danvm

AppleZulu said:

danvm said:

AppleZulu said:

danvm said:

darelrex said:

I think Apple wants to enter a market when it can make a markedly better product that what's already out there. For example, compare the original 2007 iPhone to the other smartphones that existed at that time; the difference is huge. On the other hand, after Eero debuted (a big improvement in WiFi routers), Apple looked at its own router lineup and said, why are we even in this market? Then Apple left that market.

Cue is being honest: Apple doesn't want to make a me-too copy of Google search. Me-too copies are the historical province of Microsoft, and more recently of Google (e.g. Pixel). Apple doesn't see any value in that.

Apple has some "me-too copies" too, and some of them still behind the competiion.  For example,

Apple Maps / Google Maps
HomePod / Sonos Era
AirTag / Tile
Apple TV+ / Netflix
Apple Arcade / MS GamePass
Apple Music / Spotify

I don't see issues in Apple developing a search engine, even if it is a "me-too copy".  

I’d disagree that these are just “Me Too”

Apple Maps / Google Maps
- Apple isn’t using maps to mine and sell user data, which is kind of important. Also, they created it when they realized just how much ”location services” would become a core OS function. Maps is just the user-facing part of a much deeper program.

This doesn't changes the fact that Apple Maps is a me-too copy of Google Maps, which still miles ahead.  And I know because I use both in a weekly basis.  

HomePod / Sonos Era
Haven’t heard the Sonos device so can’t compare, but HomePod is brilliant audio. Also, like maps, HomePod is the tip of a bigger functional iceberg. It’s needed for HomeKit functionality. See above for context on HomeKit’s approach to user privacy. 

HomePod sounds very good compared to other smart speakers.  But again, we could say this is a me-too product, since the Sonos have been doing the same years before Apple.  The only advantage I see in the HomePod is the integration with other Apple products and services.  But I suppose we cannot blame Sonos for the lack of integration with the Apple ecosystem.

AirTag / Tile
AirTag has a vastly larger back end to support it, and thus superior functionality. See above for more on location services as a core function, as well as approaches to user privacy. That brings us to AirTag’s innovations in breaking the tracker’s utility for stalking. Tile skipped that part until Apple brought it up, then tried to copy it, then undermined those protections with a disingenuous “honor system” that allows tile users to stalk anyway. 

Apple TV+ / Netflix
Not the same thing. AppleTV+ isn’t a back catalog archive like Netflix. New content is brilliant. Try watching Ted Lasso. 

Apple Music / Spotify
Apple Music has always been subscription-based and ad-free. They pay musicians more. They changed the paradigm with lossless and spatial audio by offering them not as an expensive premium, but as an included feature for all subscribers, and it works on the hardware millions already have. Before that, multi-channel audio was a niche thing that -all the way back to quad records in the early 1970s- could never achieve  critical mass to become mainstream. Now, thanks to Apple, lots of new music and back-catalog remixes are coming out in Dolby Atmos every week. That’s not a me-too thing. That’s 100% because of Apple. 

AirTag could be a better Tile, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple copied another product.  

Netflix have a lot of new content, and isn't just a back catalog, as you said.  And while Apple Music have better sound quality, Spotify has a better app / interface, among other things.  And I speak as an Apple Music subscriber.  I went with Apple just for the sound quality.  A part from that, Spotify is better.  At the end, both can be considered me-too services.  

But then, isn’t Google maps just a me-too of Mapquest, and heck, isn’t Google search just a me-too of Yahoo search?

By this standard, the iPhone is a “me too” product. It wasn’t the first cell phone or even the first ‘smart’ phone. But then, by this standard, you’ve entirely missed what it is that Apple actually does. 

AppleZulu said:

danvm said:

darelrex said:

I think Apple wants to enter a market when it can make a markedly better product that what's already out there. For example, compare the original 2007 iPhone to the other smartphones that existed at that time; the difference is huge. On the other hand, after Eero debuted (a big improvement in WiFi routers), Apple looked at its own router lineup and said, why are we even in this market? Then Apple left that market.

