9.09.2008
For Pat and Josh
Pat and Josh - go get a wet cloth before you read this......just so you can clean up afterwards.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Way Better Blogs
Posts
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(223)
-
▼
September
(71)
- Nobel Snub
- I love this city. Part II.
- Russian Rihanna
- I don't know why...
- THE CLOUD IS A TRAP!!!
- For Paddy
- Why the bailout vote failed.
- Family Guy Season Premiere
- I love this city.
- How long before Palin is forced to withdraw?
- It Takes a Removal from Office
- Farting
- How to Land a 747.
- I think McCain may have screwed himself
- Priapism
- Was Paulson really down on bended knee?!
- The Best Article I've Read About What To Do Now
- How to Make an Amazing Music Video
- This is Out of the Blue
- America the Gift Shop
- This Is Amazing
- Duh
- The Problem With Android...
- Carry on Josh, Carry on.
- Haute Couture in Academia
- Good Article on the Current Financial Crisis
- An Article About Dubai That Doesn't Include a Weir...
- For J and Grawlix
- Google Phone
- The US Free-Market Economy?
- That Ain't Right
- Indigenous Response to Palin?
- Paddy, you're on mine...
- Picture Perfect
- Homemade Electrical Vagina
- Hilarious And Sad
- Obama and McCain Health Care Plans
- Make-Out Party!!
- Today in Hilarious Literalism
- The Sweetest Video Ever
- Does this up Marquette's street cred?
- More Great Stuff From Stewart
- 158-Year-Old Investment Bank Falls
- Change?
- Know What Videos Always Make Me Laugh?
- Mario Videos Always Make Me Laugh
- True
- Somebody At Nike Does A Lot Of Acid
- How long have the geniuses at The Economist been s...
- Why Android Isn't Out Yet
- Feminism or disgrace?
- J Isn't the Only One Who Reads the Alumni Newsletter
- Go Jays!!
- Of Course It Will Be
- Good Sign or Bad Sign
- Good Argument to Vote Obama
- I Should Have Majored In Economics
- For Pat and Josh
- When is the economic pain going to stop?!
- Troglodytes
- Large Hadron Collidor turned on Tomorrow
- Secret Operations in Iraq
- I Love John Stewart
- I sure do miss my dead, cremated dad.
- Nerdy Songs
- Dudes, Palin just said she was going to "lay more ...
- I just found...
- I'm a MAN!!
- This looks awesome!!
- Big-Ups to Grawlix
- How Exciting is This?
-
▼
September
(71)
20 comments:
Great. Just what the consumer electronics market needs: another high-end gadget from Apple whose planned obsolescence involves "breaking really goddamn easily." Still, as long as there are Apple fan-boys (I ain't pointin' fingers) who think "Make the fonts real big" and "Paint that thing white" constitute innovative design maxims, there will be a market for the company's awful products.
The sooner someone develops legitimate competitors for iPods and the iPhone the better.
RIP, Steve Jobs.
You're late. I knew that four hours ago.
How can you go on your little tirade and then say:
"The sooner someone develops legitimate competitors for iPods and the iPhone the better."
There are no legitimate competitors because those products do "constitute innovative design maxims."
No, competitor products don't exist yet. The few that do - like the future world-beating gPhone using Google's Android platform - are in the early stages of development.
This reflects what Apple does well and why it sucks. They are very good at identifying what kinds of devices consumers want - mp3 players, multimedia smartphones, highly flexible laptops - and making them first and in significant numbers. iTunes and the iPod changed the way music and video are produced and sold. The Intel-based Macbooks are more stable than both Vista-based laptops and previous generations of laptops (for the record, I credit that more to Intel than to Apple, though the latter obviously deserves some credit). Again, Apple is very good at figuring out the kinds of products consumers want. Unfortunately they're not very good at making those products. They go for unrelated flash - see this article about the thinnest iPod or the marketing campaign about the super-thin Macbook Air they ran earlier this year - rather than making their products, you know, better. Rather than make the iPod thinner, why not make it more durable, or at least not notoriously fragile? Rather than adapt the iPod's interface to touch-screen technology, why not make the interface more intuitive or make your software more flexible, say by making it able to play media purchased through other online services? Why produce three generations of your flagship product before making it compatible with USB input, the most common host interface? Because Apple's not very good at making hardware.
Apple products are innovative insofar as they got there first. The problem is once they got there, they stagnated. As companies that started later or developed their products more slowly enter the market in the next two years, you'll see significant upgrades in the power and functionality of all consumer electronics, except those produced by Apple. Outside of Jobs, Apple doesn't have the brain power to compete with Google or RIM or Palm or Sony on the engineering front. But they do have great ad gurus and a peerless brand position. So I expect we'll see Apple hold on to significant market share despite offering the same products they've been peddling for the last five years, just because they got there first.
