I don't see how the author sticks by this despite a denial from both horses' mouths. Questioning why Fadell would deny it now and claiming there is audio is bad form. I wonder why it hasn't occurred to him that it may have been a misunderstanding of some kind. A throw away line? A joke? Someone just forgot or remembered incorrectly? Sticking by it now just doesn't make sense. Either release the audio, a transcript or what not or retract. Otherwise you look like you're trying to gin up controversy to sell the book, or you're just dishonest.
This is exactly why publications like to get two sources, not one. One guy could just be lying or misremembering, two or more an it's much less likely to be bogus.
Merchant screwed up by not getting another source.
I don't believe the author said there was no one else interviewed. It might be a good assumption (or maybe not) but I wouldn't hang your hat on it being a fact nobody else with an inside at the time wasn't asked and backed it up. AFAIK it hasn't gotten as far as discussing all the sources, and this particular issue won't go any further now as I expect all the players to clam up. Could be wrong of course.
The stuff about the keyboard was attributed to Fadell. No other sources were cited, and Merchant didn't mention anyone else, only his audio as the record, so I have absolutely no reason to believe there are other sources saying the same. We can make up any possibly-maybes, but this is what's been disclosed -- one source, who now denies it.
Even if he did...and? I'm sure every single kind of idea and course of action was discussed and thrown around when developing the iPhone. Steve Jobs did a shitload of 180s himself. He didn't even want an AppStore. Even if Schiller thought a KB might be best at some point in time, I'm not going to hold that against him or pretend he's unfit for the job because of it.
Also, I don't trust a word that comes out of Faddels mouth. It's well known that he consistently exaggerated his role and accomplishments at Apple in order to bring more legitimacy and hype to his new company (now sold out to Google of course).
Something similar surely happened with the new MBP. I'm convinced that internally, Apple was divided on the thinness issue.
What possible evidence do you have of that? Sounds like wishful thinking.
Evidence is not required.
However, judging by the content of this article, we'll have to wait around 10 years for someone to spill the beans on what really happened during the design phase of the new MBPs and how it passed through executive approval.
Perhaps we will see the Jony Ive unauthorized biography at some point.
We already have rumours of competing MBP designs at Apple (fighter vs bomber) and supposing those rumours have some truth in them, it is very reasonable to suspect that the 'thin at any cost' design is far from universally backed at the company. Then we have someone from HP going on record last year (during the backlash) and claiming that they carried out a lot of research and found that a lot of people preferred thin without compromises. As a result, HP is trying to cater to both markets. I doubt Apple's own research brought back differing results. The difference is on the executive side. A decision was taken and they had to run with it. Apple is not a company of options. Look how long it took them to finally release a large screen iPhone.
OK so no evidence and just wishful thinking. Got it.
So we all know Jobs, and does anyone think for a minute Job was taking any inputs from anyone else on the product especially a person from Marketing. Apple Marketing is outward facing, it not inward. It is well Known that Steve never relied on taking inputs from the outside world especially from Marketing. Phil job has always been to market and sell what Steve came up with not the other ways around.
Who is still at Apple and didn't sell out to Google? That get's my vote .
The fact that people are still at Apple doesn't mean anything. If you want to split hairs, there are a few veteran Apple employees who were instrumental in creating the Mac that now work for Google. I think the original draw to them was that they would let you do whatever you wanted. That was before they became Alphabet and changed the rules.
Some of Apple's best products didn't originally come from them. The current Mac OS, iOS, Final cut, Siri etc.
The real issue is that there are 4 or 5 guys at Apple who decide what gets made. They don't have the conflict like they did when Steve was around. So without conflict, there was no drive to out do each other. It's a very Machiavellian way to make products, but the products themselves were amazing.
So we all know Jobs, and does anyone think for a minute Job was taking any inputs from anyone else on the product especially a person from Marketing. Apple Marketing is outward facing, it not inward. It is well Known that Steve never relied on taking inputs from the outside world especially from Marketing. Phil job has always been to market and sell what Steve came up with not the other ways around.
