Where did I say it was going to be easy? Does Apple have a monopoly on people with good ideas, and good design skills?
It's not about ideas, it's about execution, hence all my comments about a longterm plan and wanting to make he whole of the experience great for the customer.
Jaws v. Sharknado
Ex Machina v. Chappie
All four of those movies are "ideas" and all four are an execution, but two of them are really, really shifty. You can say that the ideas aren't as good, whatever, but their execution is extremely poor, too. I bet James Cameron could retool the Chappie story into a watchable movie.
Just check out the Nolan's work on The Dark Knight series over the Tim Burton Batman movies.
Where did I say it was going to be easy? Does Apple have a monopoly on people with good ideas, and good design skills?
It's not about ideas, it's about execution, hence all my comments about a longterm plan and wanting to make he whole of the experience great for the customer.
Jaws v. Sharknado
Ex Machina v. Chappie
All four of those movies are "ideas" and all four are an execution, but two of them are really, really shifty. You can say that the ideas aren't as good, whatever, but their execution is extremely poor, too. I bet James Cameron could retool the Chappie story into a watchable movie.
Just check out the Nolan's work on The Dark Knight series over the Tim Burton Batman movies.
I really don't see anyone doing it. I agree with [@]spheric[/@] it's going to be impossible. Even if someone comes up with something truly innovative, or a new approach then Apple can easily pivot, and beat them at their own game.
That is probably the most foolish and ignorant statement I've ever read on the Internet. Why didn't MySpace beat Facebook or Yahoo beat Google? You still need to have the best execution and while the current climate shows Apple's reign is not coming to end, it will eventually happen.
edit: I'm predicting you're going to ask what company will beat Apple. How the **** am I suppose to know. That company may not have been founded yet or their employees may not have even been born, but it's ridiculous to say something is impossible or can't possibly happen simply because it hasn't happened yet.
That is probably the most foolish and ignorant statement I've ever read on the Internet. Why didn't MySpace beat Facebook or Yahoo beat Google? You still need to have the best execution and while the current climate shows Apple's reign is not coming to end, it will eventually happen.
edit: I'm predicting you're going to ask what company will beat Apple. How the **** am I suppose to know. That company may not have been founded yet or their employees may not have even been born, but it's ridiculous to say something is impossible or can't possibly happen simply because it hasn't happened yet.
MySpace allowed people to pimp out their pages which would crash older computers. It became juvenile with all the bling, and leet speak. FB made a simple layout that was universally accepted by people of all ages. Google won because of its minimalist home page plus search algorithm.
Why does their reign have to end? There are plenty of products that have had a commanding lead in their market for decades without ever even being challenged.
The more products Apple makes, the larger the ecosystem grows, and the more synergy there is between devices then the more people aren't going to leave. A fully invested consumer isn't going to start fresh because another company took a different approach.
No new company is ever going to have the means to get into a long term match with Apple. Apple will either just adopt what they're doing, or buy them out. Apple has become the Floyd Mayweather of the tech world. Unbeatable.
That is probably the most foolish and ignorant statement I've ever read on the Internet. Why didn't MySpace beat Facebook or Yahoo beat Google? You still need to have the best execution and while the current climate shows Apple's reign is not coming to end, it will eventually happen.
Of COURSE it's going to happen *eventually*. But it's probably not going to happen until something dramatically changes the market.
But the examples you bring up are rather poignant:
MySpace SUCKED dramatically in ways that Facebook didn't. And it dominated at a time where the market was nascent and far from saturated. Social media became ubiquitous as facebook grew, and MySpace withered. Once saturation had occurred, other services didn't really stand a chance — Google+, even when leveraging Google's ubiquity, never caught on (though, to be fair, Google's insistence that everything I do — YouTube, Search — be linked to a Google+ account put me off them more than anything else).
Similarly, Google's search dominance arose at a time where it was clearly better than the alternative, and the market was FAR from saturated. Today, the internet is everywhere, and market share has stuck at 65% for the past five years or so, and isn't going up.
He said impossible, and there was no "impossible in the next [decade]" qualifier. That makes the statement axiomatically wrong and stupid.
MySpace SUCKED dramatically in ways that Facebook didn't. […] Similarly, Google's search dominance arose at a time where it was clearly better than the alternative, and the market was FAR from saturated. Today, the internet is everywhere, and market share has stuck at 65% for the past five years or so, and isn't going up.
Oh, so someone else can have a better idea and succeed even if there is already a dominate player in that area. What a crazy fucking idea¡
MySpace allowed people to pimp out their pages which would crash older computers. It became juvenile with all the bling, and leet speak. FB made a simple layout that was universally accepted by people of all ages. Google won because of its minimalist home page plus search algorithm.
What you're describing is the apex of social media in terms of users and mindshare made a big mistake. They did, but that was just one of many.
