watch interface, you can handle a phone with just 1).

tonylemesmer 12y ago

You're right. Other companies are doing the same thing as Apple: prototyping, testing, iterating. Just not at the scale or speed that Apple does it. The media interest in Apple justifies the approach - with the curtains and the smoke and mirrors, other companies don't have to bother with all that. Apple has the scale, diligence and is being held up as the blueprint of how to do things the right way. There's no harm in it being a story about Apple, as long as historians realise that Apple didn't invent or make the only smartphones. Perhaps for reasons of cost, the prototypes of the phones from non-Apple companies were "re-purposed" e.g. for destructive testing and therefore no longer exist. edit: perhaps if other companies had the mindset Apple has (no limits, not even scale) then they would have to start introducing smoke and mirrors.

davb 12y ago
Another thing I see is that Apple, unlike the vast majority of competitors, have very limited product ranges. This means that as a new iteration is developed, every Apple fan is focussed on that team's output. More so when the company decides to venture into a new area altogether (smartphones). When Samsung produces a new flagship phone (let's say a new Galaxy smartphone), there's a good chance that a Samsung fan will actually have their eyes on another of the companies lines - the Ace, the Note, etc. This very narrow product focus has helped them direct the attention of users and the media. Ask any loyal Apple smartphone user worldwide which smartphone they're looking forward to most, it'll be the next iPhone. Ask the same of any loyal Samsung/Sony/LG user and there's a good chance it won't be the global flagship device they mention. (FWIW, I say this as someone who isn't very fond of Apple or their products, but I appreciate their design and marketing prowess, in most cases)
- jawr 12y ago
  Haven't they moved away from this trend with the watch? I feel like it's way too customisable to be an Apple product.
  - arrrg 12y ago
    It’s still only one product. The innards and the software are exactly the same, no matter which watch you buy. Functionally they are all identical. The customisability of the exterior is something new, sure.
    - Retric 12y ago
      Don't forget, the iMac G3 had five plastic color cases for some reason. Apple also sells a range of iPhone/iPad cases. Also, a major early selling point on the iPad was the magnates to better integrate with a case.
      - autism_hurts 12y ago
        "for some reason" Yeah, cars should only come in one color, right?

dzhiurgis 12y ago

It is because it is still relevant. Apple and most of it's history will be forgotten once it's products start to suck or better ones come up. And looking at mistakes they are making under Cook I hope it's further than I expect.

Htsthbjig 12y ago

It has nothing to do with Apple. It has to do with a successful product. I saw how the iPhone was received at the time. In my environment of Nokia enthusiastics in Europe it was received with extreme skepticism. Everybody said: "A phone where your fingers cloud the screen never will take off". "The battery lasts so little for a phone". "No way I am using a phone with the battery soldered". "I can't type while in the class, meeting or whatever", "glass phones are so fragile"... Three years later, all of them will be using an iPhone or iPhone-like phone. People value success histories, because knowing what is going to success is really useful. E.g I bought Apple stock before the iPhone launch because there were rumors that Apple would be launching it, and I supposed that Apple were going to do it right after the people of "Telefonica"(a european telecomunications company) offering me something like 60 dollars for the entire rights of my smartphone App, which took months to make and won a big contest as people loved it. It was so monopolized market that was a big opportunity for disruption. I won a lot of money with the Apple stock, after that I bought stock from companies like ARM holdings and device sensors as I supposed that were going to benefit from a boom in smartphones and tablets later. I supposed it right and the money I earned was extremely useful in making my own company later. On the other hand, I personally met the guy that founded twitter and did not invested on his company, because it was a startup like any other. There is value in knowing what is going to success, and this is the reason people is interested in success stories, as learning about them let them identify future success. People care about Apple products only because Apple has a surprisingly high level of recent successes.

rmc 12y ago
It wasn't just the iPhone. Remember the Slashdot review of the iPod? "No wireless, less space than a Nomad. Lame."
- vacri 12y ago
  A lot of the ipods were overpriced and underfeatured. They were shiny, but didn't always work as well as competitors. I once bought a video ipod - that was a mistake. And no radio? Crazy.

frogpelt 12y ago

It may be because Apple's mission has been to design what they consider to be revolutionary products, not from a hardware specifications standpoint, but from a design and UX standpoint. At least Steve Jobs' Apple did that with iPod, iPhone, and iPad and even the iMac to some degree. The Apple Watch may be viewed that way in a few years but it doesn't seem like it yet.

XorNot 12y ago
The problem with the watch is that it's in a space where its not clear there's any relevant need for that product to exist, commercially. The MP3 player was the evolution of the CD player, which was the evolution of the walkman, which was the evolution of the boom box etc...going all the way back to minstrels. Music and its transportability have always been a big deal and improving that core function is a big deal. The watch....time is important, but it is solved problem in that space, and it's not clear that it makes any thing else better (i.e. you implicitly need to use two-hands to control a watch interface, you can handle a phone with just 1).