He was taking input from two distinct teams at Apple in fact.
Absolutely impossible to believe. The whole raison d'être of the iPhone was predicated on two things, 1. a proper OS and 2. no keyboard.
yes, but there is no reason not to believe that there was a massive internal struggle getting to those two things. There is the possibility that Schiller did take the devil's advocate position (he had to market the thing against the blackberry, taking the adversarial position to have the engineers and designers 'sell him' on an touch screen solution, so he could sell investors, set marketing themes, etc.)
Also, I don't trust a word that comes out of Faddels mouth. It's well known that he consistently exaggerated his role and accomplishments at Apple in order to bring more legitimacy and hype to his new company (now sold out to Google of course).
One thing pointed out is that Fadell's denial is also a non-denial (from twitter and @daringfireball) ... Fadell is not denying he told Merchant FALSE story (and is now asking Merchant to change the story to the truth), Fadell could be stating that he told a false story [thinking he would not be quoted verbatim] and has been caught [and is now under legal threat from Apple/Schiller] and is asking Merchant to change it.
Fadell cannot be trusted. Theres an except from Merchants book up at verge. Its very good.
I don't see how the author sticks by this despite a denial from both horses' mouths. Questioning why Fadell would deny it now and claiming there is audio is bad form. I wonder why it hasn't occurred to him that it may have been a misunderstanding of some kind. A throw away line? A joke? Someone just forgot or remembered incorrectly? Sticking by it now just doesn't make sense. Either release the audio, a transcript or what not or retract. Otherwise you look like you're trying to gin up controversy to sell the book, or you're just dishonest.
This is exactly why publications like to get two sources, not one. One guy could just be lying or misremembering, two or more an it's much less likely to be bogus.
Merchant screwed up by not getting another source.
I don't believe the author said there was no one else interviewed. It might be a good assumption (or maybe not) but I wouldn't hang your hat on it being a fact nobody else with an inside at the time wasn't asked and backed it up. AFAIK it hasn't gotten as far as discussing all the sources, and this particular issue won't go any further now as I expect all the players to clam up. Could be wrong of course.
The stuff about the keyboard was attributed to Fadell. No other sources were cited, and Merchant didn't mention anyone else, only his audio as the record, so I have absolutely no reason to believe there are other sources saying the same. We can make up any possibly-maybes, but this is what's been disclosed -- one source, who now denies it.
You are absolutely correct. Only one source has been discussed. Don't be so disagreeable. As you have no proof that no one else was consulted, the author hasn't commented whether there was, and you haven't read the book it's pretty obvious there is no assurance there isn't "someone else" he's talked to. The may not be, but we don't know that (yet)
Don't believe anyone at Apple was stuck with the idea of a physical keyboard for the iPhone. As I recall an iPad like device was developed first with touch implementation. Then they decided those features would be ideal for a phone, a move that would make great market sense. So at the time the first iPhone was in development, a touch keyboard was a prerequisite.
This is a good point and it is well document that Apple especially Steve love the whole multi-touch GUI and this was well in the works well before the form factor of the phone was decided upon. The whole table idea evolved into the phone. Based on all the past information which has been shared by multiply sources about how the IPhone came about including the Samsung Court documents, Apple was not looking at a physical keyboard. It was decided a long time before the final design hit the market. I do not believe there was much discussion on this topic once they have the touch solution working.
Even if he did...and? I'm sure every single kind of idea and course of action was discussed and thrown around when developing the iPhone. Steve Jobs did a shitload of 180s himself. He didn't even want an AppStore. Even if Schiller thought a KB might be best at some point in time, I'm not going to hold that against him or pretend he's unfit for the job because of it.
