I'm more with Warzel here (yes, quite surprisingly, given I don't plan to own nor can afford Apple products, I've read both of these articles...): Gruber apparently (!) likes Apple stuff and sad...
I'm more with Warzel here (yes, quite surprisingly, given I don't plan to own nor can afford Apple products, I've read both of these articles...): Gruber apparently (!) likes Apple stuff and sad that Warzel has noticed a trend. It's really funny how he concludes "It's all about himself, so full of himself this Warzel guy" (not a literal quote): the harmonics here tell "how do you say something which I could easily ignore but didn't, and how dare you say something, even if not to me directly, that may puncture the bubbles I live in!"
While I am not a fan of Apple products, and especially the iP* stuff (way to locked down for someone like me), the events are worth watching even for me because especially FOSS Desktop community follows where Apple goes.
Recent Apple events have nothing to do with what Jobs did. Just watch the event, it introduces absolutely zero innovations, and tries to sell multitasking as a new things ("hey, you can use two apps simultaneously! applause) as if it was 1960's. It even goes as far as to mock a Windows laptop (IIRC calling it a PC, which is funny because a Mac is a PC with MacOS installed, especially since they moved to Intel CPUs). Add to that the fact that the recent products are mostly non-substantial (compare how when introducing iPhone, Apple basically changed the world with a few slides), it all smells of lame upgrades for the sake of it. Add a third cam, up the specs a little, add a few features which are essentially software updates and shouldn't require buying the new hardware.
And the shifting tone of events, totally true IMO. The last few WWDCs really feel like produced by a mediocre HR department, with text similar to those that describe products in e-commerce websites who outsource the production of such snippets of text. Everything is amazing and new and innovative (they fucking sell multitasking as new in 2019) and great and beautiful. Everything is that-x more better faster quicker sleeker or this-x smaller lighter and whatnot.
The event is a pure consumerist ritual, and very religious-looking indeed. Just look at the beginning: if you give people great tools, they do great things. Almost as if Apple was some sort of Hephaestus-like God that gives the lowly people stuff they can't manage by themselves, and enable them to do things they couldn't otherwise. Well, meh.
It really looks like Apple has run out of ideas and instead of doing honest point-releases they're glorifying each iteration as brand-new unprecedented and unexpected stuff. Combined with fraudulent actions regarding repair and user-hostile stuff like this (which makes repair/upgrade have a mild life hazard), really bad image (and that's for a company comprised 3/4 of image). Apple stuff is really rich people material like luxury cars are: if you can afford to buy a spare iPad and a spare Mac laptop when it fails, if it doesn't bother you to pay for a whole motherboard and ram and CPU when something goes wrong with the motherboard, it may be good. But you can buy a flat in Eskisehir, a small university city for the price of a whole set of Apple product line here in Turkey, or if you want, you can even find two-story summer homes for that price.
Gruber has been the most insufferable Apple fanboy since...well...forever. It's really become apparent in the last few years that his defense of Apple comes more from a place of nostalgia than an...
Gruber has been the most insufferable Apple fanboy since...well...forever. It's really become apparent in the last few years that his defense of Apple comes more from a place of nostalgia than an unbiased view on the current state of Apple products.
This is a reductive argument in my view; and labeling him as "insufferable" is a below the belt accusation that attacks the person making the claim and not the claim itself. He's been very clear...
This is a reductive argument in my view; and labeling him as "insufferable" is a below the belt accusation that attacks the person making the claim and not the claim itself. He's been very clear on a number of issues, most notably the MacBook Pro keyboard situation—that Apple sorely need to make immediate alterations to this product for him to consider recommending them to others.
I'm not sure where your nostalgia argument is coming from; and how that maps to a lack of perceived quality in "the current state" of Apple's lineup. I'm not entirely sure what you want a premium top-tier smartphone to accomplish that isn't already there? The fact of the matter is that smartphone iteration has peaked and the remaining changes to be made are incremental—there's nothing wrong with that.
The nostalgia argument is that he clearly seems to be living in the past, where Steve Jobs would come on stage and single-handedly whip people into a frenzy over a technological marvel that...
