Jobs has lighted our way
gerger.co
gerger.co
Jobs: "We have to let go of a few things here. We have to let go of the notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose."
The phrase has proven to be spectacularly accurate, but it's important to parse the words correctly. They have proven that Apple can win on their own merits and not by fighting Microsoft for desktop supremacy.
In particular, the iPod, the iTunes Music Store, the iPhone and the iPad are where Apple "won" by creating new markets, and not -- arguably -- by stealing market share from Windows Mobile and Tablet products.
Apple won, and Microsoft didn't have to lose.
So maybe Microsoft didn't have to lose, but they did, so I guess we'll never really know.
Sure, they lost their lock-in, but everything else is pretty much the same.
But not because Apple won anything. Nor would things be much different today, for Apple, if 99% of desktop PCs were still running IE. (If anything, problematic web standards would push more focus to the App Store.)
And Apple could and did do that; albeit their branded services weren't adopted very highly out of the gate as people had choices.
But the iPhone still could have happened.
Personally I respect Bill Gates a lot more. He basically spends all his time working on his charity nowadays; he really couldn't care less about the future of his company. Jobs is good for Apple, but I think Gates is better for the world.
i remember his talk at TED where he released mosquitoes in the audience. his goals are pretty clear, invite other people to care.
sorry, but it doesn't work like that if you keep it to yourself.
and i'm by no mean belittling buddhists or anything...
I also don't think you are in any position to be telling us why Bill Gates is giving his money away. Maybe he just wants to give it away because it makes him feel good. Every wednesday night my girlfriend spends 6 hours working with people with disabilities. When she comes home, she is beaming. Helping other people is the most rewarding of activites in its own right, try it some time.
Yup. Go read up what happened to Go Corporation. http://bit.ly/nsNkIY
"The lawsuit also claims that Microsoft stole Go technology, that the company threatened Intel, which had invested in Go, and that it used "incentives and threats" to coerce Compaq, Fujitsu, Toshiba and other computer makers not to use Go's operating system."
Yes, it is.
Many of the business practices Microsoft engaged in was illegal, so he illegally screwed over competitors. Not very ethical.
Also, for suicide statistics please google or use this friendly article (among many) - http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-and-dell-investigating-...
By generating such a comparison, you've distracted your audience from the content of your post which, by the way, I enjoyed and related to. Why poison an otherwise positive post by inviting flame wars?
Can we please stop the Steve Jobs and Apple suck-up here on HN please? This is getting as embarrassing to read as it is getting sickening.
I realize the Sanfran wannebe hipster-crowd here like their shiny iGadgets and want to reaffirm their own worth by appraising the company which they have attached their identity to, but this is getting a little bit out of hand and quite frankly, rather silly.
You, and others here, who dislike the sentiment that something like the iPad could profoundly change someone's life, seem like you want to keep the magic of computation to yourselves. You denigrate design for humans as "marketing" and you demand to categorize the iPad as just another in a long line of Von Neumann machines.
It's not. And the Mission hipsters taking photos of their MacBooks with digital SLRs make me want to vomit. This is not about them.
It's about an old man who was cut off from computation--something I think is immensely valuable--and now has access to it.
Computation is important. Access to computation is important. You're right that talking about some new bullshit gadget as a religious miracle is embarrassing. I get that.
But you know what? Turing completeness is a miracle. Interactive computing is a religious miracle. The mouse is a religious miracle.
And this guy's dad being able to use a computer for the first time, after decades of being unable? Kind of a miracle in my book.
I'm sorry if that embarrasses you.
You have to read a lot into the post to come up with that interpretation.
If the father had been nearsighted but refused to wear glasses for many years, then saw his brother wearing a new style of frames and decided to finally get some himself, would we idolize the frame designer in this way?
Granted, I had a bit of tone as well, but still.
I'll take your advice and just leave it at that. That and refrain from commenting on any Apple-related threads in the future. There's obviously no point trying to bring the real world into HN Apple threads.
Well... When you compare the achievements of both, Jobs' are bigger.
- he (with Woz) invented the personal computer as we know it (a plastic box with a keyboard)
- he made the GUI available to mere mortals (he was the driver behind the Mac when Apple was committing itself to Lisa)
- he made Unix easy to use (NeXT)
- he invented viable commercial music downloads
- he invented the desirable smartphone
- he invented a computer my mom would love to use
He is the driving force behind Apple's during its most fertile periods - I am quite sure nothing leaves the lab without his approval.
What did Gates really invent?
he (with Woz) invented the personal computer
as we know it (a plastic box with a keyboard)
Before that Xerox Alto was introduced in 1973, and while never commercially produced -- get this, it had a GUI, a mouse, an object oriented OS and an Ethernet card.
