They moved into one of his markets first, so I think turnabout will be fair game.
This is a piece of fiction that Jobs created and is now repeated by every Apple fan. Fact is that both companies decided to get into smartphones at about the same time (2005) - that was when Google bought Android and Apple started work on the iPhone.
Of course Apple came up with something original while Google at first copied the Blackberry and then later (when they realized that the iPhone design was the way to go) they copied Apple. You can accuse Google of being un-original but they certainly didn't "move into one of Apple's markets."
This is a piece of fiction that Jobs created and is now repeated by every Apple fan. Fact is that both companies decided to get into smartphones at about the same time (2005) - that was when Google bought Android and Apple started work on the iPhone.
Of course Apple came up with something original while Google at first copied the Blackberry and then later (when they realized that the iPhone design was the way to go) they copied Apple. You can accuse Google of being un-original but they certainly didn't "move into one of Apple's markets."
- HCE
You think Apple started the iPhone in 2005? They conceived, designed, wrote a completely new os inteface, fitted out production, and made carrier partnerships for a product category they had never been close to before in 2 years. I guess Jobs and Co. are bigger miracle workers than us lowly Apple zealots thought.
"Egalitarian" doesn't mean sweet f all. "Egalitarian" doesn't move product and doesn't do anything for anyone's bottom line. It's a philosophy. And it either translates into $$ or it doesn't. It either translates into a superior User Experience or it doesn't. Apple's philosophy has always been making tech that is user-centric. That hasn't changed.
If you're producing great products that customers love . . . then you're producing great products that customers love.
"Open", "closed" . . . makes no difference. Apple is the same as it was in 1984. They're just a lot bigger now and have taken the fundamentals that have made the Macintosh great and applied it to other products.
Apple has ALWAYS been a closed ecosystem. For example, originally, the hardware architecture of the Macintosh was so closely tied to Mac OS that it was impossible to boot an alternative operating system. The original Macintosh had no room for internal expansion options - no other cards or devices could be installed, nor could the graphics capabilities be upgraded. Actually, it took special tools just to get the case open.
In fact, Apple is more open *today* than it has ever been in the past. They support open web standards, pass technologies and code back into FreeBSD, and they support a variety of open source projects. The key to their success however, is maintaining tight control over aspects of their products that are critical to the user experience. Same as always. And this strategy works like a charm. It's a shame others are unable to follow suit and continue producing a lot of mediocre fluff and in some cases, downright garbage.
The only people worried and making a fuss about whether Apple is open or closed or slightly ajar is the usual geek contingent that infests Apple fan sites and tech sites at large, who assume that everyone else outside their bubble actually cares. The market at large doesn't care. All consumers want are great products that work, look good, and allow them to get things done in style as quickly as possible. That's all. All other considerations that are of a supposed higher order are really not in their field of view, nor do they need to be. They vote with their wallets at the end of the day, and they're opening them up to Apple in greater numbers each quarter. That's all that counts.
I think this is the most thoughtful and concise description of Apple I've seen.
There's more, though, to the Apple mystique!
I don't know if I can describe it in a way that does justice to what you have posted. The normal way, would be to intermingle my comments among yours -- in effect, chopping your post into pieces. That would defeat the purpose.
Rather, I think it is better to leave your post intact, and re-quote some of your points. It's almost as if you are telling a story, and I am whispering in your ear "be sure and tell them this, too..."
"Apple's philosophy has always been making tech that is user-centric. That hasn't changed."
Whisper: Apple releases the best products they can, with the best [mass-produceable] technology, the best timing, and the best price/value available -- with an inferred promise of more to come, Rather than implement something badly, or lacking style -- Apple will do nothing at all -- or just leave those bits out.
"If you're producing great products that customers love . . . then you're producing great products that customers love. "
Whisper: With Apple, many are buying a brand, and implicitly supporting Apple to continue to produce products that they will love and buy.
"All consumers want are great products that work, look good, and allow them to get things done in style as quickly as possible. That's all."
Whisper: With an Apple product the customer gets a well-made product that does its job with style -- and "well-made, with style" are always in fashion. It seems as if Apple is daring the customer to become vested in the Apple Ecosystem and even invested in AAPL.
