Slashdot Mirror


Apple Isn't the Next Microsoft (and That's a Good Thing)

Nerval's Lobster writes "In a new Gizmodo column, Andreas Goeldi calls it the 'frosted glass' effect: when a prominent tech company's latest upgrade to its flagship operating system features frosted-glass highlights as its primary innovation, you know that company is facing a period of severe stagnation. That's what happened to Microsoft around the time of Windows Vista, Goeldi wrote, and Apple's going down the same road with iOS 7. In light of what he views as Apple's sclerosis, it wasn't difficult for him to abandon his iPhone in favor of a Google Android ecosystem. But is Apple really becoming the next Microsoft? In short: no. Apple seems to recognize everything that seemed to elude Microsoft's corporate thinking six years ago: namely, that even the most successful companies need to keep breaking into new categories, and keep innovating, if they want to stay ahead of hungry rivals. Rumors have persisted for quite some time that Apple is prepping big pushes into wearable electronics and televisions, both of which could prove lucrative strategies if executed correctly. Goeldi faults iOS 7 for its frosted-glass effects, which he compares to those of Vista; but similar graphical elements aside, it's unlikely that iOS 7 will run into the same complaints over hardware requirements, compatibility, security, and so much more that greeted Vista upon its release. In fact, iOS 7 isn't even finished."

47 of 269 comments (clear)

  1. Gizmodo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    I take it this is all a suck-up smoke and mirrors after that iphone theft debacle?

    1. Re:Gizmodo by rudy_wayne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Considering the source (Gizmodo) it's not surprising that they think Vista's "frosted glass" effect was its main innovation. Vista had its problems, but many of them were the fault of third party developers who dragged their feet when it came to making their software run properly on Vista. Having used Vista every day for 18 months, it was better than XP. Not as good as Windows 7, but not as bad as most people tried to claim.

    2. Re:Gizmodo by orthancstone · · Score: 2

      I take it this is all a suck-up smoke and mirrors after that iphone theft debacle?

      You give them way too much credit. No way that much forethought was put into this article.

    3. Re:Gizmodo by dan828 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh come one, Gizmodo used to be a nice gadget site, now it's just a hipster blog with tech as one of the themes.

    4. Re:Gizmodo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      3rd Party developers were all to blame? MS created many of the problems themselves; they didn't need help. Many 3rd party developers weren't ready for Vista but they like everyone else didn't think MS would actually release Vista in that level of incompleteness. They thought they had more time. Those developers didn't create the Vista Compatible/Ready fiasco. They didn't make UAC so damn annoying. They didn't cause MS to throw out everything after years of development and start from scratch using a different kernel.

      Actually, Vista was the move where Microsoft stopped trying to support the babies. Many 3rd party apps improperly used API calls, long marked deprecated, long warning against misuse in the documentation, were finally culled and the edge cases nailed down. Throwing tentacles into the registry and tweaking hidden and unsupported things were no longer allowed. Dangerous things like writing directly into system directories now needed UAC. Annoying? Sure, but if the apps weren't trying to (ab)use the system, they wouldn't have needed those escalation prompts in the first place.

      Apps and drivers that failed to respect the proper models paid the price. The stuff worked in XP despite itself because no one ever thought Microsoft would break compatibility. Well, when you were getting 0-day exploits popping up every few days, it's time to lock that crap down.

      It's just like the move from Windows Me. The environment was so polluted and haphazard it was time to clean house. And, if you recall, there were plenty of whining developers back then, too, as none of their stuff worked in Windows 2000 / XP unless they stopped relying on unsafe, crash-happy tricks.

    5. Re:Gizmodo by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He's mistaking the superficial smoke and mirrors for what is/isn't going on under the hood.

      Vista had fresh eye candy, but nuts-and-bolts problems. It sucked.
      OS X had fresh eye candy, and a somewhat revolutionary software framework behind it. It rocked.
      WinXP had fresh eye candy, and a more solid NT kernel underneath. It rocked gently.