Also, I don't trust a word that comes out of Faddels mouth. It's well known that he consistently exaggerated his role and accomplishments at Apple in order to bring more legitimacy and hype to his new company (now sold out to Google of course).
Something similar surely happened with the new MBP. I'm convinced that internally, Apple was divided on the thinness issue.
What possible evidence do you have of that? Sounds like wishful thinking.
Evidence is not required.
However, judging by the content of this article, we'll have to wait around 10 years for someone to spill the beans on what really happened during the design phase of the new MBPs and how it passed through executive approval.
Perhaps we will see the Jony Ive unauthorized biography at some point.
We already have rumours of competing MBP designs at Apple (fighter vs bomber) and supposing those rumours have some truth in them, it is very reasonable to suspect that the 'thin at any cost' design is far from universally backed at the company. Then we have someone from HP going on record last year (during the backlash) and claiming that they carried out a lot of research and found that a lot of people preferred thin without compromises. As a result, HP is trying to cater to both markets. I doubt Apple's own research brought back differing results. The difference is on the executive side. A decision was taken and they had to run with it. Apple is not a company of options. Look how long it took them to finally release a large screen iPhone.
I mean no disrespect when I say you're still full of it on this issue. You are not thinking of the larger picture on Apple's design mandates.
In the case of the larger-screened phone, it was the lack of production capacity for making LTPS screens in enough quantity to supply Apple's needs for the 6 and 6 Plus, up until the time they finally could introduce them. Look it up. Apple was already using 70-75 percent of the world's capacity of LTPS screens before the larger screens arrived. The myth that it was a design choice to resist larger screens was fostered by Apple's PR on one-handed use being ideal, but you don't have to believe and parrot this narrow interim spin from marketing-think. The real reason was production determined.
In the case of the thin MacBook Pro, you are not thinking largely enough about the cluster of mandates that came available with the availability of sufficient production of oxide-backed (IGZO) screens. The energy savings from the IGZO backplane allowed for less backlghting and more efficient heat management. These, along with the availability of USB 3, allowed for the shrinkage in all dimensions. No self-respecting, honest engineer would throw away—waste—these space savings just to accomodate the antiquated, oversized USB legacy port.
If there was any argument from retrograde thinkers on the engineering/design team, as you imagine, you're going to have to produce evidence to be taken seriously. Or even from the marketing side, but that would be still easy to dismiss as retrograde thinking.
Hardware rules. Enjoy the progress.
No disrespect taken.
Where necessary, Apple has made multimillion dollar investments to assure it has enough production capacity at any given time. When you have a couple of years, know where you're going and know what you want, it makes sense. If you really can't get what you would like then use a different technology. Don't hold off if you think you are losing sales.
We have all seen the slide saying something along the lines of 'we don't have what our customers want'. We have all heard the 'large screens won't sell' line.
Your spin on the new line is nice but doesn't tell the whole story. It just didn't need to be so thin and it is time stop talking about 'legacy'.
The new iMacs come with current ports which now include USB-C.
Even if he did...and? I'm sure every single kind of idea and course of action was discussed and thrown around when developing the iPhone. Steve Jobs did a shitload of 180s himself. He didn't even want an AppStore. Even if Schiller thought a KB might be best at some point in time, I'm not going to hold that against him or pretend he's unfit for the job because of it.
Also, I don't trust a word that comes out of Faddels mouth. It's well known that he consistently exaggerated his role and accomplishments at Apple in order to bring more legitimacy and hype to his new company (now sold out to Google of course).
Something similar surely happened with the new MBP. I'm convinced that internally, Apple was divided on the thinness issue.
What possible evidence do you have of that? Sounds like wishful thinking.
Evidence is not required.
However, judging by the content of this article, we'll have to wait around 10 years for someone to spill the beans on what really happened during the design phase of the new MBPs and how it passed through executive approval.
Perhaps we will see the Jony Ive unauthorized biography at some point.
