I didn't care for the undertone of this article at all. A bit of a hit piece, IMO. And why throw in gossip about Ive allegedly buying Steve's private jet from his family? Don't see what the point of that was. The worst though is the covers they used. Awful font and awkward photos of Tim.
Yup. All of the author's asides and specious assumptions/conclusions sounded like bullshit, as well as his attempts to "fill in the gaps". Oh, and I loved this line:
"Apple doesn’t have a stellar track record when it comes to making easy-to-use services."
Apple? Easy to use? Yeah, horrible track record there. Just horrible.
Yup. All of the author's asides and specious assumptions/conclusions sounded like bullshit, as well as his attempts to "fill in the gaps". Oh, and I loved this line:
"Apple doesn’t have a stellar track record when it comes to making easy-to-use services."
Apple? Easy to use? Yeah, horrible track record there. Just horrible.
I couldn't disagree with the examples they gave though. iTunes is definetly not easy to use and could use MASSIVELY overhaul.
What always frosts my hind end is that these ‘critics’ that claim Apple has lost its innovation without Jobs are the same ones who claimed Jobs was hurting the company with his style of management.
What is the problem with these critics (and trolls) who hover around Apple like vultures waiting for something go wrong so they can attack. No other company that I know of has this “cadre of the macabre” following them around, ghouls and poltergeists haunting the streets of Cupertino in order to watch for failure.
Yep. The whole undercurrent of this article was that Apple is doomed because everyone from engineering to the janitor is involve with products whereas under Jobs if was small laser focused teams doing revolutionary things. Of course they don't point out the fact that Apple is so much bigger than it ever was under Jobs. Apple's quarterly profits are as much if not more than what Apple earned in an entire year during the early years of Apple 2.0. It's impossible to run a company with $180B in revenues like a small start up just focusing on a small number of products.
Sometimes a company finds a limit where one strong central leader is holding it back. If that was the case with Jobs, Apple grew a whole lot more than ever seen in history before Jobs started to top out. Meanwhile, with Steve Ballmer, he started holding MS back the day he took over. Uncle Fester could dance, but then was only able to handle one word over and over.
Yup. All of the author's asides and specious assumptions/conclusions sounded like bullshit, as well as his attempts to "fill in the gaps". Oh, and I loved this line:
"Apple doesn’t have a stellar track record when it comes to making easy-to-use services."
Apple? Easy to use? Yeah, horrible track record there. Just horrible.
I couldn't disagree with the examples they gave though. iTunes is definetly not easy to use and could use MASSIVELY overhaul.
iTunes needs a new name. Music is now only a tiny part of what you can get there. I'd like them to rename it "An app where you can buy anything worth owning." Subtitled: "iShit" ... Arlo Guthrie's song playing in the background... yeah, you know the one!
Remember what Steve said at the iPhone debut in 2007, "Every once in a while a revolutionary product comes along that changes everything. One is very fortunate if you get to work on just one of these in your career..."
2007 iPhone Keynote:
The iPod, iPhone and iPad spoiled many who write about tech. They promote unrealistic expectations and spew their "disappointments" when Apple doesn't deliver. Innovation has always been evolutionary. Revolutionary interfaces and products are measured in decades, not yearly upgrades.
1984: Macintosh Mouse > 2001: iPod Click Wheel > 2007: iPhone Finger Gestures > 2010: Siri Intelligent Voice Recognition (growing more personal and utilitarian) > 2014: Apple Watch Digital Crown (to be determined)
I didn't care for the undertone of this article at all. A bit of a hit piece, IMO. And why throw in gossip about Ive allegedly buying Steve's private jet from his family? Don't see what the point of that was. The worst though is the covers they used. Awful font and awkward photos of Tim.
Yup. All of the author's asides and specious assumptions/conclusions sounded like bullshit, as well as his attempts to "fill in the gaps". Oh, and I loved this line:
"Apple doesn’t have a stellar track record when it comes to making easy-to-use services."
Apple? Easy to use? Yeah, horrible track record there. Just horrible.
Even God dropped the ball on an "easy user interface" when he created Man 2.0, known as Eve. He's had a problem with every even-numbered release since then too.
Remember what Steve said at the iPhone debut in 2007, "Every once in a while a revolutionary product comes along that changes everything. One is very fortunate if you get to work on just one of these in your career..."
2007 iPhone Keynote:
The iPod, iPhone and iPad spoiled many who write about tech. They promote unrealistic expectations and spew their "disappointments" when Apple doesn't deliver. Innovation has always been evolutionary. Revolutionary interfaces and products are measured in decades, not yearly upgrades.
1984: Macintosh Mouse > 2001: iPod Click Wheel > 2007: iPhone Finger Gestures > 2010: Siri Intelligent Voice Recognition (growing more personal and utilitarian) > 2014: Apple Watch Digital Crown (to be determined)
Before Apple we enjoyed the invention of the typewriter keyboard, 1860s and the rotary dial phone, 1904 (in it's most recent incarnation).
That leaves another approx 40 year gap for the teletype in the 1940s before another 40 year leap to the mouse. Apple sure has sped things up a bit!