      The bottom line is that everything new is going to be loaded with new eye candy, because it can be. If you want to determine whether that eye candy is trying to disguise problems with the underlying system software and company behind it ... you need to look at that underlying system software and the company behind it.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    6. Re:Gizmodo by TemporalBeing · · Score: 5, Insightful

      3rd Party developers were all to blame?

      Primarily yes, though Microsoft didn't help things by changing the driver API between the last RC (RC2) and manufacturer (RTM) releases, thereby breaking most all the drivers that manufacturers had tested.

      MS created many of the problems themselves; they didn't need help.

      MS propogated a culture of developers using Administrative Rights for nearly every application. It didn't help that many of their own APIs were broken so badly that you had to have those rights to do many things. However, they also warned developer for years that the change was coming, and developers had the opportunity to test on Vista before its release to make sure that wouldn't be an issue - yet most chose to ignore it. Thus the whole UAC debacle which is primarily a 3rd party issue.

      Many 3rd party developers weren't ready for Vista but they like everyone else didn't think MS would actually release Vista in that level of incompleteness.

      Vista was quite complete when it was released. That was not the issue. Win8 was less polished than Vista upon release (considerably so); but fairing better because it builds off of Vista (as Win7 did).

      They thought they had more time.

      No. Anyone that tracked the releases - and you didn't have to be in some secret group - knew the release was coming. The betas for Vista were very public and didn't require an MSDN license to obtain either. The only thing that really caught people off guard was the change in the driver APIs that MS did at the last second which only affected those writing device drivers. Those developers didn't create the Vista Compatible/Ready fiasco. They didn't make UAC so damn annoying.

      Their failure to modify their applications to not require APIs that needed Admin Rights was what caused the UAC fiasco and made it so damn annoying.

      They didn't cause MS to throw out everything after years of development and start from scratch using a different kernel.

      You obviously know very little about the Vista codebase and its evolution and history.

      Vista is based on the same kernel series as WinXP - the NT Kernel. It was just the next major version (6.0).
      Yes, Microsoft had developed a version of Windows that it had scrapped - 3 years before Vista was released - and restarted the development cycle to produce Vista. But that restart was not a wholesale rewrite. It restarted from the WinXP codebase, refactored the APIs for better modularity, and added new features.

      The kernel that got scrapped was never released outside of a couple limited distribution alphas and betas. It never really entered the release cycle - other than demos that Microsoft did of WinFS and other stuff. It was too damn slow to be usable.

      The main areas of incompatibility between the NT5 (WinXP) and NT6 (Vista/7/8) kernels were that the sound and video drivers were moved from kernel space to user space to help improve stability. Most all other drivers were still compatible or only had minor changes required.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    7. Re:Gizmodo by KingMotley · · Score: 2

      The main areas of incompatibility between the NT5 (WinXP) and NT6 (Vista/7/8) kernels were that the sound and video drivers were moved from kernel space to user space to help improve stability. Most all other drivers were still compatible or only had minor changes required.

      And I don't usually have to reboot to install new video drivers, and when the video driver does die out, I see the screen flicker, and a pop up notification tells me that the video driver crashed and was restarted, but everything else keeps on working.

      MS propogated a culture of developers using Administrative Rights for nearly every application. It didn't help that many of their own APIs were broken so badly that you had to have those rights to do many things. However, they also warned developer for years that the change was coming, and developers had the opportunity to test on Vista before its release to make sure that wouldn't be an issue - yet most chose to ignore it. Thus the whole UAC debacle which is primarily a 3rd party issue.

      I would say this is mostly right. I don't totally agree that MS propagated that culture, but it was prevalent, especially in bad programmers who really didn't know what they were doing. It forced some to actually realize they didn't need to do some of the crazy things they were doing, but they just didn't know better at the time.

      In automotive terms, it's the equivalent of needing the key to start the car because you want to check the time on the radio. Of course, you could just hit the button on the radio which will turn the clock on temporarily, but some people will cry and moan that they need the key very loudly at the top of their lungs about it.

    8. Re:Gizmodo by gutnor · · Score: 2

      They got everybody hyped-up and then let Vista be installed on machine incapable of running it decently. Added to that, the whole Vista Ready vs Vista Capable.

