There are literally hundreds of millions of Apple users out there worldwide. I've never encountered any one of them who asked what brand to buy when considering an upgrade to a computer, tablet, smart phone, or smart watch. They only ever ask which Apple model to purchase. Apple's brand loyalty is the envy of all their competitors.
We've seen negative articles like the one from this WSJ clown over the years. These naysayers almost always have a Windows PC on their desk, an Android phone in their pocket, and an advanced case of product envy.
The iPhones are indistinguishable from Androids in the way they look. There were 0 interesting inventive breakthrough designs coming from Apple in the last 10 years. Everything is derivative, incremental, safe. Good, but far from insanely great. Nobody has the balls to go out on the limb and dare. They do know how to maximize profits, god bless them, but so what? 50 years from now, nobody will care how much money Apple made under Tim Cook. The stuff SJ did was timeless.
One can't help but wonder if the reason Cook is so pissed off is because the article bears a grain of truth.
The more you refute, the more people suspect that it must be true.
This article may have been crap, but it did capture the essence of how the company changed from something insanely great to ordinary and well run.
In 2017 Apple radically changed the form and entire navigation model with iPhone X.
Mickle’s article is classic cult psychology: say two things that are true and then lie once. Over and over.
It doesn’t capture any essence. It just allows people to change their memories of how things were and accept a new history full of made up bullshit.
The iPhones are indistinguishable from Androids in the way they look. There were 0 interesting inventive breakthrough designs coming from Apple in the last 10 years. Everything is derivative, incremental, safe. Good, but far from insanely great. Nobody has the balls to go out on the limb and dare. They do know how to maximize profits, god bless them, but so what? 50 years from now, nobody will care how much money Apple made under Tim Cook. The stuff SJ did was timeless.
One can't help but wonder if the reason Cook is so pissed off is because the article bears a grain of truth.
The more you refute, the more people suspect that it must be true.
This article may have been crap, but it did capture the essence of how the company changed from something insanely great to ordinary and well run.
Errrnnnt! Iterative product development is how Apple rolls, and has for decades. Gruber wrote about this almost a decade ago. Read up.
...iterative product development is the name of the game. It’s now we got from the original iPhone/Mac/Watch/whatever to the current versions, or iterations.
The stuff Jobs did was more attention grabbing because it was a young market then. First computers, and now mobile, have matured as product categories. They will not do change for change’s sake (release a triangle phone!) to alleviate you of boredom.
The original article was silly bullshit written by someone who doesn’t seem to understand Apple or even have good sources. Cook is a C-class executive and is barred from lying to investors, so I trust his setting the record straight completely.
SJ made waves not because the market was young... he created the market.
This kind of visionary thinking is missing now. Instead we get decisions that sometimes move backwards. iPhone X is a fine phone but it didn’t redefine a category. Taking the home button out saves money but creates a brick of a device under certain conditions. The notch is ugly and make UI cramped and lacking on top. I feel that there’s a chance in hell SJ would have approved the notch. Taking MagSafe out out saves money, and removes beautiful functionality that differentiated Apple. Four identical looking but not functionally identical ports in the new MacBook is confusing, underwhelming thinking.
These are not decisions from a company obsessed insanely great. They are good decisions if you want to make more money.
No, nothing wrong with incremental, but when that’s all there is, then it basically a slow downward spiral.
SJ made waves not because the market was young... he created the market.
This kind of visionary thinking is missing now. Instead we get decisions that sometimes move backwards. iPhone X is a fine phone but it didn’t redefine a category. Taking the home button out saves money but creates a brick of a device under certain conditions. The notch is ugly and make UI cramped and lacking on top. I feel that there’s a chance in hell SJ would have approved the notch. Taking MagSafe out out saves money, and removes beautiful functionality that differentiated Apple. Four identical looking but not functionally identical ports in the new MacBook is confusing, underwhelming thinking.
These are not decisions from a company obsessed insanely great. They are good decisions if you want to make more money.
