Jony Ive Leaving Apple (but not really)

[The King of the Undead]

30 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Yes, because it isn't true.

they lead the big players into it and they just copy small players ideas

[Drak3]

20 minutes ago, will4623 said:

they lead the big players

No, they don't. They rush products to claim to be first.

 

Other manufacturers are already too deep in production cycles, of the products that fanbois claim are copies, to actually be influenced.

[Commodus]

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Yes, because it isn't true.

Er, wait... what?  All the major phone vendors at the time of the iPhone's introduction basically revamped their entire mobile strategies explicitly to counter the iPhone.  The Palm Pre and webOS wouldn't exist if it weren't for the iPhone; BlackBerry wouldn't have made touchscreen devices if it weren't for the iPhone; Nokia wouldn't have been making full-screen touch devices (and revamped Symbian) if it weren't for the iPhone.  Microsoft wouldn't have tossed out Windows Mobile 6.x in favour of Windows Phone if it weren't for the iPhone.  And of course, Android would have primarily been a BlackBerry-alike if it weren't for the iPhone.

 

Don't get me wrong, Android did play a crucial role, but it mainly amplified the changes started by Apple -- namely, that you had to make a truly intuitive, touch-based smartphone aimed at everyday users if you stood a chance of success.  Google's trick was to figure that out in time for Android to become relevant and, eventually, dominant; everyone else learned Apple's lesson too late.

[Drak3]

6 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Er, wait... what?  All the major phone vendors at the time of the iPhone's introduction basically revamped their entire mobile strategies explicitly to counter the iPhone.  The Palm Pre and webOS wouldn't exist if it weren't for the iPhone; BlackBerry wouldn't have made touchscreen devices if it weren't for the iPhone; Nokia wouldn't have been making full-screen touch devices (and revamped Symbian) if it weren't for the iPhone.  Microsoft wouldn't have tossed out Windows Mobile 6.x in favour of Windows Phone if it weren't for the iPhone.  And of course, Android would have primarily been a BlackBerry-alike if it weren't for the iPhone.

 

Don't get me wrong, Android did play a crucial role, but it mainly amplified the changes started by Apple -- namely, that you had to make a truly intuitive, touch-based smartphone aimed at everyday users if you stood a chance of success.  Google's trick was to figure that out in time for Android to become relevant and, eventually, dominant; everyone else learned Apple's lesson too late.

Apple is responcible for NONE of that. These companies have been transitioning for years. The time frame between an Apple release and other releases is not enough time to flip the script on product lines.

 

The only thing Apple did was throw a half assed product on market to claim "first."

[kokakolia]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Apple is responcible for NONE of that. These companies have been transitioning for years. The time frame between an Apple release and other releases is not enough time to flip the script on product lines.

 

The only thing Apple did was throw a half assed product on market to claim "first."

That’s just your view, and a narrow one at that. 

 

The thing is, Apple is the first one to get noticed on a worldwide scale. If you do something and don’t get noticed then it’s like you did nothing at all. Apple is never the first at anything, I’ll give you that. Apple steals ideas and repackages them for the consumer. The first iPhone was a real stunner in a world of plastic-y clunky blackberry phones with mushy keypads. 

[Commodus]

35 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Apple is responcible for NONE of that. These companies have been transitioning for years. The time frame between an Apple release and other releases is not enough time to flip the script on product lines.

 

The only thing Apple did was throw a half assed product on market to claim "first."

Objectively false.

 

It's an absolute fact that RIM created the Storm as an answer to the iPhone.  Touchscreens weren't even on the radar before January 9th, 2007; it initially considered the iPhone "impossible" and scrambled to make the Storm at the behest of Verizon and Vodafone, both of which wanted an answer to Apple's hardware.  I don't see any "transitioning" here; RIM saw the iPhone and it panicked.

 

The Pre was also a response to the iPhone.  As late as fall 2006, Palm CEO Ed Colligan was saying that PC makers (read: Apple) weren't going to just "walk in" -- the company literally had no inclination to break from the Treo/Centro model until market pressure from the iPhone forced its hand.  It hired a former Apple VP as its executive chairman in response.  And even if you reject the conspicuous aesthetic similarities... Palm tricked iTunes into syncing with the Pre so that it could have iPhone-like media syncing.

 

Microsoft?  Remember, Ballmer thought the iPhone had "no chance," and Microsoft's initial response to the iPhone was to shoehorn a few touch-friendly elements into Windows Mobile through the 6.5 release.  It was not already "transitioning," as you state; it had intended to continue on the same "basically a glorified PDA" path until Apple showed up.  Microsoft even reorganized the entire Windows mobile division to start work on a brand new OS (Windows Phone 7) in 2008 -- that doesn't strike me as something you do as part of a plan you'd been working on for years.

 

For Nokia, I remember very well how Nokia showed off its first touchscreen S60 interface in February 2008, and it was pretty crude.  The company had clearly just slapped a touch UI on top of its existing software, which isn't something you do if you'd been planning this all along.  Until then, Nokia hadn't realistically considered a full touchscreen smartphone -- it actually killed a 2004 project because it was convinced full-touch would be a flop.  Gee, I wonder why the company was suddenly interested in the idea again?

 

I don't get why you have to cling to this revisionist myth that Apple didn't pioneer anything or set the industry on its ear.  Would it really hurt to accept that, hey, occasionally Apple has pushed the industry forward on a broader level in ways that some companies haven't?  Microsoft, Palm, Nokia and RIM/BlackBerry all had their own watershed moments, but that doesn't take away from the significance of what Apple has done at times.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

Objectively false.