      That is a major communication fuck up. Even Apple which would hype a dull steak knife into a samurai sword is very very clear what will not run on what machine when they announce an iOS upgrade.

      Vista was not a first for MS. They hyped, most of the time involuntarily, stuff they would never deliver or promises they would break. Nowadays, in market where MS is not the leader, that bites them big time in the ass.

    9. Re:Gizmodo by Smauler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Vista had fresh eye candy, but nuts-and-bolts problems. It sucked.

      No, it didn't. It sucked on crappy hardware of the time, and it had driver issues early on. Windows 7 could never have happened without Vista... it is basically Vista, but by the time it was released hardware had moved on.

      WinXP had fresh eye candy, and a more solid NT kernel underneath. It rocked gently.

      XP rocked because it was based on 2k. There wasn't much different between 2k and XP, in the overall scheme of things. 2k was very good as an OS... it's just a shame it wasn't marketed as a consumer OS.

      Vista's problems weren't caused by its eye-candy. They were it being a resource hog, and early driver issues. I'm still running Vista on a system I bought when it was first out (now upgraded RAM to 16gb, because it was going free,and gfx upgrade), and my uptime is basically measured in power cuts. Windows 7 is basically Vista with the hardware caught up.

    10. Re:Gizmodo by microbox · · Score: 2

      Vista had fresh eye candy, but nuts-and-bolts problems. It sucked.

      Vista had /huge/ under the hood changes. The changes were extremely important in improving the security and stability of windows. I'm not a M$ fan, but can see that they did release some cool technology.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    11. Re:Gizmodo by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      No, it didn't. It sucked on crappy hardware of the time, and it had driver issues early on.

      Which...means it sucked. You've really screwed the pooch as a software company if reverting to your previous version is both a performance and usability upgrade.

      Vista was the ME of it's decade, and for the same reasons. Yeah, it got better after a stream of updates and a service pack, but then we have to give the same consideration for XP.

    12. Re:Gizmodo by uglyduckling · · Score: 2

      I'll bite... it's slower than Windows 7 for launching applications, running things like Windows Update and Control Panel - I only know this because my limited use of Win8 has been to help people set up their machines. The 'hover the mouse in the screen corner' thing is totally confusing and unintuitive. Ditto the start screen thing. It actually seems like a step backward to something analogous to the Dos/Win3.1 days - back then most PC users thought of the Win3.1 interface as 'the computer' but sometimes you had to drop down to DOS to fix something, and certain programs (games mostly) were DOS only. Win8 feels like that - there's two competing UIs with completely different metaphors duelling it out on one screen that flips backwards and forwards. It's a bizarre attempt to take the approach that Apple has been using - gradually bringing the touch-based iOS and the desktop-based metaphors together - but Microsoft have just done it in one leap, and the result is terrible. It would be OK if the start screen thing actually brought some major advantage, but it's just a confusing mess that makes it difficult to launch the required application.

    13. Re:Gizmodo by DuckDodgers · · Score: 2

      I think Vista is a very tiny piece of Microsoft's problems. The real problem is the user experience and ease-of-use, which Microsoft gets wrong a lot more than Apple. It's death by a thousand cuts.

      Sometimes the feature you want is in a control panel. Sometimes the feature you want is an administrator tool.
      It takes two lawyers, five tech support staff, a voodoo priestess, and a ouija board to figure out Terminal Services licensing.
      If you install a pre-SP2 version of Windows XP and go through the Windows Update process once, you get to see dozens of distinct patch applications and reboots.
      Some useful system services are controlled by the "net" command, even though many of them have nothing to do with the network.
      The file copy progress dialog clearly uses a random number generator to create the progress bar.
      Windows Explorer hangs completely when just one out of fifty folders in the view becomes unavailable due to a slow disk or network disruption.
      The naming conventions for different Windows skews and what they contain changes significantly with every release.
      On anything other than an SSD the "Search Indexer" service slows the computer to a crawl from time to time.
      Too many security updates require a reboot.
      Windows 8 home edition removed DVD playback from the consumer version for the sole purpose of alienating customers. It worked, I'm alienated.
      They keep changing their technologies and products, alienating developers. First they pushed developers to C++. Then it was C# and the .NET framework. Then it was Silverlight. Now it's C++ and HTML5/Javascript, and Silverlight is end-of-lifed.
      Windows Mobile was killed. Windows Phone 7 was killed (Windows Phone 8 has a compatibility layer to run Windows Phone 7 apps, but it's a different underlying architecture).