The nostalgia argument is that he clearly seems to be living in the past, where Steve Jobs would come on stage and single-handedly whip people into a frenzy over a technological marvel that actually changed the face of mobile computing as we know it.
Let's face it, that hasn't been a reality since Jobs died. Ever since then, it's been predictable release after predictable release. Thinner, lighter, but not fundamentally different.
I'm no Jobs fanboy: the guy was kind of a dick and the ultimate representation of his M.O. is how he died of a relatively treatable form of cancer because he thought his alternative treatments were superior to chemo.
But it's been a long time since the "magic" of the old keynotes, and it's grown to be very corporate, unoriginal, and back-patting.
Just go line by line through his post:
He argues that someone critiquing how downright boring and joyless Apple keynotes have become (gotta get that third camera!) is "removing joy from the world".
In response to Warzel's point about economic inequality and populist frustration, he defaults to "well but it's got millions of viewers tho!" as if that's somehow relevant to the discussion at all.
And the idea that people aren't there to "worship" a phone is kind of missing the point: Apple keynotes have always kind of been this "church of Apple" feel, and while they were introducing tech that changed the game, this held true. We'd all virtually shuffle into the hall as a congregation, ready to hear what the folks on high have discovered and are now ready to deliver to the masses.
And, by and large, the press that's actually shuffled into the keynotes have gushed over the stuff that's been unveiled there, leading to this whole "You've seen it online, but we've touched it, and wow, what a trip".
I mean let's take a look here:
the basic idea of them is not “at odds with our current moment”. If anything, people look to them as relief from the current moment. Gadgets are fun.
So, he claims they're not at odds, but that...they offer a relief from the current moment. No explanation, no expression of the correlation of hyper-capitalism/corporatism with climate change or populism, just...."nuh uh".
Oh, and then after he goes "don't like it? Don't watch it." as if that's somehow an argument.
People love their phones.
Well doesn't that kind of go against his earlier argument that people aren't there to "worship" iPhones? Was nobody around in the early days where iPhone fanboys would often be the loudest voice in the room exclaiming how no other company could even come close and how Android was a "laggy, crappy OS"? Did nobody else see the massive flame wars that, to this day, continue to paint outlets like "The Verge" as "Apple Fanboys" because they were founded by Topolsky and staffed with others who gave Apple products positive reviews?
It's like he's simultaneously arguing that there is no worship culture surrounding Apple, yet there is a massive worship culture surrounding it, simultaneously.
“Need” is a strawman word. Of course we don’t need to see Apple introduce new phones. And Apple doesn’t need to hold an event to introduce them. But should Apple continue to hold these events? Of course they should. Jiminy.
Okay, so somehow his opinion that they should isn't worthy of mocking, but the opinion that they shouldn't is worth ridicule, most of which has now been deleted off of Twitter, probably because these people were spending copious amounts of effort defending one of the largest companies to ever exist.
But the real key here is this bit:
The whole thing is a bluff. If there’s even a whiff of seriousness to Warzel’s proposal, it’s that — what? — the tens of millions of people interested in learning about Apple’s new products would be better served reading about it in publications like, oh, say, The New York Times? Filtered by writers like Warzel, who is so jaded he’s already deemed the new phones “a commodity”, and his colleague Jack Nicas, who mocked a woman wearing a media badge at the event for crying “during an Apple Watch ad”. That was good for a we’re above any sense of emotion laugh until the woman in question, Ellen Cushing of The Atlantic, piped into the thread with this unguarded and honest response.
Seriously, imagine if Tim Cook went to the Apple board and told them Apple would no longer be holding product introduction events, because he was persuaded by Charlie Warzel’s column in The New York Times. Imagine the scene. The board members would start looking around the room for hidden cameras. They’d check for booze on Cook’s breath.
This gets to the heart of the utter vacuousness of Warzel’s column. What Warzel has written — not on his personal blog, mind you, but in a column in the goddamn New York Times — has nothing to do with Apple, nothing to do with iPhone users, and nothing to do with society or culture at large. It is not an honest attempt to persuade anyone about anything.
This is one giant strawman he's created entirely at the behest of, again, one of the richest and most profitable corporations in the history of the planet.
