Hacker News Reader

Comment by neya | Hacker News Reader

Seriously, I'm tired of all this BS. What matters for a real company is how they stand to innovate, not how much they make. Right now, Apple's strategy seems to be more of 'litigate' than innovate. What's the use of all this market cap by exercising unfair, unjust monopoly by abusing the patent system with trivial, BS patents?

I know a lot of companies that don't make a lot of money but strive for true innovation (Eg. Tesla Motors). Money is not everything, you know...even a prostitute makes a lot of money..and that doesn't mean that the prostitute is better than the average, faithful woman...because she stands for something true, unlike the prostitute.

View on HN

Not innovating? This year they've already delivered the new iPad, the retina MacBook Pro, and are set to announce and deliver the iPhone 5, the iPad mini, possibly new iMacs and a TV.

And the last five years they created or helped create: The Smartphone market The Tablet market The App market The Locationbased market

In the last decade they've been innovative, yes, but I think your examples from this year are pretty obvious iterative improvements on their current product lines. PG expounded on this once, as well:

I was talking recently to someone who knew Apple well, and I asked him if the people now running the company would be able to keep creating new things the way Apple had under Steve Jobs. His answer was simply "no." I already feared that would be the answer. I asked more to see how he'd qualify it. But he didn't qualify it at all. No, there will be no more great new stuff beyond whatever's currently in the pipeline. Apple's revenues may continue to rise for a long time, but as Microsoft shows, revenue is a lagging indicator in the technology business. [1]

Apple seems to me one of the scariest companies in the industry right now. I predict that although they'll give lip service to "building great products" there simply won't be enough executives who believe it like Steve did, and like the vast majority of corporations of their size, they'll prioritize profits over everything else.

1. http://paulgraham.com/ambitious.html

Well obviously whoever Paul talked to is clueless about Apple.

All of Apple's products from now through the next year or two was designed and developed when Steve Jobs was alive as was revealed in his biography.

So this idea that Apple is somehow on their way down is ridiculous. Also all of Apple's releases for the last few years have been iterative.

> All of Apple's products from now through the next year or two was designed and developed when Steve Jobs was alive as was revealed in his biography.

I'm not sure why you think this statement essentially disagrees with grandparent comment. All this says it that there's some backlog. What happens after one year or two?

Absolutely everything on that list is iterative, not innovative. Including the TV. Even if it's got a sublime user experience, it's still going to be used for showing programs, films and acting as a monitor for games consoles (although probably also a mini-console, as it'll inherit the app store apps too).

Still, nothing actually innovative there.

I think you're being way too pedantic here. With your definition you could argue that truly nothing is innovative then...

From Wikipedia:

Innovation is the creation of better or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are readily available to markets, governments, and society.

You don't think Apple fits that definition?

By that definition, Samsung is more innovative than Apple-

4.8 Inch Display vs 3.5 Inch Quad core processor vs Dual Core processor 4g vs 3g

And, no lawsuits from Samsung. Who is more innovative, now?

But why is bigger, more and faster automatically better or more innovative? All three of your hardware choices (assuming the lower level details are understood) have a direct worsening impact on battery life for example and so need to be chosen and used wisely.

The innovation in a modern handheld device is about so much more than the base hardware spec.

How the heck do you measure who is "more innovative". Are there varying degrees of innovation? Who decides which one is more innovative? It's a completely subjective characteristic...

CPU cores as a performance metric between two very different platforms.

Makes sense to me.

Both chips (and displays) are made by Samsung though...

EDIT: I see nothing innovative with the list of devices you mentioned - 'The new iPad', 'Retina MBP', etc. They are just iterations of previous devices with a higher resolution. The iPad mini is old news, because it is just following the path the Nexus 7 has set. Nothing innovative here.

Many talk about fragmentation on Android all the time, just wait and see how much fragmentation, nightmares and hell this Retina resolution would cause to designers.

Please don't argue like that: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

Sorry. Edited my original comment. And thanks for that link.

What originally prompted you to create an account?

Certainly not an argument where I simply wanted to defend an electronic brand I liked. I was applying for YC.

The Retina resolution 'issue' has been solved and well understood for a while now. You simply create two images one at original and one at @2x.

I'm a designer myself and what you're telling me is not a 'fix', it is a maintainability nightmare.

http://tablettrends.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/the-retina-ipad...

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses" - Steve Jobs

So, according to Steve Jobs, a faster iPad/MacBook/iPhone with a clearer screen is the opposite of innovation. Apple died when the iPad came out, but they can still grow through a strong brand presence and law suits.

first of all I don't think its wise to really say demeaning words about some profession (its the oldest profession and still running many people's house).

secondly, there is nothing like an obvious patent, if a patent is defensible then its very much obvious that it wasn't obvious. Remember, Apple hasn't won a case against a small startup. Samsung in itself is a pretty big company and has all the resources to fight Apple and hence I think its more just.

that being said, I dont think apple is all rosy, they do bad things but they also make really awesome product. If it were not for apple, you would still be typing on a physical keyboard on your cell phone.

>If it were not for apple...

If it were not for Apple, we would be seeing better phones than the iPhone with amazing designs (read as 'rounded corners'), without any limited functionality (Eg. Universal Search). I do not support Samsung completely, because I do believe they DID cross a line by making their phones resemble too similar to the iPhone.

But I don't agree with Apple winning based on a bunch of BS patents can be claimed as innovative. And I don't agree with Apple saving the market by making really awesome products. Nor do I agree with these patents being non-obvious. Rounded corners, slide to unlock, bounce-back...seriously?

If it wasn't for Apple, eventually someone would have made it, because the technology was already available before and it wasn't like Apple invented them all.

