macplusplus

mac_128 said:

rotateleftbyte said:

techno said:

Why does it seem like Apple is like a dog chasing it's own tail? They are now copying the company (Samsung) that has traditionally copied Apple. 

So... in your eyes, anyone who releases a folding device in the future is copying Samsung?

Is it possible that Apple (and others) have been working on this 'feature' for years already?

Apple has had (to my understanding) patent applications in that relate to folding devices that date back several years but for you it won't matter as whatever they release is just a poor copy of Samsung....?????

I'm not convinced that there is a big market for this type of device but what do I know eh?

It’s a little bit like the argument that there’s no market for the original iPhone in 2007 because a smartphone needed a built-in keyboard. “Where’s the market” for a touch screen “toy”? I’m not saying it’s exactly the same, but he practical applications of this type of device fictionally portrayed in the TV series WESTWORLD, and other near-future sci-fi shows, clearly demonstrate that if Apple perfects this tech, it would be preferred over the current phablet limitations, and would eliminate the need to own, and keep track of multiple devices.

the iPad is the logical place to start developing this tech as it allows them to work on a larger scale before it has to be miniaturized for phone use.

rogifan_new said:

macplusplus said:

AI_lias said:

Interesting that other executives did not want the Apple Watch yet. Maybe they were waiting out battery life improvements. That's what I would have done, until at least a week battery life. Either that or reduce the features to achieve that battery life. As far as Apple as a luxury watch: they should have created an expensive shell, which you would re-use across multiple guts across the years. So, just replace the innards with the newest ones, while keeping your $10,000 outer shell. I could have seen that. But not for a watch you have to replace every two years.

Overall, this is a stunning article, if true. I get that there's a lot of secrecy around what Apple does, but Ive's legacy would have been served much better if he would have better explained and defended his design decisions, and even taken responsibility for fails.

Interesting that “other executives” consented to the announcement of an unfinished, vaporware project as the “AirPower” wireless charging pad. 

And Phil Schiller got up on stage at WWDC to announce the trash can Mac Pro saying “can’t innovate any more, my ass”. Sure seems the company was proud of that product when they announced it.

AI_lias said:

Interesting that other executives did not want the Apple Watch yet. Maybe they were waiting out battery life improvements. That's what I would have done, until at least a week battery life. Either that or reduce the features to achieve that battery life. As far as Apple as a luxury watch: they should have created an expensive shell, which you would re-use across multiple guts across the years. So, just replace the innards with the newest ones, while keeping your $10,000 outer shell. I could have seen that. But not for a watch you have to replace every two years.

Overall, this is a stunning article, if true. I get that there's a lot of secrecy around what Apple does, but Ive's legacy would have been served much better if he would have better explained and defended his design decisions, and even taken responsibility for fails.

rogifan_new said:

You always have to take stories like these with caution (and Rene Ritchie claims he’s heard different though he doesn’t go into details). BUT if any of it is true it’s kind of depressing, especially the part about Tim Cook rarely showing up in the design studio. Going from someone who was there every day and very interested in what you were doing to someone who doesn’t really care must be dispiriting. I also wonder if some of the design staff departures the past few years were because Ive wasn’t around as much.If he’s sort of checked out and Tim Cook never comes around I can see where that wouldn’t be a great environment. Ben Bajarin claims Jeff Williams is more interested in design than is publicly known. So maybe it’s a good thing these teams are reporting to him and not Cook. And perhaps promotions his number two to SVP of operations gives him the time to focus on product and the design teams.

GeorgeBMac said:

I do not find this surprising at all -- and that is NOT to trash Cook & crew.
Rather, inspired design, the kind that keeps you up all night -- not to meet a deadline but because you are excited about what you are doing -- comes from within.   It is not a conscious effort as in "I think I will design a great product today".  But, although that creativity, initiative and drive come from within, it is spawned by a nurturing environment that Steve understood -- probably because he felt it too.  That is one of the main reasons why Steve pushed for the new Apple Park -- to help create that environment.

A corporate environment simply can't create that environment.
I think Tim knows that and he supported Ives as best he was able.   But, he couldn't replace the design environment that Ives needed.  Tim has maintained many of the principles and values that Apple was built on, but this one was a miss.

But, i think there was another factor at work here too:   Apple (whether it was Apple or Ives) had become stuck in the 'thin, light, minimalist' design ideology.  That, and the counter pull to make 'great products', likely bothered Ives a great deal because ideology market ideology is always the enemy of creativity.