We already have rumours of competing MBP designs at Apple (fighter vs bomber) and supposing those rumours have some truth in them, it is very reasonable to suspect that the 'thin at any cost' design is far from universally backed at the company. Then we have someone from HP going on record last year (during the backlash) and claiming that they carried out a lot of research and found that a lot of people preferred thin without compromises. As a result, HP is trying to cater to both markets. I doubt Apple's own research brought back differing results. The difference is on the executive side. A decision was taken and they had to run with it. Apple is not a company of options. Look how long it took them to finally release a large screen iPhone.
OK so no evidence and just wishful thinking. Got it.
Nope. You very much don't get it.
I said:
"Something similar surely happened with the new MBP"
That is called affirmative deduction. I am not presenting it as an absolutefact so evidence is not at all necessary. Not in the slightest.
If I had said:
"Something similar happened with the new MBP"
It would swing the pendulum a little but would still be interpreted through context.
And just for the record, it wasn't wishful thinking either. I explained the reasoning behind the deduction in the following post.
So we all know Jobs, and does anyone think for a minute Job was taking any inputs from anyone else on the product especially a person from Marketing. Apple Marketing is outward facing, it not inward. It is well Known that Steve never relied on taking inputs from the outside world especially from Marketing. Phil job has always been to market and sell what Steve came up with not the other ways around.
This is a joke right? The idea that Steve came up with everything is RDF and kool-aid drinking at its finest.
Don't believe anyone at Apple was stuck with the idea of a physical keyboard for the iPhone. As I recall an iPad like device was developed first with touch implementation. Then they decided those features would be ideal for a phone, a move that would make great market sense. So at the time the first iPhone was in development, a touch keyboard was a prerequisite.
This is a good point and it is well document that Apple especially Steve love the whole multi-touch GUI and this was well in the works well before the form factor of the phone was decided upon. The whole table idea evolved into the phone. Based on all the past information which has been shared by multiply sources about how the IPhone came about including the Samsung Court documents, Apple was not looking at a physical keyboard. It was decided a long time before the final design hit the market. I do not believe there was much discussion on this topic once they have the touch solution working.
Right and according to this author it was Jony Ive who first showed Steve the tablet concept being worked on and Steve hated it but eventually Jony got him to come around and then Steve asked the team to present it to others including Tony Fadell and Phil Schiller.
Even if he did...and? I'm sure every single kind of idea and course of action was discussed and thrown around when developing the iPhone. Steve Jobs did a shitload of 180s himself. He didn't even want an AppStore. Even if Schiller thought a KB might be best at some point in time, I'm not going to hold that against him or pretend he's unfit for the job because of it.
Also, I don't trust a word that comes out of Faddels mouth. It's well known that he consistently exaggerated his role and accomplishments at Apple in order to bring more legitimacy and hype to his new company (now sold out to Google of course).
Something similar surely happened with the new MBP. I'm convinced that internally, Apple was divided on the thinness issue.
What possible evidence do you have of that? Sounds like wishful thinking.
Evidence is not required.
However, judging by the content of this article, we'll have to wait around 10 years for someone to spill the beans on what really happened during the design phase of the new MBPs and how it passed through executive approval.
Perhaps we will see the Jony Ive unauthorized biography at some point.
We already have rumours of competing MBP designs at Apple (fighter vs bomber) and supposing those rumours have some truth in them, it is very reasonable to suspect that the 'thin at any cost' design is far from universally backed at the company. Then we have someone from HP going on record last year (during the backlash) and claiming that they carried out a lot of research and found that a lot of people preferred thin without compromises. As a result, HP is trying to cater to both markets. I doubt Apple's own research brought back differing results. The difference is on the executive side. A decision was taken and they had to run with it. Apple is not a company of options. Look how long it took them to finally release a large screen iPhone.
I mean no disrespect when I say you're still full of it on this issue. You are not thinking of the larger picture on Apple's design mandates.