This is a piece of fiction that Jobs created and is now repeated by every Apple fan. Fact is that both companies decided to get into smartphones at about the same time (2005) - that was when Google bought Android and Apple started work on the iPhone.
Of course Apple came up with something original while Google at first copied the Blackberry and then later (when they realized that the iPhone design was the way to go) they copied Apple. You can accuse Google of being un-original but they certainly didn't "move into one of Apple's markets."
- HCE
STFU
Yes, that's exactly what you said, but how can you dismiss it as if it wasn't important? They moved into Touchscreen Smartphones AND copied Apple in the process. It's no piece of fiction really.
I love how you all are experts on exactly what Jobs was thinking at the time. How the fuck do you know he would have bought apple if it collapsed and not made him CEO? Bloody hell, this forum is actually full of morons that cannot take an objective viewpoint on anything
He won't have to leave Apple to run a search engine based company like Google once they get that cloud finished. They moved into one of his markets first, so I think turnabout will be fair game.
Just thinkin...
In search, the hardware is trivial. It is all in the software and the database.
Building hardware will not make Apple competent in search.
C'mon. iOS is currently fragmented. You need the right version for your particular device. Not all software will run on all iOS devices.
It even impacts iTunes. Look at your app library. It is split into fragments: "Iphone, iPod Touch and iPad Apps" are first, and then the apps start again, alphabetically, with "iPhone and iPod touch Apps". So to find the app you are looking for, you need to look in two different places.
I don't own an iPod Touch or an iPad, and yet my apps are in fragmented irrelevant categories. If I did own an iPad, likely I'd have software that worked with the iPad, but would not work with any of my other iOS devices.
C'mon. iOS is currently fragmented. You need the right version for your particular device. Not all software will run on all iOS devices. It even impacts iTunes. Look at your app library. It is split into fragments: "Iphone, iPod Touch and iPad Apps" are first, and then the apps start again, alphabetically, with "iPhone and iPod touch Apps". So to find the app you are looking for, you need to look in two different places.
I don't own an iPod Touch or an iPad, and yet my apps are in fragmented irrelevant categories. I wish that iOS were only one, rather than being fragmented as it currently is.
Android would fare no better if Jobs were in charge.
To state, in light of android, that iOS is "fragmented" is very, very stupid.
But to think that iOS is not fragmented is to deny reality.
Sure, but the issue is not fragmentation per se, but fragmentation as a problem, and the problem within iOS is pretty much minimal, next to non-existent. Everything is very clear, all apps will tell you if it works in your phone, ipod or ipad or not, every phone has been updated to the latest iOS, etc.
In android, there is also a push towards bringing older phones to the latest android builds, but it's not that big, it's usually very cumbersome and late, etc. The fact that the most share of android is of the latest builds is more due to the fact that smartphone sales are booming rather than good software support from the moment you buy the phone.
I don't think Steve is a one-size-fits-all CEO . . . put him in any company and it has Apple-like success? Apple is his creature and he is its. Look at his record while out of Apple. He continued to show he had good instincts by creating the NeXT OS and buying Pixar. But NeXT had nowhere to go until he and it reunited with Apple.
To look at this from the opposite angle, consider the hired gun CEOs that stood in Steve's place while he was gone. None of them was able to do what Steve did when he came back to where he belonged. Steve and Apple? Joined at the hip.
He might have been an okay CEO at Google, but I think he would have pushed it in a NeXTerly direction and/or got bored and left.
You think Apple started the iPhone in 2005? They conceived, designed, wrote a completely new os inteface, fitted out production, and made carrier partnerships for a product category they had never been close to before in 2 years. I guess Jobs and Co. are bigger miracle workers than us lowly Apple zealots thought.
Please google "Wired iPhone article". You'll find an article from Wired magazine that talks about the history of the iPhone. As per that article (and other sources), Apple started work on the iPhone in February 2005.
Please google "Wired iPhone article". You'll find an article from Wired magazine that talks about the history of the iPhone. As per that article (and other sources), Apple started work on the iPhone in February 2005.