      If you're a giant corporation with more money than brains you can just throw money at Microsoft until all of your Microsoft software is licensed properly and "just works". For everyone else, they've made it their personal mission to drive you into psychological counseling. Apple's user interfaces are more consistent, their licensing is simpler, their technology stack is more consistent. I'm a Linux geek, I hate the Apple walled garden as much as the Microsoft walled garden. But for people that don't give a damn about proprietary software and walled gardens, I can completely understand why they view Steve Jobs as a god and Steve Ballmer as the devil.

    14. Re:Gizmodo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it didn't. It sucked on crappy hardware of the time, and it had driver issues early on.

      It sucked on "crappy" hardware that happily ran any other OS at the time, and "crappy" hardware that Microsoft had certified it would run well on. major Microsoft suckage I'd say. If your OS is advertised as running on your hardware and it won't, your OS sucks. Period. If there are no drivers for hardware the vendor says it will run on, that's major suckage.

      Vista's problems weren't caused by its eye-candy. They were it being a resource hog, and early driver issues.

      What you call "resource hog" I call "bloat" and "sloppy coding" Sloppy coding + bloat = SUCK.

      Why are you defending a shitty OS from a shitty company?

    15. Re:Gizmodo by Tamerlin · · Score: 2

      The "revolutionary" software framework that Apple put behind OSX is basically a clone of .NET, which I realized as I was poking through the Apple developer documentation.

  2. Shifting paradigms is easy with no momentum by schlachter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It was easy for Apple to innovate a few years ago because they had no momentum in the space. They were agile and free to create. It's much harder to do that when you have a huge codebase that's a decade old, with hundreds of millions of users who have expectations of your product.

    Nonetheless, I can't help but think if Jobs was still around, there would be more exciting stuff in the pipeline.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    1. Re:Shifting paradigms is easy with no momentum by MLRScaevola · · Score: 2

      Jobs died almost two years ago (wow, that long already). Most likely, he at least gave some pipeline ideas to Cook and co. which are being worked on now. I figure that Apple still has maybe three more years of Jobs' 'ideas from the grave' left before we really get to see if they can keep doing interesting things. They've probably had to wrangle with this for a while now, and I can't help but think that the solution to their problems is just to find someone capable of projecting a new Reality Distortion Field.

    2. Re:Shifting paradigms is easy with no momentum by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, but this is a corporate management problem, not a technical one. Go read the sad history of Xerox where, at one point, they needed the signatures of 47 managers to make a change to a copier, as hungrier companies cranked out modern innovations.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:Shifting paradigms is easy with no momentum by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      Please. Vista bumbled badly based on what MS did. Let's take compatibility: at the last minute, they reversed course on hardware requirement so that Vista Basic could be released and, of course, didn't take the effort clearly explain to consumers that Vista Basic was barely Vista. UAC needed many more refinements. But like all things MS they released it anyway and worried about SP1 later. They've done that with all their releases before but time the incompleteness was obvious to consumers. They didn't learn that lesson with Win 8. Some here question the whole strategy of shoehorning a tablet UI onto a desktop but 8 is almost bipolar in its approach. Some things are tablet; some things are still desktop. And there isn't a reason why. 8.1 is supposedly the savior but I don't see it.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Shifting paradigms is easy with no momentum by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nonetheless, I can't help but think if Jobs was still around, there would be more exciting stuff in the pipeline.

      Perhaps... but equally likely, there would be some regular stuff in the pipeline that seemed exciting, because Jobs was hands-down one of the best marketers to ever walk the face of the Earth.

