Daniel, I really want these editorials off Appleinsider .... and on a less Apple-centric site. I send links to your editorials to my PC/Android friends, but I wish you had a bigger voice in the tech writing world. Another great piece.
Daniel, I really want these editorials ON AppleInsider AND on less Apple-centric sites. I send links to your editorials to PC/Android AND Apple-using colleagues, AND I wish you had an even bigger voice in the tech writing world. Another great piece.
Your editorials are the main reason I read AppleInsider.
The iPhones are indistinguishable from Androids in the way they look.
What I hate is that people expect Apple to release a revolutionary product annually while dismissing the knockoffs that follow Apple to the letter. "MiMoji".
Sorry but Apple will innovate when they need to.
I have a colleague in the school where I teach who is a die-hard Apple user: iPhone, Mac, iPad. Yet, he believes that Apple’s doom is “right around the corner” unless they release some “revolutionary new innovative product” soon, like in “the good old days”. I keep trying to counter that counter-productive kool-aid he keeps drinking from the likes of Patel and Mr. Trickle, but to no avail. Sigh...
The venom in this article is, itself, unprofessional. It"s a commited fanboy"s reply, rather embarrassing in its fawning tone. I mean, who cares what the WSJ writes? It makes no difference to Apple, it's not going to effect sales or have people resigning. People will continue to buy Apple, come what may.
But of course, Apple can rely upon its legion of hyper committed fans to jump to its defence, even when it's not required. It's part of the deal - full immersion, full commitment, full defence. Fanboys get to be part of the gang, get to pass their money onto Apple & in return Apple sell them expensive tech.
First of all, when you're at a blog named AppleInsider, it begs the question that the opinions will be from a fanboy's point of view so let's not kid ourselves. Second, there's fanboyism and then there's delusional. One is very distinct from the other. This article strikes me as more of the latter.
The argument that Apple continues to sell, record revenues, blah, blah is irrelevant to a certain extent. McDonald's continues to sell millions of burgers each year but no one in their right minds would claim that they're the best burgers around. Not even close. The problem with Apple since Steve's death is that they're no longer the torchbearer. It's like the analogy of a room of dirty shirts and that Apple is the cleanest of the dirty shirts. They use to be the only clean shirt in a room of dirty ones when Steve was alive.
So, the real question you have to ask yourselves is, how good is Apple these days? How much do their products inspire? Are the company and its product reveals as exciting to watch now as when Steve was alive? I think we all know the answers, especially if you're a fanboy.
The iPhones are indistinguishable from Androids in the way they look.
What I hate is that people expect Apple to release a revolutionary product annually while dismissing the knockoffs that follow Apple to the letter. "MiMoji".
Sorry but Apple will innovate when they need to.
I have a colleague in the school where I teach who is a die-hard Apple user: iPhone, Mac, iPad. Yet, he believes that Apple’s doom is “right around the corner” unless they release some “revolutionary new innovative product” soon, like in “the good old days”. I keep trying to counter that counter-productive kool-aid he keeps drinking from the likes of Patel and Mr. Trickle, but to no avail. Sigh…
I wouldn't bother. People like him talk about the good ol' days and an era that never really existed because their memory is eschewing much of the reality. They've compacted timelines and removed all the hiccups that exist with every product release.
This isn't a new phenomenon and it's not specific to technology. For every customer like him that Apple loses they are gaining plenty of others. I think even Steve Jobs had said something about not caring about certain groups wanting things to be done in some archaic way and how those old people will eventually die off.
The venom in this article is, itself, unprofessional. It"s a commited fanboy"s reply, rather embarrassing in its fawning tone. I mean, who cares what the WSJ writes? It makes no difference to Apple, it's not going to effect sales or have people resigning. People will continue to buy Apple, come what may.
But of course, Apple can rely upon its legion of hyper committed fans to jump to its defence, even when it's not required. It's part of the deal - full immersion, full commitment, full defence. Fanboys get to be part of the gang, get to pass their money onto Apple & in return Apple sell them expensive tech.
So why are you here?
DeanKB is here to troll, of course...
Exactly!!! I don't understand why many members of this forum bothered to engage with a Troll (DED included!!!) instead of just clicking the "Flag" button and move on.