- HCE
From the article you linked (emphasis mine):
Quote:
February 2005, he got together with Cingular to discuss a Motorola-free partnership. At the top-secret meeting in a midtown Manhattan hotel, Jobs laid out his plans before a handful of Cingular senior execs, including Sigman. ... Jobs had reason to be confident. Apple's hardware engineers had spent about a year working on touchscreen technology for a tablet PC and had convinced him that they could build a similar interface for a phone.
and
Quote:
Since 2002, when the idea for an Apple phone was first hatched, mobile chips had grown more capable and could theoretically now support some version of the famous Macintosh OS.
Yes, that's exactly what you said, but how can you dismiss it as if it wasn't important? They moved into Touchscreen Smartphones AND copied Apple in the process. It's no piece of fiction really.
The difference is that Steve Jobs seems to imply that Google somehow betrayed Apple by moving into the smartphone space after Apple. The fact is that both companies tried to get into that market at about the same time - only thing was that Apple's approach was innovative and Google's approach was derivative.
It does not count how long Apple had been playing around with touchscreen technologies. The actual work on the phone started in 2005. It is also quite likely that Google were planning their entry into smartphones some time before 2005 as well. What matters is that they bought Android in 2005.
There is nothing particularly controversial in the point I am making. I just don't buy the "google betrayed apple" accusations. I fully accept that Google copied the iPhone.
Please google "Wired iPhone article". You'll find an article from Wired magazine that talks about the history of the iPhone. As per that article (and other sources), Apple started work on the iPhone in February 2005.
- HCE
I do not know what I find more amusing, the fact you believe "Wired" or the fact you think anybody could pull off making a cell phone in 2 years. It took Motorola over 2 years to create the Droid and they have a much longer history of making and testing phones than Apple and didn't have to create the operating system. I'm sure Apple was working on iPhone 4 before the 3G was released. Apple started to work on the iPad around the time they released the original iPod. The iPhone was an outgrowth of that project. Just because it was a low level research project doesn't mean they were not working on it.
Comments
They moved into one of his markets first, so I think turnabout will be fair game.
This is a piece of fiction that Jobs created and is now repeated by every Apple fan. Fact is that both companies decided to get into smartphones at about the same time (2005) - that was when Google bought Android and Apple started work on the iPhone.
Of course Apple came up with something original while Google at first copied the Blackberry and then later (when they realized that the iPhone design was the way to go) they copied Apple. You can accuse Google of being un-original but they certainly didn't "move into one of Apple's markets."
- HCE
This is a piece of fiction that Jobs created and is now repeated by every Apple fan. Fact is that both companies decided to get into smartphones at about the same time (2005) - that was when Google bought Android and Apple started work on the iPhone.
Of course Apple came up with something original while Google at first copied the Blackberry and then later (when they realized that the iPhone design was the way to go) they copied Apple. You can accuse Google of being un-original but they certainly didn't "move into one of Apple's markets."
- HCE
You think Apple started the iPhone in 2005? They conceived, designed, wrote a completely new os inteface, fitted out production, and made carrier partnerships for a product category they had never been close to before in 2 years. I guess Jobs and Co. are bigger miracle workers than us lowly Apple zealots thought.
"Egalitarian" doesn't mean sweet f all. "Egalitarian" doesn't move product and doesn't do anything for anyone's bottom line. It's a philosophy. And it either translates into $$ or it doesn't. It either translates into a superior User Experience or it doesn't. Apple's philosophy has always been making tech that is user-centric. That hasn't changed.
If you're producing great products that customers love . . . then you're producing great products that customers love.
"Open", "closed" . . . makes no difference. Apple is the same as it was in 1984. They're just a lot bigger now and have taken the fundamentals that have made the Macintosh great and applied it to other products.
Apple has ALWAYS been a closed ecosystem. For example, originally, the hardware architecture of the Macintosh was so closely tied to Mac OS that it was impossible to boot an alternative operating system. The original Macintosh had no room for internal expansion options - no other cards or devices could be installed, nor could the graphics capabilities be upgraded. Actually, it took special tools just to get the case open.
