Hacker News Reader

Comment by d3ckard | Hacker News Reader

I do not agree. It is not about magic, it's about neglecting the user group that made them rich in the first place.

Apple actually stopped making pro hardware. They're unpredictable when it comes to upgrades(15 Retina ethernal Haswell, 2013 Mac Pro, even iMacs), they do not seem to have an idea how the platform should evolve and they're obsessed with thinness, while in the pro market performance and battery life are vastly more important.

Last but not least, their recent idea of progress is gimmicky touch bar and emoticons everywhere. Sorry, it just does not fit. Add to it degrading software quality (iOS10 sucks, MacOS just got rid of battery prediction, because they couldn't work with new processors - come on!), frozen progress on software front in general and there is not much left.

Currently Apple is a company sitting on an extremely large pile of cash and they have not idea what to do with it. Not sexy at all.

View on HN

It was not the pro users who made Apple rich. It was the consumers buying iPods, and later iPhones.

Pro users are at the same time extremely demanding and extremely conservative. Apple has never done much to cater to that market, and the fact that they have so many pro users these days is a happy accident which has more to do with how awful these people used to be treated when they were Windows users, and not a lot to do with anything Apple did specifically for their sake.

Apple doesn't care about pro users, whom they rightly consider demanding and ungrateful. Apple cares about ordinary people, the ones lots of pro users talk about often in the most condescending of manners. Apple's mission has always been to make computing accessible to the masses (remember the slogan: "The computer for the rest of us"?), not to make it better for the elite few who already know how to use one.

I said that pro users made them rich, I didn't say that they had done it by buying stuff.

Apple has been reaping rewards from the pro market for years. It's been those pro users who have been advocating the platform among friends and family. It's been those pro users who have been the perfect subject for those marketing campaigns showing how awesome new products are. It's been those pro users who write tech blogs and make the noise about Apple. It's been those pro users who made the brand what it is.

I'm not saying that pro users directly bring cash to Apple (they do that too - look at the number of computers IBM is buying and tell me it's not because of those pro users who made mac the ultimate development plaftorm). The point is, Apple was using the pro users as their market driver, creating positive buzz and actually telling people about the alternative (out of US Macs never been that popular). Also, basically any pro user is better for making an ad than normal user - normal users use stuff that's available in the browser everywhere.

Pro market does not have to be the main one for Apple. It has probably never been. The problem is that with pro users you lose a ton of market influence and its going to happen. The proof is in the article - Tim Cook would not bother to comment on the subject unless it was actually important. And it is important. Apple was always about the ecosystem. If they break the ecosystem, they will fail. Right now it does not look to good for them in the long run.

If you believe pro users have that kind of clout, you are delusional. The iPod most certainly didn't succeed because it was endorsed by pro users, nor did the iPhone. In fact the reaction from the pro market to those products when they were introduced, was one of dismissal ('No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame'). These products succeeded on their own merits by being fantastic products and -- to a lesser extend -- on the strength of Apple's brand and marketing. The halo effect from these two products is largely responsible for the success the Mac has enjoyed in recent history.

    > If you believe pro users have that kind 
    > of clout, you are delusional.

Is it so strange? I have friends and relatives who ask me to recommend a computer. I'll bet you do, too.

    > The iPod most certainly didn't succeed because 
    > it was endorsed by pro users, nor did the iPhone.

Actually the iPod, when it was first released, was not a mass-market product. It was Mac-only, and Mac-only at a time when the only people still using Macs were enthusiasts and pros.

    > In fact the reaction from the pro market to 
    > those products when they were introduced, was one of 
    > dismissal

That seemed to me to be more of Microsoft vs Apple thing. The culture has changed these days, and people aren't as dogmatic about it. Back then Mac vs Windows was like a holy war.

Back to present day, the effect of pro users isn't hard to see. Major publications have started writing articles asking if Apple has gone down-hill, and it's not the occasional think-piece, I see a new one every day (just read one on Bloomberg an hour ago). Heck, I read that Rush Limbaugh was trashing Apple last week. Not exactly a typical pro user. These views make it normal people, and don't make buying Apple products seem attractive.

