I have never once thought, "Wow, I could really use a stylus right now"
I still read the articles, but I'm starting to give up on the forums - there's a few realists, sure - but the rest have circled the wagons in a circle of denial that the Asian (aided and abetted by Google) invasion is evolving faster than Apple is innovating, and that the strategies that work when one has a new device class to themselves won't keep working if all the new releases are simply iterative, even if well-executed.
And I personally think the management of Apple is very bright, dedicated and competent at what they do. But also think they haven't replaced that departed "disruptive gene" in their makeup since Steve Jobs died. It's always an evolving tech world, and corporations can never just keep doing what they've been doing with incremental iterations as the market changes. And so far, Apple's singular strategy is becoming less competitive in the world of the Android assault where they no longer have "first mover" advantage in any line of business they're in.
Leaving the question, not is Samsung evil, rather, who at Apple is going to demonstrate that the company is still the master of the end-around play that will put the competition back on its heels again for another few years and restores Apple's cachet as both disruptor and true innovator?
Ives refines things. Cook manages things. Schiller markets things. Etc. But who at Apple is going to come up with and shepherd the next NEW THING from concept to roll-out as Jobs did - often having to roll over internal opposition in the process - at least 4 or 5 times?
The question has NOT yet been answered. And certainly not by the entire round of updates in 2012 - the largest number of new releases, but all simply arguably improved versions of existing products. With overly spendy MBPr's, nifty MBA's, a nicer, lighter phone that nonetheless is beginning to look like a miniature, despite the (actually now somewhat compromised) purity of its one-handed ergonomics, the (IMO) less desirable form factor of the Nano, no storage increase across the iDevice line, no SDK for the ATV, flashy but less serviceable iMacs (with actually dumb things like an SD slot in the back), and also purity to Steve's notion that touch screen enablement on Macs implies muscle arms, although Apple's the company that taught us to just reach out and touch our devices, and one would only have to access items by touch when it was the most intuitive thing to do.
To me, they seem locked in their own RDF without their founder - riding the horses that brung 'em to the top, but no new horse in sight for the next leg of the race.
And much like Apple apparently (though I'm hoping they'll prove me wrong), the posters are simply re-iterating stale memes, with chants of "Samsung is evil," Apple "still" leads in profitability, "Samsung steals, has no imagination, etc., etc." while that company executes its business plan at a machine-gun rate of new SKU's. It's not Apple's strategy, but it's working for them..... ...and all of the emerging form factors (including offerings from WinWorld) are finding - and will continue to find their niches. Apple is also eschewing participating in the largely now silly, but someday pervasive "Internet of things," which may also come back to bite them.
Meanwhile, no single device may outsell the Apple entry nearest its category, and certainly are likely to bring in more profit in 2013 or even '14, but cumulatively there are at least a few echoes of "it's the '80's all over again." Not that I'm saying Apple will face dire straights or anything like extinction, but they do stand to lose their image as the great leaders of the new "ecosystem of the future." and become just another huge tech company among others.
Now wait a second. This has the same resolution as the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in a smaller screen size meaning the picture should be better.
So are the haters that complained about the iPad Mini resolution going to take back their complaints since the Mini has the same resolution as an iPad 2, but in a smaller screen as well?
So the fact that Samsung copies a dumb move by Apple makes the dumb move not dumb?
I believe in Apple's ability to iterate, but not to disrupt.
Others cannot disrupt either.
Apple might turn into Microsoft. I'm not sure Apple can innovate again.
You know, for Apple to innovate, it seems to always take around 7 years. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some logical business rule, like 2 years of R&D and design, one year of market disruption (people deny the point of the new object until it sells millions), 4 years of iterative progress and then standard-mode-on.
Or maybe 5 years of R&D,2 years of design and 1 year of testing, and the rest of it doesn't count since Apple's already innovated and will just iterate from then on.
Who knows? Does it matter?
You can only see that in retrospect. What's clear is Apple has an amazing team, there are lots of unseen opportunities, and they have both cash and troops, not to mention loyal customers. I think apple is going to announce something amazing in years to come, maybe 2014 or 2015. Car? TV? Banana-cupcake-maker? I'll see soon enough.
I agree! Samesong will be sitting there still dissecting the iPad Mini when "Bam!" Apple drops their next big thing. We have no idea what their working on guys, there have been numerous reports Johnny I've has been playing with a TV for awhile in his design lair. Apple works on the little details, takes time to polish it and thinks of stuff to add to the TV you would never think of. Maps was bad PR, more than it was bad software. It just proves no one else is innovating, that's why the media and everyone is looking at Apple.
Larry Page in his interview practically begged Apple to release something new, because he's got nothing! Oh wait sorry, eye glass computers & cars that drive themselves. Both of those should be on the market real soon! It's amazing the love fest for Google who built a search engine, thank you I use it. But also gives away android & what else have they done? Where's the pressure for them to innovate? Their isnt any, because consumers & the media all know Apple will be the one doing it! And I can't wait! Steve Jobs was brilliant, but Johnny Ive was the one who came up with the iMac before Steve Jobs came back. Johnny Ive is still there daydreaming along with some other brilliant minds! Samesong and others don't "Think Differently" they copy what they see, but lack vision to begin with. Samesong has ads showing guys sharing playlists with other guys. Really? Yes guys do that all the time, right after we're done shopping together!
I still read the articles, but I'm starting to give up on the forums - there's a few realists, sure - but the rest have circled the wagons in a circle of denial that the Asian (aided and abetted by Google) invasion is evolving faster than Apple is innovating, and that the strategies that work when one has a new device class to themselves won't keep working if all the new releases are simply iterative, even if well-executed.
And I personally think the management of Apple is very bright, dedicated and competent at what they do. But also think they haven't replaced that departed "disruptive gene" in their makeup since Steve Jobs died. It's always an evolving tech world, and corporations can never just keep doing what they've been doing with incremental iterations as the market changes. And so far, Apple's singular strategy is becoming less competitive in the world of the Android assault where they no longer have "first mover" advantage in any line of business they're in.
Leaving the question, not is Samsung evil, rather, who at Apple is going to demonstrate that the company is still the master of the end-around play that will put the competition back on its heels again for another few years and restores Apple's cachet as both disruptor and true innovator?
Ives refines things. Cook manages things. Schiller markets things. Etc. But who at Apple is going to come up with and shepherd the next NEW THING from concept to roll-out as Jobs did - often having to roll over internal opposition in the process - at least 4 or 5 times?
The question has NOT yet been answered. And certainly not by the entire round of updates in 2012 - the largest number of new releases, but all simply arguably improved versions of existing products. With overly spendy MBPr's, nifty MBA's, a nicer, lighter phone that nonetheless is beginning to look like a miniature, despite the (actually now somewhat compromised) purity of its one-handed ergonomics, the (IMO) less desirable form factor of the Nano, no storage increase across the iDevice line, no SDK for the ATV, flashy but less serviceable iMacs (with actually dumb things like an SD slot in the back), and also purity to Steve's notion that touch screen enablement on Macs implies muscle arms, although Apple's the company that taught us to just reach out and touch our devices, and one would only have to access items by touch when it was the most intuitive thing to do.
To me, they seem locked in their own RDF without their founder - riding the horses that brung 'em to the top, but no new horse in sight for the next leg of the race.