In the case of the larger-screened phone, it was the lack of production capacity for making LTPS screens in enough quantity to supply Apple's needs for the 6 and 6 Plus, up until the time they finally could introduce them. Look it up. Apple was already using 70-75 percent of the world's capacity of LTPS screens before the larger screens arrived. The myth that it was a design choice to resist larger screens was fostered by Apple's PR on one-handed use being ideal, but you don't have to believe and parrot this narrow interim spin from marketing-think. The real reason was production determined.
In the case of the thin MacBook Pro, you are not thinking largely enough about the cluster of mandates that came available with the availability of sufficient production of oxide-backed (IGZO) screens. The energy savings from the IGZO backplane allowed for less backlghting and more efficient heat management. These, along with the availability of USB 3, allowed for the shrinkage in all dimensions. No self-respecting, honest engineer would throw away—waste—these space savings just to accomodate the antiquated, oversized USB legacy port.
If there was any argument from retrograde thinkers on the engineering/design team, as you imagine, you're going to have to produce evidence to be taken seriously. Or even from the marketing side, but that would be still easy to dismiss as retrograde thinking.
Hardware rules. Enjoy the progress.
No disrespect taken.
Where necessary, Apple has made multimillion dollar investments to assure it has enough production capacity at any given time. When you have a couple of years, know where you're going and know what you want, it makes sense. If you really can't get what you would like then use a different technology. Don't hold off if you think you are losing sales.
We have all seen the slide saying something along the lines of 'we don't have what our customers want'. We have all heard the 'large screens won't sell' line.
Your spin on the new line is nice but doesn't tell the whole story. It just didn't need to be so thin and it is time stop talking about 'legacy'.
The new iMacs come with current ports which now include USB-C.
Apple invested many millions, maybe in the hundreds, on IGZO production, and it took several long years to bring to fruition. The results began to show on the thinner iMacs first, then on the thinner MacBooks. Note that there is still room on the iMac for older ports.
The point I'm making is that the mandate to shrink wherever possible is, always has been, an overriding principle of good electronic engineering since the dawn of the solid state transistor. No engineer at Apple with any professional pride is going to make a notebook thicker than it has to be. If you don't see this, you just don't get Apple, or Ive, or Jobsian thinking.
LTPS, on the other hand, may not have been seeded by Apple as much as IGZO, I would assume because it was developed by companies outside their leverage. But that story hasn't been told, as far as I know.
Even if he did...and? I'm sure every single kind of idea and course of action was discussed and thrown around when developing the iPhone. Steve Jobs did a shitload of 180s himself. He didn't even want an AppStore. Even if Schiller thought a KB might be best at some point in time, I'm not going to hold that against him or pretend he's unfit for the job because of it.
Also, I don't trust a word that comes out of Faddels mouth. It's well known that he consistently exaggerated his role and accomplishments at Apple in order to bring more legitimacy and hype to his new company (now sold out to Google of course).
Agreed. It doesn't matter at all but Schiller is a bit prone to impulsive comments. When you have Twitter nearby it doesn't make for a good combination. He should have spoken to Fadell first and Fadell would have told him the conversations were recorded. In that case Schiller should have asked him to retract what he said or, in the case of the claim being true, ride the storm (in a teacup to begin with) or just admit it was true and move on. A physical keyboard (at that time) might have even been a decent idea. It depends on how it is implemented. Saying it was incorrect when, indirectly, someone is supporting the claim and that the claim was recorded, is bound to make things worse.
Something similar surely happened with the new MBP. I'm convinced that internally, Apple was divided on the thinness issue.
Except Schiller has stated that he never wanted a keyboard on the iPhone.
Mechant didn't speak to Schiller; he spoke to Fadell who is denying he said any such thing. So Schiller isn't actually making anything worse because this really doesn't have anything to do with him.
My guess is that Fadell foolishly said it in a moment of grandstanding and now he has to walk it back.