Is it so strange?

No, not strange. Simply not true.

Actually the iPod, when it was first released, was not a mass-market product

Who cares what kind of product the iPod "actually" was, when it was first launched? The point is that it went on to become the biggest consumer electronics hit and Apple's most successful product ever. And it had nothing to do with endorsements from pro users.

Major publications have started writing articles asking if Apple has gone down-hill

Are you new on the internet? Big publications have been writing doom and gloom stories about Apple always. That is not a new phenomenon. Meanwhile Apple has enjoyed success like no other company ever.

    > endorsements from pro users.

I wouldn't use the word "endorsements" but I absolutely believe the approval pro users was vital. What technology journalist isn't a pro user at heart? There are some, like Mossberg, who try hard to write from the pov of the average user, but if you're writing about tech, you're generally a "power user" to say the least.

The iPod wasn't just successful because it was a good product. It was also "cool" because it was high tech. We were just coming out of the beige box era, and standalone devices of any kind that connected to a computer were less common. It had particular cache. If pros hadn't considered Apple good technology, it would have spoiled that, and I doubt the iPod would have sold as well as it did.

    > Are you new on the internet?

I am not.

    > Big publications have been writing doom and gloom stories about Apple always.

There is a massive difference between the tone of the press this year, and previous years. By the time Steve left Apple, it was exceedingly rare for the big publications to write any negative stories about Apple. They were terrified to, because Apple would cut them off from events, etc. There were exceptions, like Gizmodo who had nothing to lose after the iPhone prototype story, but it wasn't like this year, where most stories are negative.

I remember reading on Slashdot at the time that iPod users -- betrayed by the signature white earphones -- were getting mugged, and that this was evidence that the iPod was seen as a status symbol by people far outside the tech bubble.

If pros hadn't considered Apple good technology…

Was it a good product because the pros said so, or do you think perhaps that the pros said it was a good product because it actually was?

And why do you think that only pros are capable of judging if a tech product is good? Can't non-techies judge if a product is delightful or frustrating to use? Do they only know if they like it if someone who is an engineer tells them it's ok? In my personal experience, tech people give the worst advice when it comes to gadgets, because they often have bo empathy for the fact, that normal people don't have the time or the inclination to deal with stuff that might ostensibly have great tech, but is difficult to set up and finnicky to use. Non-techies want stuff that easy to use and just works, and don't care about specs or acronyms.

There is a massive difference between the tone of the press this year, and previous years.

Your original point was that pro users' influence was apparent in the fact that the press is writing negatively about Apple. To which I replied that the press always has written negatively about Apple with the implied point that the influence excerted thusfar, does't seem to have hindered Apple's success in the slightest. But you're telling me that because the tone has changed, this time for sure the opinions of the tech press will suddenly become relevant to Apples customers, even though most of them are not interested in tech and don't follow the tech press at all?

I wrote a long response, and deleted the whole thing. These comments aren't going anywhere, so we may as well revisit things a year from now, and we can see whether Apple's doing okay without its pro users. My guess is that Apple is in for a world of pain in 2017. If that doesn't happen, well, power to them! I've been wrong before.

By the way, the first iPod ad!

https://youtu.be/gS8iHrNpc2I

It doesn't have much bearing on this discussion. I just think it's interesting, all these years later.

I hardly believe that CmdrTaco's reaction on Slashdot to the iPod is indicative in any way of how the "pro market" responded to the iPod or iPhone.

Oh, but it was! As far back as I have followed this stuff, every new hardware category Apple has introduced, has been met with ridicule and dismissal from the experts. Every time the same: It does nothing new. It's underpowered. It's overpriced. It's just a [whatever] in a fancy box. It doesn't even [insert specialised use case].

I can count at least one imac, one macbook air and one iphone directly attributable to me. That's to my parents and a frugal friend who normally doesn't buy expensive things.