This article talks to three former Apple employees about Ive. Interesting how two software guys have different takes. Imran Chaudhri was instrumental in the iPhone software, is on hundreds of Apple patents. He says he went behind Steve’s back (and I’m assuming Scott Forstall’s too) to show the design team what iOS looked like, from the parking lot of Apple’s campus. Whatever one thinks about Ive having involvement in software I think it’s nuts that Steve put up a wall between software and hardware design to where team members had to go behind his back to share stuff. Now those teams work together on the same floor at Apple Park.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90371707/jony-ives-real-legacy-according-to-apple-designers-who-worked-with-him?partner=rss&utm_campaign=rss+fastcompany&utm_content=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=rss
This kind of visionary thinking is missing now. Instead we get decisions that sometimes move backwards. iPhone X is a fine phone but it didn’t redefine a category. Taking the home button out saves money but creates a brick of a device under certain conditions. The notch is ugly and make UI cramped and lacking on top. I feel that there’s a chance in hell SJ would have approved the notch.
It didn't redefine a category yet there are a dozen copycat designs out there. Brick? Under what conditions? Ugly is subjective, and nothing is cramped. It's a practical design compromise, and you have no idea what Steve Jobs would've done under any circumstances, and certainly not sure why you think he wouldn't have been fine with the design and engineering compromises that allowed Face ID to exist at this point. It's vastly superior to what came before.
If you cut that notch in half horizontally, then stretch both parts to fit them all along the width of the iPhone and place them on the top and bottom of the display, you get enough bezels to embed the cameras, but you don’t ruin the integrity of the display. Unless you find a way to embed the camera in the steel frame, you should not attempt to create a “full screen” iPhone and should continue with the bezels. “There, a full display iPhone, sorry that full display is a bit dented but ignore it...” So, what is the point of providing a barely full really dented display? You think you got rid of the bezels? LOL you just assembled them on top of the display and in a very awkward position ! What is the difference between a bezel and that notch? The notch is quite a bezel by itself. You can only brag about your managing to reduce the bezels into one and place that in the display in a very awkward fashion !
This kind of visionary thinking is missing now. Instead we get decisions that sometimes move backwards. iPhone X is a fine phone but it didn’t redefine a category. Taking the home button out saves money but creates a brick of a device under certain conditions. The notch is ugly and make UI cramped and lacking on top. I feel that there’s a chance in hell SJ would have approved the notch.
It didn't redefine a category yet there are a dozen copycat designs out there. Brick? Under what conditions? Ugly is subjective, and nothing is cramped. It's a practical design compromise, and you have no idea what Steve Jobs would've done under any circumstances, and certainly not sure why you think he wouldn't have been fine with the design and engineering compromises that allowed Face ID to exist at this point. It's vastly superior to what came before.
If you cut that notch in half horizontally, then stretch both parts to fit them all along the width of the iPhone and place them on the top and bottom of the display, you get enough bezels to embed the cameras, but you don’t ruin the integrity of the display. Unless you find a way to embed the camera in the steel frame, you should not attempt to create a “full screen” iPhone and should continue with the bezels. “There, a full display iPhone, sorry that full display is a bit dented but ignore it...” So, what is the point of providing a barely full really dented display? You think you got rid of the bezels? LOL you just assembled them on top of the display and in a very awkward position ! What is the difference between a bezel and that notch? The notch is quite a bezel by itself. You can only brag about your managing to reduce the bezels into one and place that in the display in a very awkward fashion !
Getting additional display doesn’t ruin the integrity do the display. Spreading out component just to use less components that have to share the display and a lesser display that needs to share space with components would literally ruin the integrity of the display.
This kind of visionary thinking is missing now. Instead we get decisions that sometimes move backwards. iPhone X is a fine phone but it didn’t redefine a category. Taking the home button out saves money but creates a brick of a device under certain conditions. The notch is ugly and make UI cramped and lacking on top. I feel that there’s a chance in hell SJ would have approved the notch.
It didn't redefine a category yet there are a dozen copycat designs out there. Brick? Under what conditions? Ugly is subjective, and nothing is cramped. It's a practical design compromise, and you have no idea what Steve Jobs would've done under any circumstances, and certainly not sure why you think he wouldn't have been fine with the design and engineering compromises that allowed Face ID to exist at this point. It's vastly superior to what came before.