And much like Apple apparently (though I'm hoping they'll prove me wrong), the posters are simply re-iterating stale memes, with chants of "Samsung is evil," Apple "still" leads in profitability, "Samsung steals, has no imagination, etc., etc." while that company executes its business plan at a machine-gun rate of new SKU's. It's not Apple's strategy, but it's working for them..... ...and all of the emerging form factors (including offerings from WinWorld) are finding - and will continue to find their niches. Apple is also eschewing participating in the largely now silly, but someday pervasive "Internet of things," which may also come back to bite them.
Meanwhile, no single device may outsell the Apple entry nearest its category, and certainly are likely to bring in more profit in 2013 or even '14, but cumulatively there are at least a few echoes of "it's the '80's all over again." Not that I'm saying Apple will face dire straights or anything like extinction, but they do stand to lose their image as the great leaders of the new "ecosystem of the future." and become just another huge tech company among others.
I you read Isaacson's book you'll read that Jony and others have come up with ideas way before Steve and had to beat him over the head until he agreed. Then of course when he agreed he championed the idea like he was in that same camp the whole time (one of his unique qualities). So to say that since Steve is gone no one is coming up with those ideas is wrong.
No one else outside of Ive has the cachet to be wrong, wrong, wrong and then instantly right like Steve had but we can't act like all Steve's decisions/insights/ideas/disruptions were always unequivocally correct and that he wasn't pushed into anything by anyone else.
Take a peek at this 18 minute monologue on Why, How, What from Simon Sineks' How great leaders inspire and think about it for a minute. You might surprise yourself with your own conclusion.
My reaction to your post is strange: while I fully understand what you mean, agree in many parts, I still think you're wrong. Can't put my finger on it, perhaps it has to do with that Ted Talk: take a peek and post back please.
One simple thing to point out, totally meaningless, but ok, the SD card slot on the back...I have a MacMini and use the slot on the back a lot and it's a total non-issue.
One simple thing to point out, totally meaningless, but ok, the SD card slot on the back...I have a MacMini and use the slot on the back a lot and it's a total non-issue.
The Mac mini is easier to move and look over and around. I think it could be a chore for frequent use. That said, Apple clearly doesn't care about those that want to use the SD cards often so if one does they can get a external USB to SD card reader. It's not as clean looking but when the concern is over utility then I don't think one has any ground to then complain about how it looks.
One simple thing to point out, totally meaningless, but ok, the SD card slot on the back...I have a MacMini and use the slot on the back a lot and it's a total non-issue.
The Mac mini is easier to move and look over and around. I think it could be a chore for frequent use. That said, Apple clearly doesn't care about those that want to use the SD cards often so if one does they can get a external USB to SD card reader. It's not as clean looking but when the concern is over utility then I don't think one has any ground to then complain about how it looks.
In my view the utility is the speed of a SD Card reader. And with my Mini it is vastly speedier than when I plug it into my Mac Pro, through an USB2 card reader (USB2 being the bottleneck here, but you know this).
People have no problem finding the light switch in the dark at home; I'm sure the iMac will get more scratches around the SD slot as opposed to the other ports, but only because the other ports will be used for 'permanently connected' devices.
I still read the articles, but I'm starting to give up on the forums - there's a few realists, sure - but the rest have circled the wagons in a circle of denial that the Asian (aided and abetted by Google) invasion is evolving faster than Apple is innovating, and that the strategies that work when one has a new device class to themselves won't keep working if all the new releases are simply iterative, even if well-executed.
And I personally think the management of Apple is very bright, dedicated and competent at what they do. But also think they haven't replaced that departed "disruptive gene" in their makeup since Steve Jobs died. It's always an evolving tech world, and corporations can never just keep doing what they've been doing with incremental iterations as the market changes. And so far, Apple's singular strategy is becoming less competitive in the world of the Android assault where they no longer have "first mover" advantage in any line of business they're in.
Leaving the question, not is Samsung evil, rather, who at Apple is going to demonstrate that the company is still the master of the end-around play that will put the competition back on its heels again for another few years and restores Apple's cachet as both disruptor and true innovator?
Ives refines things. Cook manages things. Schiller markets things. Etc. But who at Apple is going to come up with and shepherd the next NEW THING from concept to roll-out as Jobs did - often having to roll over internal opposition in the process - at least 4 or 5 times?
The question has NOT yet been answered. And certainly not by the entire round of updates in 2012 - the largest number of new releases, but all simply arguably improved versions of existing products. With overly spendy MBPr's, nifty MBA's, a nicer, lighter phone that nonetheless is beginning to look like a miniature, despite the (actually now somewhat compromised) purity of its one-handed ergonomics, the (IMO) less desirable form factor of the Nano, no storage increase across the iDevice line, no SDK for the ATV, flashy but less serviceable iMacs (with actually dumb things like an SD slot in the back), and also purity to Steve's notion that touch screen enablement on Macs implies muscle arms, although Apple's the company that taught us to just reach out and touch our devices, and one would only have to access items by touch when it was the most intuitive thing to do.
To me, they seem locked in their own RDF without their founder - riding the horses that brung 'em to the top, but no new horse in sight for the next leg of the race.
And much like Apple apparently (though I'm hoping they'll prove me wrong), the posters are simply re-iterating stale memes, with chants of "Samsung is evil," Apple "still" leads in profitability, "Samsung steals, has no imagination, etc., etc." while that company executes its business plan at a machine-gun rate of new SKU's. It's not Apple's strategy, but it's working for them..... ...and all of the emerging form factors (including offerings from WinWorld) are finding - and will continue to find their niches. Apple is also eschewing participating in the largely now silly, but someday pervasive "Internet of things," which may also come back to bite them.
Meanwhile, no single device may outsell the Apple entry nearest its category, and certainly are likely to bring in more profit in 2013 or even '14, but cumulatively there are at least a few echoes of "it's the '80's all over again." Not that I'm saying Apple will face dire straights or anything like extinction, but they do stand to lose their image as the great leaders of the new "ecosystem of the future." and become just another huge tech company among others.
If you simply crave someone to agree with your point of view, there are plenty of pro-Android/tech elites sites that cater to that point of view. I simply don't understand anyone coming here and then finding people who disagree with you and then throwing your hands up in disgust and complaining there aren't enough "realists" here. That's a indirect way criticizing people who don't agree with your as what? Living in a reality distortion field? Is that what you want to say?
Your post is essentially: Steve Jobs is dead, and the "disruptive gene" went with him, and here is my "proof": Apple has only made incremental changes in 2012! If Apple doesn't renew it's "cachet as disruptor and true innovator" every year, I'm going to declare the SKY IS FALLING and ITS THE 80S ALL OVER AGAIN.
Maybe.
Except. Except. Except...
That's not how disruptive change works. That YOU THINK that's how it works is a testament to Apple's legendary secrecy and internal refinement before the theatrical unveiling of the breakthrough new product on stage at Moscone Center. Apple does this so well, it makes it seem like innovation is so easy, so commonplace: it's practically growing on innovation trees. You begin to expect it! Have you listened to yourself? "Where's my regularly scheduled breakthrough?" you impatiently demand. "If Apple doesn't blow us away 2013, it's the 80s all over again!" You proclaim yourself a "realist." Is that a realistic expectation? For any company? Let alone Steve Jobs' Chocolate Factory?
