Apple products are a mutant virus... says Acer founder | Hacker News Reader

Apple products are a mutant virus... says Acer founder

digitimes.com

19 pointspietrofmaggi34 comments

While reading this, I couldn't help but feel like he wants the "more open" platforms to beat Apple mostly because it means that he (and others) can just leech off the work being done by the OS or hardware vendors so they don't have to bother with everything themselves. It feels lazy.

Apple does everything themselves so they can offer a complete, cohesive, unified package that their customers want. The PC vendors always seem to be looking for an easy way out so they only have to do half as much work. Either they don't want to mess with hardware, or they don't want to mess with software. They want someone else to come and build stuff they can take and bundle rather than digging in and doing what it takes to make a complete product for their customers.

Apple uses basically the same stock hardware as everyone else, and when they don't they mostly contract them out to the same companies to build them.

People don't like to believe this (see the fairytales people made up about the magical A4 chip before it was revealed to be Samsung's Hummingbird paired with a slightly less powerful GPU compared with Samsung's own version, which in itself is fairly equal to its Qualcomm and TI rivals) but it's just the way the world works.

You might have a stronger case on the software side, but even there Apple recognizes the strength of building on standards and open source which allows them more time to focus on differentiation rather than reinventing wheels (though they still do on occasion if it suits them).

Apple package these things together well, and I believe that's an important skill and adds value, but for whatever reason people don't value that so they need to invent secret sauces for Apple.

Apple uses most of the same components as everyone else, but not exactly identical and not always in standardized configurations. They are doing the work of coming up with solid, profitable, and interesting combinations of mostly-pre-existing hardware and combining it with a solid, profitable, and interesting combination of mostly-pre-existing software. (Some of which they own entirely, and plenty of open source stuff as you said.)

Apple has a hell of an R&D department. As far as I know, their retina display, unibody laptop manufacturing processes, and touch-based trackpad tech are unique to them. It's been shown a number of times that their touch screens are way more accurate than others, and somehow their battery life is quite remarkable compared to competitors as well. With the exception of the display and the unibody cases, the stuff I've listed here all require hardware and software to work closely together to achieve the perfect experience. It's areas like that which the PC makers will always suffer in if they don't change their approach, IMO.

Making an LCD have a high ppi is not difficult. You had lcds with greater ppi's 10 years ago for LCD projectors and what not. A unibody laptop isn't breaking ground from a manufacturing stand point, it's just specifically shaped piece of aluminum.

If it's so easy, why had no one else put them in their phones or built their laptops out of them?

Probably because they couldn't convince people that it was magical.

Why did the iPhone run at such a low resolution while Windows Mobile and Android phones were coming out with 3x more pixels? Yet when they increase the DPI game slightly, brand it as a Retina Display, you think they're innovative?

It was a just bit more than a "slight" increase. I think Apple had been planning on being able to double it all along - hence the initially lower dpi. But of course they'll never say for sure.

I meant they accomplished a slight increase in DPI across the genre (not relative to the iPhone 3GS) -- a large number of phones that came out months earlier are within spitting distance of the iPhone 4's DPI, but it just was never a big deal.

Several manufacturers had high dpi screens about 300dpi in phones before Apple. None that I'm aware of matched Apples exact dpi but then again, they had no need to exactly quadrupel the pixel count in the original iPhone while still being roughly the same size.

As far as the aluminium goes Apple has fetishised their materials choices for a long time and had as many hits as misses e.g. "Titanium" paint that flakes off, White iBooks that discolored, white iPhone 4s that they can't manufacture. Others generally don't bother as their customers don't want or need it. I'm not sure Apple users do before they are trained to by Apple.

The toshiba portege g900 has a ppi of 310, yet it was released 3 years ago. I remember some android phone released earlier than the iphone 4 with a similar high ppi. Many people don't like high dpi due to the pixels being too small and using software designed for 72-100dpi.

Metallic laptops tend to have wireless reception issues, conduct heat a bit too well onto consumer laps, have warping issues and can add weight. All of these problems have been present in macbook pros.