He's arguing that we should absolutely be getting our information direct from the companies whose only profit motive is to extract as much money out of us as possible, that journalists serve no purpose other than to promote themselves, and that Warzel is simply trying to elevate himself as the sole arbiter of truth, which could not be further from the reality.
He then bring in an irrelevant point about Warzel's colleague mocking a person crying due to an emotional ad. Yes, the initial tweet was dismissive and insensitive, but it brings up a valid point about how easily our emotions are manipulated by profit-oriented companies who are trying to paint themselves as some kind of God's gift to mankind, rather than the profit-hungry extractors of wealth they really are.
Warzel wrote an entire column in The New York Times to let the world know that even though he writes about technology, he’s so far above getting excited about any of it that he thinks Apple should stop holding events to introduce new products.
And thus, Gruber proves my earlier categorization of "insufferable Apple fanboy". He's living in a past where a corporation changed the face of computing, and has since devolved into just another manufacturer of commodities, and every attempt to dethrone Apple from this untouchable position in his mind is met with stubbornness and all manner of low rhetorical blows.
There's no definition of "commodities" that can be reasonably applied to the iPhone, the iPad, or the Apple Watch. The most important parts of these devices—screens, SoCs, cameras, operating...
and has since devolved into just another manufacturer of commodities
There's no definition of "commodities" that can be reasonably applied to the iPhone, the iPad, or the Apple Watch. The most important parts of these devices—screens, SoCs, cameras, operating systems—are all custom Apple-designed components.
You seem to be using "commodity" to signify "I don't perceive value here," but that's not what it means. These products certainly aren't "commodities" in the literal sense of the word, that is, raw materials or agricultural products, nor are they "commodity hardware," that is, low-end, low-cost, broadly compatible hardware components.
I'm using the definition of "commodity": Is this not one of the definitions?
I'm using the definition of "commodity":
A product or service that is indistinguishable from ones manufactured or provided by competing companies and that therefore sells primarily on the basis of price rather than quality or style.
Right, and as I said, this definition of "commodity" cannot reasonably be applied to the iPhone. The notion that the iPhone is indistinguishable from a Galaxy or a Pixel is absurd, as is the...
Right, and as I said, this definition of "commodity" cannot reasonably be applied to the iPhone. The notion that the iPhone is indistinguishable from a Galaxy or a Pixel is absurd, as is the notion that the iPhone competes on price. You're attempting to conflate a subjective assessment—"the competitive advantages of the iPhone are not valuable to me"—with an objective assessment—"the iPhone is a commodity"— and this attempt at linguistic sleight of hand undermines your entire argument.
How is that absurd? Hardware-wise, they're equivalent. Software-wise, again, equivalent. The main difference is software, but looking at what software most people tend to use and considering most...
The notion that the iPhone is indistinguishable from a Galaxy or a Pixel is absurd,
How is that absurd? Hardware-wise, they're equivalent. Software-wise, again, equivalent. The main difference is software, but looking at what software most people tend to use and considering most if not all of those are available cross-platform, the difference is essentially that of a variation on a theme.
An iPhone is just another smartphone, it's not a different thing because Apple says so and it costs double the price.
Do they not both make phone calls? Receive and send email? Browse the web? Have almost identical app stores? Have nearly identical feature sets? You keep denying my perspective outright but...
The notion that the iPhone is indistinguishable from a Galaxy or a Pixel is absurd,
Do they not both make phone calls? Receive and send email? Browse the web? Have almost identical app stores? Have nearly identical feature sets?
You keep denying my perspective outright but provide absolutely no justification for your contrarianism.
The prices are nearly identical. People often choose whichever is cheaper.
Words have meaning, and this is unequivocally not what "commodity" means. No person intending to use words like "product" or "commodity" accurately would label phones "commodities." Aluminum is a...
Words have meaning, and this is unequivocally not what "commodity" means. No person intending to use words like "product" or "commodity" accurately would label phones "commodities." Aluminum is a commodity. Pork bellies are commodities. A commodity is a good where the only difference from offerings by different vendors is price.