Yep. The whole undercurrent of this article was that Apple is doomed because everyone from engineering to the janitor is involve with products whereas under Jobs if was small laser focused teams doing revolutionary things. Of course they don't point out the fact that Apple is so much bigger than it ever was under Jobs. Apple's quarterly profits are as much if not more than what Apple earned in an entire year during the early years of Apple 2.0. It's impossible to run a company with $180B in revenues like a small start up just focusing on a small number of products.
I was thinking about my prediction days before the announcements a week ago, when I was adding Apple 3.0 to all my posts. Was that you that used Apple 3.0 first?
Because I'm actually thinking that it should be Apple 4.0.
1) Macintosh
2) iPod
3) iPhone/iPad - iOS
4) Apple ID Personally Integrated Services and Wearables
Bloomberg article is a trash bin of contempt and traditional false "opinions" of the SJ years and what made Apple tick... that happens to contain a few wadded up "tid-bits" of real information about the new Apple era under Tim Cook. Take away: they still don't understand Apple!!! How pathetic is that for a business publication?!
Most striking is the intentional horrible photos accompanying the article of Tim Cook. Ever single one "intentionally" photographed, and chosen in trying to portrait TC as "squinty-eyed with a greedy lecherous smile" (insets of text point to that intention). Hell... they're even all cropped wrong. Geordie Wood does better work than that, so it's obviously the editor's intentions. :grumble:
I was thinking about my prediction days before the announcements a week ago, when I was adding Apple 3.0 to all my posts. Was that you that used Apple 3.0 first?
Because I'm actually thinking that it should be Apple 4.0.
1) Macintosh
2) iPod
3) iPhone/iPad - iOS
4) Apple ID Personally Integrated Services and Wearables
Thoughts?
I suppose it is Apple 4.0 as you have Apple before Jobs left, after he left, when he came back and now the Cook era.
1. The thing about Steve's plane is true. Ive confirmed it.
2. The yacht still belongs to, and is used by, Steve's family. I guess they're happier cruising rather than being jet-setters (ha!).
3. "Font" of knowledge/wisdom/trivia is an acceptable spelling, but "fount" is better because then people can't make lousy jokes about it. At least nobody suggested Comic Sans, that's an improvement ...
Bloomberg article is a trash bin of contempt and traditional false "opinions" of the SJ years and what made Apple tick... that happens to contain a few wadded up "tid-bits" of real information about the new Apple era under Tim Cook. Take away: they still don't understand Apple!!! How pathetic is that for a business publication?!
Most striking is the intentional horrible photos accompanying the article of Tim Cook. Ever single one "intentionally" photographed, and chosen in trying to portrait TC as "squinty-eyed with a greedy lecherous smile" (insets of text point to that intention). Hell... they're even all cropped wrong. Geordie Wood does better work than that, so it's obviously the editor's intentions. :grumble:
Everything about it is awful. Apple should quit giving Bloomberg exclusive interviews.
Love this tweet from Tim Bradshaw who works for the Financial Times.
Tim Bradshaw Consumer Technology Reporter about 17 hours ago In product reviews, Cook "asks managers pointed questions about spending & hiring projections" businessweek.com/articles/2014-… This is controversial?
Plus look at the effort he put into this one to make sure it wasn't a frown:
They must have used a fast shutter speed because people who aren't used to that can't hold it long. What he's wearing looks like his usual clothing but he normally puts shirts, tops and jackets over the t-shirt. His footwear is usually distracting with too much white in it. The less bulky, dark shoes look better. He's into fitness though so he could do with getting some darker and low profile / less bulky running shoes.
Comments
I didn't care for the undertone of this article at all. A bit of a hit piece, IMO. And why throw in gossip about Ive allegedly buying Steve's private jet from his family? Don't see what the point of that was. The worst though is the covers they used. Awful font and awkward photos of Tim.
Yup. All of the author's asides and specious assumptions/conclusions sounded like bullshit, as well as his attempts to "fill in the gaps". Oh, and I loved this line:
"Apple doesn’t have a stellar track record when it comes to making easy-to-use services."
Apple? Easy to use? Yeah, horrible track record there. Just horrible.
THANK YOU. Been asking fandroids this!!
I couldn't disagree with the examples they gave though. iTunes is definetly not easy to use and could use MASSIVELY overhaul.
What always frosts my hind end is that these ‘critics’ that claim Apple has lost its innovation without Jobs are the same ones who claimed Jobs was hurting the company with his style of management.
What is the problem with these critics (and trolls) who hover around Apple like vultures waiting for something go wrong so they can attack. No other company that I know of has this “cadre of the macabre” following them around, ghouls and poltergeists haunting the streets of Cupertino in order to watch for failure.
Yep. The whole undercurrent of this article was that Apple is doomed because everyone from engineering to the janitor is involve with products whereas under Jobs if was small laser focused teams doing revolutionary things. Of course they don't point out the fact that Apple is so much bigger than it ever was under Jobs. Apple's quarterly profits are as much if not more than what Apple earned in an entire year during the early years of Apple 2.0. It's impossible to run a company with $180B in revenues like a small start up just focusing on a small number of products.
