"I can't think of much they have made that really knocks it out of the park except for the base OS and the developer tools."
Both Logic and Aperture are "knock it out of the park" applications. Unfortunately, they're both extremely vertical apps and so really don't serve to sing Apple's praises outside those users, and further, Aperture is crippled by being artificially tied to the latest OS via the camera RAW updates. Apple's really being kind of stupid about that, frankly. Aperture will run back a few OS levels... but it can't load images from your camera. Well, now isn't THAT special. Pinheads.
Ask yourself: would you rather make a product one person would pay a million bucks for or make a product a million people would pay one buck for? And which do you think Apple is?
You misunderstand him. He said "making time and space relative." Nobody before Einstein thought these two are relative.
Einstein was pretty smart, but a lot of his success had to do with luck and timing. Einstein didn't get a job after his PhD work and took a job in a patent office where he was assigned to work in the art unit that examined inventions related to clocks. The rapid development of railroads in the late 1800s created a great need for inventions that would synchronize time in different cities. Therefore, Einstein's job was to think about time and space.
Let me put it to you this way. As a dev, and an owner of many IOS and OSX items, after multiple IOS "upgrades" failed to provide real folders, the ability to share data between apps (or really any other form of realistic synergy), a "finder" like tool, or even just the ability to have as many files as you want in a folder, not to mention the closed development process, "provisioning" and the other IOS dev hassles... and now, the hype is what? ... "flat icons." Good grief. Talk about a complete non-issue. Fluff. Irrelevant to anything and everything.
So I went out and bought a Droid. Perhaps Google will listen. Apple clearly doesn't.
I still make OSX apps, but IOS is pretty much dead to me as long as they keep limiting it to the most basic functionality. IOS could be so much more -- but it isn't.
And I just thought you're talking about Google. Reader anyone?
Oh, and this's straight from my experience. If Apple software is just OK, I can't even begin to imagine about Microsoft's. 20 years using Word (on Windows) I was never be able to create a document that look really good like I did with Pages. It's just a breadth of fresh air really.
After 20 years of Microsoft Word (since it first shipped on a single floppy) the program should run without freezing up in mid-document. I also love how Word sometimes has a mind of its own about how it decides to present the formatted text.
Einstein was pretty smart, but a lot of his success had to do with luck and timing. Einstein didn't get a job after his PhD work and took a job in a patent office where he was assigned to work in the art unit that examined inventions related to clocks. The rapid development of railroads in the late 1800s created a great need for inventions that would synchronize time in different cities. Therefore, Einstein's job was to think about time and space.
Nonsense!
…
lot of his success had to do with luck and timing
…
Therefore, Einstein's job was to think about time and space
IMHO...what Apple does better than anyone else is blend great software with hardware to produce some of the best product on the planet!...
As someone else pointed out..the iPad was great piece of hardware...but the blend of IOS with the hardware...well it changed personal computing forever.....
I'm puzzled why people think Apple has or does come out with groundbreaking products on a regular basis. Apple has invented three products. The personal desktop computer (1970-1980s), handheld mobile computer (iPod/iPad), and the modern smartphone (iPhone, with its touch interface and app development). That's three products in 40 years. Even if take out the 10 years without Steve Jobs, its still only 1 product per decade. We're not due for a new product line from Apple for about 4-8 years.
Einstein was pretty smart, but a lot of his success had to do with luck and timing. Einstein didn't get a job after his PhD work and took a job in a patent office where he was assigned to work in the art unit that examined inventions related to clocks. The rapid development of railroads in the late 1800s created a great need for inventions that would synchronize time in different cities. Therefore, Einstein's job was to think about time and space.
What separates Einstein from most scientists, I have always thought, was his attitude. He felt the problem out instinctively, more like a poet or philosopher than a scientist. Essentially, when he worked on a problem he used his instinct and intuition more than most scientist I've seen. Sort of similar, in the same way, to how Jobs is different to most entrepreneurs.
I'm puzzled why people think Apple has or does come out with groundbreaking products on a regular basis. Apple has invented three products. The personal desktop computer (1970-1980s), handheld mobile computer (iPod/iPad), and the modern smartphone (iPhone, with its touch interface and app development). That's three products in 40 years. Even if take out the 10 years without Steve Jobs, its still only 1 product per decade. We're not due for a new product line from Apple for about 4-8 years.
People?
I think you'll find the people saying this each have some kind of agenda. And the others are simply ignorant.
Therefore, Einstein's job was to think about time and space
What did Einstein accomplish the last 70% of his career (most of which was at princeton)....drumm roll....