Here's an image that might interest you:

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/5195630_700b.jpg

The icon layout was also in the Newton MessagePad, which pre-dated Windows CE.

Rounded corners by themselves are not what made the case; it's that rounded corners, having the same grid layout, same connectors, same screen-edge "rubber band bounce-back", same coloured icons and claiming those as "obvious" when it was demonstrably proven that these things were not at that time, were what made the jury decide in Apple's favor.

No offense. But you are so ignorant about the facts it is scary.

Apple does NOT have a patent on rounded corners any more than Coke has a patent on soda bottles.

> If it were not for apple, you would still be typing on a physical keyboard on your cell phone.

No I wouldn't.

I would, happily.

I dread the times we no longer have a choice to type on a physical keyboard. Not one Android/iOS phone would now convince me to throw away my N900.

I was just trying to say that someone would have made touchscreen as primary input method. Sorry for the ambiguous statement.

But, I could've argued in your direction too - I really miss physical keyboard. Typing on touchscreen is just plain wrong, imho.

i had a sony p910 some years ago, that had an optional keyboard but i never used it, character recognition (as in one character at a time ocr) actually worked, I was quicker on that than i am with swype etc now, it was awesome.

Apple has won a jury trial in its own backyard against a Korean company. Now, I do understand the anger among the people of California about Samsung copying their home side's products so brazenly. But a patriotic statement like that isn't exactly what I find very relevant when making up my own mind up about the merit of those patents or the merits of the US patent system.

How can you actually try to defend prostitution?

Would you defend murder and rape too? Both are crimes, both are immoral, both are as old as hills.

There is nothing wrong with prostitution other than the fact that it is illegal in some places. You are employing "the world's worst argument" to try to compare a consensual act between two adults to murder. Proselytize elsewhere.

There is plenty wrong with prostitution.

It is wrong to take advantage of a woman. Women become prostitutes because they have no other reasonable way of making money; or they need quick money for drugs/rent/baby food/etc.

I may not be a religious person (since I became an adult) but I hold the belief that sex should be sacred. It should be kept between 2 people who want to connect with each other. We have sex with each other for intimacy, not just for a short burst of ecstasy. If that was the only reason we had sex with each other we'd be no better than dogs.

> It is wrong to take advantage of a woman.

Of course. But prostitution is consensual and it isn't just about "no other choice" - it just might be the most financially sound choice, or maybe they don't have inhibitions and sexual guilt after a religious upbringing.

> Women become prostitutes because they have no other reasonable way of making money; or they need quick money for drugs/rent/baby food/etc.

Those are the prostitutes you know about. This represents a tiny percentage of all the people in the world who have sex for money, directly or indirectly.

> I may not be a religious person (since I became an adult) but I hold the belief that sex should be sacred.

You sure make a big deal about recreational coitus and the consenting acts of others.

> It should be kept between 2 people

My goodness, what would you ever do if you had a million dollars? It's actually quite awesome with 3. Just saying.

> If that was the only reason we had sex with each other we'd be no better than dogs.

I'm not sure we're better than dogs regardless of how or why we mush our genitals together. Dogs don't kill other dogs because they think their imaginary friend is better, and they won't judge you for having sex for money.

Pseudo-Liberals will pretend that they're 'all for' prostitution. They say it's a consenting act between adults and they make like it's a good and decent thing to do, because these people have shed their "inhibitions and sexual guilt after a religious upbringing" - like it's something to be praised

I wonder how many liberals would marry a prostitute/support their daughter or son's prostitution 'career'/would turn to prostitution themselves.

> This represents a tiny percentage of all the people in the world who have sex for money

Highly dubious about your statement here. You/we have no way of confirming such a statement.

You don't like consensual group sex, either? (Not that you or I or anyone is under any obligation to engage in it. But there's nothing wrong with people who do so.) Or sex for one (instead of two)..

Actually, dogs have a very different sexuality. They don't have sex all year round. Humans are special.

> They don't have sex all year round

Tell that to my dog's poor teddy!

> If that was the only reason we had sex with each other we'd be no better than dogs.

Your hyperbole is phenominal, truly.

> phenominal

Not in my world but your spelling definitely is.

That's the best you could do?

I defended my stance and criticised your spelling in one sentence. I think that's pretty good.

What is inherently immoral with prostitution? Unlike murder and rape, it is a victimless crime and is in fact legal in many countries.

This article has some good points - http://aphilosopher.wordpress.com/2008/05/13/the-ethics-of-p...

"One reason often given as to why prostitution is immoral is that it tends to involve coercion. In most cases, people do not freely decide to become prostitutes. In some cases, they are driven to the profession by desperation and a lack of other opportunities for employment. In other cases, they are forced into prostitution by others. In some cases, people are enslaved and forced to be prostitutes."

> In other cases, they are forced into prostitution by others. In some cases, people are enslaved and forced to be prostitutes.

Make forcing people into prostitution illegal then, not prostitution itself. You aren't stopping people from forcing other into prostitution, you're just punishing the person who was forced.

This isn't meant to be pro- or anti- legalization of prostitution, I've just never liked that argument.

Oddly enough it would be victimless if it was legal and regulated.

But since it isn't in many countries it is a haven for people trafficking, child prostitution, kidnapping, drug abuse etc. The sooner we shine a light on these darker parts of society the better everyone will be.

You mean, prostitution is a crime? Didn't they decriminalize the trade in a variety of jurisdictions (e.g. Germany)?

Anyway, that's off-topic.

I'm in the UK, it's a crime here.

This brief article very matter-of-factly points out some raw stats about market cap. It never even implied that's what matters.

Talking about a company's market cap doesn't mean money is everything, just as we wouldn't conclude "desktop backgrounds are everything" if the article was about Macbook's desktop backgrounds.

It's not everything. But it's something.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com