      I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether that's a compliment or insult.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:Shifting paradigms is easy with no momentum by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 2

      > It's much harder to do that when you have a huge codebase that's a decade old

      Very much agreed. But it's not just Apple, it's the entire category.

      The iPhone was the big bang of smartphones. Everything after that was, to a great degree, an iPhone.

      There has certainly been some innovation in this space since. Apple's introduced retina, siri, passbook. Google's got Now, which is really under-utilized so far I think, and will likely become dramatically more important in the future IMHO. We have always-on from Moto, Nokia's cameras, Sony's waterproofing, etc. All of these are real advances.

      But the problem is that each of these is "here or there". As such, they represent only minor incremental improvements (with the exception of Now and Siri perhaps) that are being applied to only one or another platform. These are, sadly, features, not paradigms.

    6. Re:Shifting paradigms is easy with no momentum by timeOday · · Score: 2

      You say that as if momentum were bad! Compare. Microsoft has been raking in at least a billion in profit per year, year, for 15 years. Apple, meanwhile, for about last 5. Do you see any of Apple's current products that wedged so deep into every business process out there that they will almost surely still be profiting $1BN / year a decade from now, as Microsoft has ALREADY done? I don't. Apple is never more than about 2 bum product releases away from losing money. Microsoft has already done that many times over :)

    7. Re:Shifting paradigms is easy with no momentum by exomondo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Frankly the new Mac Pro says to me that they are just about out of innovation (at least in that space). It's a desktop computer where the core components are virtually non-upgradeable, now maybe that's ok but what do you get in return for that compromise? Not much, sure it's smaller but when has that been a problem for desktops? It's basically a more powerful mac mini.

      It sacrifices front-facing ports in the name of aesthetics and deals with that compromise by giving you the ability to rotate it to get to the back, now that is assuming you actually enough slack sitting on your desk to pull the cables of all your peripherals around.

      That product really is an exercise in being different for the sake of it with virtually no measurable advantage.

    8. Re:Shifting paradigms is easy with no momentum by Clsid · · Score: 2

      If you don't like the product that's fine, but to a lot of people, myself included the Mac Pro is one of the best desktop designs in years. The cooling solution alone was extremely creative, not to mention that both monster video cards can benefit from it as well.

      With a custom built PC if you try to pull the same stuff you end up with so many cables and will probably need a 700W psu.

    9. Re:Shifting paradigms is easy with no momentum by exomondo · · Score: 2

      If you don't like the product that's fine, but to a lot of people, myself included the Mac Pro is one of the best desktop designs in years.

      It's not that i don't like it, it's that compared to its predecessor the only real benefit is that it's smaller and it might be quieter, but at the cost of being less accessible, less convenient and less upgradeable. It's not that it's a bad product, it's just that in all but the superficial areas its design is worse than its predecessor, if the superficial things are all you're worried about and you don't care about its compromises then maybe it's fine for you. I was hoping to replace my ancient mac pro with a new one but the inability to swap the graphics cards is deal breaker.

    10. Re:Shifting paradigms is easy with no momentum by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep, without Jobs, there is no one left around Apple to go wandering around and steal ideas and claim them as his own, quite as effectively as Jobs could.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    11. Re:Shifting paradigms is easy with no momentum by uglyduckling · · Score: 2

      So it seems youre also the sort of idiot that claims macs dont get viruses because they dont get the same viruses as windows pcs.

      I'm that sort of idiot. I've run three Mac systems (2 laptops and a desktop for a while) over the past 5 years with no resident antivirus protection, and I've had 0 viruses. I've been in cybercafes on at least 4 different continents, hundreds of different WiFi networks, plugged hard drives and memory sticks in from all sorts of people, and never had a problem. I've never recommended antivirus software to any of the many people I've suggested buy a Mac, and none of them have ever come back to me with a messed up machine to sort out - the closest anyone has come was a hard drive failure after about 3 years of use. So, yes, I think "Macs don't get viruses" is a factually correct statement for all practical purposes, at least for the time being.

  3. Of course they aren't... by Zalbik · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course Apple isn't the next Microsoft

    Microsoft used shady business practices to destroy competitors and thereby screw the customer.

