Look. There's plenty of people on these forums who criticize a lot of what Apple does. I'm one of them.
Then there are the people who appear to have some kind of emotional disorder which compels them to hang out on Apple-centric websites and alternate between endlessly whining about how if anyone dares to question the brilliance of their Lord and Master Jobs they will be crucified, and endlessly gloating about how stupid Apple is and how their products are basically a scam designed for the very mindless fan boys who are so quick to defend the company's every move.
Here's a hint: if you go onto an Apple enthusiast site and post variations of "Apple teh suxxor!!! LOL!! LOL!! Fan boys can't handle it!!!", you're going to get some negative feedback.
And then, of course, you can use such feedback to confirm to yourself that AI is a den of fanboys that tolerates no dissent and maintain a stance of wounded aggression.
Which appears to be the point, but, for my money, the whole dance is fucking stupid.
I don't remember hearing that. Who was saying that Apple was not going to diversify the iPod?
Samuel T. Johnson the 3rd, at precisely 10:46:17 am on January 31st, 2002. More references to follow.
Honestly T, back then some ppl did say (and I'm not saying this was specific to AI, but I wouldn't be floored if it had happened here too), "Gee, the iPod sure is neat. But it's so expensive at $399. Wish they'd make a lower-priced one."
And in classic Apple-crowd action, some thought it was a bad idea, and argued vehemently against it. Sound at all familiar? I mean, Apple fans would never say Apple should NOT go into lower-priced markets, right?
Quote:
Apple got into the mp3 market early enough to dominate it across the board. Apple set the tone for the mp3 market in a way its unable to in mobile phones. All iPod models make Apple direct profit, none are loss leaders for a long term service the way mobile phones are.
Great. Some would argue that, with mobile Safari, OS X, desktop-apps-on-a-phone, etc., Apple is "getting in early" on a whole new category of phone, and that they may be able to dominate there as well.
But even if one doesn't agree with that argument, it may not even be that pertinent... after all, Apple was in a MUCH weaker position a few years back. With their newfound clout, strong balance sheet, increasing marketshare in several areas, improved consumer mindshare, etc, perhaps Apple does not even need to 'get in early' in order to do well.
And I don't think anyone has suggested thus far that Apple release phones that are loss leaders... quite the contrary, I clearly stated that at "some level of price/profit, it may make sense for Apple to go after the broader market." End quote.
Quote:
We've seen clear example of how you can destroy your business going for the broader market.
Sure. Just as we've seen, with the iPod, how going for the broader market can pay off quite handsomely. Or heck, even the original iMac.
The problem is that not all of us agree its reasonable criticism.
No, the problem is, really, that people who criticize don't really care if someone else thinks it's "reasonable" criticism or not, and believe that forums should be about a free exchange of ideas. While some others think they have some sort of obligation to shout those folks down. Thus, long-drawn-out arguments, and often flamewars, ensue.
My posts, and everyone elses', are not subject to veto by you or anyone else except the mods, and only then if they involve insulting someone or trolling. And that is a very sound policy.
Now, AI is hardly unique in the regard that it is a site where ppl often attack others not for obvious trolling/obnoxiousness, but for simply disagreeing with them. But it definitely is one of the harsher/more annoying examples I've seen of this.
Quote:
The criticism is often qualified with "Apple would sell more iPhones if they had......" or "Apple is so stupid that they did not include every function that every other phone has". Their is no evidence this criticism is anything more than a single persons opinion.
Honestly... who CARES? Quite often when you post T, it is a single person's opinion. Is that bad too? Does that mean that you should not post unless you can get "x" number of people to agree with you first?
Quote:
Which does not mean Apple would have actually sold more phones.
Doesn't mean that they wouldn't have either. But again, who cares? It's an internet forum, not a mathematical proof.
Honestly T, you have some rather unusual ideas. If you held yourself to your own standards of what is and is not a valid post, I'd marvel if you posted at all, frankly.
And these forums would be a total buzzcrunch, if everyone needed consensus and what you consider 'proof' before daring to post anything. \
Here's a hint: if you go onto an Apple enthusiast site and post variations of "Apple teh suxxor!!! LOL!! LOL!! Fan boys can't handle it!!!", you're going to get some negative feedback.