Which is why I said 'indirectly' in the original post. Schiller is making it worse not only by commenting but by denying what was attributed to him. It's not his fault of course but instead of tweeting, the best option would have a 'hey Faddell, clean this thing up' and then wait for the, author to reflect Fadell's correction. The focus would stay on Fadell.
Now the focus is equally on Schiller, Fadell and the author, as people are obviously curious to know what was said and in what context, which could in turn lead to other people (who were privy to the original opinions of those involved) chiming in and things getting even more attention than is really needed.
Nope.
If Schiller hadn't said something then Fadell would have said nothing (because he would have no reason to). The only reason that this inaccuracy has been exposed is because Schiller called them out and then stepped away. Now it's between Mechant and Fadell prove who said what.
Even if he did...and? I'm sure every single kind of idea and course of action was discussed and thrown around when developing the iPhone. Steve Jobs did a shitload of 180s himself. He didn't even want an AppStore. Even if Schiller thought a KB might be best at some point in time, I'm not going to hold that against him or pretend he's unfit for the job because of it.
Also, I don't trust a word that comes out of Faddels mouth. It's well known that he consistently exaggerated his role and accomplishments at Apple in order to bring more legitimacy and hype to his new company (now sold out to Google of course).
Something similar surely happened with the new MBP. I'm convinced that internally, Apple was divided on the thinness issue.
What possible evidence do you have of that? Sounds like wishful thinking.
Evidence is not required.
However, judging by the content of this article, we'll have to wait around 10 years for someone to spill the beans on what really happened during the design phase of the new MBPs and how it passed through executive approval.
Perhaps we will see the Jony Ive unauthorized biography at some point.
We already have rumours of competing MBP designs at Apple (fighter vs bomber) and supposing those rumours have some truth in them, it is very reasonable to suspect that the 'thin at any cost' design is far from universally backed at the company. Then we have someone from HP going on record last year (during the backlash) and claiming that they carried out a lot of research and found that a lot of people preferred thin without compromises. As a result, HP is trying to cater to both markets. I doubt Apple's own research brought back differing results. The difference is on the executive side. A decision was taken and they had to run with it. Apple is not a company of options. Look how long it took them to finally release a large screen iPhone.
OK so no evidence and just wishful thinking. Got it.
Nope. You very much don't get it.
I said:
"Something similar surely happened with the new MBP"
That is called affirmative deduction. I am not presenting it as an absolutefact so evidence is not at all necessary. Not in the slightest.
If I had said:
"Something similar happened with the new MBP"
It would swing the pendulum a little but would still be interpreted through context.
And just for the record, it wasn't wishful thinking either. I explained the reasoning behind the deduction in the following post.
So like he said, no evidence, just wishful thinking.
So we all know Jobs, and does anyone think for a minute Job was taking any inputs from anyone else on the product especially a person from Marketing. Apple Marketing is outward facing, it not inward. It is well Known that Steve never relied on taking inputs from the outside world especially from Marketing. Phil job has always been to market and sell what Steve came up with not the other ways around.
This is a joke right? The idea that Steve came up with everything is RDF and kool-aid drinking at its finest.
I did not say he came up with everything on his own, but we know from history he saw or had his own ideas and then had the design teams implement his ideas. Do not forget Steve's name sits on lots of patents and that was not done because he founded the company, he had lots of his own unique ideas. My point was Steve always said do not ask people what they want, they will tell you what they already know not what they want. Apple was not known for doing market research and this was driven specifically by Steve himself. I do not believe he was reaching out or even listen to Phil about what the product should or should not have been. He barely trusted Jony for a long time. I do not believe they a physical keyboard was ever an option since they had a solution which did not require a physical keyboard.
So we all know Jobs, and does anyone think for a minute Job was taking any inputs from anyone else on the product especially a person from Marketing. Apple Marketing is outward facing, it not inward. It is well Known that Steve never relied on taking inputs from the outside world especially from Marketing. Phil job has always been to market and sell what Steve came up with not the other ways around.
