Hacker News Reader

Comment by sxg | Hacker News Reader

The author says Apple's leaving a void because Google and Amazon are inventing new product categories instead of Apple, but Apple's successes haven't been new inventions. The iPod wasn't the first MP3 player, the iPhone wasn't the first smartphone, the iPad wasn't the first tablet, and the MacBook wasn't the first laptop. What Apple does well is waiting to add enough incremental upgrades to products until it surpasses the "amazing" threshold. This ends up looking like Apple is either late to market (Apple TV) or so incredibly successful that it appears as if the market didn't even exist before Apple entered it (iPhone/iPad).

Based on Apple's history, we should really be expecting them to crush the Echo and Chromecast sometime in the next few years.

View on HN

They've already had a stab at the Apple TV, so I doubt we're going to see a revolutionary chromecast-like competitor.

An Echo competitor would be possible but has Siri made any noticeable revolutionary leaps recently?

You would not have seen the Siri leaps that matter, that's not how Apple operates. They develop things in secret and then drop them on the world. I'm not saying that's for sure what will happen with Siri but that's Apple's track record and mode of operation.

Siri does now have an API (although limited) on iOS, but I haven't seen many uses of it yet.

As for the Apple TV and Chromecast, I've been using a Chromecast (1st gen) for the last few months since I gave my Apple TV to my parents, and I miss my Apple TV. The Chromecast is great when it works, but it's extremely hit or miss depending on the app you use to stream. YouTube and Netflix work perfectly, but HBO Now and FX are terrible. There's no option to scrub backward/forward, and often when you hit pause the app will disconnect. With HBO Now and the FX app, it usually takes a good 3-4 tries to connect and actually watch something. With the Apple TV, everything worked as expected.

I think the major factor stopping the Apple TV from crushing the Chromecast is price. The old Apple TV is $70 - they should really be pushing for a much lower price point for this to compete with the Chromecast, but Apple doesn't even list this one on their site as far as I can tell.

I never got on with the Chromecast but the FireTV stick on the other hand is great.

Our AppleTV and PVR have both gone now.

Funniest thing with the Apple TV OS was when my 7 year old complained that it was broken as pressing the right arrow on the remote (as indicated by the right arrow on screen) didn't work - I showed him you had to press OK, but for a business that's supposed to pride itself in great UI it's a spectacular fail

>Based on Apple's history, we should really be expecting them to crush the Echo and Chromecast sometime in the next few years.

My impression is that Apple is far behind in the machine learning/AI/personal assistant space, and does not have the engineering resources to catch up.

I'd like to be wrong about that, because I like Apple products and I believe that competition is good, but I'm pessimistic.

How can a company with cash reserves as large as several nations "not have engineering resources"?

They don't want to get engineering resources on par with competitors, for whatever reason.

Not necessarily. A company can't just magic the best or even good/adequate "engineering resources", AKA human beings, out of thin air, as anyone who's tried to start a startup even with serious cash in hand can attest.

Apple's corporate culture has a variety of things that I would find hard to imagine not suppressing their ability to hire and retain the best; I'm sure others have a better idea than I, but the #1 thing staring us in the face is that software is not respected.

I hear this regularly, and I don't buy it.

It's not that black and white. No-one is suggesting or implying that Apple throws some money at HR and Monday morning comes around and they're sitting down a new multi-hundred person engineering team like magic.

But at this point, OS X/macOS improvement has been in obvious decline (since 10.6? 10.8?) for _several years_.

No, Apple can't just magic an engineering team out of thin air.

Apple can, however, create engineering teams given several years of it being a pressing priority. They were able to for iOS, for watchOS, etc.

But therein lies the rub - with every month that goes by, it's clear that to call it a "pressing priority" to Apple would be to give it an importance that they clearly don't feel it has.

> But therein lies the rub - with every month that goes by, it's clear that to call it a "pressing priority" to Apple would be to give it an importance that they clearly don't feel it has.

The question is, what is Apple's priority right now? The latest iPhone and Apple Watch models are incremental upgrades, and in the case of the iPhone, everyone expected a redesign (and Apple had two years to make that happen, but they either chose not to, or failed). macOS or whatever they call it now hasn't changed much in several years, as you pointed out. The Mac Pro is stagnant. The Mac Mini is stagnant. The new Macbook Pro model has the touch bar, after several years of sameness.

The only recent Apple products that are a notable upgrade from their previous versions are the Apple TV with Siri, and potentially the touch bar Macbook Pro. That's all I can think of since the release of the iPhone 6 in 2014. I guess you could throw in the giant iPad Pro too, but I've never actually seen one outside of an Apple Store, so I don't know if they sell that well.

I hope Apple has some exciting products lined up for 2017, because the past few years have been incremental at best.

