Don't try to turn everything into politics. Socialism is where the Government owns everything. Do you think Apple (or so-called "socialists") wants the Government to own it? Just because many people believe that capitalism doesn't work well for receiving medical care doesn't mean they want socialism for everything. Even socialist countries have lots of capitalism.
I agree with your rebuttal, but even so want to dot some i's..
Government owns everything = communism.. Socialism = capitalism + safeguards
That's safeguards for the weak, obviously, because we all know who's gonna win in a battle between a rich guy and a poor if money is the only yardstick... But apparently that makes socialism something dirty.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That's not a standard definition of socialism. Here's the definition from the source of all truth:
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.
This is not really surprising, is it? Anyone remembers the move from PowerPC to Intel based processor?
I do Bebe...I bought an original intel iMac (20" white) and a little later an original white intel MacBook/(iBook?).
Thought I'd died and go to heaven b/c they were so beautiful!
Good times
I still ogle my 2006 iMac; I love the way it seems to hang in a crystal palace with light-filled corridors. (2000 graphite iMac is also savory but looks scuffed, which is odd since I never dragged it around by the handle.)
Last night in my home office. “Alexa, turn off the porch light.” (Echo lights flickering, ten seconds go by) “I’m sorry, the porch light is not responding.” “Hey Siri, turn off the porch light.” Light goes out. “Okay.”
So you can keep your false narrative about Echo being the be-all end-all perfect digital assistant and how Siri sucks.
I would never purchase an Echo, but I was watching classic boxing and asked Siri, "When did Mike Tyson fight Dominic Boyd.” It answered, "The Seahawks and the Bengals game was on October 11, 2015 at noon." I corrected my question and asked, "When did Mike Tyson fight Lorenzo Boyd.” It answered, "Which team?" and offered me Andorra World Cup Qualifiers or DSL Astros Blue.
I don't believe there is a perfect digital assistant, but I'd like one that didn't make me laugh or curse before opening Safari to googlerize my question.
Bizarre. I asked the same question and I got the same answer (except time-zone adjusted to 1:00pm). I wonder what's associating Tyson and Boyd to Seahawks-Bengals.
And in what bizarro world is "right" considered better than "great"? He wasn't be "sneaky."
Yeah, since they released it in 2014, it's quite likely they were working on it before that (unless you know something about time-travel that I don't).
And, if I recall, Jobs used to talk about not releasing products until Apple could do them right. 'Great' is just marketing fluff... every company calls their products, great.
StrangeDays said: Apple has long said they focus on design product confident that the profit will follow. Many other companies do not do this and design to profit first.
Yep, that's what made Apple great. The debate, is whether they are still operating under that principal or not.
StrangeDays said: And getting it "right" isn't something that happens in one single product. Was the original iPhone "right", or was it "great"? It didn't have copy & paste, so it couldn't have been "right", but it was also "great". Ive said himself that even in hardware you go thru versions and re-work based on what you've learned, that even hardware doesn't stop a product from evolving and prevent a designer from going thru the iterative process.
Of course products will iterate and improve. One could argue that an iPhone w/o copy/paste was quite hampered (and I'd certainly not bought one w/o that). And, Jobs wasn't above marketing fluff either, it just seems Cook is even more exaggerated, and Apple has been getting less and less, right. As I think I recall saying in another post, Apple is almost famous for releasing products w/o key features and then you have to get to the 2nd or 3rd gen before its functionality feels somewhat complete. It's just the excuse they use when something is running behind schedule... i.e.: we don't ship it until it is done right. I was simply noting how great is much more pliable than doing something right.
rotateleftbyte said: He has to justify the huge increase in R&D spending. Kit to make cars 'Self-Driving' and a updates to existing products does not cut it for me. Where is all that money going? I expect that we will find out in good time.
One could waste a heck of a lot of money on the self-driving car thing. A lot of money is currently being wasted on it, and will be for some years.
spliff monkey said: There was a well written AI article discussing exactly the situation You call baloney. They were working in the HomePod for quite some time. As a matter of fact the joke in the team was that one of the HomePod engineers must have told someone at amazon and google what they were working on. To further the story the Apple engineers quickly snapped up an Alexa or goog speaker, and discovered there was nothing of significance/ to worry about in terms of competitiveness.
That does sounds like a good tech-history tale.
randominternetperson said: That's not a standard definition of socialism. Here's the definition from the source of all truth:
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.