This is a joke right? The idea that Steve came up with everything is RDF and kool-aid drinking at its finest.
Nope. Not a joke. People actually believe that Steve ran the whole show, and after Jobs died, Tim Cook took over and hired the current headcount overnight.
Even if he did...and? I'm sure every single kind of idea and course of action was discussed and thrown around when developing the iPhone. Steve Jobs did a shitload of 180s himself. He didn't even want an AppStore. Even if Schiller thought a KB might be best at some point in time, I'm not going to hold that against him or pretend he's unfit for the job because of it.
Also, I don't trust a word that comes out of Faddels mouth. It's well known that he consistently exaggerated his role and accomplishments at Apple in order to bring more legitimacy and hype to his new company (now sold out to Google of course).
Something similar surely happened with the new MBP. I'm convinced that internally, Apple was divided on the thinness issue.
What possible evidence do you have of that? Sounds like wishful thinking.
Evidence is not required.
However, judging by the content of this article, we'll have to wait around 10 years for someone to spill the beans on what really happened during the design phase of the new MBPs and how it passed through executive approval.
Perhaps we will see the Jony Ive unauthorized biography at some point.
We already have rumours of competing MBP designs at Apple (fighter vs bomber) and supposing those rumours have some truth in them, it is very reasonable to suspect that the 'thin at any cost' design is far from universally backed at the company. Then we have someone from HP going on record last year (during the backlash) and claiming that they carried out a lot of research and found that a lot of people preferred thin without compromises. As a result, HP is trying to cater to both markets. I doubt Apple's own research brought back differing results. The difference is on the executive side. A decision was taken and they had to run with it. Apple is not a company of options. Look how long it took them to finally release a large screen iPhone.
Maybe the set of PC's "without compromise" is tiny. My guess is that Apple knows its market, knows its roadmap, and knows when the optimum time to deliver a product is, and sometimes, that is dependent on particular technologies.
Maybe Apple makes the decisions that it does based on revenue and profit potential. HP caters to both markets, sure, but what about the profits?
Even if he did...and? I'm sure every single kind of idea and course of action was discussed and thrown around when developing the iPhone. Steve Jobs did a shitload of 180s himself. He didn't even want an AppStore. Even if Schiller thought a KB might be best at some point in time, I'm not going to hold that against him or pretend he's unfit for the job because of it.
Also, I don't trust a word that comes out of Faddels mouth. It's well known that he consistently exaggerated his role and accomplishments at Apple in order to bring more legitimacy and hype to his new company (now sold out to Google of course).
Something similar surely happened with the new MBP. I'm convinced that internally, Apple was divided on the thinness issue.
What possible evidence do you have of that? Sounds like wishful thinking.
Evidence is not required.
However, judging by the content of this article, we'll have to wait around 10 years for someone to spill the beans on what really happened during the design phase of the new MBPs and how it passed through executive approval.
Perhaps we will see the Jony Ive unauthorized biography at some point.
We already have rumours of competing MBP designs at Apple (fighter vs bomber) and supposing those rumours have some truth in them, it is very reasonable to suspect that the 'thin at any cost' design is far from universally backed at the company. Then we have someone from HP going on record last year (during the backlash) and claiming that they carried out a lot of research and found that a lot of people preferred thin without compromises. As a result, HP is trying to cater to both markets. I doubt Apple's own research brought back differing results. The difference is on the executive side. A decision was taken and they had to run with it. Apple is not a company of options. Look how long it took them to finally release a large screen iPhone.
OK so no evidence and just wishful thinking. Got it.
Nope. You very much don't get it.
I said:
"Something similar surely happened with the new MBP"
That is called affirmative deduction. I am not presenting it as an absolutefact so evidence is not at all necessary. Not in the slightest.