Half the battle is getting there first. Why isn't Android out yet? Why didn't RIM develop their systems to be more friendly for personal users and not just business customers? Why does Microsoft waste 7 years developing new operating systems instead of creating smaller, more stable, more secure iterations of the same OS? Why can't MS make their newest version of Office work seamlessly with their older versions?
The genius of Apple is the simplicity of the way their products work together. They didn't just create a great MP3 player, they backed it up with great software and a great way to buy media for it. From personal experience, if you own a few Apple products (like a computer and iPod) you want to buy more of their products because they work great together. The "halo effect" of the iPod and the iPhone are real simply because the products integrate seamlessly and users want that simplicity.
Here's a perfect example. My laptop got f-ed up. Never found exactly what happened, but it definitely wasn't working right. Went to an Apple store, they checked it out to make sure my hard drive wasn't totally f-ed and then instructed me on how to "Archive & Re-Install" the OS. Went home, completely re-installed the OS AND DIDN'T LOSE ANY OF MY PERSONAL FILES. Why? Because their OS has an integrated feature to only install the operating files without wiping the hard drive. (Vista may have this, I don't know. But past versions of Windows certainly didn't. Remember your "TMP" problem?) I'm totally confused as to how you can attribute Macbooks' stability to Intel and not their software design.
As for the durability of iPods and the iPhone, I've only heard of major problems with the iPhone. In that regard, they've churned out two versions in a year. I'm sure there are still some design issues. Even the iPod didn't really hit its stride until the third generation.
I don't think Apple is infallible. They have definitely been churning out products too quickly. The MobileMe service was a disaster when they introduced it, mostly likely because it was rushed through to match its release with the new iPhone. That being said, MobileMe is genius--automatic synching across your home computer, iPhone, and work PC.
Say what you will about the iPhone (over-priced, flawed materials, slow connections), it is a game-changer and everybody is scrambling to catch-up. The user interface for my cell phone (which is probably a year and a half old) is absolutely terrible. The introduction of the iPhone forced everyone else to innovate and that has resulted in much better cell phones.
As for Android, I'm really excited about it...but where is it? Why is gmail still technically in beta? Why did they only release Chrome for PCs? (I really like Chrome, by the way, except it doesn't display/interface with all webpages correctly.) For Google's market cap size, they seem to take a very long time developing products.
Regardless of how you feel about Apple and their products, they are driving innovation right now. Hopefully somebody is going to come along and seriously challenge them, pushing the innovation even further and faster.
Ha, mines longer.
Given Adam's inability to satisfy and keep a woman, I think we all know length doesn't matter.
zing! well played.
I think I tend to agree more with Josh here, and I only own a cheap piece of crap iPod shuffle. (Of course, I didn't really mean "piece of crap" because then I would be agreeing with Grawlix.)
Grawlix, quit being so "indie" or "emo" (or whatever you call it) and stop hating things because they are popular. You're basically mainstream now anyway. All you need is the white picket fence.
Regardless of how you feel about Apple and their products, they are driving innovation right now.
See, this is where I think you're wrong. This is the myth of Apple. There are dozens of smartphones that can do everything an iPhone can do and more. Most of them pre-date the iPhone. There are more powerful, more durable personal mp3 players than the iPod. Most of them are cheaper, too. By most reasonable measures Apple products are not the most advanced or the best values. Yet other products don't stand a chance because Apple has the money and notoriety to make the big splash, establishing its brand at the forefront. This, to my mind, is not innovation. It's marketing.
It's like in the early 80s when Microsoft and Apple were developing the first user-friendly OS's. Windows became the standard because Microsoft got there first, establishing brand dominance. Of course, until Windows 95, the Macintosh OS was vastly superior to Windows. But that didn't matter. Windows and the PC dominated home computing. Innovation stagnated. Microsoft released Windows ME. That's the trajectory Apple is on now.
Apple, like Microsoft, has the appearance of innovating because their brand power drives the market. It's the Apple loyalists - drawn in by the halo effect and the seeming ease of use of Apple products - that move units. What happens, though, is you get a set of products that are pretty powerful but horrendously inflexible. Yes, it's good that Apple products work very efficiently together. Ever tried to use iTunes on a PC? See how much operating memory it takes up. Ever tried to adapt an iPhone for use on a network other than AT&T? Have fun. The problem is Apple's design philosophy eschews flexibility and user choice. This is a recipe for stagnant innovation (following the Windows trajectory).