    Apple cuts out the middle-man, and just screws the customer directly.

  4. Agree. Apple isn't the Next Microsoft... by faragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... Apple is the Next Apple without Steve Jobs, again.

  5. apple profits from every product, MS doesn't by alen · · Score: 4, Informative

    MS has lost billions of $$$ on bing, x-box and other experiments funded by Windows and Office license sales which are now slowing and decreasing. microsoft has been innovating for years but not profitably. they had commercial tablets before apple, mobile devices and cloud services long before cloud became a buzz word.

    apple on the other hand has a rule that every product must be profitable. even the apple tv turns a small profit.

    1. Re:apple profits from every product, MS doesn't by asmkm22 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a good point. People are quick to confuse Apple with a company that actually innovates and pushes boundaries and stuff, when in fact, they just release highly-polished (and sometimes very well-timed) products that are often 5 or 10 years old.

    2. Re:apple profits from every product, MS doesn't by StripedCow · · Score: 2

      Spot on. Much of the research is open too. Have a look at http://research.microsoft.com/
      Then point me the equivalent of Apple.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    3. Re:apple profits from every product, MS doesn't by CAIMLAS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem Microsoft has is that they stopped being a company that has innovative products a long time ago - arguably they never started, because their 'traditional' linear products (OS, Office) had too much momentum.

      Look at Microsoft Research, for instance. The one notable product to come out of that is the Kinect and related technologies. We've seen MS ads now for years for something similar to SketchInsight, which looks incredible - but no working POC for anyone to ogle or demo. This would be a Killer App in a heartbeat for pretty much everyone I know - and the missing link that MS has so much needed for Windows 'tablets' for the past decade.

      Then you've got things like their AI and machine learning research, as well as OS research projects. Those show promise, but don't see much light in marketable products. Imagine what MS could've done with "Windows Mobile/Phone" had they not focused on changing UI paradigms against peoples' will?

      The biggest thing MS has going for them at this point is their vendor lock-in, and it's much worse than we feared it could be back in the 1990s. "Cloud services" were so far in the future they weren't really conceived. Today, we've got everything in the MS stack integrating tightly with Office 365 - and Exchange is most certainly the worst offender in this regard, with much of the traditional functionality available in 2003 and 2008, and fixed greatly in 2008, gone again for O365 integration. If you're a MS shop, you're more or less stuck, and options for migrating that data off their platforms diminishes as time goes on simply by the motion of the machine - regardless of any actual, needed features present in the upgraded products. (When was the last time you've heard of someone upgrading MS products for anything other than 'compatibility with everyone else, and bug/security fixes'?

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    4. Re:apple profits from every product, MS doesn't by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      Well, most people associate innovation==something brand new when innovation can be improving on something existing. Apple's strength has been to bring hard to use technology to consumers. Case in point: OS X is a Unix core with a consumer GUI on top.

      MP3 players existed before the iPod and they simply were hard to use for most consumers. I think the four things that Apple did right was:

      1. Treat media as media and not merely files. Media that has metadata like Title, date, album, genre, etc.
      2. Reduce syncing to one step
      3. Scroll wheel
      4. Bundle player with software that can make and manage MP3s. With my other player, I had to find and use 4 different programs to accomplish the same thing.
      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:apple profits from every product, MS doesn't by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a good point. People are quick to confuse Apple with a company that actually innovates and pushes boundaries and stuff, when in fact, they just release highly-polished (and sometimes very well-timed) products that are often 5 or 10 years old.

      Correct. But that discounts the importance of polish and timing.

      Polish is very important - a technical feature is completely pointless if people don't use it, can't use it, or are unable to figure it out.

      Timing is important in business because, as Apple will see this year, people get bored. Releasing product all at once in the fall seems like a great idea but damn the other 3 quarters where everyone bitches about "not innovating".

      The iPod is an example of both - polish in that it was a player with tons of storage, in a formfactor that was convenient for a lot of people. At a time when MP3 players were JUST taking off, Apple produces something that has a slick UI (the wheel makes navigating through huge lists quickly), slick syncing (firewire, when most computers sported USB1.1) and iTunes (making it stupidly easy to manipulate your music library and convert your CDs to MP3s). A couple of years later they tossed in the iTunes store, bringing the music industry into the 21st century, kicking and screaming.