NOTHING! He argued a lot with his contemporaries and he tried to unify the fundamental forces, but failed. His efforts for a unifying theory has been explored for more than half a century in the form of "string theory" which is worthless garbage science.
Don't get me wrong, Einstein was a smart and creative person and deserved recognition for a lot of good work (black body radiation, special and general relatively, and brownian motion). However, somehow history decided to elevate him to a level above everyone else. It's nonsense to hold Einstein out as the gold standard for for genius.
What did Einstein accomplish the last 70% of his career (most of which was at princeton)....drumm roll....
NOTHING! He argued a lot with his contemporaries and he tried to unify the fundamental forces, but failed. His efforts for a unifying theory has been explored for more than half a century in the form of "string theory" which is worthless garbage science.
Don't get me wrong, Einstein was a smart and creative person and deserved recognition for a lot of good work (black body radiation, special and general relatively, and brownian motion). However, somehow history decided to elevate him to a level above everyone else. It's nonsense to hold Einstein out as the gold standard for for genius.
He also had incredible insight and was a wise man, with thousands upon thousands of quotes that can take your breath away. I think he was one of the most remarkable men who has ever lived.
Just because Einstein and now string theory hasn't proved a unified field theory, doesn't mean there isn't one. As with most things, the simplest explanations are usually correct.
What separates Einstein from most scientists, I have always thought, was his attitude. He felt the problem out instinctively, more like a poet or philosopher than a scientist. Essentially, when he worked on a problem he used his instinct and intuition more than most scientist I've seen. Sort of similar, in the same way, to how Jobs is different to most entrepreneurs.
You are right in that regard. He didn't restrain himself by the rigid rules of society, which allowed him to postulate special relativity, brownian motion, and black body radiation without the concerns that an academic would have. Part of why he didn't get a job out of school was his bad attitude towards "the establishment". So yes, in many ways he was a lot like Steve Jobs.
I suppose I subscribe to Malcom Gladwell's assertion that there are many people that are just as capable as people like Steve Jobs and Einstein, but are not in the right place at the right time for the circumstances to elevate them to an "outlier". Einstein was no doubt smart, but the reason he is the "gold standard" of genius is simply because society decided to make him that. He's no smarter than millions of other people.
[...] BTW a typo: it should be "profits" rather than "revenues" (in two places) that Apple gets 3/4 of.
Exactly. If I sell a hundred one-dollar bills for 99 cents each, my revenue is 99$ and my profit is actually a loss of 1$. Growing revenue quickly is easy if you don't care about making money. Who wouldn't buy one-dollar bills for 99 cents each? I could sell a billion today.
Apple does NOT have anywhere near 75% of the smartphone (or cell phone) market's revenues. It has roughly 75% of the industry's PROFITS. Very, very different thing. Much, much more important thing.
Revenues and profits are totally different things. They're often used interchangeably in the press, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. They are totally different concepts that mean entirely different things. It's like saying "I was attacked by a cat" vs "I was attacked by a lion". It doesn't mean the same thing at all.
[EDIT: P.S. Other than that, I did enjoy the article.]
Comments
Originally Posted by fyngyrz
So I went out and bought a Droid. Perhaps Google will listen. Apple clearly doesn't.
Bye. Enjoy your fantasyland.
"I can't think of much they have made that really knocks it out of the park except for the base OS and the developer tools."
Both Logic and Aperture are "knock it out of the park" applications. Unfortunately, they're both extremely vertical apps and so really don't serve to sing Apple's praises outside those users, and further, Aperture is crippled by being artificially tied to the latest OS via the camera RAW updates. Apple's really being kind of stupid about that, frankly. Aperture will run back a few OS levels... but it can't load images from your camera. Well, now isn't THAT special. Pinheads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Bye. Enjoy your fantasyland.
Yes indeed, a well thought out and decisive rebuttal. And *I* am supposed to be the one in fantasyland.
You're funny. But the low-functioning often are, so don't let it go to your head.
Neither.
At least someone got the joke. Haha!
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
You misunderstand him. He said "making time and space relative." Nobody before Einstein thought these two are relative.
Einstein was pretty smart, but a lot of his success had to do with luck and timing. Einstein didn't get a job after his PhD work and took a job in a patent office where he was assigned to work in the art unit that examined inventions related to clocks. The rapid development of railroads in the late 1800s created a great need for inventions that would synchronize time in different cities. Therefore, Einstein's job was to think about time and space.
-1
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
And I just thought you're talking about Google. Reader anyone?
Oh, and this's straight from my experience. If Apple software is just OK, I can't even begin to imagine about Microsoft's. 20 years using Word (on Windows) I was never be able to create a document that look really good like I did with Pages. It's just a breadth of fresh air really.