I'm not one to deny Apple's business savvy or the strength of its branding - which is where the real power of "getting there first" lies. I'm just saying this does not constitute innovation. What Google is doing with Android - making a stable, powerful, flexible platform and releasing an SDK to developers - is more time-consuming, yes, but it's also a more robust form of innovation that will produce hundreds of highly flexible, highly adaptable, very powerful apps and programs available to the user the day he buys the phone. Apple just released an iPhone SDK to "select" developers in July - a year-and-a-half after the product hit the market. Why? Because Apple was more concerned with positioning the iPhone brand by "getting there first" than with maximizing the potential of the product. It's a pretty smart business decision. It's just not innovation.
Paddy, I turned in my indie card some time ago. For Christ's sake, I hung window curtains this afternoon!
The problem is Apple's design philosophy eschews flexibility and user choice.
I'm really, really resisting reverting to ad hominems right now because I think we're going in circles.
You can look at Apple's "inflexibility" several different ways. One of them, obviously, is the way you've chosen (the wrong way, sucka). The other is to look at it as a way for them to have the most stable systems possible and the most integrated systems possible. In order to make everything work together you have to control the ecosystem. You can also look at their "inflexibility" as purely business. Why open your systems up to other people when you can force them to buy more of your products by making them easier to use together?
Regardless of how you view it, I'm still sticking to my original point which is that they are driving innovation. I had an mp3 player before I had an iPod and it sucked. The software that came with it was awful, the UI for the actual player was equally terrible, and it had virtually no battery life. But, it was much cheaper than any iPod at that time.
Probably the best thing Apple has been able to do is to convince people that they should spend hundreds of dollars on things like the iPod and the iPhone. I think they way they have been able to do that is by churning out products that work and are relatively simple to use.
The thing that has most impressed me about the Apple products I have used was not their "revolutionary design." It has actually been the little things. I already mentioned what happened with my OS and how easy it was to fix. Another small example: the power cord for my laptop. It has two small hooks that flip out to wind the power cord onto. My PC laptop, by contrast, simply winds the cords around the power brick and bundles them with a rubber strap (very clunky and inefficient use of space in a bag). On my Apple laptop I can save any file to PDF; it's fully integrated in the software. On a PC you have to buy additional software to save PDFs. Apple's OS comes with a screenshot application built in; PCs need additional software. The wireless software on my Apple is much, much easier to connect to WiFi than current PCs. (Granted, I don't have Vista, so maybe these things are part of their new software. At the same time, my laptop is three years old.) Macs don't come with all that shareware BS that you have to delete. (I read somewhere that Sony was going to charge people an additional $150 to get a laptop without the shareware crap.) My computer doesn't have it, but the MagSafe power cord (cord is attached with a magnet so that it easily pulls out if someone trips over the cord instead of ripping your laptop onto the floor) is pure genius. The touchpad--one finger to move the cursor around, drag two across it and you can scroll down instead of moving to the scroll bars or using the down arrow (and mine doesn't have their latest touchpad).
These are the smallest of things. The ones I've listed are only a few of many. They are the things that after you try it you sit back and say, "Why doesn't everybody do this? It's so simple, but makes the experience that much better." I'm not going to drop an extra grand on a computer so I get these rather insignificant features. But, if I compare two computers (or mp3 players or smart phones) with comparable hardware and maybe one or two hundred dollars difference, I'd choose a Mac every time just for those simple features I've listed.
Doing the little things, is that innovation? It may not be strictly design innovation, but it's certainly an innovative way to run a business.
Alright, I'm done. I will resort to ad hominem attacks in future posts...dick.
In order to make everything work together you have to control the ecosystem. You can also look at their "inflexibility" as purely business. Why open your systems up to other people when you can force them to buy more of your products by making them easier to use together?
Probably the best thing Apple has been able to do is to convince people that they should spend hundreds of dollars on things like the iPod and the iPhone. I think they way they have been able to do that is by churning out products that work and are relatively simple to use.
Doing the little things, is that innovation? It may not be strictly design innovation, but it's certainly an innovative way to run a business.
I think we keep going in circles because you keep proving my point. Apple is a very, very good business. It's very, very good at convincing people to buy its products. It's why everyone thinks it's a good company and a good investment (good idea short-term, very very ohmygod HORRIBLE idea long-term). But market success only indicates innovation in a vacuum. In the real world, other things contribute to a company's success. I just happen to think those things have been far, far more important to Apple than what you perceive as their ability to innovate.
I also think your ode to your laptop proves my point. Those features are all fantastic. Apple didn't develop most of them (can't say for certain about the power-cord thingy). What Apple did do was put them all together first. You can call that innovation if you want. I choose not to. It's certainly a smart business decision. But I think we can agree that the people who developed the software and hardware you describe are driving innovation more than Apple, the company that buys those developments, is.