The latest iPhone and Apple Watch models are incremental upgrades, and in the case of the iPhone, everyone expected a redesign

Pretty much the only thing that didn't change on the iPhone in the latest rev was the form factor. Apple is also very well known for continual incremental upgrades. Yes, I'm going to quote Gruber:

In every regard, from performance to battery life to camera image quality to haptic feedback to water resistance to wide color gamut displays to sound quality from the speakers, the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus are impressive year-over-year improvements over the 6S/6S Plus, and stunning improvements over the two- and three-year old iPhone 6 and 5S — which are the models most people considering the new iPhones will be upgrading from.

https://daringfireball.net/2016/09/the_iphones_7

Is the lack of a form factor change in the iPhone 7 make you think the iPhone is not (still) a priority for Apple?

Every two years, there was a new iPhone form factor. Everyone expects that to continue. Apple is aware that this expectation exists, because Apple created that expectation by releasing a new iPhone form factor every two years. However, Apple did not meet that expectation this year, and did not offer any explanation. If that was deliberate, it was probably a stupid business move and definitely a failure to manage expectations. If it was not deliberate, it indicates that Apple can no longer finish a complete iPhone redesign in two years, which it was able to do in the past. Either way, it's not good.

Frankly, John Gruber is a poster boy for rationalization of Apple's mistakes. He's like a dog that gets kicked and keeps coming back to its owner. If the iPhones were exploding instead of Galaxy Notes, Gruber would have defended Apple. If Apple decides to release smallpox in 2017 instead of a new iPhone, Gruber will eventually come around to Apple's side, like he always does.

Yup. John Gruber is well-known as a fan boy. That doesn't deny the points he makes in the article. Do you contest his analysis of the changes between the iPhone 6 and iPhone 7? After all, that's what you're arguing, correct? Something that lines up the spec differences between at least the iPhone 6 and 7, and even stronger, over the past few gens, and show that the improvements between the 6 and 7 show some reduction in pace of improvement than previous revs.

At what point do you approach a near-perfect design? Look at the other phones out there, pretty much mimicking Apple's lead (with some exceptions, granted. The Samsung wrap-around screen is pretty cool). The whole attitude of "Apple isn't innovating fast enough, but I don't have any ideas as to what they might come up with, but I want something new and shiny" gets old. For me, I'd like to see a return to something like the 4s (I have small hands), but I'm okay with the 6. I'd also like a more camera-like camera, as I have some difficulty lining up the lens with the subject as the lens isn't centered on the body. I'm used to a DLSR. I don't take a lot of pictures, so this isn't a big deal for me, and a lot of people seem perfectly happy with the current set up. A lot of other phones have similar lens positions.

What aspects of the iPhone form factor would you like changed?

> Yup. John Gruber is well-known as a fan boy. That doesn't deny the points he makes in the article. Do you contest his analysis of the changes between the iPhone 6 and iPhone 7? After all, that's what you're arguing, correct?

That's not what I'm arguing. I don't care if the insides of the iPhone 7 are 100% different than the insides of the iPhone 6S.

The bottom line is that Apple created an expectation, and failed to meet it. The particular expectation in the case of the iPhone was for an external redesign, but that's not really what matters. What matters is that Apple created an expectation and failed to meet it. That's not what good businesses do. Either they don't care, which is bad, or they can't meet the expectation, which is worse.

Okay. In addition to updating the form factor on a regular basis, how else did Apple create or reinforce this expectation? Frankly, I think that would make for a very interesting blog post.

Looking back at the history of iPhone releases:

Source: http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobil...

- iPhone 1 June 2007

- iPhone 3G July 2008 (13 months)

- iPhone 4 June 2010 (23 months)

- iPhone 5 Sept 2012 (27 months)

- iPhone 6 Sept 2014 (24 months)

There have been 3 cycles of the bienniel updates, the majority. Honest question, is that alone enough to set expectations?

Should they iterate even when they really don't have any idea how to improve it? Iterate for iteration's sake? Wouldn't that mean at least meaningless cost at best, and possibly decrease the value of the design?

Given that the iPhone is a major source of Apple revenue, this is an important question. How much can we read into Apple's prospects for the future based on the lack of a significant form factor update with the iPhone 7?

By the way, I agree with you on the Mac Pro and the Mac mini. I'd really like to see strong updates in these areas. However, I don't know what the market looks like for these form factors these days. Of the two, I'm only interested in a mini. I have been for quite a while (it would replace a PowerPC model, FFS) yet I haven't pulled the trigger, so am I really in the market? Same with pro-level software such as Final Cut and Aperture (pretty significant when it came out).

Most of those things are also things that require (relatively speaking) little engineering effort from a software perspective, which goes back to my original point.

Since Apple is partnered with IBM why wouldn't they explore using Watson as a backend for Siri?

When has Apple ever used anyone else's core technology?

Apple either develops their own stuff, or acquires a company and brings it in house (that's how they got Siri in the first place, as well as their own processor designs). Apple is not going to buy IBM.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com