In fact, Apple is more open *today* than it has ever been in the past. They support open web standards, pass technologies and code back into FreeBSD, and they support a variety of open source projects. The key to their success however, is maintaining tight control over aspects of their products that are critical to the user experience. Same as always. And this strategy works like a charm. It's a shame others are unable to follow suit and continue producing a lot of mediocre fluff and in some cases, downright garbage.
The only people worried and making a fuss about whether Apple is open or closed or slightly ajar is the usual geek contingent that infests Apple fan sites and tech sites at large, who assume that everyone else outside their bubble actually cares. The market at large doesn't care. All consumers want are great products that work, look good, and allow them to get things done in style as quickly as possible. That's all. All other considerations that are of a supposed higher order are really not in their field of view, nor do they need to be. They vote with their wallets at the end of the day, and they're opening them up to Apple in greater numbers each quarter. That's all that counts.
I think this is the most thoughtful and concise description of Apple I've seen.
There's more, though, to the Apple mystique!
I don't know if I can describe it in a way that does justice to what you have posted. The normal way, would be to intermingle my comments among yours -- in effect, chopping your post into pieces. That would defeat the purpose.
Rather, I think it is better to leave your post intact, and re-quote some of your points. It's almost as if you are telling a story, and I am whispering in your ear "be sure and tell them this, too..."
"Apple's philosophy has always been making tech that is user-centric. That hasn't changed."
Whisper: Apple releases the best products they can, with the best [mass-produceable] technology, the best timing, and the best price/value available -- with an inferred promise of more to come, Rather than implement something badly, or lacking style -- Apple will do nothing at all -- or just leave those bits out.
"If you're producing great products that customers love . . . then you're producing great products that customers love. "
Whisper: With Apple, many are buying a brand, and implicitly supporting Apple to continue to produce products that they will love and buy.
"All consumers want are great products that work, look good, and allow them to get things done in style as quickly as possible. That's all."
Whisper: With an Apple product the customer gets a well-made product that does its job with style -- and "well-made, with style" are always in fashion. It seems as if Apple is daring the customer to become vested in the Apple Ecosystem and even invested in AAPL.
.
This is a piece of fiction that Jobs created and is now repeated by every Apple fan. Fact is that both companies decided to get into smartphones at about the same time (2005) - that was when Google bought Android and Apple started work on the iPhone.
Of course Apple came up with something original while Google at first copied the Blackberry and then later (when they realized that the iPhone design was the way to go) they copied Apple. You can accuse Google of being un-original but they certainly didn't "move into one of Apple's markets."
- HCE
STFU
Yes, that's exactly what you said, but how can you dismiss it as if it wasn't important? They moved into Touchscreen Smartphones AND copied Apple in the process. It's no piece of fiction really.
PS. Google is the Coca Cola of this generation and what do they sell..hmmm, crap!
And they sell TONS of that "crap" worldwide.
He won't have to leave Apple to run a search engine based company like Google once they get that cloud finished. They moved into one of his markets first, so I think turnabout will be fair game.
Just thinkin...
In search, the hardware is trivial. It is all in the software and the database.
Building hardware will not make Apple competent in search.
No Android fragmentation.
.
C'mon. iOS is currently fragmented. You need the right version for your particular device. Not all software will run on all iOS devices.
It even impacts iTunes. Look at your app library. It is split into fragments: "Iphone, iPod Touch and iPad Apps" are first, and then the apps start again, alphabetically, with "iPhone and iPod touch Apps". So to find the app you are looking for, you need to look in two different places.
I don't own an iPod Touch or an iPad, and yet my apps are in fragmented irrelevant categories. If I did own an iPad, likely I'd have software that worked with the iPad, but would not work with any of my other iOS devices.
C'mon. iOS is currently fragmented. You need the right version for your particular device. Not all software will run on all iOS devices. It even impacts iTunes. Look at your app library. It is split into fragments: "Iphone, iPod Touch and iPad Apps" are first, and then the apps start again, alphabetically, with "iPhone and iPod touch Apps". So to find the app you are looking for, you need to look in two different places.
