Hacker News Reader

The innovations that Steve Jobs is known for were new products, with new value propositions, that undermined existing products and left the market scrambling to figure things out.

Of the products that you list, ONLY the Apple Watch tries to create a new value proposition. And Apple steadfastly refuses to release specific sales numbers because it is not enough to matter relative to its smartphone market.

As for the rest, when I compare my iPhone X versus my wife's Google Pixel, it is clear which product has more innovation going on, and it isn't the more expensive Apple device. When I compare my iPhone X versus my old iPhone 8, it is clear that it is an improved device, but it isn't a new value proposition.

This is a problem for Apple. And the reason why it is a problem is that in every market it is positioned as a premium product. As long as it is a premium product with a relatively static value proposition, it is just a question of time until competitors deliver a good enough product at a better enough value that people switch. And the switching is going only one way.

Let's make that concrete. Annual iPhone sales hit 231 million in 2015. They dropped slightly and have held steady since. See https://www.statista.com/statistics/276306/global-apple-ipho... for a graphic. As a share of the market, iPhones went from a bit over 20% to under 15%, and show no signs that this will turn around. Again, see https://www.statista.com/statistics/266136/global-market-sha... for a graphic.

So Apple is doing great and probably has quite a few good years ahead. But the long-term trends aren't in its favor.

What innovations does the Pixel have that you feel are missing from iPhone?

Google assistant is smarter than Siri. By a lot.

Suggested replies are right a significant fraction of the time.

The fact that you can go outside of the app store when you want is nice.

Lastpass can integrate more easily with other applications. In the iPhone you have to cut and paste. In Android, it just fills in like it does on my desktop.

The fact that Google is not so aggressive about pursuing in-app purchase revenue makes in-app purchasing better. For example you can purchase a book from audible and start listening, rather than having to switch to a browser, buy it on the web, and then download the already purchased book in the app. Technically that's because Audible doesn't want to pay Apple 30% of their revenue. But as a user it is simply a better experience.

Plus many smaller UI tweaks.

Those all sound like preferences, not innovation. Which is fine, most progress is incremental, and there are plenty of options in the world for individuals to find their preferred product.

Depends on your definition of innovate I suppose. I can't quite articulate why but I have stopped feeling excited about apple events or product launches. It never feels like there's some new capability, only improvements on previous capabilities. There's not really been a new exciting product line in a bit, I don't think?

If you aren’t excited by the Apple Watch then this makes sense. The only major new success has been the watch. AirPods are also a huge success but it is hard to see it as a separate product category like the watch.

But how many successful new product categories did the Jobs Apple produce per decade? One or two at most. I personally didn’t get excited over the Bondi Blue iMac but it was Jobs first success but not a new category. That was the iPod. It took years for a new product after that.

I agree with you, but most Apple launch events even under Steve Jobs were boring incremental affairs.

Seems to me that the entire legacy of Jobs at Apple is colored by one launch event: the iPhone, which was probably one of the top 5 best demos in the history of technology. It was a really great presentation in the moment, and of course now we can recognize it as an enormous pivot point in the industry, and arguably in human society. But most Steve Jobs Apple events weren't like that.

The iPod, iPad, and Macbook Air are good examples or products that have had a big impact (and done big sales), but were underwhelming when they launched. I would put the Apple Watch in that category. I think its long-term impact is underappreciated right now.

I know, everybody forgets the time Apple held a whole Jobs+ press event to unveil...an iPod dock.

Oh I know, I’m the person that chose a helio ocean over the original iPhone because it came with Yahoo instant messenger out of the box and had a physical keyboard. Maybe there’s something more there - it’s it just doesn’t make me want to run off and get a thing.

>"But, under Cook the following has happened: Apple Watch, AirPods, HomePod, iPhone X, ARKit, Siri Shortcuts, FaceID, iMac Pro. Everything in that list might not perfectly suit every user, but the argument "Without Steve Apple can't innovate!""

Yes that mix of products and features all happened during his time as CEO but how innovative are those things that you listed really? Is there a common through line to any of the items in your list that would constitute a product vision?

For instance Apple spent billions on buying Beats. And 4 years later they are pushing Air Pods while Apple Music recommendation engine is abysmal. This strikes me as incoherent the opposite of visionary.

Apple was also years ahead with Siri and a voice interface and yet only trotted out a smart speaker years after someone else innovated. And oddly the Home Pod came out years after Apple decided to discontinue making the Airport. This also seemed incoherent as hey already had a toehold in the networked home with the Airport base station and Airport Express.

And during the period where it seems Amazon was busy developing a voice activated digital assistant Apple was busy making jewelry in the form of a wrist watch.

I would also mention the laptop, which although not new and sexy isn't going away anytime soon and aside from the confusing "touch bar" the Macbook Pro hasn't fundamentally changed in years. Dell and MS have innovated far beyond anything that Apple has done with the laptops it seems.

Wrong on several points. First, HomePod is fundamentally a speaker; the "smart" functionality is decidedly secondary. Second, no, HomePod did not come out "years after" Airport was discontinued; it was a few months. Third, calling Apple Watch mere "jewelry" is silliness; it's a very impressive product by any standard.

Amazon's digital assistant does things that Siri is not even trying to do and which can only work if you are willing to invade user privacy in ways that Apple is fundamentally opposed to. These products are not really on the same playing field.