No, nothing wrong with incremental, but when that’s all there is, then it basically a slow downward spiral.
So this isn’t about innovation, this is about you don’t like certain decisions Apple made.
The iPhones are indistinguishable from Androids in the way they look.
What I hate is that people expect Apple to release a revolutionary product annually while dismissing the knockoffs that follow Apple to the letter. "MiMoji".
SJ made waves not because the market was young... he created the market.
This kind of visionary thinking is missing now. Instead we get decisions that sometimes move backwards. iPhone X is a fine phone but it didn’t redefine a category. Taking the home button out saves money but creates a brick of a device under certain conditions. The notch is ugly and make UI cramped and lacking on top. I feel that there’s a chance in hell SJ would have approved the notch. Taking MagSafe out out saves money, and removes beautiful functionality that differentiated Apple. Four identical looking but not functionally identical ports in the new MacBook is confusing, underwhelming thinking.
These are not decisions from a company obsessed insanely great. They are good decisions if you want to make more money.
No, nothing wrong with incremental, but when that’s all there is, then it basically a slow downward spiral.
You seem completely unaware that the Android universe has made dozens of copycat models with a notch since Apple created a phone that used that practical form for housing front-side cameras and sensors.
“The WSJ hired a sportswriter with scant tech industry experience to interpret Apple's global supply chain.”
This!
I can only hope the staff at Apple reacts to the wholesale attributions of their efforts as that of a single person (Jony Ive) by working to prove these idiotic bloggers wrong.
It’s absurd to imagine Apple, or any business, would employ hundreds of people to sit around while one person produced all the design and direction. And yet this is what the idiots at WSJ and elsewhere would like us to believe with their ‘now-that-person-X-has-left-Apple-is-doomed’ storytelling.
And CNBC had Nilay Patel on today to discuss Cook’s letter. Nilay isn’t on the inside. He had no idea what’s going on inside the company. Another blowhard pontificating.
Speaking of Nilay, he's at it again with another article
"But I think that debate misses the point in a serious way. There is but one important question for Apple to answer as it enters its next phase, one that will reveal everything about the company’s priorities and how it designs its products. Here it is:"
"Will Apple compromise the user experience of the iPhone to sell services?"
"For years, Apple products have prioritized user experience over almost everything else, including and especially easy money. For every perceived limitation of an Apple product, there’s been a good argument that doing it the Apple way is simpler, easier, or more secure, and Apple has been richly rewarded for making those trade-offs.
APPLE HAS ALWAYS PICKED THE USER OVER CASH
The iPhone isn’t full of revenue-boosting bloatware. Macs don’t come festooned with wacky stickers advertising the chips inside. Safari doesn’t come preloaded with bookmarks to partner websites. Apple refuses to monetize the vast amount of user data it can collect, and in fact goes out of its way to avoid collecting it in the first place. Apple has always picked the user over cash, and users have in turn picked Apple.
These are not easy trade-offs to make, which is why virtually no other company makes them: Microsoft includes bloatware on its supposedly clean “signature” versions of Windows 10, and while Google devices are cleaner, hardware is but a side note to its dominant core business. But Apple’s entire business and brand are built on premium consumer products with a superior user experience, and the core of that superior user experience is not littering products with crap."
"t’s not like Apple is going to put Intel stickers on Macs, or preload some silly virus scanner on the iPhone. But will Apple degrade the user experience in order to push its own services? It’s a conflict that’s playing out as iPhone sales flatten out and the company explicitly shifts its focus to paid services across news, TV shows, games, payments (even a credit card!), and music. The temptation to boost those services by littering the iPhone with crap is growing stronger every day, and you can see some clear examples of Apple compromising user experience to drive them already:"
When someone says the truth about you and you don't like it, the best response is to pretend they said something else that isn't true and write a rebuttal to that. Cook's rebuttal is against the claim that Apple's design team is untalented, not against any claim the WSJ ever made. That's a pretty good indication the WSJ was spot on.