I won't defend Microsoft or PC laptop manufacturers. And Vista is just plain awful (coincidence it's an attempt to imitate Apple's GUI?).
I think we probably just have different definitions of innovation. I think it's more important to develop powerful, flexible hardware and software that gives end users the most control over how to use the product. You seem to think innovation comes from making the entire user experience simpler or more integrated (if the latter requires purchasing additional hardware from a different manufacturer, so be it). My version starts with the assumption that the user is smart and should be in control, and therefore foregrounds flexibility. Your version assumes all users are a relatively stupid undifferentiated mass, and therefore foregrounds ease of use.
I'll concede (as I have since the beginning) that your (and Apple's) version is a very smart business model. It makes your products available to the vast majority of consumers who know nothing about how their new gadget works or why the software on their computer does what it does. But it doesn't produce the best products and it doesn't push further innovation. It produces products that appeal to the lowest common denominator and leaves those products hopelessly inflexible. But of course, that's just another good business decision - if users want to upgrade or add additional features, they'll just have to buy the next generation of the product.
You may resort to ad hominems if you wish. I choose instead to extend an olive branch, and present you this story about a guy riding his bike into a bear.
Apple's OS comes with a screenshot application built in; PCs need additional software.
Great example. Every PC I've ever seen has had a "PrintScreen" button. How is this innovative on Apple's part?
You're a douchebag. There I said it. Are you happy now?
What do you consider innovative? Do you want your computer to give you a handy while you type your term paper?!
It makes your products available to the vast majority of consumers who know nothing about how their new gadget works or why the software on their computer does what it does.
Of course they appeal to idiots who are still trying to shove a 5 inch floppy disk into their DVD drive! Do you go out in public? Do you know how very, very little people understand computer?! Yes, making a product that MOST people can easily use IS innovative. Why? Because nobody else can seem to do it well. And, actually, it's not really innovative business wise. Their success at doing it is uncommon, but every business wants to produce products that are appealing and user-friendly.
What, are you beyond commercially available software now?! Did you go Linux on my ass?
I'm sorry. I hadn't gotten to your extended olive branch. (I got distracted by a shiny object.)
I heart you. And I'm constantly looking for something cooler than Apple to get into. Let me know if you see anything.
I don't want my computer to give me a handy. But if someone develops an app that will let my smartphone give me a handy, I'd like the device to be flexible enough to handle it. The iPhone? Not likely. That's what I think is innovative: power and flexibility. That's not what Apple does well.
Linux? No (thougt about it, though). But I am a Firefox evangelist. I'll corner you at office functions and talk so earnestly about Firefox and how you should let it into your heart that you'll get eyebrow-sweat uncomfortable and make up a reason to leave. "Uhh, I have to go donate blood.... Yes, now. It's, uhh, it's an emergency. They're expecting a lot of car accidents tomorrow."
Also, there's no way this isn't funny: Do you know how very, very little people understand computer?!
Making a product most people can use is innovative insofar as it lowers consumers' expectations (or at least caps how high they can be raised). Making a product that empowers consumers, rather than caters to them, is truly innovative. It's why YouTube succeeds and content-driven sites fail.
Apple is the clip-on tie of technology. It's so easy anyone can use it, but try to do anything meaningful with it and expect to look like an idiot.
Of course you thought about Linux...
If Apple just panders to the lowest common denominator, then why have professionals in photography, graphic design, etc consistently chosen Mac and their products over the years? Obviously there is at least one segment of the population that thinks you can do powerful things with them.
Whatever, I'm over you.
I'll concede that Macs are vastly superior to PCs for doing work involving the visual arts (though this has changed in the last five years because Macs don't render high-end graphics like hi-def video as well as more powerful PCs). But the fact that that's, in effect, the only industry to adopt Macs en masse ought to indicate the system's inflexibility. It can do one thing well but can't be adapted to doing much else. In this respect it's exactly like the iPhone, the iPod, iTunes, etc. - they work well together but they're hopelessly unadaptable. You can only do with them the narrow range of things Apple has designed them to do.
When I worked at The Reader we did most of our work on Macs because they were better for the layout software used to design the final product. But you weren't supposed to check your email or compose articles on the Macs because they weren't stable enough to run high-end design software and basic programs like Safari at the same time. And this was on G5s. If you wanted to write up an interview, you had to go to a PC in another office to do so. Even in a design context - Apple's home turf - the hardware isn't as stable or flexible as the Apple legend has it.
You're over me? I don't even know what that means.
All I know is Apple is selling a fancy Walkman for $200+, and enough laptops to college students to make the world go blind from white plastic. They've innovated the SHIT out of their bottom line and that, my friends, is how any company has ever been successful. Whether you like the products or not, the buck stops at the buck.
Post a Comment