If I had said:
"Something similar happened with the new MBP"
It would swing the pendulum a little but would still be interpreted through context.
And just for the record, it wasn't wishful thinking either. I explained the reasoning behind the deduction in the following post.
So like he said, no evidence, just wishful thinking.
Got it.
No.
Why is evidence required?
I've explained (ironically in the post you quoted) why it isn't so please have a crack at explaining why it is.
Truth is defined by objective fact. You may believe that something is true, but that’s irrelevant to actual truth unless you have evidence to support your belief.
Comments
Some of Apple's best products didn't originally come from them. The current Mac OS, iOS, Final cut, Siri etc.
The real issue is that there are 4 or 5 guys at Apple who decide what gets made. They don't have the conflict like they did when Steve was around. So without conflict, there was no drive to out do each other. It's a very Machiavellian way to make products, but the products themselves were amazing.
Where necessary, Apple has made multimillion dollar investments to assure it has enough production capacity at any given time. When you have a couple of years, know where you're going and know what you want, it makes sense. If you really can't get what you would like then use a different technology. Don't hold off if you think you are losing sales.
We have all seen the slide saying something along the lines of 'we don't have what our customers want'. We have all heard the 'large screens won't sell' line.
Your spin on the new line is nice but doesn't tell the whole story. It just didn't need to be so thin and it is time stop talking about 'legacy'.
The new iMacs come with current ports which now include USB-C.
I said:
"Something similar surely happened with the new MBP"
That is called affirmative deduction. I am not presenting it as an absolute fact so evidence is not at all necessary. Not in the slightest.
If I had said:
"Something similar happened with the new MBP"
It would swing the pendulum a little but would still be interpreted through context.
And just for the record, it wasn't wishful thinking either. I explained the reasoning behind the deduction in the following post.
Right and according to this author it was Jony Ive who first showed Steve the tablet concept being worked on and Steve hated it but eventually Jony got him to come around and then Steve asked the team to present it to others including Tony Fadell and Phil Schiller.
The point I'm making is that the mandate to shrink wherever possible is, always has been, an overriding principle of good electronic engineering since the dawn of the solid state transistor. No engineer at Apple with any professional pride is going to make a notebook thicker than it has to be. If you don't see this, you just don't get Apple, or Ive, or Jobsian thinking.
LTPS, on the other hand, may not have been seeded by Apple as much as IGZO, I would assume because it was developed by companies outside their leverage. But that story hasn't been told, as far as I know.
If Schiller hadn't said something then Fadell would have said nothing (because he would have no reason to). The only reason that this inaccuracy has been exposed is because Schiller called them out and then stepped away. Now it's between Mechant and Fadell prove who said what.
Got it.
I did not say he came up with everything on his own, but we know from history he saw or had his own ideas and then had the design teams implement his ideas. Do not forget Steve's name sits on lots of patents and that was not done because he founded the company, he had lots of his own unique ideas. My point was Steve always said do not ask people what they want, they will tell you what they already know not what they want. Apple was not known for doing market research and this was driven specifically by Steve himself. I do not believe he was reaching out or even listen to Phil about what the product should or should not have been. He barely trusted Jony for a long time. I do not believe they a physical keyboard was ever an option since they had a solution which did not require a physical keyboard.
Yeah, because evidence is not required.
Maybe the set of PC's "without compromise" is tiny. My guess is that Apple knows its market, knows its roadmap, and knows when the optimum time to deliver a product is, and sometimes, that is dependent on particular technologies.
Maybe Apple makes the decisions that it does based on revenue and profit potential. HP caters to both markets, sure, but what about the profits?
Why is evidence required?
I've explained (ironically in the post you quoted) why it isn't so please have a crack at explaining why it is.
Wishful thinking?
No again.
Truth is defined by objective fact. You may believe that something is true, but that’s irrelevant to actual truth unless you have evidence to support your belief.