When Steve Jobs left the world and Apple, there were "rumors" start surfacing saying that Jony Ive has always been pissed off at Steve Jobs for that Jobs always took all the credits for things he created too. So...
SJ made waves not because the market was young... he created the market.
Which market, the PC? Nope. MP3 player? Nope. Smartphone? Nope. Tablet? Nope. Smart watch? Nope. So, which one?
This kind of visionary thinking is missing now. Instead we get decisions that sometimes move backwards. iPhone X is a fine phone but it didn’t redefine a category. Taking the home button out saves money but creates a brick of a device under certain conditions. The notch is ugly and make UI cramped and lacking on top. I feel that there’s a chance in hell SJ would have approved the notch.
It didn't redefine a category yet there are a dozen copycat designs out there. Brick? Under what conditions? Ugly is subjective, and nothing is cramped. It's a practical design compromise, and you have no idea what Steve Jobs would've done under any circumstances, and certainly not sure why you think he wouldn't have been fine with the design and engineering compromises that allowed Face ID to exist at this point. It's vastly superior to what came before.
Taking MagSafe out out saves money, and removes beautiful functionality that differentiated Apple. Four identical looking but not functionally identical ports in the new MacBook is confusing, underwhelming thinking.
What's with this "saves money" reasoning you're using? Apple never said that about MagSafe or the removal of the home button. Those changes happened for other legitimate design and engineering reasons. In this case, USB-C works great for power delivery, and is more flexible for numerous reasons — being able to charge from either side, get power delivered from a monitor or hub, eGPU, etc. Also, the four ports are functionally identical, so what are you even talking about? Sounds like you're the one with confusing, underwhelming thinking.
These are not decisions from a company obsessed insanely great. They are good decisions if you want to make more money.
They're both, and the latter follows the former as is plainly obvious from their earning reports.
When someone says the truth about you and you don't like it, the best response is to pretend they said something else that isn't true and write a rebuttal to that. Cook's rebuttal is against the claim that Apple's design team is untalented, not against any claim the WSJ ever made. That's a pretty good indication the WSJ was spot on.
But Mickle didn't say any "truth," he repeated well known things as if they were news and threw in his old jabs that are just false, as I pointed out over and over. If you can't read this article and walk away thinking that the WSJ prints "truth" about Apple. It's high drama nonsense with some factually toxic bombs thrown in.
Cook didn't issue a "rebuttal" he just described the article as absurd and not reflective of any reality at Apple. Demanding a "prove me wrong" rebuttal is a waste of time and an stab at attention seeking. Apple gave the WSJ nothing, Cook replied to NBC with a brief comment.
If somebody wrote up a ridiculous, lengthy article about you that called you a pedophile, would you run out and engage them with a dialog, offer up all of your calendar records and a detailed series of alibis, give them your bank statements, and offer up any other proof you could think up showing that you were not soliciting chidden, or would you just say they were full of shit, that nothing they said was even realistic, and briefly describe what you really do and move on?
The venom in this article is, itself, unprofessional. It"s a commited fanboy"s reply, rather embarrassing in its fawning tone. I mean, who cares what the WSJ writes? It makes no difference to Apple, it's not going to effect sales or have people resigning. People will continue to buy Apple, come what may.
But of course, Apple can rely upon its legion of hyper committed fans to jump to its defence, even when it's not required. It's part of the deal - full immersion, full commitment, full defence. Fanboys get to be part of the gang, get to pass their money onto Apple & in return Apple sell them expensive tech.
Can you cite any specific "venom" that you think is unprofessional?
I'm not at all embarrassed about the article.
Also, I sense a bit of contradiction between your sensitivity to AppleInsider and your casual "who cares what the WSJ writes?"
It's also not a "defense of Apple," which isn't necessary. It's a critique of bad journalism and the people who cheer for bad reporting that suits their biases. If you'd like to criticize my work, please do, but be specific and try to be entertaining while doing it. I don't mind a little venom if it is good work.