Or is it more realistic for big disruptive breakthroughs to come a long every once in a while, and for released, mature products to see only incremental changes? Steve Jobs said it himself at the unveiling of the iPhone, that Apple was truly lucky that it could bring the first Mac, the iPod, and now (then) the iPhone, the first touch phone to market. Three disruptive products in 30 years. (Then three years later the iPad could be considered a disruptive product, but one can argue it's essentially the iPhone, but larger). These disruptive changes don't happen every year, and you can't expect when the next one will happen. It's completely unrealistic. You can stick a time table out there and demand Apple follow it, but that's not how it works.
But even in the "mature" product categories, Apple is aggressively pursuing incremental changes at a rapid pace. Look at the Mac: Thunderbolt. SSD standard. Retina Displays. Bonded IPS screens. Ginormous batteries. Super thin and light profiles. Optical drives jettisoned. And look, The MacBook Air is dragging the rest of the PC laptop industry along with the Ultrabook clones. Oh, but I guess Apple "stands to lose its image a a great leader" (according to you) because the MacBook Air is merely "nifty." Uh, right. So nifty, EVERYONE THAT ISN'T APPLE IS TRYING TO CLONE IT. Poorly and cheaply, I might add. If I didn't know any better, I'd say all these changes add up to leadership in an otherwise "done" product category: the personal computer.
So let's answer your QUESTION, the one you say has NOT been answered yet: who is the new Steve Jobs at Apple?
Nobody.
But Apple isn't doomed, and here's why: Steve Jobs wasn't the source of innovation at Apple. Steve's name isn't on every patent application. Steve was a two things: product tastemaker and focus. Focus is saying "no." Focus is knowing the right things to say "no" to. Companies like Google don't understand what "no" means, which is why they are spending money on, among other things, cars that drive themselves and aug-reality nerd goggles. But theirs is a completely dissimilar approach, I know (and I don't really want to use this post to talk about Google).
Jony Ive has the tastemaker part covered. He's been there for years, and Apple's products reflect his and Steve Jobs' values.
Focus. I believe under Tim Cook, Apple has remained focused. They haven't gone off and exploded into every which product niche with bloated confusing product lines the way Apple did under John Sculley. The way Samsung does with its dozens of phones. Apple has apparently continued to say "no" to some very obvious niches, like ginormous phone screens and cheap iPhones.
Innovation came from lots of hard working people at Apple. Many of them you never heard of. Steve didn't invent Multitouch, or The App Store, or iTunes Music Store, or the iPod click-wheel, or The Apple Retail Stores, or any of the big disruptive ideas from Apple. He could look at a novel idea or new technology and see where that product was going to be in 5, 10 years. (You only had to hear Steve describe something very similar to iCloud way back in 1997 to realize his far future grasp). Granted, that "visionary" role is hard to replace, but the visionary isn't the source of innovation; the visionary merely exploits and directs it.
The bottom line is, I think you're way overstating Steve Jobs' role at Apple, and you're wrong to assume that a "disruptive gene" exists only in a single figurehead. Steve put a system in place, namely Apple University, to teach the next generation of Apple leaders the lessons and values of the Steve Jobs CEO era. That's where the disruptive "gene" is: it lives on with the people who have journeyed down this road with Steve, and just 15 months after his death, it's a little premature to start proclaiming those who disagree with you "in denial" of Apple supposed doom.
I think the Mini is popular because of its lack of weight, not necessarily its small screen. Steve was right about screen size and still is. The iPad, while remarkably light for what it is, is still too heavy for it's usage model (blobbing out on the couch holding it with one hand).
Ives refines things. Cook manages things. Schiller markets things. Etc. But who at Apple is going to come up with and shepherd the next NEW THING from concept to roll-out as Jobs did - often having to roll over internal opposition in the process - at least 4 or 5 times?
I think they should hire back Forstall. Cook fired him because Apple's strength is that all their products work well together, so to better do that, all their management should work well together. Except one thing: that doesn't follow. The CEO must have a picture in his head of how everything with integrate, and consciously and deliberately make it happen, it won't somehow arise organically through an environment of increased cooperation.
Thank you all for your input. I do wanna continue this convo - except I'm just going to leave the longest reply alone - 'cos dude and I seem pretty much on too far separated levels of viewing the world to ever reach any real state of Glasnost or rapproachment, but I do appreciate someone thinking I'm worth the refutation. I prefer getting into someone's head and provoking an exchange in search of new synergistic understanding than simply getting under someone's skin. But might as well view the latter as a consolation prize I suppose.
Welllll, I will say this: If S. Newt (get it?) thinks I've followed Apple since before it was Apple and for all these years and loves me Mac, and support other people on Macs because I'm an Android troll, well that would make my point. I'm all about Apple kicking Google and Samsung ass. They my team.
And this IS my way of being supportive - or trying to be. Whatev', y'know? S'a free forum.
Still (one more jab and out, promise) his tone is too snarky. I keep trying but can't break thru the disdain and have to avert my gaze. Jus' sayin'.... ...and STILL appreciated. Plus there are some good points in there (when he got off me, it was more interesting for sure. I'm not interesting. The future of Apple IS). I just personally don't play the diss game with anybody who plays it any harder than I am right now.
But as for the rest of your nuanced replies, cool. Interesting. Trenchant. Worth engaging. Stuff like that. People willing to even consider the notion that all is not necessarily optimally optimal for Apple in the developing trends of how they're dealing with transition and new competitors and they with Apple, are yes, the realists around here. 'Cos there's evidence those trends are more than "blips."
However, bizzy, bizzy, bizzy so watch yer thread digests and I'll like as not have something to say in a day or three.
Reminder to self: Remember to bring in the concept of "safactioncey" (not my own invention - but very likely misspelled. Read the article decades ago. On dead trees. And, no. Computers are not more ecological than books, newspapers, magazines. Whole other topic. Interesting too, though. Read about it on this very series of pipes. Too bad - so many things to ramble about on the web, so little time..... ...but the concept mentioned does relate to the present topic.
Also wanna bring in perspective by looking at the history of highly successful companies after losing their charismatic leaders over the decades. E.g. IBM after the long reign of Thomas Watson and then his son. Ford after Ford. There are plenty of case studies - and patterns emerge from the study of them. The past doesn't have to be prologue - but damn, it usually is. And now being written in real-time before us the Apple after Jobs chapter of business text books twenty years from now. Outcome TBD....
And seriously - I think the point I'm trying to make is relevant, maybe even urgent at base, even if off the mark in some particulars. I'm just a guy with a keyboard, a long-time tech fetish and another life too.
Bye.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alcstarheel
I you read Isaacson's book you'll read that Jony and others have come up with ideas way before Steve and had to beat him over the head until he agreed. Then of course when he agreed he championed the idea like he was in that same camp the whole time (one of his unique qualities). So to say that since Steve is gone no one is coming up with those ideas is wrong.
No one else outside of Ive has the cachet to be wrong, wrong, wrong and then instantly right like Steve had but we can't act like all Steve's decisions/insights/ideas/disruptions were always unequivocally correct and that he wasn't pushed into anything by anyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Take a peek at this 18 minute monologue on Why, How, What from Simon Sineks' How great leaders inspire and think about it for a minute. You might surprise yourself with your own conclusion.
