Slashdot Mirror
NYT on Apple's Digital Way of Life
sinalet writes "The New York Times is running an article on Apple's 'digital way of life'. Most interestingly are some comments about the history of the iPod and its developers. 'Apple says it developed the iPod in just six months, faster than any major product in the company's history. The hand-held device, which contains more computing power than an early Macintosh, was put together starting in 2001 by hardware designers led by Tony Fadell, a young engineer who had worked briefly at RealNetworks, led by Rob Glaser, who has developed the Rhapsody music service.'"
quote: "Since Mr. Jobs returned to Apple, he has increasingly insisted that the company speak with just the voices of top executives, so Mr. Fadell was not permitted to comment for this article. "
Why is this? Apple obviously has many talented, intelligent people working for it. But it seems that Jobs wants the general public to think that it was Jobs himself who dreamed up and designed these products. Sounds like the ultimate karma whore to me.
Glad to know John Markoff still can't write his way out of a paper bag. Some of the research in this article is interesting, but... that's assuming that it's the truth.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Not much interesting in the article until one gets to near the end and the speculation as to where Jobs is going next... Why release an Airport with voIP and power over ethernet if you don't plan on releasing a new product to make good use of those features. hmm.
The way it's written, it suggests that perhaps Glaser was hired from Rhapsody and is the fons et origo of the iPod/iTunes link - you don't realize that "RealNetworks" and not "Tony Fadell" is the antecedent for "led by Rob Glaser." So now there's a few million NYT readers who think that RealNetworks was the real genius behind the iPod. Nice.
Someone who I trust to be knowledgeable on the subject once told me that the developers of Watson actualy had inside knowledge of what Apple was doing with Sherlock. Whether it was code or concept they knew Apple was doing Sherlock and they wanted to be there first. And the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. I mean think about it. Why the hell would they name it watson? It's a search program, search -> detective, when people say detective, I doubt they think of watson before Sherlock. So why Watson? If you thought your product was first of it's kind, and original, and didn't know another company was producing and releasing a similar program called Sherlock, why would you use Watson? It makes no sense.
The success of the iPod doesn't seem to have significantly changed Apple's market share," said T. Michael Nevens, a director at both Borland Software and Broadvision and the former director of McKinsey & Company's technology consulting practice. And Mr. Nevens said that there was "no support for the theory" that the new digital appliances would bolster computer sales.
T. Michael Nevens is completely missing the point, I think.
I am reminded of an earlier interview with Jobs - I don't have the link, I believe it was maybe a Time article around the launch of the flatpanel iMac - and the interviewer kicked off the story with a description of his arrival. He came into the room that Jobs was in, sitting on the floor yoga-style, with a powerbook, and he was going through fonts. He sat there for 10 minutes looking at these various fonts, not speaking to the reporter. Then he looked up and said something like, 'Aren't these just beautiful? I love the fonts we licensed for OS X.'
This is a funny insight into Steve Jobs. I think he's just really bent on the idea of these seamless computers. When you really think about it, that real plug-and-play sort of mentality has always dominated the Mac experience. I think Jobs, Zen Weirdo that he is, fucking hates the whole Windows scene because to him it is just really really tacky. Too many options that are crap, none of it consistent, none of it forming something totally coherent from top to bottom.
So when T. Michael Nevens, or Random Slashdot Angrybot, says something about iPods not selling more Macs or affecting Mac sales, or not inreasing market share which clearly they have, just not appreciably in Macs, they are missing the context. Jobs' whole Seamless Vision Thing flows down from his input into the designs. The reason that iPods talk to iTunes so well, which talks to iPhoto and iDVD and all the other iCrap is because he just insists that it should work that way.
Then Rob Glasner talks about opening the iPod up to Rhapsody users, of course Jobs balks because he already has made the concession to market forces in selling the iPod for Windows at all. That is his mea culpa for keeping the original Macintosh project clamped down.
If Jobs had his way all of these little projects would make money - but if some of them have to act as bridges, or enabling mechanisms - the physical stores, the iTMS - then they will do so. The fact that all of the software and hardware work perfectly together is just the way Jobs wants it to work.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
This story is much more intriguing than that. Bushnell assigned Steve Jobs to design the circuitry for Breakout, but it was too difficult for Jobs. He asked his friend (and Apple co-founder) Steve Wozniak to help, and promised to split the payment from Bushnell. Wozniak did it in four days and was paid $350. But it turned out that Bushnell actually paid $5,000 for Breakout -- Jobs pocketed the remaining $4,650.
Ironically, Wozniak's design was so complex that no one at Atari could figure out how it worked. They had to redesign the entire game so it could be tested.
Open one up and look at the quality inside. Even the parts no one is ever supposed to see are superbly designed. It's the attention to detail that makes the 6 month turnaround so cool.
And the 3rd generation iPods are even better. I can only imagine what's next. Bring it on.