And then, of course, you can use such feedback to confirm to yourself that AI is a den of fanboys that tolerates no dissent and maintain a stance of wounded aggression.
While that does happen occasionally, thing is, you can often get negative feedback for simply disagreeing with Apple, with absolutely no "Apple teh suxxorz!" involved.
Geez, I've seen other people called "moron" and worse simply for proposing that Apple make a certain product or do a certain thing, and it was pretty obvious that said person wasn't trolling or being a jerk about it.
I think a big problem with the AI forums (and many Mac forums in general) is that a significant subset of us still have a "bunker mentality" left over from the bad old "beleaguered Apple" days, where the media predicted Apple's death on a regular basis, and PC fantrolls regularly buzzed Mac forums en masse. I myself greatly enjoyed flaming the trolls and was an ironclad defender of all things Apple, down the line.
But those days are over. The media is quite pro-Apple now, and I hardly ever see a PC fantroll anymore... heck, I almost miss them, they're fun to play with.
Another aspect of it too may be coming from "bandwagoners", i.e. ppl who weren't Apple fans or who used to be PC fanbois but who've now been convinced that Apple is 'teh coolest', jumped on-board, and are pretty fanatical about it, yet are still aping their old, immature PC fanboi ways. What's the quote? "There's no bigger zealot than a convert."
Whatever the reason, there will always be those who confuse constructive criticism with trolling or attacks, particularly when they identify so strongly with a company and its philosophy- as many of us Apple fans do.
But if we don't want to seem like a pack of "Church of Apple" arseholes, maybe we should learn the diff between an Apple fan who simply doesn't agree with Steve-o on everything, or who wishes to play devil's advocate, and a true troll.
Some of seem to get that, and some of us seem to consistently epic fail in that regard.
In any case guys, I've said most of what I wanted to say on these issues, and as I don't have time to engage in AI's usual classic 100-post debate-fest, I'm going to do something practically unheard of on AI... I'm NOT going to argue any more about it. At least I'm going to try.
I mean, either you get what I said and acknowledge, even if you don't fully agree, that there's some validity in there (especially about the level of discourse at AI being a bit mean-spirited at times), or ya just don't. It's one of those "we fundamentally disagree on the nature of reality" -type arguments, and those never get resolved.
Whichever way you choose to take it, not much skin off my nose, as anyone who's familiar with me can attest. Lates.
Apple got into the mp3 market early enough to dominate it across the board. Apple set the tone for the mp3 market in a way its unable to in mobile phones. All iPod models make Apple direct profit, none are loss leaders for a long term service the way mobile phones are.
That market already seemed saturated. It only looked like a fledgling market in retrospect because Apple made it popular.
Phones are heavily subsidized but premium phones are not loss leaders for the manufacturers. This seems especially true for smartphones. I think Apple can use the same model for the smartphone market as it did with the PMP market... and I think we've already started seeing that happen. For instance, the popularity of smartphones is up across the board, not just with the iPhone. Part of it from the other OEMs actively working on new smartphones that are for normal people, not just geeks and business users. The other part is that Apple looks to have made the smartphone a non-serious, non-geek item that is fun and useful.
The smartphone stigma is gone! Just like the PMP market which was well situated but not very popular to the general public, the smartphone market was well situated but not very popular to the general public.
Quote:
We've seen clear example of how you can destroy your business going for the broader market.
I think it is inevitable if you wish to grow your brand. Look at the iPod for an example. Now we have a $49 iPod (which i love for the gym/running) from the original 5GB at $400. But Apple won't just grow wildly, they will do it systematically and controlled.
That market already seemed saturated. It only looked like a fledgling market in retrospect because Apple made it popular.
Are you saying the PMP market was saturated? Here in NYC back in 2001 most people had discman or walkman. I can't remember anyone who had a hard drive based PMP.
From what I remember the iPod became common in 2004 when Apple released the iPod mini.
Quote:
I think it is inevitable if you wish to grow your brand. Look at the iPod for an example. Now we have a $49 iPod (which i love for the gym/running) from the original 5GB at $400. But Apple won't just grow wildly, they will do it systematically and controlled.