In my parents' case I simply couldn't provide them tech support since I switched to mac. So they switched over.

And then indirectly lots of clients and people in cafes have seen me using a mac, an iphone or an ipad. I'm sure that's contributed. And I doubt that's an unusual amount for the typical pro user.

> Apple's mission has always been to make computing accessible to the masses (remember the slogan: "The computer for the rest of us"?), not to make it better for the elite few who already know how to use one.

Except the masses buy Windows 10 laptops that cost $199 or whatever. The Mac has never been "accessible to the masses" because they won't pay Apple's prosumer prices...

I suppose it depends on which masses you're referring to, but when I look around at any public place in New Jersey where there are people on laptops, I always see a very healthy representation of Mac users. Of all ages.

Apple have something like a 10% market share. I think what you see in coffee shops and on expensive commuter trains is not at all representative; if you go into a Starbucks in a trendy part of east London, you'd be forgiven for thinking that Apple had a 95% market share, but I'm pretty sure if you go to, say, eastern Europe you'll see very, very few Macs.

I have noticed that as well. Mac users seem to feel the need to use them in public for some reason.

This could be explained by Macs working better on random networks and having better battery life than other laptops.

Anecdata: I know of several Windows laptops, but only one Mac laptop, which are now effectively desktops.

Did those laptops start out as expensive as a Mac, or were they low end machines?

Apple's PC market share is much higher in the USA than it is worldwide, and it's very low in Asia, apart from Japan.

Also, Apple's market share is much higher now than it was when the masses adopted PCs. That happened under Windows 95 (which nearly drove Apple out of business) and XP.

When Windows brought computing to the masses, Apple's global market share was closer to 2%.

The world is not divided into rich tech elites who can afford the best, and uneducated, poor people whose only hope to join the tech revolution is buying the cheapest of the cheap. There is a huge segment in between.

It's true that Macs have never been the cheapest, but many, many ordinary people buy them none the less. Why? Maybe because a lot of people need a computer, but hate using it. So they choose to spend a little more to get one that is a little less user hostile. That doesn't make them feel dumb. Maybe even delights them from time to time by the many small considerations its designers have made for them.

> many, many ordinary people buy them none the less.

True, but Windows still has around 90% (or more) of the global PC market. Windows actually brought computing to the masses. Apple didn't.

We are using the same words to mean different things. When I say accessible, I mean approachable and usable, whereas you seem to mean affordable. When I say the masses, I mean in contrast to the elite, whereas you mean the overwhelming majority.

Windows is approachable. MacOS isn't significantly different, in terms of usability, for the majority of the non-computerate public.

And however you define it, the fact is that Windows did bring computing to the masses and Apple didn't.

And you think finder is less hostile than file manger on windows?

I've heard that argument dozens of times, but I really can't understand it.

The App Store has millions of apps. Who created those apps, if not pro users? Without the App Store, who would buy iPhones, iPads and iPods?

If Apple shit on the pro users they shit on themselves.

Pro users are a more diverse group than just app developers. My impression is that app developers are not the ones who feel poorly served by Apple's current hardware lineup[1]. Which is not to say that app developers don't have other legitimate grievances with Apple.

[1] I know, I know; the disappearing of the escape key and the function keys affects everyone! Whatever will we all do?

I think that the more "pro" market might overestimate its own representativeness. Sure you can go to a tech meetup and see a sea of glowing Apple logos, but dominance in a relatively small portion of the market is still a small chunk of market share.

I have to say Microsoft really nailed it with the Surface Studio (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/devices/surface-stud...). It's what Apple would have made already if they were "committed to the desktop" and wanted to stay true to their roots as the computer for creative work. They out-Appled Apple. Including the price, unfortunately.

>> it's about neglecting the user group that made them rich in the first place.

Well, times have changed. Apple is servicing the user group that is making them ultra rich now.

I'm not a big fan of the direction they've taken, but I also don't blame them for it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com