After 20 years of Microsoft Word (since it first shipped on a single floppy) the program should run without freezing up in mid-document. I also love how Word sometimes has a mind of its own about how it decides to present the formatted text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471
Einstein was pretty smart, but a lot of his success had to do with luck and timing. Einstein didn't get a job after his PhD work and took a job in a patent office where he was assigned to work in the art unit that examined inventions related to clocks. The rapid development of railroads in the late 1800s created a great need for inventions that would synchronize time in different cities. Therefore, Einstein's job was to think about time and space.
Nonsense!
…
lot of his success had to do with luck and timing
…
Therefore, Einstein's job was to think about time and space
IMHO...what Apple does better than anyone else is blend great software with hardware to produce some of the best product on the planet!...
As someone else pointed out..the iPad was great piece of hardware...but the blend of IOS with the hardware...well it changed personal computing forever.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
Oh holy God it was a joke. It's all relative, dude.
I think you should thank him/her.
He/she was polite and right.
I'm puzzled why people think Apple has or does come out with groundbreaking products on a regular basis. Apple has invented three products. The personal desktop computer (1970-1980s), handheld mobile computer (iPod/iPad), and the modern smartphone (iPhone, with its touch interface and app development). That's three products in 40 years. Even if take out the 10 years without Steve Jobs, its still only 1 product per decade. We're not due for a new product line from Apple for about 4-8 years.
What separates Einstein from most scientists, I have always thought, was his attitude. He felt the problem out instinctively, more like a poet or philosopher than a scientist. Essentially, when he worked on a problem he used his instinct and intuition more than most scientist I've seen. Sort of similar, in the same way, to how Jobs is different to most entrepreneurs.
Oh holy God.
People?
I think you'll find the people saying this each have some kind of agenda. And the others are simply ignorant.
LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ochyming
Nonsense!
…
lot of his success had to do with luck and timing
…
Therefore, Einstein's job was to think about time and space
What did Einstein accomplish the last 70% of his career (most of which was at princeton)....drumm roll....
NOTHING! He argued a lot with his contemporaries and he tried to unify the fundamental forces, but failed. His efforts for a unifying theory has been explored for more than half a century in the form of "string theory" which is worthless garbage science.
Don't get me wrong, Einstein was a smart and creative person and deserved recognition for a lot of good work (black body radiation, special and general relatively, and brownian motion). However, somehow history decided to elevate him to a level above everyone else. It's nonsense to hold Einstein out as the gold standard for for genius.
He also had incredible insight and was a wise man, with thousands upon thousands of quotes that can take your breath away. I think he was one of the most remarkable men who has ever lived.
Just because Einstein and now string theory hasn't proved a unified field theory, doesn't mean there isn't one. As with most things, the simplest explanations are usually correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
What separates Einstein from most scientists, I have always thought, was his attitude. He felt the problem out instinctively, more like a poet or philosopher than a scientist. Essentially, when he worked on a problem he used his instinct and intuition more than most scientist I've seen. Sort of similar, in the same way, to how Jobs is different to most entrepreneurs.
You are right in that regard. He didn't restrain himself by the rigid rules of society, which allowed him to postulate special relativity, brownian motion, and black body radiation without the concerns that an academic would have. Part of why he didn't get a job out of school was his bad attitude towards "the establishment". So yes, in many ways he was a lot like Steve Jobs.
I suppose I subscribe to Malcom Gladwell's assertion that there are many people that are just as capable as people like Steve Jobs and Einstein, but are not in the right place at the right time for the circumstances to elevate them to an "outlier". Einstein was no doubt smart, but the reason he is the "gold standard" of genius is simply because society decided to make him that. He's no smarter than millions of other people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NormM
[...] BTW a typo: it should be "profits" rather than "revenues" (in two places) that Apple gets 3/4 of.
Exactly. If I sell a hundred one-dollar bills for 99 cents each, my revenue is 99$ and my profit is actually a loss of 1$. Growing revenue quickly is easy if you don't care about making money. Who wouldn't buy one-dollar bills for 99 cents each? I could sell a billion today.
Apple does NOT have anywhere near 75% of the smartphone (or cell phone) market's revenues. It has roughly 75% of the industry's PROFITS. Very, very different thing. Much, much more important thing.
Revenues and profits are totally different things. They're often used interchangeably in the press, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. They are totally different concepts that mean entirely different things. It's like saying "I was attacked by a cat" vs "I was attacked by a lion". It doesn't mean the same thing at all.
[EDIT: P.S. Other than that, I did enjoy the article.]