 

It's an absolute fact that RIM created the Storm as an answer to the iPhone.  Touchscreens weren't even on the radar before January 9th, 2007; it initially considered the iPhone "impossible" and scrambled to make the Storm at the behest of Verizon and Vodafone, both of which wanted an answer to Apple's hardware.  I don't see any "transitioning" here; RIM saw the iPhone and it panicked.

 

The Pre was also a response to the iPhone.  As late as fall 2006, Palm CEO Ed Colligan was saying that PC makers (read: Apple) weren't going to just "walk in" -- the company literally had no inclination to break from the Treo/Centro model until market pressure from the iPhone forced its hand.  It hired a former Apple VP as its executive chairman in response.  And even if you reject the conspicuous aesthetic similarities... Palm tricked iTunes into syncing with the Pre so that it could have iPhone-like media syncing.

 

Microsoft?  Remember, Ballmer thought the iPhone had "no chance," and Microsoft's initial response to the iPhone was to shoehorn a few touch-friendly elements into Windows Mobile through the 6.5 release.  It was not already "transitioning," as you state; it had intended to continue on the same "basically a glorified PDA" path until Apple showed up.  Microsoft even reorganized the entire Windows mobile division to start work on a brand new OS (Windows Phone 7) in 2008 -- that doesn't strike me as something you do as part of a plan you'd been working on for years.

 

For Nokia, I remember very well how Nokia showed off its first touchscreen S60 interface in February 2008, and it was pretty crude.  The company had clearly just slapped a touch UI on top of its existing software, which isn't something you do if you'd been planning this all along.  Until then, Nokia hadn't realistically considered a full touchscreen smartphone -- it actually killed a 2004 project because it was convinced full-touch would be a flop.  Gee, I wonder why the company was suddenly interested in the idea again?

 

I don't get why you have to cling to this revisionist myth that Apple didn't pioneer anything or set the industry on its ear.  Would it really hurt to accept that, hey, occasionally Apple has pushed the industry forward on a broader level in ways that some companies haven't?  Microsoft, Palm, Nokia and RIM/BlackBerry all had their own watershed moments, but that doesn't take away from the significance of what Apple has done at times.

You don't get to decide what is an "absolute fact" just because you want it to be.  Provide evidence.   At the moment you are just repeating marketing guff about apple being the single cause for every change in the industry when there is no evidence to support that ideology.

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

You don't get to decide what is an "absolute fact" just because you want it to be.  Provide evidence.   At the moment you are just repeating marketing guff about apple being the single cause for every change in the industry when there is no evidence to support that ideology.

I literally just provided evidence.  Your choosing to ignore evidence doesn't change that it's evidence.

 

Also, I have never said that Apple is the single cause for every change in the industry.  Never.  Please stop lying.

[mr moose]

41 minutes ago, Commodus said:

I literally just provided evidence.  Your choosing to ignore evidence doesn't change that it's evidence.

That article doesn't exactly support the claims you are making.

Quote

Also, I have never said that Apple is the single cause for every change in the industry.  Never.  Please stop lying.

Except you have said it here: I'll bold the important bits.

6 hours ago, Commodus said:

All the major phone vendors at the time of the iPhone's introduction basically revamped their entire mobile strategies explicitly to counter the iPhone. 

 

Quote

The Palm Pre and webOS wouldn't exist if it weren't for the iPhone; BlackBerry wouldn't have made touchscreen devices if it weren't for the iPhone;

 

Quote

Nokia wouldn't have been making full-screen touch devices (and revamped Symbian) if it weren't for the iPhone. 

 

Quote

Microsoft wouldn't have tossed out Windows Mobile 6.x in favour of Windows Phone if it weren't for the iPhone. 

 

Quote

And of course, Android would have primarily been a BlackBerry-alike if it weren't for the iPhone.

This is literally claiming all smart phones are only like they are because of apple, and that is plainly wrong.  It's an old marketing narrative left over from a time when Apple were goods at it.

Quote

Android did play a crucial role, but it mainly amplified the changes started by Apple 

 

Quote

everyone else learned Apple's lesson too late.

 

On 6/30/2019 at 8:44 AM, Commodus said:

  Before the iPad, tablets were almost always Windows PCs without keyboards.  The Samsung Galaxy Tab was designed as a response to the iPad, as were the Motorola Xoom, the LG Optimus Pad and others.  I distinctly remember the marketing, they were neurotically obsessed with countering the iPad.

 

Quote

you can mark at least a couple of inflection points where Apple products prompted major industry changes.

 

On 6/30/2019 at 7:56 AM, Commodus said:

  The iPhone was primarily responsible for the rise of the fully touchscreen

 

And yes, the MacBook Air had a tremendous influence on laptop design, leading to a slew of similar-looking thin-and-light laptops with a class of processors that didn't exist until Apple asked for it.

 

 

Quote

But the simple reality is that Apple got the ball rolling in earnest, even if it took a couple of years to really figure out what worked.

 

On 6/30/2019 at 12:29 AM, Commodus said:

  I don't think it's unreasonable to say that a large chunk of the laptop market you see now was directly influenced by Apple's design choices in the past decade or so.

 

So you clearly claim that all smart phones, thin laptops, some Intel processors, and all tablets are the direct result of apple, yet I point out you saying these things doesn't make them true and your response is to claim I am lying becauase you never said them.   So what did you mean when you made all these claims?

[41keems]

On 6/27/2019 at 6:39 PM, BuckGup said:

How about make the iPhone and Macbooks twice as thick and better battery, thermals, performance, and so on?

That would be great. Also a thicker iPad as my 2018 iPad pro feels like it'll snap in half easy. Also a bigger homepod. I love mine but I think bigger would be cool as it just sits on a shelf.