Now, I know where your mind is going: "but the only difference between an iPhone and a Galaxy is price!" That's not true, it's just your perspective. You don't care about the difference between the iPhone and the Galaxy, but there are differences: the screen, the camera, the processor, the physical design, the operating systems. These are objective differences. They are differences you don't care about, because these differences have no impact on your smartphone use case of calls, email, web, and basic apps, but they are differences. Furthermore, they are differences which entice people to pay a premium for both iPhones and Galaxies. That means that smartphones are competing on dimensions beyond price, and that means smartphones are not commodities by your own definition:
A product or service that is indistinguishable from ones manufactured or provided by competing companies and that therefore sells primarily on the basis of price rather than quality or style.
That these differences exist is objective. That these differences don't matter is subjective. And this is all well and good, right up until the point where you extrapolate your own limited perspective into "[Apple] has since devolved into just another manufacturer of commodities." This is a flat out incorrect statement, and just to head off any accusations of fanboyism, it's equally true for the phone divisions of Samsung, Huawei, Motorola, OnePlus, etc.
Phones aren't commodities. There is healthy competition in the phone industry beyond the dimension of price.
Words have meaning, but they're also metaphorical. Language also changes over time. But thank you for taking the most technical aspect and ignoring the overall point: The entire reason why Android...
Words have meaning, but they're also metaphorical. Language also changes over time.
But thank you for taking the most technical aspect and ignoring the overall point: The entire reason why Android ate Apple's lunch was because people didn't see the value of keeping an iPhone over any other smartphone. To the average consumer, the difference between a Galaxy phone and an iPhone is minimal at best, to the point where people switch on the regular.
On the contrary, both platforms have a retention rate above 80%. There are some leading indicators that it's dropping, but 70% is still high, and this survey was conducted with a group which...
To the average consumer, the difference between a Galaxy phone and an iPhone is minimal at best, to the point where people switch on the regular.
I will again point out that you are, of course, entitled to your perspective, but the point at which your "TED talk" falls flat is when you project your own perspective onto the "average consumer." It's not my intention to deny your perspective, but your perspective is difficult to reconcile with data and the definitions of some of the words you're using to articulate it.
This is far, far too long to reply to in full detail (you could possibly have made the same points while writing half the words?), so I'll keep this brief: I like the description of Apple being a...
This is far, far too long to reply to in full detail (you could possibly have made the same points while writing half the words?), so I'll keep this brief: I like the description of Apple being a rorschach test for your outlooks on technology & fashion, and I think we're both going to see what we want to when we look into the depths of that glowing fruit logo.
Given we're not going to agree on this topic, all I can say is I can appreciate your viewpoint but calling someone insufferable merely for expressing their opinion is a childish insult that didn't need to be aired. People clearly like Gruber, and he still commands a serious following—why else would companies pay $8000 weekly for sponsorship on DF? To me that's an indicator being as dismissive of his opinion as you are is not quite correct.
You could use this exact same argument about MLMs and Scientology.
People clearly like Gruber, and he still commands a serious following—why else would companies pay $8000 weekly for sponsorship on DF? To me that's an indicator being as dismissive of his opinion as you are is not quite correct.
You could use this exact same argument about MLMs and Scientology.
What? No, not at all. Because Gruber delivers clear value in a capitalistic society to his sponsors, who have freedom of choice to either partner with him or not. Gruber is not in a position of...
What? No, not at all. Because Gruber delivers clear value in a capitalistic society to his sponsors, who have freedom of choice to either partner with him or not. Gruber is not in a position of power here and has to submit to the will of the market. Scientology & MLM is based on beliefs that target weak-minded individuals.
That's a highly flawed analogy that breaks down with even a modicum of critical thought.
You know, you're being especially rude to everyone that you disagree with here. Like, it's one thing to disagree with my pithy analogy but you're being unnecessarily hostile in your disagreement....
You know, you're being especially rude to everyone that you disagree with here. Like, it's one thing to disagree with my pithy analogy but you're being unnecessarily hostile in your disagreement.
That analogy, that pithy one I gave, "breaks down with even a modicum of critical thought"? Well, I suppose "critical thought" must involve moving goalposts and begging the question then, considering this has gone from "People buy from him, so it's incorrect to judge his biases" to "But not like when people buy MLM and Scientology, those are for idiots. People that buy into Gruber are smart because they do it capitalistically!"