How precisely has Dell "innovated" in fundamental ways in the laptop space? They haven't; that's a baseless claim. Dell still can't make a decent trackpad.

>"Wrong on several points. First, HomePod is fundamentally a speaker; the "smart" functionality is decidedly secondary."

From the Apple product page:

>"HomePod is great at the things you want to know, and do, in your home. From getting the latest weather to sending messages and controlling your smart home accessories,2 Siri makes it easy to multitask with just your voice."[1]

Unless you can tell me you were on the design team for the HomePod, you have just entirely made up the fact that the smart functionality is "decidedly secondary."

>"second, no, HomePod did not come out "years after" Airport was discontinued; it was a few months."

Apple stopped developing the Airport and disbanded the team back in 2016.[2] So yeah that's a couple of years. Selling through on existing stock is not the same as actively developing is it?

>"Third, calling Apple Watch mere "jewelry" is silliness; it's a very impressive product by any standard."

A watch is commonly accepted to be both an accessory and a piece of jewelry. It's amusing that you want to dispute this when this watch has become an incredibly fashionable accessory to have at the moment. And just to put a fine point on it, when Hermès is designing for you, its safe to say that you are in fact producing a fashion accessory.[3]

[1] https://www.apple.com/homepod/

[2] https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/21/apple-reportedly-stops-develo...

[3] https://www.apple.com/apple-watch-hermes/

Hermes is designing watch bands. They have, of course, obviously, zero involvement with the actual product.

Maybe read the actual link:

"A partnership based on parallel thinking, singular vision, and mutual regard continues with a fresh new expression."

So clearly they had a lot to do with the actual product, substantially more than "zero."

You might also note that the actual face of the watch displays Hermès typeface and logo. I'm guessing you aren't familiar with Hermès because they don't need Apple.

That speaks of consolidation and yearly refresh not innovation. A yearly adding of stuff because they have to not because they have the next great idea. Stuff that doesn't just work together like it used to, nor feel as slick. I honestly can't remember the last iOS or MacOS update that brought anything really compelling, and High Sierra brought a new low for stability.

iMac Pro comes after a year or two of widespread criticism after the "can't innovate my ass" trashcan farce. For that money I would want a cheese grater with slots and expansion not an all-in-one that seems fine for regular iMac prices. Airpods are hardly ground breaking. HomePod was joining in because everyone else was. iPhone X is bigger, faster with a notch that speaks of kludge not innovation.

> Apple Watch, AirPods, HomePod, iPhone X, ARKit, Siri Shortcuts, FaceID, iMac Pro.

Those aren't transformational changes, they're are incremental changes that Apple is already good at.

A transformational change would be creating high-quality media shipping to Apple TV- a direct competitor to Netflix, fully contained in the Apple ecosystem. Building a content media division is very hard for Apple to do, but would keep them relevant.

Apple is missing the boat on media, which is the probably the biggest battlefield in 2018. Disney, Netflix and Amazon are setting the pace and there's no reason why Apple couldn't compete. Not only compete, but win in that space, with the insane capital and ability to lock into Apple hardware.

Nobody is talking about smartwatches. Everyone is talking about what they're binge-watching. Apples winning the wrong conversations.

Homepod and Siri are like the Zune and Windows phone when compared to Alexa/Echo.

From what I've heard the Homepod had an amazing speaker but it was paired with a second-rate assistant (Siri) while most people that buy Alexa products care more about the assistant than it's included speaker.

You can buy better speakers than any of them at your local goodwill or pawn shop. The speaker isn't the product.

Wrong on both counts. No, you can't beat HomePod with just random speakers, and yes, the speaker emphatically IS the product with HomePod.

What? At $350 the Homepod offers nothing compelling. If you're in the market for a great speaker and have around $350 to spend, you aren't going to buy the Homepod. The Google Home Max is only $50 more and greatly superior in sound quality. The Sonos One is $150 less and about equal quality. Both also have much better assistants built in as an added bonus. If you don't care about the smart features, then you could go for some very high quality mid range speakers for that money. Hell, a set of dedicated 2.1 Logitech PC speakers like the z623 will blow the Homepod out of the water in terms of quality and they're doing that at $118 on Amazon. Throw in an Echo Dot or a Home Mini and you have better sound better smarts for less than two thirds the Homepod price.

Original poster was claiming that any "pawn shop" speakers will beat HomePod; that's what I was replying to.

Why is this downvoted? Seems obviously true. For the vast majority of people, for any product with speakers in it, even literally music systems, the least of their concerns is the quality of the actual speakers.

There might be a quality line below which people would notice and care but once you've passed it, they stop caring. Usually the top concern is looks, in this case it's probably the functionality of the assistant.

Siri is a much better assistant then Alexa. It’s a hands down better product with much better tech. Things I say to alexa have to be in an exact phrase, whereas Siri can pick up on multiple different phrases containing the same meaning

Siri Shortcuts is a rebranding of an acquisition. Apple did very little to innovate here. They bought a company's tech and added Siri support mostly because they wanted the power of IFTTT but in their own proprietary format.

I feel like the Bragi dash out "Apples" Apple's airpods. Apple had a real opportunity to make a OS for your ear as well as your wrist.

This is selling it short. They picked the right acquisition to integrate into their native system.

It's not just siri voice support: Shortcuts can now access system functions. And third party apps will integrate into it.