And before that, the personal computers we know today were perfectly described in a book from 1949, called "Giant Brains, or Machines That Think", then later plans for building Simon were published: http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/berkeley/simonfaq.ht...
And between 1950 and 1977, the year Apple II came along, there were many other good products released.
he made the GUI available to mere mortals
So we are in disagreement.
he invented the desirable smartphone
What did Gates really invent?
> Before that Xerox Alto was introduced in 1973
How much did the IBM 5100 cost? The Alto wasn't even sold. Can they really be considered "the personal computer as we know it"? If we go that route, any desk-sized single-user mini-computer would be "the first PC". That's not the case.
> it had a GUI, a mouse, an object oriented OS and an Ethernet card
No, it hadn't (ethernet excepted). Smalltalk/80 (launched in, you guessed, 1980) was the first real product (one you could buy) and class-based OO was only introduced with Smalltalk/76. The Alto never went past R&D stage. Its descendants did (in the 80's).
> Making stuff available to mere mortals means making it a commodity.
No. It means making stuff with the right price/performance. Like I said before, the personal computer as we know it, did not exist before Woz added a keyboard and Jobs added a plastic case. Before the first Mac no ordinary person would be able to buy a GUI-capable computer. After it, every computer got a GUI (sometimes, grafted on top of a very rudimentary OS)
> If I could afford a cheap and usable personal computer (in my country in 1994), it's because of Microsoft, not Apple.
If you got your first computer in 1994, you already missed the most interesting part of the PC evolution. Bad for you - it was one hell of a party.
Look at what he said in his 60 Minutes interview: “My model for business is The Beatles. They were four guys who kept each other’s negative tendencies in check. And the total was greater than the sum of the parts. Great things in business are not done by one person; they are done by a team of people.” He has always given credit to his team. I think it's the media that invented that myth.
He was the driving force during Apple's best times, he does get credit from me for that. But to me, a small part of that is maybe Apple's board didn't find someone to properly replace him. Apple made a great deal of stupid choices between the eras of Steve Jobs. Now that he has resigned, it'll be interesting to see if Apple falls back to their usual "let's do something stupid since Steve isn't here!"
Ah yes, that failure Gates, I guess he'll have to go down in history as being one of the driving forces of one of the most successful companies in the history of the Earth. What a bummer.
Jobs really did what Gates couldn't with a tablet. Microsoft has been trying to sell tablets since Windows XP with absolutely no success. Jobs rightly showed that you can't cram a desktop OS into a tablet and call it a proper tablet. Their tablets never felt right because you always wished you had a mouse, keyboard and right click available to get anything done. With MS tablets, users felt like something was taken away. With the iPad, users felt like they had something added.
Every single morning, while sipping coffee and waiting for my omelette to finish cooking, I catch up on the latest news through Reeder, the first RSS reader I've actually enjoyed using. I also check my mail to see if there's anything important I need to respond to right away.
When I'm finished eating and catching up to the latest news, I grab my iPad and go upstairs for my exercize. While doing strenght training I use my iPad to quickly make a note of how many reps and how much I lifted. After I'm done with my strenght training, I take a run either outside or on my threadmill. If I take the run on the threadmill, I'll use the iPad for watching a video, either South Park or TED.
After I've showered, groomed, brushed my teeth and flossed, it's time to start working. When I work my iPad is always lying on the desk next to my laptop. I use it for:
* Displaying my ToDo-list (the Hit List)
* Displaying the email I'm working on.
* Displaying some relevant notes to the work I'm doing (Evernote).
* Displaying a PDF or website containing documentation to what I'm working on.
* As an extra screen (AirDisplay) for Photoshop tool pads and similar.
* VNC or SSH to another computer
* The occational check of HN, Twitter or Facebook.
* Calculator
* Calendar (Week Cal HD)
Yup, everything I've mentioned could be done on a normal laptop. However, it's incredibly useful to have an extra screen for displaying relevant information that'll never be obscured by application windows covering the information.
After I'm satisfied with my work for the day, I might hang out with my friends, perhaps take a picnic in the park. My iPad is always accessible in my manpurse. If a customer has an emergency problem, I can quickly and easily log into their server and fix the problem (Textastic/Prompt). If I get a brilliant idea, I'll note it down in Evernote and analyse it with the Business Model app. Maybe I want to think deeply about my business - I'll just open Dropbox and read through some business documents about future plans or surf on some of my competitor's sites through Mercury Browser.