Why does their reign have to end?
Why does any empire have to end? It doesn't have to, but the history of the world showed that they do and so far the only ones that haven't dropped from their apex are still very new at being at the top. That includes Apple. This might a long time for the tech industry, but's in terms of a company or human evolution it's not a very long time. Look at the East India Tea Company.
If you want to say Apple will reign as superior forever, I support your right to that hypothesis but you better make a damn good argument to back it up. First, why do you think Tim Cook's successor will be good? Or a dozen CEOs from now in, say 80 years?
He said impossible, and there was no "impossible in the next [decade]" qualifier. That makes the statement axiomatically wrong and stupid.
So rather than assume that somebody was trying to make a point, and trying to figure out what it might have been, you actually choose to believe that a person is just stupid, and then proceed to fight with stupid people, rather than arguing with adults?
Oh, so someone else can have a better idea and succeed even if there is already a dominate player in that area. What a crazy fucking idea¡
Ah, and you're also just not reading what people are writing before you decide their stupid and then go on to fight them anyway!
EARLY IN THE GAME, someone else can have a better idea and succeed as the market grows.
That's how Android took over market share - they had an idea of how to more widely distribute the OS, and the market hadn't been saturated yet - not even close. Once the market boomed, there was no room for another OS, regardless of how good it was. Microsoft dawdled away valuable years and now doesn't stand a chance unless Android commits suicide.
Facebook took over because it didn't suck and the market was growing. Is Google+ better than Facebook? Probably. Did it have a chance? Not a snowball's in hell - it was five years too late.
So rather than assume that somebody was trying to make a point, and trying to figure out what it might have been, you actually choose to believe that a person is just stupid, and then proceed to fight with stupid people,
If he used an absolute mistakenly he could have apologies and corrected his point. Instead he doubled down with a rebuttal that included the question "Why does their reign have to end?," so yes, I think he absolutely does feel it's impossible for Apple to ever end their reign.
...rather than arguing with adults?.
Does that kind of trolling ever work? I think you should try harder to get my goat since that seems to be your only plan.
That is probably the most foolish and ignorant statement I've ever read on the Internet. Why didn't MySpace beat Facebook or Yahoo beat Google? You still need to have the best execution and while the current climate shows Apple's reign is not coming to end, it will eventually happen.
Of COURSE it's going to happen *eventually*. But it's probably not going to happen until something dramatically changes the market.
If he used an absolute mistakenly he could have apologies and corrected his point. Instead he doubled down with a rebuttal that included the question "Why does their reign have to end?," so yes, I think he absolutely does feel it's impossible for Apple to ever end their reign.
Does that kind of trolling ever work? I think you should try hard to get my goat since that seems to be your own plan.
I've been wondering how literalists ever choose their battles. I get it now: they don't.
That wasn't dramatic. A new approach to what already existed, but not dramatic. It wasn't anything new
Let's imagine for a second it wasn't any "dramatic" despite changing everything in the tech world which includes both the destruction of some companies and the birth of others, and making Apple the largest, most powerful company in the world, it still proves your assessment that a changing of the guard is impossible.
Asking whether somebody is old enough to to REMEMBER a specific time in history is absolutely relevant.
Like when somebody asks you why emulation should be relevant to a processor transition, and obviously doesn't remember the details and the process - and the pain - of the last two processor transitions...
You took it as asking whether I was arguing with some kid, eh? Figures.
Comments
Where did I say it was going to be easy? Does Apple have a monopoly on people with good ideas, and good design skills?
No. But they have a near-monopoly on resources and profitability. They also have a near-monopoly on perceived value.
Surmounting those is not going to be "difficult"…it's going to be "impossible" for the longest time.
It's not about ideas, it's about execution, hence all my comments about a longterm plan and wanting to make he whole of the experience great for the customer.
Jaws v. Sharknado
Ex Machina v. Chappie
All four of those movies are "ideas" and all four are an execution, but two of them are really, really shifty. You can say that the ideas aren't as good, whatever, but their execution is extremely poor, too. I bet James Cameron could retool the Chappie story into a watchable movie.
Just check out the Nolan's work on The Dark Knight series over the Tim Burton Batman movies.
Oh God, we've hit the "terrible metaphor" phase of discussion.
I really don't see anyone doing it. I agree with [@]spheric[/@] it's going to be impossible. Even if someone comes up with something truly innovative, or a new approach then Apple can easily pivot, and beat them at their own game.
That is probably the most foolish and ignorant statement I've ever read on the Internet. Why didn't MySpace beat Facebook or Yahoo beat Google? You still need to have the best execution and while the current climate shows Apple's reign is not coming to end, it will eventually happen.
edit: I'm predicting you're going to ask what company will beat Apple. How the **** am I suppose to know. That company may not have been founded yet or their employees may not have even been born, but it's ridiculous to say something is impossible or can't possibly happen simply because it hasn't happened yet.