People buy into MLMs and Scientology out of their own personal freedom and capital too, you know. It works in a similar enough way: people get convinced this body has all the answers, this body wants some money, people give that money because that body has convinced them that they have value. The only delineation you made is "yes, but those people are idiots!" Well, if they follow the same mechanism then wouldn't one follow the other? I wouldn't have called anyone here idiots but I guess you're taking the bold steps into that territory now.
I'd love to see what the argument is for John Gruber, the single most famous Apple commenter, one of the biggest bloggers ever, inventor or Markdown, and known for being quite feisty and implacable in his positions, having no power in the technology commentary or writing space and therefore regularly kowtowing to the "will of the market". I'm sure that will be a doozy.
And I would never say that John Gruber's fanbase is anything like MLM or Scientology, but the argument of "he's popular, and a lot of money goes around him, and therefore you can't question his positions!" works just as easily with MLMs and Scientology. They're popular, and lot of money swirls around them. Does that mean we can't question their biases, or be skeptical of their positions too, like Gruber, for those selfsame reasons?
Basically, if you want to say Gruber's got more integrity than the other person is ascribing to him, you're going to need to come up with a much, much better rationale than that weak one you gave. I quite like Gruber but I would never say that him conducting capital is why he's worthy of respect. Tons of crappy things conduct capital.
Scientology and MLM delivers clear value in a capitalistic society to their supporters, otherwise, how would they continue to be in existence? If they didn't deliver value, then nobody would...
Scientology and MLM delivers clear value in a capitalistic society to their supporters, otherwise, how would they continue to be in existence? If they didn't deliver value, then nobody would contribute money to them, no?
Gruber is not in a position of power here and has to submit to the will of the market.
Nor are MLM and Scientology, really. Their supporters could just....stop supporting them, no?
Scientology & MLM is based on beliefs that target weak-minded individuals.
It seems you must define what you consider "clear value" here, because so far it doesn't seem like there's much of a difference.
You're using oddly similar arguments to Gruber in his defense of Apple... the similarities of non-sequitur "popular = valuable = right" are too close to ignore. It's bizarre, and it doesn't even...
You're using oddly similar arguments to Gruber in his defense of Apple... the similarities of non-sequitur "popular = valuable = right" are too close to ignore.
It's bizarre, and it doesn't even come close to touching my analysis of his statements, which, as I've shown, don't hold much internal consistency except to put down the person he claims is trying to expunge joy from Apple.
In addition, I was able to respond to his article in the depth you suggested, in something that wasn't "reductive" or "simplistic", and now I'm being criticized for using too many words.
I think, rather than calling me childish for naming Gruber as insufferable (which, by your logic, is just expressing my opinion), you should perhaps turn your attention to his own childish responses of twisting the words of a journalist to the point where he declares that, in fact, the journalist is making it all about him and essentially demanding that consumers listen to only the journalist, which is a patently ridiculous hyperbole.
I agree that they can't come up with genuinely exciting new features in recent years (which might be because we're reaching the end game of what a smartphone or laptop can be and AR/AI stuff just...
I agree that they can't come up with genuinely exciting new features in recent years (which might be because we're reaching the end game of what a smartphone or laptop can be and AR/AI stuff just isn't ready yet). That's a problem and that is making their keynotes a little awkward since they have to fill them with a lot of absurdly convoluted features (some of which honestly feel like dead-ends – they just abandoned 3D-touch).
That being said, I don't really see a reason for any kind of grudge towards them having otherwise excellently done keynotes. Except envy, maybe? Honestly, their keynotes were always a bit much, even – and especially – under Steve Jobs (rose tinted glasses, anyone?) but they always and still have a perfectly clear vision of what messages they want to bring across (the best they can with what they have – sometimes it's introducing the iPod, sometimes it's adding fucking Memojis) and we can all learn from that. If you give a presentation anywhere, you can learn from Apple: About focus, about clarity and about adding a bit of pzazz at the right moment.