I don't own an iPod Touch or an iPad, and yet my apps are in fragmented irrelevant categories. I wish that iOS were only one, rather than being fragmented as it currently is.
Android would fare no better if Jobs were in charge.
To state, in light of android, that iOS is "fragmented" is very, very stupid.
To state, in light of android, that iOS is "fragmented" is very, very stupid.
But to think that iOS is not fragmented is to deny reality.
But to think that iOS is not fragmented is to deny reality.
Sure, but the issue is not fragmentation per se, but fragmentation as a problem, and the problem within iOS is pretty much minimal, next to non-existent. Everything is very clear, all apps will tell you if it works in your phone, ipod or ipad or not, every phone has been updated to the latest iOS, etc.
In android, there is also a push towards bringing older phones to the latest android builds, but it's not that big, it's usually very cumbersome and late, etc. The fact that the most share of android is of the latest builds is more due to the fact that smartphone sales are booming rather than good software support from the moment you buy the phone.
To look at this from the opposite angle, consider the hired gun CEOs that stood in Steve's place while he was gone. None of them was able to do what Steve did when he came back to where he belonged. Steve and Apple? Joined at the hip.
He might have been an okay CEO at Google, but I think he would have pushed it in a NeXTerly direction and/or got bored and left.
Google, you're the new Microsoft. Don't pretend otherwise.
You think Apple started the iPhone in 2005? They conceived, designed, wrote a completely new os inteface, fitted out production, and made carrier partnerships for a product category they had never been close to before in 2 years. I guess Jobs and Co. are bigger miracle workers than us lowly Apple zealots thought.
Please google "Wired iPhone article". You'll find an article from Wired magazine that talks about the history of the iPhone. As per that article (and other sources), Apple started work on the iPhone in February 2005.
- HCE
Vote for steve jobs as businessperson of the year!
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...oll/index.html
Huh? Where's Ballmer in the tournament bracket? I couldn't find his name?
Please google "Wired iPhone article". You'll find an article from Wired magazine that talks about the history of the iPhone. As per that article (and other sources), Apple started work on the iPhone in February 2005.
- HCE
From the article you linked (emphasis mine):
February 2005, he got together with Cingular to discuss a Motorola-free partnership. At the top-secret meeting in a midtown Manhattan hotel, Jobs laid out his plans before a handful of Cingular senior execs, including Sigman. ... Jobs had reason to be confident. Apple's hardware engineers had spent about a year working on touchscreen technology for a tablet PC and had convinced him that they could build a similar interface for a phone.
and
Since 2002, when the idea for an Apple phone was first hatched, mobile chips had grown more capable and could theoretically now support some version of the famous Macintosh OS.
.
STFU
Yes, that's exactly what you said, but how can you dismiss it as if it wasn't important? They moved into Touchscreen Smartphones AND copied Apple in the process. It's no piece of fiction really.
The difference is that Steve Jobs seems to imply that Google somehow betrayed Apple by moving into the smartphone space after Apple. The fact is that both companies tried to get into that market at about the same time - only thing was that Apple's approach was innovative and Google's approach was derivative.
- HCE
From the article you linked (emphasis mine):
and
.
It does not count how long Apple had been playing around with touchscreen technologies. The actual work on the phone started in 2005. It is also quite likely that Google were planning their entry into smartphones some time before 2005 as well. What matters is that they bought Android in 2005.
There is nothing particularly controversial in the point I am making. I just don't buy the "google betrayed apple" accusations. I fully accept that Google copied the iPhone.
- HCE
Please google "Wired iPhone article". You'll find an article from Wired magazine that talks about the history of the iPhone. As per that article (and other sources), Apple started work on the iPhone in February 2005.
- HCE
I do not know what I find more amusing, the fact you believe "Wired" or the fact you think anybody could pull off making a cell phone in 2 years. It took Motorola over 2 years to create the Droid and they have a much longer history of making and testing phones than Apple and didn't have to create the operating system. I'm sure Apple was working on iPhone 4 before the 3G was released. Apple started to work on the iPad around the time they released the original iPod. The iPhone was an outgrowth of that project. Just because it was a low level research project doesn't mean they were not working on it.
Brian