When I'm back home I might do some more work or chill out with some games. Perhaps I'll open Rage HD and have one of the most immersive and physically exhausting gaming experiences possible through the Virtual Window control mode.
Right before I go to bed, I write in my diary (Day One) and finish my TODO-list for tomorrow.
35% web surfing
35% facetime chat with the wife
10% kindle app
10% random games and apps
10% watching shows and movies on the plane
There really is no "point" to having an iPad. It obviously doesn't do anything that you can't do without one. But it's a LOT easier to pick up and use than a laptop and if you have one you'll find it becoming your go-to device for a lot of things.
Ideally, we all want people to be enthusiastic about technology and it's best that we accommodate them instead of forcing them to understand it as we do.
As Einstein has said, imagination is more important than knowledge. From my experience, look at how kids use these things and pay attention to what what they need. They're more intelligent than we give them credit.
Computers are merely extensions of ourselves. The intent must be obvious so as not to confuse. If there is one thing I've learned from Jobs it is this.
EDIT: Look at the Elements app as well as the Al Gore (Push Pop Press) app. There are many holes left in this market where others can cause a disruption to what was the dominant presence on the PC.
I guess it fits well with the rest of our society. Sigh.
IMS-20: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJSyPW4BFgo
nLog: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkjiSIPF-Ho
Not to mention iWork and a host of other apps.
Yes, the iPad is really good for consumption, but it's quite good at production as well. And it will get better with time.
Try to program on the iPad. (i) you need a proper keyboard, (ii) you need a proper dev environment, and (iii) interpreters are forbidden and you are not root anyway.
Try to do anything on the iPad. You need an App. And since you can't write one yourself (at least not on the iPad), you have do download one that passes through Apples moral filter (no sex but war is okay, so much for "peace and love").
It's not like you can't create with the iPad. But the thing is not a general purpose computer to begin with. It wasn't meant that way. Apple optimized ease of consumption, and for that they sacrificed everything that got in the way, including creation.
I'll slightly amend my phrasing: for production, compared to a general purpose computer, the iPad is worth next to naught. And Apple likely doesn't care, though it would be bad PR to admit it.
Now if Apple suddenly gave you the root password, that would be another story. My argument would be limited to the form factor, which isn't such a big issue (just put your iPad on a docking station).
We technologists are a jaded bunch; we underestimate the appeal that technology still holds to vast numbers of people outside of our narrow field. The potential for game-changing products like iPad is still there and is still huge.
Our second biggest weakness is that we, having been either nerds or the "good kids" in school, hold dear a belief that the world is (or should be) a "fair" place where "pretty" is ranked below "smart" and where everything is judged on its own merit. Most people, for better or worse, do not think like that -- most people don't have the time to evaluate products on their own merit and, moreover, they don't even trust those who do (the logic goes: if you have so much time on your hands so as to compare products on their own merit, you must be doing something wrong with your life and therefore I will not follow your advice).
The only thing more astonishing than the iPad's success is that it comes off the heels of a dozen astonishing successes prior. The iPod was the first volley. The iTunes Store then revolutionised the entire freaking music industry. The iPhone then revolutionised the entire mobile marketplace.
And how the #$*! is Apple dominating the laptop computer segment? Why is Apple the only ones making a compelling notebook that doesn't have a product name ripped from pages of a lawnmower parts supply catalogue?!?
Marketing obviously. The 2011 MacBook Pro I'm using right now is by far the most terrible laptop I've ever owned. It doesn't boot from USB, it doesn't sleep properly, brightness is broken, the WiFi antenna's range sucks... never again. Fuck Apple's shitty laptops. I'm getting a ThinkPad next time.
>He showed us the path [...]
I find this a bit too much.
Let me try an analogy here. I hope I do not miss the point because of cultural differences: I think he comes from a time where using typewriters at an office was perceived as the job of a female secretary. :-). A computer looks much like a typewriter from an outsider perceptive (a keyboard and monitor to look at instead of paper).
Fiction is designed to catch your attention at the beginning, and make you want to read to the end. News is designed so that you can stop reading at any point, or just read the headline, and have got the basic gist of what's going on.
The attention-grabbing, mysterious headline on a "news" site, however, is a lousy trick in the memetic marketplace, tunneling its way into the host's brain to advantage itself at the cost of the reader.
I find it hilarious when people think Apple "won" and Microsoft "lost". Microsoft "won" twice.
From the article:
Both Apple and Microsoft executives denied that the Microsoft investment represents a path to converging the companies' operating systems. However, they said they had agreed to work out a settlement to a long-standing dispute over whether Microsoft's Windows operating system infringes on any of Apple's patents.