My reaction to your post is strange: while I fully understand what you mean, agree in many parts, I still think you're wrong. Can't put my finger on it, perhaps it has to do with that Ted Talk: take a peek and post back please.
One simple thing to point out, totally meaningless, but ok, the SD card slot on the back...I have a MacMini and use the slot on the back a lot and it's a total non-issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
If you simply crave someone to agree with your point of view, there are plenty of pro-Android/tech elites sites that cater to that point of view. I simply don't understand anyone coming here and then finding people who disagree with you and then throwing your hands up in disgust and complaining there aren't enough "realists" here. That's a indirect way criticizing people who don't agree with your as what? Living in a reality distortion field? Is that what you want to say?
Your post is essentially: Steve Jobs is dead, and the "disruptive gene" went with him, and here is my "proof": Apple has only made incremental changes in 2012! If Apple doesn't renew it's "cachet as disruptor and true innovator" every year, I'm going to declare the SKY IS FALLING and ITS THE 80S ALL OVER AGAIN.
Maybe.
Except. Except. Except...
That's not how disruptive change works. That YOU THINK that's how it works is a testament to Apple's legendary secrecy and internal refinement before the theatrical unveiling of the breakthrough new product on stage at Moscone Center. Apple does this so well, it makes it seem like innovation is so easy, so commonplace: it's practically growing on innovation trees. You begin to expect it! Have you listened to yourself? "Where's my regularly scheduled breakthrough?" you impatiently demand. "If Apple doesn't blow us away 2013, it's the 80s all over again!" You proclaim yourself a "realist." Is that a realistic expectation? For any company? Let alone Steve Jobs' Chocolate Factory?
Or is it more realistic for big disruptive breakthroughs to come a long every once in a while, and for released, mature products to see only incremental changes? Steve Jobs said it himself at the unveiling of the iPhone, that Apple was truly lucky that it could bring the first Mac, the iPod, and now (then) the iPhone, the first touch phone to market. Three disruptive products in 30 years. (Then three years later the iPad could be considered a disruptive product, but one can argue it's essentially the iPhone, but larger). These disruptive changes don't happen every year, and you can't expect when the next one will happen. It's completely unrealistic. You can stick a time table out there and demand Apple follow it, but that's not how it works.
But even in the "mature" product categories, Apple is aggressively pursuing incremental changes at a rapid pace. Look at the Mac: Thunderbolt. SSD standard. Retina Displays. Bonded IPS screens. Ginormous batteries. Super thin and light profiles. Optical drives jettisoned. And look, The MacBook Air is dragging the rest of the PC laptop industry along with the Ultrabook clones. Oh, but I guess Apple "stands to lose its image a a great leader" (according to you) because the MacBook Air is merely "nifty." Uh, right. So nifty, EVERYONE THAT ISN'T APPLE IS TRYING TO CLONE IT. Poorly and cheaply, I might add. If I didn't know any better, I'd say all these changes add up to leadership in an otherwise "done" product category: the personal computer.
So let's answer your QUESTION, the one you say has NOT been answered yet: who is the new Steve Jobs at Apple?
Nobody.
But Apple isn't doomed, and here's why: Steve Jobs wasn't the source of innovation at Apple. Steve's name isn't on every patent application. Steve was a two things: product tastemaker and focus. Focus is saying "no." Focus is knowing the right things to say "no" to. Companies like Google don't understand what "no" means, which is why they are spending money on, among other things, cars that drive themselves and aug-reality nerd goggles. But theirs is a completely dissimilar approach, I know (and I don't really want to use this post to talk about Google).
Jony Ive has the tastemaker part covered. He's been there for years, and Apple's products reflect his and Steve Jobs' values.
Focus. I believe under Tim Cook, Apple has remained focused. They haven't gone off and exploded into every which product niche with bloated confusing product lines the way Apple did under John Sculley. The way Samsung does with its dozens of phones. Apple has apparently continued to say "no" to some very obvious niches, like ginormous phone screens and cheap iPhones.
Innovation came from lots of hard working people at Apple. Many of them you never heard of. Steve didn't invent Multitouch, or The App Store, or iTunes Music Store, or the iPod click-wheel, or The Apple Retail Stores, or any of the big disruptive ideas from Apple. He could look at a novel idea or new technology and see where that product was going to be in 5, 10 years. (You only had to hear Steve describe something very similar to iCloud way back in 1997 to realize his far future grasp). Granted, that "visionary" role is hard to replace, but the visionary isn't the source of innovation; the visionary merely exploits and directs it.
The bottom line is, I think you're way overstating Steve Jobs' role at Apple, and you're wrong to assume that a "disruptive gene" exists only in a single figurehead. Steve put a system in place, namely Apple University, to teach the next generation of Apple leaders the lessons and values of the Steve Jobs CEO era. That's where the disruptive "gene" is: it lives on with the people who have journeyed down this road with Steve, and just 15 months after his death, it's a little premature to start proclaiming those who disagree with you "in denial" of Apple supposed doom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
I think they should hire back Forstall. Cook fired him because Apple's strength is that all their products work well together, so to better do that, all their management should work well together. Except one thing: that doesn't follow. The CEO must have a picture in his head of how everything with integrate, and consciously and deliberately make it happen, it won't somehow arise organically through an environment of increased cooperation.
Still (one more jab and out, promise) his tone is too snarky. I keep trying but can't break thru the disdain and have to avert my gaze. Jus' sayin'....
He can be snarky, but he can be funny too. Is it really worth getting this angry about? You're losing minutes of your life by stressing yourselves like this ^^
Sony is coming out with a 46" TV, let's make one that is 47"
Next...
iPad Mini seems to be selling well...
What size was it?
7.9".
Let's make one at 8", and we will call it Galaxy Note 8!
Next...
Samsung already had a 7.7" a year prior and a 8.9" two years prior, I believe in the case of the Mini Apple was following the Android market as the 7" tablets seem to be the most popular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2
I agree with you, having an "Official" HW and SW solution for a pressure sensitive digitalizer would be great. But I still think Apple as follow the right path by not giving choice for developers of having mandatory touch input UI. Too many Palms and PC Tablet applications has being wrongly created around a Pen driven UI, which is a pain in the a...
I also don't think the UI should be built around a pen as I love using my finger but having the extra capability is still pretty awesome, even in 2013. I fill out all of my forms this way by downloading the PDF and then writing in the blanks, i.e. taxes, I hate paper. The other day I was walking out of the grocery store and was cornered by a GreenPeace rep, I stopped because she was using a Samsung Note 10.1 with a custom petition program that allowed for hand written data. It would be nothing for Apple to add this to their existing lineup but I also enjoy my Android and Windows 8 tablet so it's not a priority for me. One product can't do everything but you would think with all of those drawing apps in the Apple Store they could defiantly benefit from a pen, sorry but those big rubber passive pens suck, a whole lot.
It would be interesting to know how many Note users take advantage of the digitizer. It seems to have merit even if it will be a seldom-used option on the device.