One last thing I can't resist commenting on, although I think it's a different issue: I think it's easy to mock them for putting emphasis on rather simple features but the multitasking example you gave IMO is a typical divider for either "getting" Apple or not. Multitasking, in its raw definition, is a solved functionality since at least the 80s. Of course it is, but that's not what they're pitching! What they presented was a solved, tested and polished implementation of multitasking in the touch-screen-oriented iPadOS. That's a design issue as much as a technical one, it requires (and with Apple, I trust they actually put a lot of work into that) tons of user testing of all possible setups (do you put them left or right or maybe at the top?, do you add a button for selecting or a gesture?, should they resize or should they stay a common width?, etc, etc). That's a massive amount of work and it's something Apple – even if they make mistakes – tends to get more right than their competitors. It's a real advantage they have. You can just feel the thousands of permutations that had to be tried, dropped or tweaked until they ended up with the one that ships and that's a valuable service. That's UX design.
And while it's perfectly appropriate to mock Apple for sometimes getting a bit too lost in their ways, it's something other companies could learn from. Not just companies, in fact the whole open source/Linux-y community has nothing but mockery for serious UX focus (to be fair, there's notable exceptions, like Firefox!) and that attitude puts them in a corner where a lot of the general public doesn't have the patience to even deal with the UI to experience the real functionality. You can laugh at Apple and call them superficial, but that "surface" is where user interaction actually happens, where technology meets the real world.
Grudge? Envy? Criticism. That's what it is. So, I watch this, and.. meh. The pop up apps I had them in my Samsung Tab 8.9" in 2011. The split view was there in another Samsung phone I had back a...
That being said, I don't really see a reason for any kind of grudge towards them having otherwise excellently done keynotes. Except envy, maybe?
Grudge? Envy? Criticism. That's what it is.
What they presented was a solved, tested and polished implementation of multitasking in the touch-screen-oriented iPadOS.
So, I watch this, and.. meh. The pop up apps I had them in my Samsung Tab 8.9" in 2011. The split view was there in another Samsung phone I had back a few years ago. None of these features are new, actually, they're stuff that should've been there from day one at least on all tablets, given none of them were new at, say, year 2000 or even 1995. Let's not call what is "removing arbitrary limitations" "innovation and great design".
Not just companies, in fact the whole open source/Linux-y community has nothing but mockery for serious UX focus.
Except huge projects like Gnome, KDE, elementaryOS, Ubuntu, Fedora, LibreOffice, Firefox indeed, Chrome, Chrome OS, and so on. Thing is, in "Linux" world, there are different trade-offs: many users want to be able to reach under the hood, and customisability is the biggest "sales point". If a desktop Linux distro went all the way to become like MacOS, well, they could, but they'd have overlooked a big use case of the existing user base.
Apple and Unix-like-FOSS are two different paradigms that coexist with minimal competition among themselves: the former is a complete package you conform to in order to be productive; the latter is a huge DIY toolbox but there are kits that make it easier (say Ubuntu or elementaryOS), and you make it conform to you to be productive. You choose the one that's good for you, and I don't think one's better than the other necessarily.
This goes back to @notthis's point about getting Apple. That stuff wasn't polished as evidence by the fact that people barely used them. The thing tech heads don't get about Apple is that user...
The pop up apps I had them in my Samsung Tab 8.9" in 2011. The split view was there in another Samsung phone I had back a few years ago.
This goes back to @notthis's point about getting Apple. That stuff wasn't polished as evidence by the fact that people barely used them. The thing tech heads don't get about Apple is that user experience doesn't distill to check marks on a spec sheet. They're not putting features to say "We have this feature" it's informed by an actual cogent vision of what they want the product to do and how they expect it to be used.
The thing tech heads don't get about Apple is that user experience doesn't distill to check marks on a spec sheet. They're not putting features to say "We have this feature" it's informed by an actual cogent vision of what they want the product to do and how they expect it to be used.
The reason why they killed 3D touch is because they completely misjudged their customers in their "cogent vision". They also completely failed to communicate this "cogent vision" to the end user...
The reason why they killed 3D touch is because they completely misjudged their customers in their "cogent vision". They also completely failed to communicate this "cogent vision" to the end user or provide enough of an interesting use case to get people to actually use it.
Wow, hyperbole much? This is a billion-dollar multi-national company, not your child. You started by deriding "tech heads", as if tech heads don't run this market, then dream up a situation where...
Wow, hyperbole much? This is a billion-dollar multi-national company, not your child.