      The iPhone brought polish to smartphones. In the name of Mobile Safari. Because until then, most mobile browsers were crap (I had one with Opera Mobile - the better ones, but it was slow and was showing its age).

      The iPad brought polish to tablets - because instead of crappy lets-run-Windows, it ran iOS which was more adapted to touchscreens than even OS X is. Sure you could run OS X on a tablet, but the experience was mediocre at best - GUI concepts and designs for mouse and keyboard just don't translate well to pen and touches.

      Hell, the iPhone wasn't considered revolutionary - Apple hoped it would maybe get 1% of the market, or 1 million phones. (It took 77 days to hit 1 million). Of course, the 3G sold 1 million opening weekend, despite well know problems.

      The iPad was universally panned - it was so bad, Jobs even said they'd cut the price if it didn't sell well.

      And the iPod, well. The millionth iPod sold in 2003, and by then it was the 3rd gen iPod with dock connector.

      Don't discount polish. When people say things look "inconsistent" or "work poorly", it doesn't matter how big the numbers are on the spec sheet - the user ends up forgoing those features. Open source is primarily bad at this (often because non-programmers are discounted - this includes technical writers, designers, and testers - yes, it's your itch, but when users complain something works badly and could be better, perhaps it could go from "your itch" to "everyone's itch" and not "try this alternative").

  6. Comes to show to trust NO ONE by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There was a time back in 1999 in the good old days of slashdot and IT where I had a debate with someone over how evil MS and Bill Gates were.

    Back then MS was unstoppable! If investors found out MS was going to compete agaisnt you then your stock would be shorted as no one could stop the all powerful Microsoft!

    I mentioned if Steve Jobs won the world would be heaven. No more expensive crap. Free standards galore. No more DRM with .WMV and IE 5.5 dictating the future of computing. Apple was cheered as the good guys trying to stop the DRM madness of RealPlayer and Windows Media Player. Remember?Fastforward today and I think Steve Jobs is fucking a more greedy monster than Bill Gates ever was. True their products are better quality and more UI and consumer data is put into products before being released, but man they charge and lock you in.

    What Changed?
    Itunes gave Apple a financial incentive for DRM and lock in. Apple monopolized the mp3 market and almost the phone before Android did a quick rescue. Their Macs are falling behind as more effort is on consumer gadgets these days.

    Would I want a Google only world? Fuck no equally

    Chrome's webkit is not W3C compliant compared to IE and Firefox with its extensions and some sites that only work with Chrome when you turn on HTML 5. If they owned 93% of the market ala IE 6 from 2003, you can bet javascript would go bye bye for whateverthefuck script that they invented, sites would not render properly if you used advanced features, and Google would ignore W3C and put Google Store as the master of the e-commerce universe!

    I would not want just Android phones either streaming ads from Google servers 100% of the time, nor would shop owners want to pay 300% more for ad revenue as they would ahve a monopoly on this.

    Business and greed is evil. We are all greedy and evil ourselves with a shade of gray. It is our human nature sadly. Competition frees us, though I do have to say I am disappointed in all web browsers recently and kind of miss Firefox when is owned just 15% of the market but maybe that is because IE sucked so bad then it seemed like heaven?

    1. Re:Comes to show to trust NO ONE by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Informative

      Itunes gave Apple a financial incentive for DRM and lock in.

      Um what, they pushed to get music publisher's to sell tracks without DRM. As for video, where can you get video without DRM? Netflix? Amazon? Huh?

    2. Re:Comes to show to trust NO ONE by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

      I mentioned if Steve Jobs won the world would be heaven. No more expensive crap. Free standards galore. No more DRM with .WMV and IE 5.5 dictating the future of computing

      I have no idea why you thought that. Remember Steve Jobs was the same one who ripped off Woz back in the day. He sued for UI lookalike rights. He got in a fight with the FSF over gcc. If you thought Jobs would be all roses and heaven it's because you weren't paying attention.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  7. The Apple TV turns a big profit by mveloso · · Score: 2

    Actually, the Apple TV turns a huge profit.