That's a good question, I use my pen mostly to jot down ideas and for my grocery list. I also find it useful when I need to add additional info to Google Map directions. The coolest thing is when I fill out PDF forms, I never print them out I just fill them in directly on the screen. I also live in a cold area so its nice to be able to use the phone without removing my gloves. It's become a very nice feature to have and as long as Samsung doesn't screw it up I think I will continue with the series. I would like to play with the Sony though, sounds like in incredible phone.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775
I have never once thought, "Wow, I could really use a stylus right now"
I still read the articles, but I'm starting to give up on the forums - there's a few realists, sure - but the rest have circled the wagons in a circle of denial that the Asian (aided and abetted by Google) invasion is evolving faster than Apple is innovating, and that the strategies that work when one has a new device class to themselves won't keep working if all the new releases are simply iterative, even if well-executed.
And I personally think the management of Apple is very bright, dedicated and competent at what they do. But also think they haven't replaced that departed "disruptive gene" in their makeup since Steve Jobs died. It's always an evolving tech world, and corporations can never just keep doing what they've been doing with incremental iterations as the market changes. And so far, Apple's singular strategy is becoming less competitive in the world of the Android assault where they no longer have "first mover" advantage in any line of business they're in.
Leaving the question, not is Samsung evil, rather, who at Apple is going to demonstrate that the company is still the master of the end-around play that will put the competition back on its heels again for another few years and restores Apple's cachet as both disruptor and true innovator?
Ives refines things. Cook manages things. Schiller markets things. Etc. But who at Apple is going to come up with and shepherd the next NEW THING from concept to roll-out as Jobs did - often having to roll over internal opposition in the process - at least 4 or 5 times?
The question has NOT yet been answered. And certainly not by the entire round of updates in 2012 - the largest number of new releases, but all simply arguably improved versions of existing products. With overly spendy MBPr's, nifty MBA's, a nicer, lighter phone that nonetheless is beginning to look like a miniature, despite the (actually now somewhat compromised) purity of its one-handed ergonomics, the (IMO) less desirable form factor of the Nano, no storage increase across the iDevice line, no SDK for the ATV, flashy but less serviceable iMacs (with actually dumb things like an SD slot in the back), and also purity to Steve's notion that touch screen enablement on Macs implies muscle arms, although Apple's the company that taught us to just reach out and touch our devices, and one would only have to access items by touch when it was the most intuitive thing to do.
To me, they seem locked in their own RDF without their founder - riding the horses that brung 'em to the top, but no new horse in sight for the next leg of the race.
And much like Apple apparently (though I'm hoping they'll prove me wrong), the posters are simply re-iterating stale memes, with chants of "Samsung is evil," Apple "still" leads in profitability, "Samsung steals, has no imagination, etc., etc." while that company executes its business plan at a machine-gun rate of new SKU's. It's not Apple's strategy, but it's working for them..... ...and all of the emerging form factors (including offerings from WinWorld) are finding - and will continue to find their niches. Apple is also eschewing participating in the largely now silly, but someday pervasive "Internet of things," which may also come back to bite them.
Meanwhile, no single device may outsell the Apple entry nearest its category, and certainly are likely to bring in more profit in 2013 or even '14, but cumulatively there are at least a few echoes of "it's the '80's all over again." Not that I'm saying Apple will face dire straights or anything like extinction, but they do stand to lose their image as the great leaders of the new "ecosystem of the future." and become just another huge tech company among others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Now wait a second. This has the same resolution as the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in a smaller screen size meaning the picture should be better.
So are the haters that complained about the iPad Mini resolution going to take back their complaints since the Mini has the same resolution as an iPad 2, but in a smaller screen as well?
So the fact that Samsung copies a dumb move by Apple makes the dumb move not dumb?
Wait... what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics
Asia might eat Apple.
I believe in Apple's ability to iterate, but not to disrupt.
Others cannot disrupt either.
Apple might turn into Microsoft. I'm not sure Apple can innovate again.
You know, for Apple to innovate, it seems to always take around 7 years. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some logical business rule, like 2 years of R&D and design, one year of market disruption (people deny the point of the new object until it sells millions), 4 years of iterative progress and then standard-mode-on.
Or maybe 5 years of R&D,2 years of design and 1 year of testing, and the rest of it doesn't count since Apple's already innovated and will just iterate from then on.
Who knows? Does it matter?
You can only see that in retrospect. What's clear is Apple has an amazing team, there are lots of unseen opportunities, and they have both cash and troops, not to mention loyal customers. I think apple is going to announce something amazing in years to come, maybe 2014 or 2015. Car? TV? Banana-cupcake-maker? I'll see soon enough.
Then maybe you should buy a stylus like this
http://adonit.net/jot/touch/
Here's a news flash, there are a number of 3rd party stylus for the iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pats
Gazoobee
Then maybe you should buy a stylus like this
http://adonit.net/jot/touch/
Here's a news flash, there are a number of 3rd party stylus for the iPad.
Why are you talking of Apple related stuff on SamsungInsider?
Larry Page in his interview practically begged Apple to release something new, because he's got nothing! Oh wait sorry, eye glass computers & cars that drive themselves. Both of those should be on the market real soon! It's amazing the love fest for Google who built a search engine, thank you I use it. But also gives away android & what else have they done? Where's the pressure for them to innovate? Their isnt any, because consumers & the media all know Apple will be the one doing it! And I can't wait!
Steve Jobs was brilliant, but Johnny Ive was the one who came up with the iMac before Steve Jobs came back. Johnny Ive is still there daydreaming along with some other brilliant minds! Samesong and others don't "Think Differently" they copy what they see, but lack vision to begin with. Samesong has ads showing guys sharing playlists with other guys. Really? Yes guys do that all the time, right after we're done shopping together!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics
I still read the articles, but I'm starting to give up on the forums - there's a few realists, sure - but the rest have circled the wagons in a circle of denial that the Asian (aided and abetted by Google) invasion is evolving faster than Apple is innovating, and that the strategies that work when one has a new device class to themselves won't keep working if all the new releases are simply iterative, even if well-executed.
And I personally think the management of Apple is very bright, dedicated and competent at what they do. But also think they haven't replaced that departed "disruptive gene" in their makeup since Steve Jobs died. It's always an evolving tech world, and corporations can never just keep doing what they've been doing with incremental iterations as the market changes. And so far, Apple's singular strategy is becoming less competitive in the world of the Android assault where they no longer have "first mover" advantage in any line of business they're in.
Leaving the question, not is Samsung evil, rather, who at Apple is going to demonstrate that the company is still the master of the end-around play that will put the competition back on its heels again for another few years and restores Apple's cachet as both disruptor and true innovator?
Ives refines things. Cook manages things. Schiller markets things. Etc. But who at Apple is going to come up with and shepherd the next NEW THING from concept to roll-out as Jobs did - often having to roll over internal opposition in the process - at least 4 or 5 times?
The question has NOT yet been answered. And certainly not by the entire round of updates in 2012 - the largest number of new releases, but all simply arguably improved versions of existing products. With overly spendy MBPr's, nifty MBA's, a nicer, lighter phone that nonetheless is beginning to look like a miniature, despite the (actually now somewhat compromised) purity of its one-handed ergonomics, the (IMO) less desirable form factor of the Nano, no storage increase across the iDevice line, no SDK for the ATV, flashy but less serviceable iMacs (with actually dumb things like an SD slot in the back), and also purity to Steve's notion that touch screen enablement on Macs implies muscle arms, although Apple's the company that taught us to just reach out and touch our devices, and one would only have to access items by touch when it was the most intuitive thing to do.