You started by deriding "tech heads", as if tech heads don't run this market, then dream up a situation where Apple is dedicated to some "cohesive customer-focused vision" rather than simply trying to increase profits.
Nah, that was pretty much exactly your argument. Is there any disagreement with your opinions on Apple anyone could make that wouldn't have elicited this canned response? They don't. Consumers do....
Wow, hyperbole much? This is a billion-dollar multi-national company, not your child.
Nah, that was pretty much exactly your argument. Is there any disagreement with your opinions on Apple anyone could make that wouldn't have elicited this canned response?
You started by deriding "tech heads", as if tech heads don't run this market
They don't. Consumers do. "Tech heads" spend their time complaining on web forums about how stupid those consumers are for valuing what they value instead of what tech heads think they ought to value. It's a weird sort of solipsism.
then dream up a situation where Apple is dedicated to some "cohesive customer-focused vision" rather than simply trying to increase profits.
They do the latter by performing the former. Certain quarters don't get it because of the solipsistic mindset I mentioned above.
I agree that Apple Keynotes (especially this latest one) are very stilted and odd. A lot of the commentary on this latest event have mentioned how it all seems way too rehearsed and artificial. I...
I agree that Apple Keynotes (especially this latest one) are very stilted and odd. A lot of the commentary on this latest event have mentioned how it all seems way too rehearsed and artificial.
I was actually thinking about it the other day. One example that really sticks out to me is that they always say "iPhone" or "iPad" without the article in front of it, i.e., "We love iPhone!" rather than "We love the iPhone!"
It's not how normal humans talk and it makes the speakers seem very inhuman.
The funny thing is that Apple’s presenters, outside of keynotes, can be very human. If you watch Gruber’s own live interview shows (such as this one) you can see both sides. A keynote is really a...
The funny thing is that Apple’s presenters, outside of keynotes, can be very human. If you watch Gruber’s own live interview shows (such as this one) you can see both sides.
A keynote is really a show. And the presenters are playing characters or presenting a persona. That’s just how it is. If they didn’t do it that way, they’d be criticized from the other direction for seeming too casual/unrehearsed.
There's a balance between the two extremes though. To me at least, it seems like they've swung too far toward the stilted and overly rehearsed side of things.
If they didn’t do it that way, they’d be criticized from the other direction for seeming too casual/unrehearsed.
There's a balance between the two extremes though. To me at least, it seems like they've swung too far toward the stilted and overly rehearsed side of things.
They're corporate executives whose primary areas of expertise are running large divisions of people. It's a bit unreasonable to expect them to have magnetic stage presences. This is, at the end of...
They're corporate executives whose primary areas of expertise are running large divisions of people. It's a bit unreasonable to expect them to have magnetic stage presences. This is, at the end of the day, a corporate event and not a broadway show.
The Apple keynotes are, as John Gruber, Apple uberfan #1 points out in the OP, not corporate events. They're not made for the suits in the room. They're a sales pitch for the millions who follow...
The Apple keynotes are, as John Gruber, Apple uberfan #1 points out in the OP, not corporate events. They're not made for the suits in the room. They're a sales pitch for the millions who follow from home. This sort of thing works when your corporate executive happens to also have a magnetic stage presence and legendary charisma. Perhaps it isn't such a great idea to put people "whose primary areas of expertise are running large divisions of people" on a big stage? How about you either do away with the stage or you find someone whose expertise is being on stage to be on stage?
They're product announcements. How many people expect product announcements to be done with the aplomb of a rock concert? Why? It's sounding like you're not really familiar with how product...
They're a sales pitch for the millions who follow from home.
They're product announcements. How many people expect product announcements to be done with the aplomb of a rock concert?
How about you either do away with the stage or you find someone whose expertise is being on stage to be on stage?
Why? It's sounding like you're not really familiar with how product keynotes go with literally any other company in any other industry. Not even game developer conferences happen at the level of production value you're talking about. There was like a 5 year period where Steve Jobs was delivering amazing keynotes with batcrap crazy products and you all have decided that it's some kind of cosmic law that this is the platonic ideal of a keynote presentation rather than a really cool snapshot in time.