    On 5/28/13 there were 13 million Apple TVs sold, at about $100 each. That's $1.3 billion of revenue. I'm being conservative and assuming those numbers don't include the Apple TV 1.

    Given an ultra-low margin of 25%, that means Apple conservatively has made $325 million off of the ATV. And Apple's margins have historically been more than 25%.

    1. Re:The Apple TV turns a big profit by Gilmoure · · Score: 2

      Eh. I've had an Apple TV for three years or so and haven't bought more than 200-250 movies. That's nothing compared to music! Apple fail!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
  8. Re:Apple is overrated by tsa · · Score: 2

    And because you call iOS7 crippleware even before it's out.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  9. Reiterating what many others have already said... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

    If you think that the main innovation in Windows Vista was the frosted glass, or any other UI feature, you are retarded.

    While I think Windows Vista was far from perfect (so far that I didn't buy it), Windows XP was 5 years old and showing it. It was not designed for 64 bit architecture, and could not address more than 4GB of memory. Yes I know there was 64-bit windows XP, but that opens up a whole new can of worms. All windows OSes up through windows XP had horrible security models that lead to rampant infections by viruses.

    Windows XP was based on 1990's NT technology. Windows vista was a near complete rewrite of the OS to bring windows into the 21st century. It had lots of problems, but I'd sure as hell use it over XP if given a choice.

    I am not a M$ fanboy either. I use both windows and linux both at work and at home. I'd probably own a mac too if I had more disposable income.

  10. yes, and it's wrong for another reason. by mbkennel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Apple seems to recognize everything that seemed to elude Microsoft's corporate thinking six years ago: namely, that even the most successful companies need to keep breaking into new categories, and keep innovating, if they want to stay ahead of hungry rivals."

    Microsoft was not unaware of that at all. They tried very hard for a long time, after all Windows Phone was worked on for many years before iPhone.

    Microsoft's problem was that they weren't good at it. Vista was another example. The common problem is internal corporate politics, and the key to that problem is at the top.

  11. Re:these are symptoms, also frost pist by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

    The majority of UX (sic.) people don't understand BOTH the pros & cons to GUI compared to the Command Line. They both have DIFFERENT strengths and weaknesses that _complement_ one another.

    Why is that comment in a thread about mobile phone interfaces? CLI is not a reasonable interface on a phone with no hardware qwerty keyboard. Not even as a complement. As a niche legacy app for people that want to telnet onto some nix machine, UI. But it doesn't and shouldn't have any relevance to the UI of the phone itself.

    It does though tip me off that the nature of your UI taste is classic unix. And makes your opinion on phone UIs not particularly worthwhile.

    Desaturating the icons it makes it harder for someone to focus on the signal -- everything is one big noise. FAIL.

    Is about as useful as someone saying "3x3 pixel font? FAIL". As you showed yourself recently, it all depends on context. And "FAIL" is the mark of an ill-thought out comment.

  12. Sad no-one realizes how different iOS7 really is by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Informative

    What's really bad about all these iOS7 articles is how off they are about what has changing.

    If the person writing claims iOS7 is "flat", they have totally missed the point.

    iOS7 has gone DEEP, not flat. It's many layers where before there was just a flat tree. It's added a literal new dimension to UI and UIX design.

    When you actually have it in hand you may understand better, but just know until then anyone who says iOS7 is "flat" has no idea what the heck they are talking about.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  13. Re:Apple is far worse by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

    "Apple has patented a piece of technology which would allow government and police to block transmission of information, including video and photographs, from any public gathering"

    This, followed by your signature "ignorance is choice".

    The patent is for a user-selectable feature that allows cameras to be turned off if you enter a certain area. Which is a great feature if you work at a company handling confidential stuff where photography isn't allowed, and this feature, if implemented, could allow you to bring an iPhone with you and use it (because it's ability to take photos can be turned off), while other smartphones with camera would get confiscated.