Sorry to perpetuate the OT, but I just can't resist here. The concept (and flaw) of socialism, is that it can jettison the bad, corrupt business people and usher in the utopia by putting things in the hands of the people/government. The problem with this, much like Luther discovered when he sequestered himself away in the monastery, is that he 'brought that devil right in there with himself.'
Socialism (and modern crony capitalism) don't work because they are social sciences that don't get the social correct. If you build your system on a false premise, it will crumble. And history has proven many, many times how well socialism works. They just don't teach that in school any longer, apparently.
Yes, great. But make Siri work properly. It is now slow to respond to Hey Siri and it’s hands free ability to understand who you want to call from contacts is pants. If you want it to find a number from the internet it’s almost impossible. I’m not prepared to go to Google but it’s voice recognition and ability to get sequences of words and to choose the right word for context is quite amazing. We are relying more on voice control and when you’re paying top dollar for Apple kit, Siri is an embarrassment.
He has to justify the huge increase in R&D spending. Kit to make cars 'Self-Driving' and a updates to existing products does not cut it for me. Where is all that money going? I expect that we will find out in good time.
Re where that money is going, I expect people underestimate the increase in wage value of great engineers, designers, etc.. The intense and growing competition in technology would necessitate a substantial yearly increase. That and insanely great products in the works
AppleInsider said: "More generally, if you look at America, the 90-day clock [quarterly results] is a negative," he expanded. "Why would you ever measure a business on 90 days when its investments are long term?"
...
"What's happening if you look under the sheets, which we probably don't let people do, is that we start projects years before they come out," Cook said. "You could take every one of our products -- iPod, iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch -- they weren't the first, but they were the first modern one, right?
"In each case, if you look at when we started, I would guess that we started much before other people did, but we took our time to get it right. Because we don't believe in using our customers as a laboratory. What we have that I think is unique is patience. We have patience to wait until something is great before we ship it."
...
"I think it's important for artists," he said. "If we're going to continue to have a great creative community, [artists] have to be funded."
Yes, this first statement is true, because unfortunately, the stock markets aren't about investment, really. They have become a form of legitimized gambling for the wealthy, and a money-suck replacement for social security for the rest.
And, other companies don't start on their products before they release them? Is Cook trying to act like they've been working on a smart-speaker before Amazon, Google, etc? I'm calling baloney on that one. And, yes, they often improve on a product category... but "don't believe in using our customers as a laboratory" is getting a bit thin as a claim these days. And, notice he said 'great' before we ship it, not 'right'. Sneaky, Tim.
And, what about the content creators? Are they as important as the artists? Then, how about some investment in Apple products that might not be profit centers, but are still crucial? Or, is it just musicians where you don't care about money? In the video version of the interview, did Tim jump out of his chair and do a quick break-dance routine? (Of course, then I guess the diversity department would haul him off for cultural appropriation, seeing as they are so tolerant and inclusive.)
Sorry, folks, it's getting kinda thick in here. Beyond that first statement, the rest was first-class marketing fluff.
Why don't other CEO's sound as lucid and thoughtful as Tim?
You mean, laying on the BS in a very eloquent manner? I'm not sure we *want* other CEOs (nor Apple's) to have that skill. Steve was also pretty good, I suppose, but he was also able to deliver.
You really think Amazon and Google were working on their smart speakers before 2014? That sounds like baloney to me.
A patent doesn't necessarily mean they're working on a smart speaker. Apple patents all kinds of shit, that doesn't mean any of it will come to fruition.
Last night in my home office. “Alexa, turn off the porch light.” (Echo lights flickering, ten seconds go by) “I’m sorry, the porch light is not responding.” “Hey Siri, turn off the porch light.” Light goes out. “Okay.”
So you can keep your false narrative about Echo being the be-all end-all perfect digital assistant and how Siri sucks.
Far more evidence everywhere that Siri is behind and lacking than Alexa or Google Assistant. Practically everyone including Apple lovers say Siri isn’t as good.
Actually you are wrong. I surprised how good is HomePod Siri. Practically all the test questions they asked, Siri answered all correctly for me (well, except when it comes to hardware related question, but that will be supported in the future).
AppleInsider said: "More generally, if you look at America, the 90-day clock [quarterly results] is a negative," he expanded. "Why would you ever measure a business on 90 days when its investments are long term?"
...
"What's happening if you look under the sheets, which we probably don't let people do, is that we start projects years before they come out," Cook said. "You could take every one of our products -- iPod, iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch -- they weren't the first, but they were the first modern one, right?
