People always bring up the Magic Mouse 2 for instance. I think it's mainly a misunderstood design. But anyway: do people really think Jobs would have compromised the visual design of the mouse to put a charging port on the front of the mouse, all just to facilitate the 0.1% of time that someone needs to use the mouse while charging it? Have people completely forgotten about the hockey puck mouse, a design where Jobs was willing to give people carpal tunnel syndrome just to have it be totally round and cool looking?
You mention iCloud.. Do you remember MobileMe? A service that failed so spectacularly, under Jobs, that they just scrapped the whole thing and replaced it with iCloud?
Jobs also was actively against having multiple phones, specifically because of the confusion it causes in the customer. Apple now sells the SE, the 6s, the 6s Plus, the 7, the 7 Plus, the 8, the 8 Plus, and the X will be available soon. Jobs would've never allowed that, the SE would probably stay because it's a different size, but then it would be the 8, and the X and that's it.
Software quality especially, iCloud especially especially, has become abysmal. We're up to 11.0.3 now for patch releases, 3 patch releases after a major OS update is unheard of for Apple.
And all of those issues isn't even getting into the Mac line which has been brutalized under Cook.
I don't hate Cook, he's a fantastic businessman, but he has no vision whatsoever.
That’s some revisionist history there! That couldn’t be further from the truth!
First let’s take the obvious contradiction and look at iOS7. There was 7.0.3, 7.0.4, 7.0.5, heck, even 7.0.6!
Pretty much every major release had a X.0.2, so an X.0.3 is not that crazy.
While not a “major OS update” technically, the iOS 4.2 release got patched all the way up to 4.2.10. 10 patch releases, surely that’s when we should’ve said the end was nigh?
While 7.0.X and 4.2.X saw a large number of patch releases, all X.0 and pretty much all X.Y releases had a few patch releases so iOS11 is not an outlier in any way so far.
In reality, bugs will always exist, no matter how good the QA or engineering discipline. Personally, I’d rather see them fix early and often, as long as the patch release doesn’t introduce worse behavior.
As to 4.2, that was before my time. Not an excuse, just an explanation.
10.3.3
10.0.3
9.3.5
9.0.2
8.1.3
8.0.2
7.1.2
7.0.6
6.1.6
6.0.2
As you can see, going back to 6.x days, being at a X.Y.2 or higher patch release is really not that uncommon.
Along the same line, the 8, 7, and 6 are the same three generation of phones that Apple sold under the jobs era. The only difference is that the market demanded larger phones but still some people like really small phones (the SE), what are now considered regular size phones (6s,7, and 8) and their "phablet" equivalents.
Also, Jobs was also well aware of the "price umbrella". They are able to get in the midrange market with the perfectly capable 6s line.
And don't forget, under Jobs, they went from one model iPod to four - the shuffle, the Nano, the "classic" and the Touch.
Right now on apple.com you can buy the SE, 6, 7, 8, and X from their website. Talk about a cluttered, friction inducing decision.
The iPhone is already a expensive premium phone, why bother with incremental changes of the 8 when the cool and shiny X is right around the corner.
It's also strange to me how they offer two new phones with different feature sets. Usually when Apple introduces a new device with a controversial change (e.g. USB-C only on the 2016 MacBook Pro), they don't offer a updated device without that change. It can be perceived as a lack of faith in the new product.
The base model of the MacBook Pro is about the same price as the one in 2016, but it has 128GB rather than 256GB of storage. The 256GB model is now a couple hundred dollars more expensive than last years.
Who else is able to increase prices in technology? In spite of the complaints about their products, for people who think they are good enough and don’t think what competitors have to offer is good enough (in terms of frustrations rather than in terms of features/price) there aren’t alternatives, and Apple has a lot of pricing power.
SE: only small choice, starts at $349
6S: 449 7: 549 8: 699
6S+: 549 7+: 669 8+: 799
So each "normal" size is available at 3 price points. Horace Dediu has talked a lot about price segmentation and umbrellas in the past; this seems like a perfectly reasonable strategy, and I doubt people are all that confused about what they want. Pick a size, pick a price point, buy.
What size phone do I like - 4, 4.7, or 5.5?
How much money do I want to spend?
It's a good lesson to the rest of us.
So it's hard to compare.
Also it's hard to know how much of the iPhone's sucsess is Steve Jobs, and how much of it this is a manufactured legend(and there's no doubt, there is one) - and the iPhone's greatness was due to many great people.And Apple is exceptionally good at hiding those details.
But one part of the legend is true though: he was a visionary - insisting on building a company around good design where a rare few did so. That paid of huge. With the iPod. And the iPod is a very important reason in the success of the iPhone.
Not really, because many of us remember the golden age of LCs before everything went downhill.
But also, my point is: if you put someone as skilled as Jobs, but without the track record, could he say no to investors wanting growth ? Could he give up such a huge opportunity as wireless ear buds ?
And even if, could he create amazing new features/products out of thin air ? on his own ? when the whole world have learned how be great at design ? IDK.
This is a LC, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_LC
After Jobs was forced to leave, Apple wandered into creating A/UX, Taligent, Copland, allowing clones and getting ready to close shop.
It was Jobs' return that placed some order into the whole Spindler and Amelio mess.
IMHO, the thing that folks are not seeing here is that there's value in "making stuff" in having actual FABS, factories and manufacturing. Apple and other "fab-less" companies have been training their competition for decades now. There will someday be a comeuppance.
Samsung could, at some point in the future, decide to "fire" or at least throttle-down Apple as a customer at the worst possible time. What would you expect if you come to depend on your competitor as a key supplier?
There's no way this hasn't been planned / analysed before with risks understood by both sides.