> not always in standardized configurations

How so? Does Apple do not use the same buses, connectors and the same semiconductor fabrication process? So what's different after all? Their products are also produced in the same China from which Asus, HP and Dell hardware come from.

I think that what sets Apple apart from others is the fact that their products just works, no hackish measures are necessary to make it work in the most common configurations, no headaches to use, the iPod, the App Store, the integrated hardware and software, everything follow this, I would be glad if every company on earth followed this policy.

"Apple has a hell of an R&D department. As far as I know, their retina display, unibody laptop manufacturing processes, and touch-based trackpad tech are unique to them. It's been shown a number of times that their touch screens are way more accurate than others, and somehow their battery life is quite remarkable compared to competitors as well. "

Almost everything you mentioned was designed and built by other companies. Apple doesn't design their SoC, they don't design or build their touchscreens, they don't build their cases (though they aesthetically design them).

Which is probably a good thing because they need to focus on their core competencies (interfaces and visual designs), and leave the specialized companies to make the specialized solutions. When Apple tried to take a lead on hardware years back, they fell miserably behind.

Apple barely spends more on R&D than Dell.

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-rd-for-tech-...

What Apple is doing is not dissimilar to what Unix vendors have always done: provide a custom UI on top of Unix, bundle the whole setup with proprietary (typically RISC) hardware. In the mobile space, this proprietary hardware is remarkably similar to other vendors in terms of silicon used, but only in Apple's case (and perhaps Nokia) are they providing the customized OS as well.

On the other hand (and this is just my opinion), Apple's design engineers are wiping the floor with essentially everyone else. They have had the most robust feeling (in terms of weight, rigidness, materials, etc.) device on the market for 3 years straight. In fact, I have not handled a non-Apple device that feels as solid as any iPhone model.

They have had the most robust feeling (in terms of weight, rigidness, materials, etc.) device on the market for 3 years straight. In fact, I have not handled a non-Apple device that feels as solid as any iPhone model.

So why does everybody have a case on their iPhone? Apple made a beautiful but fragile phone, and everybody gives them credit for micromanaging the physical aesthetics of the iPhone even though most users experience the physical aesthetics of a third-party case. Evidently they didn't like the aesthetic compromises required to make it robust against normal usage scenarios like dropping the phone onto a hard surface, so they just punted. They disclaimed responsibility and let the third-party case makers handle it. I'd much rather they had applied their design prowess to solving the complete problem, even if the resulting product wasn't as beautiful.

This is trolling of the highest form.

Think of other goods, maybe even other goods that people really really like. Do they not protect them? What about computers? Do we not put them in protective cases? Cars and motorbike? Ever seen one of those guys who covers their car/bike when not in use?

Or what about pens, that some people like to keep inside their case. Heck: I've seen military grade equipment that was still handled and carried with the care you'd reserved for an egg shell or a soap bubble!

What else do we keep in a protective case 24/7, even when we're using it? The case is basically a part of the phone. It's there all the time and is a big part of the user experience. I think it's noteworthy that contrary to everyone's perception, Apple punted a big part of the iPhone user experience to third-party companies. They slipped this by everyone because we judge the iPhone based on its aesthetics without a case, even though the majority of iPhone users can't or don't want to use it that way.

I'm not hating; I'm just pointing out the logical problem behind praising the robustness and external appearance of a device whose external appearance you rarely see in the wild because it isn't robust enough to use without a case.

Think about it. As beautiful and sleek as the iPhone is without a case, most iPhone owners prefer to put a case on it. Every time you see a person with an iPhone in a case, Apple failed in the eyes of that person to create a better product than iPhone-in-a-case. The beauty was not enough to make up for the fragility, so the user gave up all the external beauty to get back the robustness that Apple traded away to make it beautiful. If you get used to thinking of the naked iPhone as inferior to iPhone-in-a-case -- and if you respect the judgment of the users, you have to -- then it doesn't make sense to admire its design so much.

> What else do we keep in a protective case 24/7, even when we're using it?

I keep my textbooks wrapped in book covers made from grocery bags. I keep my feet in protective shoes most of the time, especially if it's cold or raining outside. I'd put a car cover over my car, if it wasn't a rusty pile of junk (i.e., a Chrysler).