"In each case, if you look at when we started, I would guess that we started much before other people did, but we took our time to get it right. Because we don't believe in using our customers as a laboratory. What we have that I think is unique is patience. We have patience to wait until something is great before we ship it."
...
"I think it's important for artists," he said. "If we're going to continue to have a great creative community, [artists] have to be funded."
Yes, this first statement is true, because unfortunately, the stock markets aren't about investment, really. They have become a form of legitimized gambling for the wealthy, and a money-suck replacement for social security for the rest.
And, other companies don't start on their products before they release them? Is Cook trying to act like they've been working on a smart-speaker before Amazon, Google, etc? I'm calling baloney on that one. And, yes, they often improve on a product category... but "don't believe in using our customers as a laboratory" is getting a bit thin as a claim these days. And, notice he said 'great' before we ship it, not 'right'. Sneaky, Tim.
And, what about the content creators? Are they as important as the artists? Then, how about some investment in Apple products that might not be profit centers, but are still crucial? Or, is it just musicians where you don't care about money? In the video version of the interview, did Tim jump out of his chair and do a quick break-dance routine? (Of course, then I guess the diversity department would haul him off for cultural appropriation, seeing as they are so tolerant and inclusive.)
Sorry, folks, it's getting kinda thick in here. Beyond that first statement, the rest was first-class marketing fluff.
Why don't other CEO's sound as lucid and thoughtful as Tim?
You mean, laying on the BS in a very eloquent manner? I'm not sure we *want* other CEOs (nor Apple's) to have that skill. Steve was also pretty good, I suppose, but he was also able to deliver.
You really think Amazon and Google were working on their smart speakers before 2014? That sounds like baloney to me.
A patent doesn't necessarily mean they're working on a smart speaker. Apple patents all kinds of shit, that doesn't mean any of it will come to fruition.
Right and Eric probably handed his legal department screeds of product ideas he heard at Apple when on the board there and said 'patent every idea here fast'.
I'd just be happy to see a new MacPro, MacMini and Macbook Pro that can take 32GB of RAM in the not too distant future.
Don't count on it...Most of the above is up to Intel, not Apple.
I'll settle for updated MacPro (TB3), MacMini (TB3), and MacBook Pro (reliable keyboard) in the not too distant future. Intel has nothing to do with preventing that.
That's not a standard definition of socialism. Here's the definition from the source of all truth:
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.
That may be the definition, but every socialist country in Europe is capitalist+safeguards.
I get what he's saying but hate that he feels the need to virtue signal to socialists in society by saying Apple isn't in it for the money. Apple only could have flourished in a pro-business country without the government dictating all its choices. They should be proud of their products and profits because they can bring us NEW wonderful products, employing 100's of thousands of people with good wages and support 100's of thousands of people & businesses who are effected by their ecosystem.
What he said was that they weren’t doing Apple Music for the money, which is true. Apple Music is to sell more hardware. What Apple knows and Spotify has yet to learn is that streaming is a poor business proposition by itself.
He did not say the same thing about iPhones or iPads or Macs.
I'm sure Spotify know it too, it's the investors in these companies that don't seem to get it.
It's news when Apple stops investing in R&D. This is a fluff-piece.
No doubt some could call the original article a fluff-piece. Nevertheless, it is newsworthy, because it offers some insight into the company and its leadership. If it was me, I'd grill Tim a bit more, about some troubles over the past few months, but that wasn't the tone of the interview.
Real fluff-pieces are those articles, about some products, that are "good"—not great—and fail to address the elephant in the room, for the sake of personal/editorial agendas.
Most Android enthusiasts would call us, Apple users and AI readers, fanboys being spoon fed fluff-pieces about Apple. But even though the tone in AI is more positive towards Apple than most publications, in more than 10 years reading it daily, I fail to remember even seeing a single fluff-piece.
Yes, I'd run him over coals on a few things and make him sweat a bit.
100% fluff in the interview.
In fact, 'interview' is stretching things. It came over as an excuse for Tim to spin his spin.
AppleInsider said: "More generally, if you look at America, the 90-day clock [quarterly results] is a negative," he expanded. "Why would you ever measure a business on 90 days when its investments are long term?"
...
"What's happening if you look under the sheets, which we probably don't let people do, is that we start projects years before they come out," Cook said. "You could take every one of our products -- iPod, iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch -- they weren't the first, but they were the first modern one, right?