To me, they seem locked in their own RDF without their founder - riding the horses that brung 'em to the top, but no new horse in sight for the next leg of the race.
And much like Apple apparently (though I'm hoping they'll prove me wrong), the posters are simply re-iterating stale memes, with chants of "Samsung is evil," Apple "still" leads in profitability, "Samsung steals, has no imagination, etc., etc." while that company executes its business plan at a machine-gun rate of new SKU's. It's not Apple's strategy, but it's working for them..... ...and all of the emerging form factors (including offerings from WinWorld) are finding - and will continue to find their niches. Apple is also eschewing participating in the largely now silly, but someday pervasive "Internet of things," which may also come back to bite them.
Meanwhile, no single device may outsell the Apple entry nearest its category, and certainly are likely to bring in more profit in 2013 or even '14, but cumulatively there are at least a few echoes of "it's the '80's all over again." Not that I'm saying Apple will face dire straights or anything like extinction, but they do stand to lose their image as the great leaders of the new "ecosystem of the future." and become just another huge tech company among others.
I you read Isaacson's book you'll read that Jony and others have come up with ideas way before Steve and had to beat him over the head until he agreed. Then of course when he agreed he championed the idea like he was in that same camp the whole time (one of his unique qualities). So to say that since Steve is gone no one is coming up with those ideas is wrong.
No one else outside of Ive has the cachet to be wrong, wrong, wrong and then instantly right like Steve had but we can't act like all Steve's decisions/insights/ideas/disruptions were always unequivocally correct and that he wasn't pushed into anything by anyone else.
Take a peek at this 18 minute monologue on Why, How, What from Simon Sineks' How great leaders inspire and think about it for a minute. You might surprise yourself with your own conclusion.
http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html
My reaction to your post is strange: while I fully understand what you mean, agree in many parts, I still think you're wrong. Can't put my finger on it, perhaps it has to do with that Ted Talk: take a peek and post back please.
One simple thing to point out, totally meaningless, but ok, the SD card slot on the back...I have a MacMini and use the slot on the back a lot and it's a total non-issue.
The Mac mini is easier to move and look over and around. I think it could be a chore for frequent use. That said, Apple clearly doesn't care about those that want to use the SD cards often so if one does they can get a external USB to SD card reader. It's not as clean looking but when the concern is over utility then I don't think one has any ground to then complain about how it looks.
In my view the utility is the speed of a SD Card reader. And with my Mini it is vastly speedier than when I plug it into my Mac Pro, through an USB2 card reader (USB2 being the bottleneck here, but you know this).
People have no problem finding the light switch in the dark at home; I'm sure the iMac will get more scratches around the SD slot as opposed to the other ports, but only because the other ports will be used for 'permanently connected' devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics
I still read the articles, but I'm starting to give up on the forums - there's a few realists, sure - but the rest have circled the wagons in a circle of denial that the Asian (aided and abetted by Google) invasion is evolving faster than Apple is innovating, and that the strategies that work when one has a new device class to themselves won't keep working if all the new releases are simply iterative, even if well-executed.
And I personally think the management of Apple is very bright, dedicated and competent at what they do. But also think they haven't replaced that departed "disruptive gene" in their makeup since Steve Jobs died. It's always an evolving tech world, and corporations can never just keep doing what they've been doing with incremental iterations as the market changes. And so far, Apple's singular strategy is becoming less competitive in the world of the Android assault where they no longer have "first mover" advantage in any line of business they're in.
Leaving the question, not is Samsung evil, rather, who at Apple is going to demonstrate that the company is still the master of the end-around play that will put the competition back on its heels again for another few years and restores Apple's cachet as both disruptor and true innovator?
Ives refines things. Cook manages things. Schiller markets things. Etc. But who at Apple is going to come up with and shepherd the next NEW THING from concept to roll-out as Jobs did - often having to roll over internal opposition in the process - at least 4 or 5 times?
The question has NOT yet been answered. And certainly not by the entire round of updates in 2012 - the largest number of new releases, but all simply arguably improved versions of existing products. With overly spendy MBPr's, nifty MBA's, a nicer, lighter phone that nonetheless is beginning to look like a miniature, despite the (actually now somewhat compromised) purity of its one-handed ergonomics, the (IMO) less desirable form factor of the Nano, no storage increase across the iDevice line, no SDK for the ATV, flashy but less serviceable iMacs (with actually dumb things like an SD slot in the back), and also purity to Steve's notion that touch screen enablement on Macs implies muscle arms, although Apple's the company that taught us to just reach out and touch our devices, and one would only have to access items by touch when it was the most intuitive thing to do.
To me, they seem locked in their own RDF without their founder - riding the horses that brung 'em to the top, but no new horse in sight for the next leg of the race.
And much like Apple apparently (though I'm hoping they'll prove me wrong), the posters are simply re-iterating stale memes, with chants of "Samsung is evil," Apple "still" leads in profitability, "Samsung steals, has no imagination, etc., etc." while that company executes its business plan at a machine-gun rate of new SKU's. It's not Apple's strategy, but it's working for them..... ...and all of the emerging form factors (including offerings from WinWorld) are finding - and will continue to find their niches. Apple is also eschewing participating in the largely now silly, but someday pervasive "Internet of things," which may also come back to bite them.
Meanwhile, no single device may outsell the Apple entry nearest its category, and certainly are likely to bring in more profit in 2013 or even '14, but cumulatively there are at least a few echoes of "it's the '80's all over again." Not that I'm saying Apple will face dire straights or anything like extinction, but they do stand to lose their image as the great leaders of the new "ecosystem of the future." and become just another huge tech company among others.
If you simply crave someone to agree with your point of view, there are plenty of pro-Android/tech elites sites that cater to that point of view. I simply don't understand anyone coming here and then finding people who disagree with you and then throwing your hands up in disgust and complaining there aren't enough "realists" here. That's a indirect way criticizing people who don't agree with your as what? Living in a reality distortion field? Is that what you want to say?
Your post is essentially: Steve Jobs is dead, and the "disruptive gene" went with him, and here is my "proof": Apple has only made incremental changes in 2012! If Apple doesn't renew it's "cachet as disruptor and true innovator" every year, I'm going to declare the SKY IS FALLING and ITS THE 80S ALL OVER AGAIN.
Maybe.
Except. Except. Except...
That's not how disruptive change works. That YOU THINK that's how it works is a testament to Apple's legendary secrecy and internal refinement before the theatrical unveiling of the breakthrough new product on stage at Moscone Center. Apple does this so well, it makes it seem like innovation is so easy, so commonplace: it's practically growing on innovation trees. You begin to expect it! Have you listened to yourself? "Where's my regularly scheduled breakthrough?" you impatiently demand. "If Apple doesn't blow us away 2013, it's the 80s all over again!" You proclaim yourself a "realist." Is that a realistic expectation? For any company? Let alone Steve Jobs' Chocolate Factory?
Or is it more realistic for big disruptive breakthroughs to come a long every once in a while, and for released, mature products to see only incremental changes? Steve Jobs said it himself at the unveiling of the iPhone, that Apple was truly lucky that it could bring the first Mac, the iPod, and now (then) the iPhone, the first touch phone to market. Three disruptive products in 30 years. (Then three years later the iPad could be considered a disruptive product, but one can argue it's essentially the iPhone, but larger). These disruptive changes don't happen every year, and you can't expect when the next one will happen. It's completely unrealistic. You can stick a time table out there and demand Apple follow it, but that's not how it works.