Exactly what would Apple do to differentiate another phone from the iPhone. The iPhone is already essentially a blank slate with which you can do whatever you want. You can make it as simple or as technical as you choose.
Are you saying the PMP market was saturated? Here in NYC back in 2001 most people had discman or walkman. I can't remember anyone who had a hard drive based PMP.
It's been a long time, but I know there was the original Nomad. I think it used a physically larger notebook hard drive and it looked like a portable CD player.
Compaq made one but I think they left the market before Apple got there.
I think what makes the iPhone a special case when it comes to diversifying the product line is that the combination of touch screen and portability are so integral to what the product is.
Much smaller and you lose the underlying premise of the UI; much larger and you lose the take with you everywhere portability.
The iPod maybe isn't a good reference point, since the click wheel and menu driven interface are so simple you can make it a bit smaller without losing any functionality, or, in the case of the Shuffle, you can eliminate the UI entirely and still retain the core functionality of a music player.
That really doesn't work with the iPhone, which is I think is the most significant example of tight hardware/software integration Apple has ever produced. For all intents and purposes, the device and the UI are the same thing, and changing one changes the other. Trying to whittle it down would be like Apple shipping a Mac with a screen that couldn't handle all of OS X's UI elements.
The only way I can see Apple expanding on the touch paradigm is with larger, more capable devices. That, of course, doesn't preclude selling a cheaper iPhone, at some point, but I think it looks pretty much like the current one.
As I've said before, I think Apple is a computer company that saw a way to make a little computer with a phone app that they could sell into the phone channel. That doesn't make them a phone company, and it doesn't oblige them to make an "iPhone nano" so they have something to offer in the range of vanilla flip phones, any more than they would see any need to ship a cheap "Mac" that acts like a dedicated email station.
The iPhone UI is a new platform and requires at least the screen real estate is has to be what it is. Apple may expand on the idea, but they're not going to lop off pieces of it to hit a price point.
I think what makes the iPhone a special case when it comes to diversifying the product line is that the combination of touch screen and portability are so integral to what the product is.
Much smaller and you lose the underlying premise of the UI; much larger and you lose the take with you everywhere portability.
The iPod maybe isn't a good reference point, since the click wheel and menu driven interface are so simple you can make it a bit smaller without losing any functionality, or, in the case of the Shuffle, you can eliminate the UI entirely and still retain the core functionality of a music player.
That really doesn't work with the iPhone, which is I think is the most significant example of tight hardware/software integration Apple has ever produced. For all intents and purposes, the device and the UI are the same thing, and changing one changes the other. Trying to whittle it down would be like Apple shipping a Mac with a screen that couldn't handle all of OS X's UI elements.
The only way I can see Apple expanding on the touch paradigm is with larger, more capable devices. That, of course, doesn't preclude selling a cheaper iPhone, at some point, but I think it looks pretty much like the current one.
As I've said before, I think Apple is a computer company that saw a way to make a little computer with a phone app that they could sell into the phone channel. That doesn't make them a phone company, and it doesn't oblige them to make an "iPhone nano" so they have something to offer in the range of vanilla flip phones, any more than they would see any need to ship a cheap "Mac" that acts like a dedicated email station.
The iPhone UI is a new platform and requires at least the screen real estate is has to be what it is. Apple may expand on the idea, but they're not going to lop off pieces of it to hit a price point.
I actually find myself somewhat agreeing with you for once. Apple diversifying the iPhone lineup would indeed *tend* to occur by releasing larger, more capable devices, say an 'iPhone Pro', while leaving the current model as the 'cheap(er) one'.
That said, there are some things that could be done to make the current model hit a lower pricepoint, such as going the Blackberry Storm route and reducing on-board storage to 1 or 2GB or so, but including a memory card slot.
MicroSD cards are up to 16GB now, so that's not really a sacrifice. If you need the storage, you simply buy it later, in whatever size you feel you need (and microSD card prices are dropping all the time ). If you don't, then you leave it as is, and save some $$$. Win-win, really, as the user gets what they want, and the iPhone gets to hit a lower pricepoint without really sacrificing functionality.
Also Apple would be advantaged in terms of inventory and production, since they'd only have to stock and make/order one model, instead of a lower-cap model (currently 8GB) and a 'high-cap' model (currently 16GB).