"In each case, if you look at when we started, I would guess that we started much before other people did, but we took our time to get it right. Because we don't believe in using our customers as a laboratory. What we have that I think is unique is patience. We have patience to wait until something is great before we ship it."
...
"I think it's important for artists," he said. "If we're going to continue to have a great creative community, [artists] have to be funded."
Yes, this first statement is true, because unfortunately, the stock markets aren't about investment, really. They have become a form of legitimized gambling for the wealthy, and a money-suck replacement for social security for the rest.
And, other companies don't start on their products before they release them? Is Cook trying to act like they've been working on a smart-speaker before Amazon, Google, etc? I'm calling baloney on that one. And, yes, they often improve on a product category... but "don't believe in using our customers as a laboratory" is getting a bit thin as a claim these days. And, notice he said 'great' before we ship it, not 'right'. Sneaky, Tim.
And, what about the content creators? Are they as important as the artists? Then, how about some investment in Apple products that might not be profit centers, but are still crucial? Or, is it just musicians where you don't care about money? In the video version of the interview, did Tim jump out of his chair and do a quick break-dance routine? (Of course, then I guess the diversity department would haul him off for cultural appropriation, seeing as they are so tolerant and inclusive.)
Sorry, folks, it's getting kinda thick in here. Beyond that first statement, the rest was first-class marketing fluff.
Why don't other CEO's sound as lucid and thoughtful as Tim?
You mean, laying on the BS in a very eloquent manner? I'm not sure we *want* other CEOs (nor Apple's) to have that skill. Steve was also pretty good, I suppose, but he was also able to deliver.
You really think Amazon and Google were working on their smart speakers before 2014? That sounds like baloney to me.
A patent doesn't necessarily mean they're working on a smart speaker. Apple patents all kinds of shit, that doesn't mean any of it will come to fruition.
Right and Eric probably handed his legal department screeds of product ideas he heard at Apple when on the board there and said 'patent every idea here fast'.
Nah, that all came from Apple's Chairman of the Board Arthur Levinson who was also helping manage Google, and is still involved with Google. Schmidt didn't have that kind of quality connections himself.
...or what if Levinson is actually a double-agent and stealing stuff from Google to take back to Apple! Oh geez so many things to worry about, no one can be trusted.
That's not a standard definition of socialism. Here's the definition from the source of all truth:
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.
That may be the definition, but every socialist country in Europe is capitalist+safeguards.
Comments
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.
And, if I recall, Jobs used to talk about not releasing products until Apple could do them right. 'Great' is just marketing fluff... every company calls their products, great.
Yep, that's what made Apple great. The debate, is whether they are still operating under that principal or not.
Of course products will iterate and improve. One could argue that an iPhone w/o copy/paste was quite hampered (and I'd certainly not bought one w/o that). And, Jobs wasn't above marketing fluff either, it just seems Cook is even more exaggerated, and Apple has been getting less and less, right. As I think I recall saying in another post, Apple is almost famous for releasing products w/o key features and then you have to get to the 2nd or 3rd gen before its functionality feels somewhat complete. It's just the excuse they use when something is running behind schedule... i.e.: we don't ship it until it is done right. I was simply noting how great is much more pliable than doing something right.
One could waste a heck of a lot of money on the self-driving car thing. A lot of money is currently being wasted on it, and will be for some years.
That does sounds like a good tech-history tale.
Sorry to perpetuate the OT, but I just can't resist here. The concept (and flaw) of socialism, is that it can jettison the bad, corrupt business people and usher in the utopia by putting things in the hands of the people/government. The problem with this, much like Luther discovered when he sequestered himself away in the monastery, is that he 'brought that devil right in there with himself.'
Socialism (and modern crony capitalism) don't work because they are social sciences that don't get the social correct. If you build your system on a false premise, it will crumble. And history has proven many, many times how well socialism works. They just don't teach that in school any longer, apparently.
That and insanely great products in the works
I'll settle for updated MacPro (TB3), MacMini (TB3), and MacBook Pro (reliable keyboard) in the not too distant future. Intel has nothing to do with preventing that.
That may be the definition, but every socialist country in Europe is capitalist+safeguards.
100% fluff in the interview.
In fact, 'interview' is stretching things. It came over as an excuse for Tim to spin his spin.
...or what if Levinson is actually a double-agent and stealing stuff from Google to take back to Apple! Oh geez so many things to worry about, no one can be trusted.