But even in the "mature" product categories, Apple is aggressively pursuing incremental changes at a rapid pace. Look at the Mac: Thunderbolt. SSD standard. Retina Displays. Bonded IPS screens. Ginormous batteries. Super thin and light profiles. Optical drives jettisoned. And look, The MacBook Air is dragging the rest of the PC laptop industry along with the Ultrabook clones. Oh, but I guess Apple "stands to lose its image a a great leader" (according to you) because the MacBook Air is merely "nifty." Uh, right. So nifty, EVERYONE THAT ISN'T APPLE IS TRYING TO CLONE IT. Poorly and cheaply, I might add. If I didn't know any better, I'd say all these changes add up to leadership in an otherwise "done" product category: the personal computer.
So let's answer your QUESTION, the one you say has NOT been answered yet: who is the new Steve Jobs at Apple?
Nobody.
But Apple isn't doomed, and here's why: Steve Jobs wasn't the source of innovation at Apple. Steve's name isn't on every patent application. Steve was a two things: product tastemaker and focus. Focus is saying "no." Focus is knowing the right things to say "no" to. Companies like Google don't understand what "no" means, which is why they are spending money on, among other things, cars that drive themselves and aug-reality nerd goggles. But theirs is a completely dissimilar approach, I know (and I don't really want to use this post to talk about Google).
Jony Ive has the tastemaker part covered. He's been there for years, and Apple's products reflect his and Steve Jobs' values.
Focus. I believe under Tim Cook, Apple has remained focused. They haven't gone off and exploded into every which product niche with bloated confusing product lines the way Apple did under John Sculley. The way Samsung does with its dozens of phones. Apple has apparently continued to say "no" to some very obvious niches, like ginormous phone screens and cheap iPhones.
Innovation came from lots of hard working people at Apple. Many of them you never heard of. Steve didn't invent Multitouch, or The App Store, or iTunes Music Store, or the iPod click-wheel, or The Apple Retail Stores, or any of the big disruptive ideas from Apple. He could look at a novel idea or new technology and see where that product was going to be in 5, 10 years. (You only had to hear Steve describe something very similar to iCloud way back in 1997 to realize his far future grasp). Granted, that "visionary" role is hard to replace, but the visionary isn't the source of innovation; the visionary merely exploits and directs it.
The bottom line is, I think you're way overstating Steve Jobs' role at Apple, and you're wrong to assume that a "disruptive gene" exists only in a single figurehead. Steve put a system in place, namely Apple University, to teach the next generation of Apple leaders the lessons and values of the Steve Jobs CEO era. That's where the disruptive "gene" is: it lives on with the people who have journeyed down this road with Steve, and just 15 months after his death, it's a little premature to start proclaiming those who disagree with you "in denial" of Apple supposed doom.
I think the Mini is popular because of its lack of weight, not necessarily its small screen. Steve was right about screen size and still is. The iPad, while remarkably light for what it is, is still too heavy for it's usage model (blobbing out on the couch holding it with one hand).
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics
Ives refines things. Cook manages things. Schiller markets things. Etc. But who at Apple is going to come up with and shepherd the next NEW THING from concept to roll-out as Jobs did - often having to roll over internal opposition in the process - at least 4 or 5 times?
I think they should hire back Forstall. Cook fired him because Apple's strength is that all their products work well together, so to better do that, all their management should work well together. Except one thing: that doesn't follow. The CEO must have a picture in his head of how everything with integrate, and consciously and deliberately make it happen, it won't somehow arise organically through an environment of increased cooperation.
Thank you all for your input. I do wanna continue this convo - except I'm just going to leave the longest reply alone - 'cos dude and I seem pretty much on too far separated levels of viewing the world to ever reach any real state of Glasnost or rapproachment, but I do appreciate someone thinking I'm worth the refutation. I prefer getting into someone's head and provoking an exchange in search of new synergistic understanding than simply getting under someone's skin. But might as well view the latter as a consolation prize I suppose.
Welllll, I will say this: If S. Newt (get it?) thinks I've followed Apple since before it was Apple and for all these years and loves me Mac, and support other people on Macs because I'm an Android troll, well that would make my point. I'm all about Apple kicking Google and Samsung ass. They my team.
And this IS my way of being supportive - or trying to be. Whatev', y'know? S'a free forum.
Still (one more jab and out, promise) his tone is too snarky. I keep trying but can't break thru the disdain and have to avert my gaze. Jus' sayin'.... ...and STILL appreciated. Plus there are some good points in there (when he got off me, it was more interesting for sure. I'm not interesting. The future of Apple IS). I just personally don't play the diss game with anybody who plays it any harder than I am right now.
But as for the rest of your nuanced replies, cool. Interesting. Trenchant. Worth engaging. Stuff like that. People willing to even consider the notion that all is not necessarily optimally optimal for Apple in the developing trends of how they're dealing with transition and new competitors and they with Apple, are yes, the realists around here. 'Cos there's evidence those trends are more than "blips."
However, bizzy, bizzy, bizzy so watch yer thread digests and I'll like as not have something to say in a day or three.
Reminder to self: Remember to bring in the concept of "safactioncey" (not my own invention - but very likely misspelled. Read the article decades ago. On dead trees. And, no. Computers are not more ecological than books, newspapers, magazines. Whole other topic. Interesting too, though. Read about it on this very series of pipes. Too bad - so many things to ramble about on the web, so little time..... ...but the concept mentioned does relate to the present topic.
Also wanna bring in perspective by looking at the history of highly successful companies after losing their charismatic leaders over the decades. E.g. IBM after the long reign of Thomas Watson and then his son. Ford after Ford. There are plenty of case studies - and patterns emerge from the study of them. The past doesn't have to be prologue - but damn, it usually is. And now being written in real-time before us the Apple after Jobs chapter of business text books twenty years from now. Outcome TBD....
And seriously - I think the point I'm trying to make is relevant, maybe even urgent at base, even if off the mark in some particulars. I'm just a guy with a keyboard, a long-time tech fetish and another life too.
Bye.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alcstarheel
I you read Isaacson's book you'll read that Jony and others have come up with ideas way before Steve and had to beat him over the head until he agreed. Then of course when he agreed he championed the idea like he was in that same camp the whole time (one of his unique qualities). So to say that since Steve is gone no one is coming up with those ideas is wrong.
No one else outside of Ive has the cachet to be wrong, wrong, wrong and then instantly right like Steve had but we can't act like all Steve's decisions/insights/ideas/disruptions were always unequivocally correct and that he wasn't pushed into anything by anyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Take a peek at this 18 minute monologue on Why, How, What from Simon Sineks' How great leaders inspire and think about it for a minute. You might surprise yourself with your own conclusion.
http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html
My reaction to your post is strange: while I fully understand what you mean, agree in many parts, I still think you're wrong. Can't put my finger on it, perhaps it has to do with that Ted Talk: take a peek and post back please.