Sometimes a company finds a limit where one strong central leader is holding it back. If that was the case with Jobs, Apple grew a whole lot more than ever seen in history before Jobs started to top out. Meanwhile, with Steve Ballmer, he started holding MS back the day he took over. Uncle Fester could dance, but then was only able to handle one word over and over.
Yup. All of the author's asides and specious assumptions/conclusions sounded like bullshit, as well as his attempts to "fill in the gaps". Oh, and I loved this line:
"Apple doesn’t have a stellar track record when it comes to making easy-to-use services."
Apple? Easy to use? Yeah, horrible track record there. Just horrible.
I couldn't disagree with the examples they gave though. iTunes is definetly not easy to use and could use MASSIVELY overhaul.
iTunes needs a new name. Music is now only a tiny part of what you can get there. I'd like them to rename it "An app where you can buy anything worth owning." Subtitled: "iShit" ... Arlo Guthrie's song playing in the background... yeah, you know the one!
maybe this one:
Isn't that former Levi's location the new location of Apple's Flagship San Francisco Union Square store? How apropos.
Yeah, and that's the font that wouldn't be moved. The only thing the city fathers of San Francisco has agreed on since mid-last-century.
Remember what Steve said at the iPhone debut in 2007, "Every once in a while a revolutionary product comes along that changes everything. One is very fortunate if you get to work on just one of these in your career..."
2007 iPhone Keynote:
The iPod, iPhone and iPad spoiled many who write about tech. They promote unrealistic expectations and spew their "disappointments" when Apple doesn't deliver. Innovation has always been evolutionary. Revolutionary interfaces and products are measured in decades, not yearly upgrades.
1984: Macintosh Mouse > 2001: iPod Click Wheel > 2007: iPhone Finger Gestures > 2010: Siri Intelligent Voice Recognition (growing more personal and utilitarian) > 2014: Apple Watch Digital Crown (to be determined)
I didn't care for the undertone of this article at all. A bit of a hit piece, IMO. And why throw in gossip about Ive allegedly buying Steve's private jet from his family? Don't see what the point of that was. The worst though is the covers they used. Awful font and awkward photos of Tim.
Yup. All of the author's asides and specious assumptions/conclusions sounded like bullshit, as well as his attempts to "fill in the gaps". Oh, and I loved this line:
"Apple doesn’t have a stellar track record when it comes to making easy-to-use services."
Apple? Easy to use? Yeah, horrible track record there. Just horrible.
Even God dropped the ball on an "easy user interface" when he created Man 2.0, known as Eve. He's had a problem with every even-numbered release since then too.
Remember what Steve said at the iPhone debut in 2007, "Every once in a while a revolutionary product comes along that changes everything. One is very fortunate if you get to work on just one of these in your career..."
2007 iPhone Keynote:
The iPod, iPhone and iPad spoiled many who write about tech. They promote unrealistic expectations and spew their "disappointments" when Apple doesn't deliver. Innovation has always been evolutionary. Revolutionary interfaces and products are measured in decades, not yearly upgrades.
1984: Macintosh Mouse > 2001: iPod Click Wheel > 2007: iPhone Finger Gestures > 2010: Siri Intelligent Voice Recognition (growing more personal and utilitarian) > 2014: Apple Watch Digital Crown (to be determined)
Before Apple we enjoyed the invention of the typewriter keyboard, 1860s and the rotary dial phone, 1904 (in it's most recent incarnation).
That leaves another approx 40 year gap for the teletype in the 1940s before another 40 year leap to the mouse. Apple sure has sped things up a bit!
I was thinking about my prediction days before the announcements a week ago, when I was adding Apple 3.0 to all my posts. Was that you that used Apple 3.0 first?
Because I'm actually thinking that it should be Apple 4.0.
1) Macintosh
2) iPod
3) iPhone/iPad - iOS
4) Apple ID Personally Integrated Services and Wearables
Thoughts?
Most striking is the intentional horrible photos accompanying the article of Tim Cook. Ever single one "intentionally" photographed, and chosen in trying to portrait TC as "squinty-eyed with a greedy lecherous smile" (insets of text point to that intention). Hell... they're even all cropped wrong. Geordie Wood does better work than that, so it's obviously the editor's intentions. :grumble:
Today it's in Barcelona.
Everything about it is awful. Apple should quit giving Bloomberg exclusive interviews.
There must be an "Ive got a lovely pair of coconuts" / Benny Hill joke that would also be apropos at this time. ????
Tim Bradshaw Consumer Technology Reporter about 17 hours ago
In product reviews, Cook "asks managers pointed questions about spending & hiring projections" businessweek.com/articles/2014-… This is controversial?
Awful font and awkward photos of Tim.
Tim looks pretty buff in this picture...
Plus look at the effort he put into this one to make sure it wasn't a frown:
They must have used a fast shutter speed because people who aren't used to that can't hold it long. What he's wearing looks like his usual clothing but he normally puts shirts, tops and jackets over the t-shirt. His footwear is usually distracting with too much white in it. The less bulky, dark shoes look better. He's into fitness though so he could do with getting some darker and low profile / less bulky running shoes.