But, for some reason, Steve seems to be in love with internal storage, for reasons that probably don't matter all that much to the avg user. Access speed, perhaps? Never heard anyone complain about that from mem cards. Minimalism or space? MicroSD card slots are pretty darn tiny.
Comments
Then there are the people who appear to have some kind of emotional disorder which compels them to hang out on Apple-centric websites and alternate between endlessly whining about how if anyone dares to question the brilliance of their Lord and Master Jobs they will be crucified, and endlessly gloating about how stupid Apple is and how their products are basically a scam designed for the very mindless fan boys who are so quick to defend the company's every move.
Here's a hint: if you go onto an Apple enthusiast site and post variations of "Apple teh suxxor!!! LOL!! LOL!! Fan boys can't handle it!!!", you're going to get some negative feedback.
And then, of course, you can use such feedback to confirm to yourself that AI is a den of fanboys that tolerates no dissent and maintain a stance of wounded aggression.
Which appears to be the point, but, for my money, the whole dance is fucking stupid.
I don't remember hearing that. Who was saying that Apple was not going to diversify the iPod?
Samuel T. Johnson the 3rd, at precisely 10:46:17 am on January 31st, 2002. More references to follow.
Honestly T, back then some ppl did say (and I'm not saying this was specific to AI, but I wouldn't be floored if it had happened here too), "Gee, the iPod sure is neat. But it's so expensive at $399. Wish they'd make a lower-priced one."
And in classic Apple-crowd action, some thought it was a bad idea, and argued vehemently against it. Sound at all familiar? I mean, Apple fans would never say Apple should NOT go into lower-priced markets, right?
Apple got into the mp3 market early enough to dominate it across the board. Apple set the tone for the mp3 market in a way its unable to in mobile phones. All iPod models make Apple direct profit, none are loss leaders for a long term service the way mobile phones are.
Great. Some would argue that, with mobile Safari, OS X, desktop-apps-on-a-phone, etc., Apple is "getting in early" on a whole new category of phone, and that they may be able to dominate there as well.
But even if one doesn't agree with that argument, it may not even be that pertinent... after all, Apple was in a MUCH weaker position a few years back. With their newfound clout, strong balance sheet, increasing marketshare in several areas, improved consumer mindshare, etc, perhaps Apple does not even need to 'get in early' in order to do well.
And I don't think anyone has suggested thus far that Apple release phones that are loss leaders... quite the contrary, I clearly stated that at "some level of price/profit, it may make sense for Apple to go after the broader market." End quote.
We've seen clear example of how you can destroy your business going for the broader market.
Sure. Just as we've seen, with the iPod, how going for the broader market can pay off quite handsomely. Or heck, even the original iMac.
...
The problem is that not all of us agree its reasonable criticism.
No, the problem is, really, that people who criticize don't really care if someone else thinks it's "reasonable" criticism or not, and believe that forums should be about a free exchange of ideas. While some others think they have some sort of obligation to shout those folks down. Thus, long-drawn-out arguments, and often flamewars, ensue.
My posts, and everyone elses', are not subject to veto by you or anyone else except the mods, and only then if they involve insulting someone or trolling. And that is a very sound policy.
Now, AI is hardly unique in the regard that it is a site where ppl often attack others not for obvious trolling/obnoxiousness, but for simply disagreeing with them. But it definitely is one of the harsher/more annoying examples I've seen of this.
The criticism is often qualified with "Apple would sell more iPhones if they had......" or "Apple is so stupid that they did not include every function that every other phone has". Their is no evidence this criticism is anything more than a single persons opinion.
Honestly... who CARES? Quite often when you post T, it is a single person's opinion. Is that bad too? Does that mean that you should not post unless you can get "x" number of people to agree with you first?
Which does not mean Apple would have actually sold more phones.
Doesn't mean that they wouldn't have either. But again, who cares? It's an internet forum, not a mathematical proof.
Honestly T, you have some rather unusual ideas. If you held yourself to your own standards of what is and is not a valid post, I'd marvel if you posted at all, frankly.
And these forums would be a total buzzcrunch, if everyone needed consensus and what you consider 'proof' before daring to post anything.