That's ridiculous. Book covers are imposed on users (students) who personally gain nothing by using them by an authority (the school system) that cares nothing for their inconvenience. The human body is notoriously easy to improve on, and nobody covers their cars except people with expensive sports cars they love more than their wives. Next.

You are changing your stance now. A lot of iPhones are kept in a case? Sure (and not even a huge amount: here (UK) I see around 20% with a cases and 80% without... maybe in the USA is the opposite).

Is the fact that they use a case evidence that the iPhone is fragile? This is where you are trolling. As I pointed out we use a lot of cases for a lot of situations.

I never understood why people get so angry when their car get scratched (isn't that what the car "shell" is for? Better a scratch on the wall than on on the engine!) but people do. So why could they not be keeping their phones in a protective case to avoid scratches? Or (just to give you another alternative) to clip it to the side? Or to personalise it (phones are very personal items, much more so than computers, for example).

So yeah: is it ironic that the iPhone is considered beautiful and yet people put it in a case? Sure. Is it an indication that it is fragile? Nope.

Apple themselves noted the ubiquity of cases when they downplayed the antenna problem on the iPhone 4, so I'm surprised to hear that there's anywhere in the world where a majority of people don't use them. Here in the U.S. (Austin, Texas, and I think Texas in general) it's the opposite, 80% in cases or even more. I almost never see a naked iPhone and can't think of a single person I know who carries one. I carried my iPhone without a case at first and broke two, personally, before I caved in and started using a case.

I didn't think it was controversial that it's an extremely fragile phone. There's a cottage industry of people who repair broken screens, and there are repair kits available from several different sources for every model of iPhone. In my experience, if you drop it without a case onto a hard surface, you have about even odds of breaking it. I don't remember exactly, but my first one broke the second or third time I dropped it. (I wasn't careful with it at all.) I was so careful with my second iPhone (which pissed me off in itself that I had to baby a phone that way) and managed to avoid dropping it for months, but the very first time I did, it broke. My third has been in its case almost constantly since I bought it, but I did drop it without the case once, and it didn't break. So I had two breaks in four or five hard drops (mostly chest level onto concrete or blacktop,) versus zero breaks in innumerable drops for my previous phones.

Just putting a case on it solves the problem completely, but that brings me back to my original point: if the vast majority of users use it with the case (and that's certainly true here) then it doesn't make any sense to judge it by its size and aesthetics without the case. Plus, for all the users that resort to a case, Apple did not completely control the phone's aesthetics and user experience, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but is certainly noteworthy since it is contrary to conventional wisdom about Apple and the iPhone.

So why could they not be keeping their phones in a protective case to avoid scratches?

I can't speak for anyone else, but that doesn't make any sense to me at all. The case will get scratches, and you'll still have a scratched-up-looking phone. My case has a rubber ridge around the screen that was apparently munched on by some kind of insect last time I went backpacking. That's just the way things get when you use them. If people want a pristine-looking phone, they'll have to buy a new case every few months.

In general, I see almost all iPhone owners using cases, and with other cell phones, I see a clear minority using cases, mostly girls with decorative cases or (like you mentioned) IT geeks who like to clip them to their utility belts. From that I conclude that most iPhone users who keep their iPhone in a case would not do so if they had a different phone, and would prefer not to use a case with their iPhone, but feel compelled to do so for practical reasons.

BigZaphod: Apple does everything themselves so they can offer a complete, cohesive, unified package that their customers want. The PC vendors always seem to be looking for an easy way out so they only have to do half as much work.

ZeroGravitas: Apple package these things together well, and I believe that's an important skill and adds value

This smells like violent agreement to me. The R&D that goes into packaging, component selection, and materials is exactly the sort of investment that low-margin PC manufactures avoid on the hardware side.

Wait, is that a fair comment? I understood Intrinsity to have designed the chip we're calling the A4, and to have licensed it to Samsung. Apple later bought Intrinsity. If that's the case, there's nothing shady about them branding the A4 as a house design; they own the house that designed it.