Cue is being honest: Apple doesn't want to make a me-too copy of Google search. Me-too copies are the historical province of Microsoft, and more recently of Google (e.g. Pixel). Apple doesn't see any value in that.

Apple has some "me-too copies" too, and some of them still behind the competiion.  For example,

Apple Maps / Google Maps
HomePod / Sonos Era
AirTag / Tile
Apple TV+ / Netflix
Apple Arcade / MS GamePass
Apple Music / Spotify

I don't see issues in Apple developing a search engine, even if it is a "me-too copy".  

I’d disagree that these are just “Me Too”

Apple Maps / Google Maps
- Apple isn’t using maps to mine and sell user data, which is kind of important. Also, they created it when they realized just how much ”location services” would become a core OS function. Maps is just the user-facing part of a much deeper program.

HomePod / Sonos Era
Haven’t heard the Sonos device so can’t compare, but HomePod is brilliant audio. Also, like maps, HomePod is the tip of a bigger functional iceberg. It’s needed for HomeKit functionality. See above for context on HomeKit’s approach to user privacy. 

AirTag / Tile
AirTag has a vastly larger back end to support it, and thus superior functionality. See above for more on location services as a core function, as well as approaches to user privacy. That brings us to AirTag’s innovations in breaking the tracker’s utility for stalking. Tile skipped that part until Apple brought it up, then tried to copy it, then undermined those protections with a disingenuous “honor system” that allows tile users to stalk anyway. 

Apple TV+ / Netflix
Not the same thing. AppleTV+ isn’t a back catalog archive like Netflix. New content is brilliant. Try watching Ted Lasso. 

Apple Music / Spotify
Apple Music has always been subscription-based and ad-free. They pay musicians more. They changed the paradigm with lossless and spatial audio by offering them not as an expensive premium, but as an included feature for all subscribers, and it works on the hardware millions already have. Before that, multi-channel audio was a niche thing that -all the way back to quad records in the early 1970s- could never achieve  critical mass to become mainstream. Now, thanks to Apple, lots of new music and back-catalog remixes are coming out in Dolby Atmos every week. That’s not a me-too thing. That’s 100% because of Apple. 

darelrex said:

I think Apple wants to enter a market when it can make a markedly better product that what's already out there. For example, compare the original 2007 iPhone to the other smartphones that existed at that time; the difference is huge. On the other hand, after Eero debuted (a big improvement in WiFi routers), Apple looked at its own router lineup and said, why are we even in this market? Then Apple left that market.

Cue is being honest: Apple doesn't want to make a me-too copy of Google search. Me-too copies are the historical province of Microsoft, and more recently of Google (e.g. Pixel). Apple doesn't see any value in that.

tht said:

Yup, I lived through the 90s OS war and Mac purge at my company too. 

Probably a few converging things:

1. MS Office won the office app war by the early 90s. Windows 3.x won the GUI on top of DOS war before that. 

2. They plied that into winning the OS war. OS/2 could only support Win16/Win32c APIs whatever it was. Modern Office? Slow emulation I think. Luckily Macs had Office. Nothing else had Office.  

3. IT departments literally required MS Office, IT departments standardized on PCs because they were “cheap”. Thus the purge began. 

One of the big reasons Apple survived was they got MS to commit to delivering Office for Mac. If not for that, I don’t think iPods would have rescued them. 

OctoMonkey said:

danvm said:

FileMakerFeller said:

danvm said:

netrox said:

Discover a trick to save money... IT staff hates Apple for this!

I don't think that IT hates Apple.  Is just that companies like MS have an ecosystem for business / enterprises that companies like Apple don't offer.  

Were you not around for the OS wars of the 1990s?

My first workplace had Novell 3.11 and PC's connected with coax cables, so yes, I was around for the 90's OS wars.  I felt old typing this... .  IMO, MS has a big advantage in the business / enterprise market over every other company, including Apple, because of their ecosystem, and not because IT hates Apple (at least most of them).  

When I took over handling IT, we were running IntraNetWare.  What an amazing product NetWare was.  It's a shame it went away.