SJ made waves not because the market was young... he created the market.
This kind of visionary thinking is missing now. Instead we get decisions that sometimes move backwards. iPhone X is a fine phone but it didn’t redefine a category. Taking the home button out saves money but creates a brick of a device under certain conditions. The notch is ugly and make UI cramped and lacking on top. I feel that there’s a chance in hell SJ would have approved the notch. Taking MagSafe out out saves money, and removes beautiful functionality that differentiated Apple. Four identical looking but not functionally identical ports in the new MacBook is confusing, underwhelming thinking.
These are not decisions from a company obsessed insanely great. They are good decisions if you want to make more money.
No, nothing wrong with incremental, but when that’s all there is, then it basically a slow downward spiral.
Jobs did not create the mobile phone nor the smartphone. His team did produce a better one.
Replacing the Home button with FaceID did not save money, it cost more money.
The notch is no more a bother in real usage than a rear-view mirror is on a windshield.
MagSafe is unneeded on a 10-hour device, just like an iPad. The flexibility of charging via any USB-C is worth it. You can buy a bulky mag adapter if you like.
Four USB ports is confusing? What the hell are you on about now? Pure nonsense.
When someone says the truth about you and you don't like it, the best response is to pretend they said something else that isn't true and write a rebuttal to that. Cook's rebuttal is against the claim that Apple's design team is untalented, not against any claim the WSJ ever made. That's a pretty good indication the WSJ was spot on.
Then I guess you just did it — because Cook directly contradicts Trip Spittle’s claims. Reread.
Comments
Mickle’s article is classic cult psychology: say two things that are true and then lie once. Over and over.
It doesn’t capture any essence. It just allows people to change their memories of how things were and accept a new history full of made up bullshit.
The stuff Jobs did was more attention grabbing because it was a young market then. First computers, and now mobile, have matured as product categories. They will not do change for change’s sake (release a triangle phone!) to alleviate you of boredom.
The original article was silly bullshit written by someone who doesn’t seem to understand Apple or even have good sources. Cook is a C-class executive and is barred from lying to investors, so I trust his setting the record straight completely.
This kind of visionary thinking is missing now. Instead we get decisions that sometimes move backwards. iPhone X is a fine phone but it didn’t redefine a category. Taking the home button out saves money but creates a brick of a device under certain conditions. The notch is ugly and make UI cramped and lacking on top. I feel that there’s a chance in hell SJ would have approved the notch. Taking MagSafe out out saves money, and removes beautiful functionality that differentiated Apple. Four identical looking but not functionally identical ports in the new MacBook is confusing, underwhelming thinking.
These are not decisions from a company obsessed insanely great. They are good decisions if you want to make more money.
No, nothing wrong with incremental, but when that’s all there is, then it basically a slow downward spiral.
What I hate is that people expect Apple to release a revolutionary product annually while dismissing the knockoffs that follow Apple to the letter. "MiMoji".
Sorry but Apple will innovate when they need to.
This!
I can only hope the staff at Apple reacts to the wholesale attributions of their efforts as that of a single person (Jony Ive) by working to prove these idiotic bloggers wrong.
It’s absurd to imagine Apple, or any business, would employ hundreds of people to sit around while one person produced all the design and direction. And yet this is what the idiots at WSJ and elsewhere would like us to believe with their ‘now-that-person-X-has-left-Apple-is-doomed’ storytelling.
"But I think that debate misses the point in a serious way. There is but one important question for Apple to answer as it enters its next phase, one that will reveal everything about the company’s priorities and how it designs its products. Here it is:"
"Will Apple compromise the user experience of the iPhone to sell services?"
"For years, Apple products have prioritized user experience over almost everything else, including and especially easy money. For every perceived limitation of an Apple product, there’s been a good argument that doing it the Apple way is simpler, easier, or more secure, and Apple has been richly rewarded for making those trade-offs.