MySpace allowed people to pimp out their pages which would crash older computers. It became juvenile with all the bling, and leet speak. FB made a simple layout that was universally accepted by people of all ages. Google won because of its minimalist home page plus search algorithm.
Why does their reign have to end? There are plenty of products that have had a commanding lead in their market for decades without ever even being challenged.
The more products Apple makes, the larger the ecosystem grows, and the more synergy there is between devices then the more people aren't going to leave. A fully invested consumer isn't going to start fresh because another company took a different approach.
No new company is ever going to have the means to get into a long term match with Apple. Apple will either just adopt what they're doing, or buy them out. Apple has become the Floyd Mayweather of the tech world. Unbeatable.
That is probably the most foolish and ignorant statement I've ever read on the Internet. Why didn't MySpace beat Facebook or Yahoo beat Google? You still need to have the best execution and while the current climate shows Apple's reign is not coming to end, it will eventually happen.
Of COURSE it's going to happen *eventually*. But it's probably not going to happen until something dramatically changes the market.
But the examples you bring up are rather poignant:
MySpace SUCKED dramatically in ways that Facebook didn't. And it dominated at a time where the market was nascent and far from saturated. Social media became ubiquitous as facebook grew, and MySpace withered. Once saturation had occurred, other services didn't really stand a chance — Google+, even when leveraging Google's ubiquity, never caught on (though, to be fair, Google's insistence that everything I do — YouTube, Search — be linked to a Google+ account put me off them more than anything else).
Similarly, Google's search dominance arose at a time where it was clearly better than the alternative, and the market was FAR from saturated. Today, the internet is everywhere, and market share has stuck at 65% for the past five years or so, and isn't going up.
He said impossible, and there was no "impossible in the next [decade]" qualifier. That makes the statement axiomatically wrong and stupid.
Oh, so someone else can have a better idea and succeed even if there is already a dominate player in that area. What a crazy fucking idea¡
What you're describing is the apex of social media in terms of users and mindshare made a big mistake. They did, but that was just one of many.
Why does any empire have to end? It doesn't have to, but the history of the world showed that they do and so far the only ones that haven't dropped from their apex are still very new at being at the top. That includes Apple. This might a long time for the tech industry, but's in terms of a company or human evolution it's not a very long time. Look at the East India Tea Company.
If you want to say Apple will reign as superior forever, I support your right to that hypothesis but you better make a damn good argument to back it up. First, why do you think Tim Cook's successor will be good? Or a dozen CEOs from now in, say 80 years?
So rather than assume that somebody was trying to make a point, and trying to figure out what it might have been, you actually choose to believe that a person is just stupid, and then proceed to fight with stupid people, rather than arguing with adults?
Are you having a bad day or something?
Ah, and you're also just not reading what people are writing before you decide their stupid and then go on to fight them anyway!
EARLY IN THE GAME, someone else can have a better idea and succeed as the market grows.
That's how Android took over market share - they had an idea of how to more widely distribute the OS, and the market hadn't been saturated yet - not even close. Once the market boomed, there was no room for another OS, regardless of how good it was. Microsoft dawdled away valuable years and now doesn't stand a chance unless Android commits suicide.
Facebook took over because it didn't suck and the market was growing. Is Google+ better than Facebook? Probably. Did it have a chance? Not a snowball's in hell - it was five years too late.
If he used an absolute mistakenly he could have apologies and corrected his point. Instead he doubled down with a rebuttal that included the question "Why does their reign have to end?," so yes, I think he absolutely does feel it's impossible for Apple to ever end their reign.
Does that kind of trolling ever work? I think you should try harder to get my goat since that seems to be your only plan.
And when's the last time that happened?
How can this BE?!
Samsung just announced the newest innovation that will revolutionize cell phones: A FLIP PHONE!
But not just any flip phone. A flip phone with a 3.8” screen!
How could they POSSIBLY be losing money?
I've been wondering how literalists ever choose their battles. I get it now: they don't.
That wasn't dramatic. A new approach to what already existed, but not dramatic. It wasn't anything new
How old are you?
2007 was a watershed moment. iPhone fundamentally changed the computing landscape like nothing since the first PC.
You say that and he's done nothing but back up his ridiculous comment. I suggest you better your critical reading skills.
Let's imagine for a second it wasn't any "dramatic" despite changing everything in the tech world which includes both the destruction of some companies and the birth of others, and making Apple the largest, most powerful company in the world, it still proves your assessment that a changing of the guard is impossible.
Your line of questioning isn't conducive to a mature conversation.
Like when somebody asks you why emulation should be relevant to a processor transition, and obviously doesn't remember the details and the process - and the pain - of the last two processor transitions...
You took it as asking whether I was arguing with some kid, eh? Figures.