One simple thing to point out, totally meaningless, but ok, the SD card slot on the back...I have a MacMini and use the slot on the back a lot and it's a total non-issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
If you simply crave someone to agree with your point of view, there are plenty of pro-Android/tech elites sites that cater to that point of view. I simply don't understand anyone coming here and then finding people who disagree with you and then throwing your hands up in disgust and complaining there aren't enough "realists" here. That's a indirect way criticizing people who don't agree with your as what? Living in a reality distortion field? Is that what you want to say?
Your post is essentially: Steve Jobs is dead, and the "disruptive gene" went with him, and here is my "proof": Apple has only made incremental changes in 2012! If Apple doesn't renew it's "cachet as disruptor and true innovator" every year, I'm going to declare the SKY IS FALLING and ITS THE 80S ALL OVER AGAIN.
Maybe.
Except. Except. Except...
That's not how disruptive change works. That YOU THINK that's how it works is a testament to Apple's legendary secrecy and internal refinement before the theatrical unveiling of the breakthrough new product on stage at Moscone Center. Apple does this so well, it makes it seem like innovation is so easy, so commonplace: it's practically growing on innovation trees. You begin to expect it! Have you listened to yourself? "Where's my regularly scheduled breakthrough?" you impatiently demand. "If Apple doesn't blow us away 2013, it's the 80s all over again!" You proclaim yourself a "realist." Is that a realistic expectation? For any company? Let alone Steve Jobs' Chocolate Factory?
Or is it more realistic for big disruptive breakthroughs to come a long every once in a while, and for released, mature products to see only incremental changes? Steve Jobs said it himself at the unveiling of the iPhone, that Apple was truly lucky that it could bring the first Mac, the iPod, and now (then) the iPhone, the first touch phone to market. Three disruptive products in 30 years. (Then three years later the iPad could be considered a disruptive product, but one can argue it's essentially the iPhone, but larger). These disruptive changes don't happen every year, and you can't expect when the next one will happen. It's completely unrealistic. You can stick a time table out there and demand Apple follow it, but that's not how it works.
But even in the "mature" product categories, Apple is aggressively pursuing incremental changes at a rapid pace. Look at the Mac: Thunderbolt. SSD standard. Retina Displays. Bonded IPS screens. Ginormous batteries. Super thin and light profiles. Optical drives jettisoned. And look, The MacBook Air is dragging the rest of the PC laptop industry along with the Ultrabook clones. Oh, but I guess Apple "stands to lose its image a a great leader" (according to you) because the MacBook Air is merely "nifty." Uh, right. So nifty, EVERYONE THAT ISN'T APPLE IS TRYING TO CLONE IT. Poorly and cheaply, I might add. If I didn't know any better, I'd say all these changes add up to leadership in an otherwise "done" product category: the personal computer.
So let's answer your QUESTION, the one you say has NOT been answered yet: who is the new Steve Jobs at Apple?
Nobody.
But Apple isn't doomed, and here's why: Steve Jobs wasn't the source of innovation at Apple. Steve's name isn't on every patent application. Steve was a two things: product tastemaker and focus. Focus is saying "no." Focus is knowing the right things to say "no" to. Companies like Google don't understand what "no" means, which is why they are spending money on, among other things, cars that drive themselves and aug-reality nerd goggles. But theirs is a completely dissimilar approach, I know (and I don't really want to use this post to talk about Google).
Jony Ive has the tastemaker part covered. He's been there for years, and Apple's products reflect his and Steve Jobs' values.
Focus. I believe under Tim Cook, Apple has remained focused. They haven't gone off and exploded into every which product niche with bloated confusing product lines the way Apple did under John Sculley. The way Samsung does with its dozens of phones. Apple has apparently continued to say "no" to some very obvious niches, like ginormous phone screens and cheap iPhones.
Innovation came from lots of hard working people at Apple. Many of them you never heard of. Steve didn't invent Multitouch, or The App Store, or iTunes Music Store, or the iPod click-wheel, or The Apple Retail Stores, or any of the big disruptive ideas from Apple. He could look at a novel idea or new technology and see where that product was going to be in 5, 10 years. (You only had to hear Steve describe something very similar to iCloud way back in 1997 to realize his far future grasp). Granted, that "visionary" role is hard to replace, but the visionary isn't the source of innovation; the visionary merely exploits and directs it.
The bottom line is, I think you're way overstating Steve Jobs' role at Apple, and you're wrong to assume that a "disruptive gene" exists only in a single figurehead. Steve put a system in place, namely Apple University, to teach the next generation of Apple leaders the lessons and values of the Steve Jobs CEO era. That's where the disruptive "gene" is: it lives on with the people who have journeyed down this road with Steve, and just 15 months after his death, it's a little premature to start proclaiming those who disagree with you "in denial" of Apple supposed doom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
I think they should hire back Forstall. Cook fired him because Apple's strength is that all their products work well together, so to better do that, all their management should work well together. Except one thing: that doesn't follow. The CEO must have a picture in his head of how everything with integrate, and consciously and deliberately make it happen, it won't somehow arise organically through an environment of increased cooperation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
I'm curious what you use a Mini for that another model wouldn't work better for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics
Still (one more jab and out, promise) his tone is too snarky. I keep trying but can't break thru the disdain and have to avert my gaze. Jus' sayin'....
He can be snarky, but he can be funny too. Is it really worth getting this angry about? You're losing minutes of your life by stressing yourselves like this ^^
Go enjoy a Jopen
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010
Samsung development meetings:
So what could copy this quarter? Anybody?
Sony is coming out with a 46" TV, let's make one that is 47"
Next...
iPad Mini seems to be selling well...
What size was it?
7.9".
Let's make one at 8", and we will call it Galaxy Note 8!
Next...
Samsung already had a 7.7" a year prior and a 8.9" two years prior, I believe in the case of the Mini Apple was following the Android market as the 7" tablets seem to be the most popular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac2
I agree with you, having an "Official" HW and SW solution for a pressure sensitive digitalizer would be great. But I still think Apple as follow the right path by not giving choice for developers of having mandatory touch input UI. Too many Palms and PC Tablet applications has being wrongly created around a Pen driven UI, which is a pain in the a...
I also don't think the UI should be built around a pen as I love using my finger but having the extra capability is still pretty awesome, even in 2013. I fill out all of my forms this way by downloading the PDF and then writing in the blanks, i.e. taxes, I hate paper. The other day I was walking out of the grocery store and was cornered by a GreenPeace rep, I stopped because she was using a Samsung Note 10.1 with a custom petition program that allowed for hand written data. It would be nothing for Apple to add this to their existing lineup but I also enjoy my Android and Windows 8 tablet so it's not a priority for me. One product can't do everything but you would think with all of those drawing apps in the Apple Store they could defiantly benefit from a pen, sorry but those big rubber passive pens suck, a whole lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It would be interesting to know how many Note users take advantage of the digitizer. It seems to have merit even if it will be a seldom-used option on the device.
That's a good question, I use my pen mostly to jot down ideas and for my grocery list. I also find it useful when I need to add additional info to Google Map directions. The coolest thing is when I fill out PDF forms, I never print them out I just fill them in directly on the screen. I also live in a cold area so its nice to be able to use the phone without removing my gloves. It's become a very nice feature to have and as long as Samsung doesn't screw it up I think I will continue with the series. I would like to play with the Sony though, sounds like in incredible phone.