...
Here's a hint: if you go onto an Apple enthusiast site and post variations of "Apple teh suxxor!!! LOL!! LOL!! Fan boys can't handle it!!!", you're going to get some negative feedback.
And then, of course, you can use such feedback to confirm to yourself that AI is a den of fanboys that tolerates no dissent and maintain a stance of wounded aggression.
While that does happen occasionally, thing is, you can often get negative feedback for simply disagreeing with Apple, with absolutely no "Apple teh suxxorz!" involved.
Geez, I've seen other people called "moron" and worse simply for proposing that Apple make a certain product or do a certain thing, and it was pretty obvious that said person wasn't trolling or being a jerk about it.
I think a big problem with the AI forums (and many Mac forums in general) is that a significant subset of us still have a "bunker mentality" left over from the bad old "beleaguered Apple" days, where the media predicted Apple's death on a regular basis, and PC fantrolls regularly buzzed Mac forums en masse. I myself greatly enjoyed flaming the trolls and was an ironclad defender of all things Apple, down the line.
But those days are over. The media is quite pro-Apple now, and I hardly ever see a PC fantroll anymore... heck, I almost miss them, they're fun to play with.
Another aspect of it too may be coming from "bandwagoners", i.e. ppl who weren't Apple fans or who used to be PC fanbois but who've now been convinced that Apple is 'teh coolest', jumped on-board, and are pretty fanatical about it, yet are still aping their old, immature PC fanboi ways. What's the quote? "There's no bigger zealot than a convert."
Whatever the reason, there will always be those who confuse constructive criticism with trolling or attacks, particularly when they identify so strongly with a company and its philosophy- as many of us Apple fans do.
But if we don't want to seem like a pack of "Church of Apple" arseholes, maybe we should learn the diff between an Apple fan who simply doesn't agree with Steve-o on everything, or who wishes to play devil's advocate, and a true troll.
Some of seem to get that, and some of us seem to consistently epic fail in that regard.
...
I mean, either you get what I said and acknowledge, even if you don't fully agree, that there's some validity in there (especially about the level of discourse at AI being a bit mean-spirited at times), or ya just don't. It's one of those "we fundamentally disagree on the nature of reality" -type arguments, and those never get resolved.
Whichever way you choose to take it, not much skin off my nose, as anyone who's familiar with me can attest. Lates.
...
Apple got into the mp3 market early enough to dominate it across the board. Apple set the tone for the mp3 market in a way its unable to in mobile phones. All iPod models make Apple direct profit, none are loss leaders for a long term service the way mobile phones are.
That market already seemed saturated. It only looked like a fledgling market in retrospect because Apple made it popular.
Phones are heavily subsidized but premium phones are not loss leaders for the manufacturers. This seems especially true for smartphones. I think Apple can use the same model for the smartphone market as it did with the PMP market... and I think we've already started seeing that happen. For instance, the popularity of smartphones is up across the board, not just with the iPhone. Part of it from the other OEMs actively working on new smartphones that are for normal people, not just geeks and business users. The other part is that Apple looks to have made the smartphone a non-serious, non-geek item that is fun and useful.
The smartphone stigma is gone! Just like the PMP market which was well situated but not very popular to the general public, the smartphone market was well situated but not very popular to the general public.
We've seen clear example of how you can destroy your business going for the broader market.
I think it is inevitable if you wish to grow your brand. Look at the iPod for an example. Now we have a $49 iPod (which i love for the gym/running) from the original 5GB at $400. But Apple won't just grow wildly, they will do it systematically and controlled.
That market already seemed saturated. It only looked like a fledgling market in retrospect because Apple made it popular.
Are you saying the PMP market was saturated? Here in NYC back in 2001 most people had discman or walkman. I can't remember anyone who had a hard drive based PMP.
From what I remember the iPod became common in 2004 when Apple released the iPod mini.
I think it is inevitable if you wish to grow your brand. Look at the iPod for an example. Now we have a $49 iPod (which i love for the gym/running) from the original 5GB at $400. But Apple won't just grow wildly, they will do it systematically and controlled.