The processors are similar, true. Although even that is not completely right. I believe Apple managed to get Intel to produce a couple of CPUs spec they way they wanted... but a few months later Intel was free to sell it to others too. (I am thinking the original Macbook air, for example).

They also use pretty standard graphics cards, CD/DVD drivers (although not always), hard disks and so on.

But there are still a few differences.

First: they case is most definitely something that sets them apart, and they are not "off the shelf".

Second: they pick good combinations, which in a way it's easier for them since they are selling the computer as a whole and not for its specs. Hence if they think it's better value for money they may go with a camera that has lower megapixels despite having better images (e.g. more sensitive sensors). Or decide if it's better to invest in more RAM, faster GPU or faster CPU. And so on.

Many (though not all) PC manufacturer are in a much more cut-throat market, and in such hyper-competitive environment it's not surprising that easily quantifiable numbers (e.g. MHz, megapixels, contrast, resolution, etc...) becomes the key point.

Third: Apple has often thinks outside of the box, so to speak, and backs up new technologies much before others. Wifi was an example, floppy drive, USB, Firewire, multi-track, etc... They can do that because they control the whole stack, but it's still a hardware advantage in the end.

Forth and last: they innovate some small details such as the mag-safe power supply, or the way it closes, or some other small touches...

The level of hyperbole in the title of this article versus what the guy is actually saying is striking.

Wait a second...he's saying that PCs evolved naturally and implying that Apple's products did not. Yet Apple's products are a mutant virus, which is a metaphor from natural selection. Sounds like he can't make up his mind.

Give him a break! ;-)

He was already looking at Acer as the biggest player in the netbook field and now Apple put all the netbooks in a corner.

And Acer has now to invest some money to develops Android tablets, and it seems to me that they are a bit late on this.

Isn't Asus the big netbook player? They "invented" them, anyway.

Yes Asus, with the eee PC, invented the netbook segment, but is Acer that has the leads:

- Acer leads netbook market while Apple loses market share http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/dec/10/acer-a...

- Netbook Will Reach 26.32 Million Units and Take 17.2% of the Total Notebook PC Market in 2009 http://www.displaybank.com/eng/info/sread.php?id=4412&pg...

  2009 Top5 Netbook Shipment Result/Forecast
  |  Rank | Maker   | Shipment(K units) | Share |
  |-------+---------+-------------------+-------|
  |     1 | Acer    | 11,300            | 42.9% |
  |     2 | ASUSTek | 6,450             | 24.5% |
  |     3 | HP      | 1,810             |  6.9% |
  |     4 | MSI     | 1,110             |  4.2% |
  |     5 | Dell    | 940               |  3.6% |

But things are now changing:

- Apple's iPad nabs Netbook market share: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20007756-64.html

And forecast are gunning the netbooks segment:

- Forrester: Tablets To Outsell Netbooks By 2012 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Forrester-Tablets-To-Outsell-b...

Are really netbooks on the extintion list? I think so.

Shih also brought up the example of the competition between video tape formats, pointing out that the open VHS standard won against the closed Betamax format.

So, to paraphrase, "stick with Acer because the best man doesn't always win"? :)

Stick with Acer because a bunch of mediocre people cooperating will always win out over one extraordinary man.

no because you can run programs on Acer netbook which will also run on say HP and Dell netbook's.

Betamax tapes work on other Betamax players. I hope.

oh are i-OS API and code cross platform compatible? Do any other companies except Apple create iOS devices?

in fact Apple used 3.3.1 to make sure that code was not cross platform compatible.

I like the way he confuses the Android/Windows market with the manufacturer market. As the head of Acer I'd imagine he is looking after the company Acer and how much money they make, not about the whole Android/Windows market.

And does Apple or Acer make more money from selling computers? Talk of a pyrrhic victory. :D

It wouldn't feel so weird coming from someone who is not a computer manufacturer (maybe from Google, a carrier or someone completely outside). But basically he is saying: "Hey, we'll win in the end, together with everyone else... and get less money out of it than Apple 'losing'. So we are doing the right thing.". So much for his metaphor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com