HackerNews (and jasonlbaptiste) on The Economist | Hacker News Reader

HackerNews (and jasonlbaptiste) on The Economist

economist.com

41 pointsrglullis25 comments

"But without those white earbuds, how would you have signalled your trendiness?"

I know this is tongue-in-cheek, but I'm a bit tired of comments like this, implying that Apple is successful mostly because people are blindly buying its products to be "in" and signal how cool they are.

That's very true. They make great products that are very well thought of down to the last pixel-perfect detail. They draw on many years of experience and hard work to make the products they do.

They have different priorities than a lot of other tech companies.

Apple’s goal isn’t to make money. Our goal is to design and develop and bring to market good products…We trust as a consequence of that, people will like them, and as another consequence we’ll make some money. But we’re really clear about what our goals are. - Jonathan Ive, VP of Industrial Design at Apple

I was made acutely aware of this the other day when out with my girlfriend to pick up: a replacement iPod for her and a cordless phone. After playing with an iPod nano for a couple of minutes while settling on colour/features etc, we then went to look at the cordless phones...

The contrast in design choice just left me depressed. All the phones were crappy, ugly things, with user interfaces that were just awful. Maybe they had really good features but I didn't care, because it looked to me as though the designers didn't care about their product. And this was something I was going to bring into my home and use everyday!

The whole experience left me bummed. I left with just the iPod.

You do realise your story essentially supports the notion that your purchase was based on fashion and signalling right? I mean "Maybe they had really good features but I didn't care" actually typifies my view of an Apple fan.

No, it was based on product quality, not fashion. There's a huge difference between the two.

"Product quality" that doesn't relate to functionality is fashion in my view. Think about it.

> down to the last pixel-perfect detail

Placing this level of importance on aesthetics indicates that signalling IS an important factor. Most people who don't care about (or don't even understand) signalling generally wouldn't even notice 'the last pixel-perfect detail'. There's nothing wrong with liking nice clothes though, as long as they do the job.

Most of the attention to detail at Apple is about functionality, and taking out non-functional things, though. It's not "peacock" design, or at least, not too much.

You probably wouldn't have liked this Simpsons episode then. http://www.hulu.com/watch/46753/the-simpsons-mapple-store (clip)

I liked it, actually. But that's what the Simpsons do. I'm tired of seeing it everywhere else, especially in places where they wouldn't say the same thing about other successful companies that owe their success to more than the fickle winds of fashion.

Ummm, social signaling, it's real, it's deeply ingrained, and shopping for two teenage daughters I can guarantee that it really does come down to signaling in their choice of Apple versus any other. They really don't focus on features nor interface, nor apps, especially apps, they don't care about that stuff at all, at least not yet.

Not everyone is a teenage girl. Even on the internet.

No, but everyone is a social signaler.

That's the way it looks from outside. Apple users inevitably resort to unmeasurable and often 'fashion-like' qualities when describing what is so great about their products. People who care a lot about beautiful fonts are also more likely to care about signalling than those who are only concerned about functionality.

I've always loved using this quote to give perspective to how much Apple's grown.

How did this comment end up on The Economist?

i have absolutely no clue. i was browsing hn as normal and saw my name on the front page, so I did a double take thinking i was on a comment/threads page.

if i could go back in time and cherrypick what to invest in, no shit i'd be rich!

What on earth does this have to do with hacker news?

EDIT: what I meant is: The title says hacker news on the economist, yet the page has no mention of hacker news anywhere. A better title might be: it is smart to invest in good stock.

At the top it says "JASON BAPTISTE notes:"

If you click on 'notes' it links to the comment on HN

I, for one, welcome our new hypermedia overlords.

"The site is currently not available due to technical problems. Please try again later. Thank you for your understanding."

:-(

Guru Meditation: XID: 294194655

Classy hat-tip to Amiga.

From Varnish Cache.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com