Exactly what would Apple do to differentiate another phone from the iPhone. The iPhone is already essentially a blank slate with which you can do whatever you want. You can make it as simple or as technical as you choose.
Are you saying the PMP market was saturated? Here in NYC back in 2001 most people had discman or walkman. I can't remember anyone who had a hard drive based PMP.
It's been a long time, but I know there was the original Nomad. I think it used a physically larger notebook hard drive and it looked like a portable CD player.
Compaq made one but I think they left the market before Apple got there.
Much smaller and you lose the underlying premise of the UI; much larger and you lose the take with you everywhere portability.
The iPod maybe isn't a good reference point, since the click wheel and menu driven interface are so simple you can make it a bit smaller without losing any functionality, or, in the case of the Shuffle, you can eliminate the UI entirely and still retain the core functionality of a music player.
That really doesn't work with the iPhone, which is I think is the most significant example of tight hardware/software integration Apple has ever produced. For all intents and purposes, the device and the UI are the same thing, and changing one changes the other. Trying to whittle it down would be like Apple shipping a Mac with a screen that couldn't handle all of OS X's UI elements.
The only way I can see Apple expanding on the touch paradigm is with larger, more capable devices. That, of course, doesn't preclude selling a cheaper iPhone, at some point, but I think it looks pretty much like the current one.
As I've said before, I think Apple is a computer company that saw a way to make a little computer with a phone app that they could sell into the phone channel. That doesn't make them a phone company, and it doesn't oblige them to make an "iPhone nano" so they have something to offer in the range of vanilla flip phones, any more than they would see any need to ship a cheap "Mac" that acts like a dedicated email station.
The iPhone UI is a new platform and requires at least the screen real estate is has to be what it is. Apple may expand on the idea, but they're not going to lop off pieces of it to hit a price point.
I think what makes the iPhone a special case when it comes to diversifying the product line is that the combination of touch screen and portability are so integral to what the product is.
Much smaller and you lose the underlying premise of the UI; much larger and you lose the take with you everywhere portability.
The iPod maybe isn't a good reference point, since the click wheel and menu driven interface are so simple you can make it a bit smaller without losing any functionality, or, in the case of the Shuffle, you can eliminate the UI entirely and still retain the core functionality of a music player.
That really doesn't work with the iPhone, which is I think is the most significant example of tight hardware/software integration Apple has ever produced. For all intents and purposes, the device and the UI are the same thing, and changing one changes the other. Trying to whittle it down would be like Apple shipping a Mac with a screen that couldn't handle all of OS X's UI elements.
The only way I can see Apple expanding on the touch paradigm is with larger, more capable devices. That, of course, doesn't preclude selling a cheaper iPhone, at some point, but I think it looks pretty much like the current one.
As I've said before, I think Apple is a computer company that saw a way to make a little computer with a phone app that they could sell into the phone channel. That doesn't make them a phone company, and it doesn't oblige them to make an "iPhone nano" so they have something to offer in the range of vanilla flip phones, any more than they would see any need to ship a cheap "Mac" that acts like a dedicated email station.
The iPhone UI is a new platform and requires at least the screen real estate is has to be what it is. Apple may expand on the idea, but they're not going to lop off pieces of it to hit a price point.
I actually find myself somewhat agreeing with you for once. Apple diversifying the iPhone lineup would indeed *tend* to occur by releasing larger, more capable devices, say an 'iPhone Pro', while leaving the current model as the 'cheap(er) one'.
That said, there are some things that could be done to make the current model hit a lower pricepoint, such as going the Blackberry Storm route and reducing on-board storage to 1 or 2GB or so, but including a memory card slot.
MicroSD cards are up to 16GB now, so that's not really a sacrifice. If you need the storage, you simply buy it later, in whatever size you feel you need (and microSD card prices are dropping all the time
Also Apple would be advantaged in terms of inventory and production, since they'd only have to stock and make/order one model, instead of a lower-cap model (currently 8GB) and a 'high-cap' model (currently 16GB).
But, for some reason, Steve seems to be in love with internal storage, for reasons that probably don't matter all that much to the avg user. Access speed, perhaps? Never heard anyone complain about that from mem cards. Minimalism or space? MicroSD card slots are pretty darn tiny.
...