If you cut that notch in half horizontally, then stretch both parts to fit them all along the width of the iPhone and place them on the top and bottom of the display, you get enough bezels to embed the cameras, but you don’t ruin the integrity of the display. Unless you find a way to embed the camera in the steel frame, you should not attempt to create a “full screen” iPhone and should continue with the bezels. “There, a full display iPhone, sorry that full display is a bit dented but ignore it...” So, what is the point of providing a barely full really dented display? You think you got rid of the bezels? LOL you just assembled them on top of the display and in a very awkward position ! What is the difference between a bezel and that notch? The notch is quite a bezel by itself. You can only brag about your managing to reduce the bezels into one and place that in the display in a very awkward fashion !
Go build your own phone then. I seriously have zero problems with my iPhone X, it’s the best iPhone I’ve ever owned. Sorry you’re so upset over such a little thing.
This kind of visionary thinking is missing now. Instead we get decisions that sometimes move backwards. iPhone X is a fine phone but it didn’t redefine a category. Taking the home button out saves money but creates a brick of a device under certain conditions. The notch is ugly and make UI cramped and lacking on top. I feel that there’s a chance in hell SJ would have approved the notch.
It didn't redefine a category yet there are a dozen copycat designs out there. Brick? Under what conditions? Ugly is subjective, and nothing is cramped. It's a practical design compromise, and you have no idea what Steve Jobs would've done under any circumstances, and certainly not sure why you think he wouldn't have been fine with the design and engineering compromises that allowed Face ID to exist at this point. It's vastly superior to what came before.
If you cut that notch in half horizontally, then stretch both parts to fit them all along the width of the iPhone and place them on the top and bottom of the display, you get enough bezels to embed the cameras, but you don’t ruin the integrity of the display. Unless you find a way to embed the camera in the steel frame, you should not attempt to create a “full screen” iPhone and should continue with the bezels. “There, a full display iPhone, sorry that full display is a bit dented but ignore it...” So, what is the point of providing a barely full really dented display? You think you got rid of the bezels? LOL you just assembled them on top of the display and in a very awkward position ! What is the difference between a bezel and that notch? The notch is quite a bezel by itself. You can only brag about your managing to reduce the bezels into one and place that in the display in a very awkward fashion !
Go build your own phone then. I seriously have zero problems with my iPhone X, it’s the best iPhone I’ve ever owned. Sorry you’re so upset over such a little thing.
OK, empathy is another issue. At their release I choose 8+ over X. I envy the bigger display of XS Max but I hope until I update the notch issue will be somewhat resolved.
p-dog said:I have a colleague in the school where I teach who is a die-hard Apple user: iPhone, Mac, iPad. Yet, he believes that Apple’s doom is “right around the corner” unless they release some “revolutionary new innovative product” soon, like in “the good old days”. I keep trying to counter that counter-productive kool-aid he keeps drinking from the likes of Patel and Mr. Trickle, but to no avail. Sigh...
You know, it really doesn't matter as long as he keeps buying the products ...
When someone says the truth about you and you don't like it, the best response is to pretend they said something else that isn't true and write a rebuttal to that. Cook's rebuttal is against the claim that Apple's design team is untalented, not against any claim the WSJ ever made. That's a pretty good indication the WSJ was spot on.
No, Cook’s rebuttal was about the inaccuracy of the sum and substance of the article: “A lot of the reporting, and certainly the conclusions just don't match with reality. At a base level, it shows a lack of understanding about how the design team works and how Apple works. It distorts relationships, decisions and events to the point that we just don't recognize the company it claims to describe.”
In other words, the article is BS and Trickle is full of it as usual.
Comments
DeanKB is here to troll, of course...
The argument that Apple continues to sell, record revenues, blah, blah is irrelevant to a certain extent. McDonald's continues to sell millions of burgers each year but no one in their right minds would claim that they're the best burgers around. Not even close. The problem with Apple since Steve's death is that they're no longer the torchbearer. It's like the analogy of a room of dirty shirts and that Apple is the cleanest of the dirty shirts. They use to be the only clean shirt in a room of dirty ones when Steve was alive.
So, the real question you have to ask yourselves is, how good is Apple these days? How much do their products inspire? Are the company and its product reveals as exciting to watch now as when Steve was alive? I think we all know the answers, especially if you're a fanboy.
This isn't a new phenomenon and it's not specific to technology. For every customer like him that Apple loses they are gaining plenty of others. I think even Steve Jobs had said something about not caring about certain groups wanting things to be done in some archaic way and how those old people will eventually die off.
Exactly!!! I don't understand why many members of this forum bothered to engage with a Troll (DED included!!!) instead of just clicking the "Flag" button and move on.
Really enjoyed your editorial. Great!
In other words, the article is BS and Trickle is full of it as usual.