The iPhone isn’t full of revenue-boosting bloatware. Macs don’t come festooned with wacky stickers advertising the chips inside. Safari doesn’t come preloaded with bookmarks to partner websites. Apple refuses to monetize the vast amount of user data it can collect, and in fact goes out of its way to avoid collecting it in the first place. Apple has always picked the user over cash, and users have in turn picked Apple.
These are not easy trade-offs to make, which is why virtually no other company makes them: Microsoft includes bloatware on its supposedly clean “signature” versions of Windows 10, and while Google devices are cleaner, hardware is but a side note to its dominant core business. But Apple’s entire business and brand are built on premium consumer products with a superior user experience, and the core of that superior user experience is not littering products with crap."
"t’s not like Apple is going to put Intel stickers on Macs, or preload some silly virus scanner on the iPhone. But will Apple degrade the user experience in order to push its own services? It’s a conflict that’s playing out as iPhone sales flatten out and the company explicitly shifts its focus to paid services across news, TV shows, games, payments (even a credit card!), and music. The temptation to boost those services by littering the iPhone with crap is growing stronger every day, and you can see some clear examples of Apple compromising user experience to drive them already:"
https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/2/20679258/apple-future-services-iphone-experience-design-ceo-tim-cook
The WSJ may actually have a point about Cook seeing the Mac Pro for the first time in the hands-on area after the WWDC keynote.
What the rest of us saw at the keynote was the AR version of the Mac Pro on the stage next to Tim, like what they have now on the website!
/s
It didn't redefine a category yet there are a dozen copycat designs out there. Brick? Under what conditions? Ugly is subjective, and nothing is cramped. It's a practical design compromise, and you have no idea what Steve Jobs would've done under any circumstances, and certainly not sure why you think he wouldn't have been fine with the design and engineering compromises that allowed Face ID to exist at this point. It's vastly superior to what came before.
What's with this "saves money" reasoning you're using? Apple never said that about MagSafe or the removal of the home button. Those changes happened for other legitimate design and engineering reasons. In this case, USB-C works great for power delivery, and is more flexible for numerous reasons — being able to charge from either side, get power delivered from a monitor or hub, eGPU, etc. Also, the four ports are functionally identical, so what are you even talking about? Sounds like you're the one with confusing, underwhelming thinking.
They're both, and the latter follows the former as is plainly obvious from their earning reports.
Cook didn't issue a "rebuttal" he just described the article as absurd and not reflective of any reality at Apple. Demanding a "prove me wrong" rebuttal is a waste of time and an stab at attention seeking. Apple gave the WSJ nothing, Cook replied to NBC with a brief comment.
If somebody wrote up a ridiculous, lengthy article about you that called you a pedophile, would you run out and engage them with a dialog, offer up all of your calendar records and a detailed series of alibis, give them your bank statements, and offer up any other proof you could think up showing that you were not soliciting chidden, or would you just say they were full of shit, that nothing they said was even realistic, and briefly describe what you really do and move on?
I'm not at all embarrassed about the article.
Also, I sense a bit of contradiction between your sensitivity to AppleInsider and your casual "who cares what the WSJ writes?"
It's also not a "defense of Apple," which isn't necessary. It's a critique of bad journalism and the people who cheer for bad reporting that suits their biases. If you'd like to criticize my work, please do, but be specific and try to be entertaining while doing it. I don't mind a little venom if it is good work.
Replacing the Home button with FaceID did not save money, it cost more money.
The notch is no more a bother in real usage than a rear-view mirror is on a windshield.
MagSafe is unneeded on a 10-hour device, just like an iPad. The flexibility of charging via any USB-C is worth it. You can buy a bulky mag adapter if you like.
Four USB ports is confusing? What the hell are you on about now? Pure nonsense.
Just another APPLE IS DOOMED! trope.
Then I guess you just did it — because Cook directly contradicts Trip Spittle’s claims. Reread.