Product announcements are a sales pitch. They're advertisement. They could have sent out the spec sheet and review units and left it at that, but they didn't. Why? Because they want to create...
They're product announcements.
Product announcements are a sales pitch. They're advertisement. They could have sent out the spec sheet and review units and left it at that, but they didn't. Why? Because they want to create hype, of course, and sell more products.
How many people expect product announcements to be done with the aplomb of a rock concert?
I never said it had to be like a rock concert, but to the extent that there is such a perception, it was created by Apple. And of course when they create high expectations for themselves and fail to deliver, there's going to be a backlash.
Not even game developer conferences happen at the level of production value you're talking about.
I hardly said anything about production value, so you're making assumptions. All I said was that maybe giving less space to people who are terrible public speakers is a good idea if you're going to do this kind of thing. My first thought was actually an example from the gaming industry. When CD Projekt Red showed Cyberpunk 2077 at E3 this year, they showed a clip from the game and then had Keanu Reeves come on stage. He's relevant because he's featured in the game, and he's an actor who happens to have had a resurgence in popularity recently. The result was that the audience went nuts just because he walked on stage, before he even said a word. That's the sort of thing that creates hype, and it used to happen when Steve Jobs walked on stage.
For the record, I'm familiar with other corporate product announcements, and think they're generally terrible. Which is why I don't pay much attention to them and prefer to wait until the details filter into the press. It hurts Apple more because they've created an expectation that this is going to be a spectacle, so a lot more people are watching. Their whole brand is based on being different, "think different" was literally their slogan for many years. So they can't afford to be doing the same thing as everyone else, especially when what everyone else is doing is terrible.
I think that’s partially a product of most of the presenters over the past couple years being very new to giving presentations under this sort of pressure. They’re coming off as very rehearsed...
I think that’s partially a product of most of the presenters over the past couple years being very new to giving presentations under this sort of pressure. They’re coming off as very rehearsed because they are very rehearsed (I don’t know for a fact, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they rehearse these more than 10 times). If you look at the more experienced presenters like Craig Federighi or Phil Schiller, they come off much less stilted and more natural. Tim Cook, on the other hand, I think is just fundamentally an awkward guy, and comes off a bit odd no matter the context.
They omit the definite article because they're talking about the product category rather than any individual product. It's a bit like saying "I love indie rock" rather than "I love the indie rock."
I was actually thinking about it the other day. One example that really sticks out to me is that they always say "iPhone" or "iPad" without the article in front of it, i.e., "We love iPhone!" rather than "We love the iPhone!"
They omit the definite article because they're talking about the product category rather than any individual product. It's a bit like saying "I love indie rock" rather than "I love the indie rock."
It might be grammatically correct, but it doesn’t sound right to most people’s ears. They’re using the singular version, not saying “iPhones”, which makes it clear they’re referring to multiple...
It might be grammatically correct, but it doesn’t sound right to most people’s ears. They’re using the singular version, not saying “iPhones”, which makes it clear they’re referring to multiple different phones.
And I think the category that people think of is smartphone, not iPhone.
Not within Apple. They're not referring to multiple different phones. They're referring to a category of products. This is another one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't situations....
And I think the category that people think of is smartphone, not iPhone.
Not within Apple.
They’re using the singular version, not saying “iPhones”, which makes it clear they’re referring to multiple different phones.
They're not referring to multiple different phones. They're referring to a category of products.
This is another one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't situations. Apple's always been a quirky company with its own way of doing things. Then in an entire article complaining they're not quirky enough to be entertaining we're going to drill down on a quirky thing they do with how they talk about their stuff?
Apple is a real Rorschach test of a company for lots of people. They will only ever see what they want to see in their actions.
A general trope of Apple's marketing is apparently to portray their smartphones, tablets, laptops, ultrabooks and PCs as if they did not belong to those categories I just mentioned. Pretending...
And I think the category that people think of is smartphone, not iPhone.
A general trope of Apple's dishonesty marketing is apparently to portray their smartphones, tablets, laptops, ultrabooks and PCs as if they did not belong to those categories I just mentioned. Pretending iPhone was not a smartphone or MacBook series, iMacs and Mac Pros aren't PCs, etc.
I think I echo @NaraVara's comment here about Apple being a Rorschach test. You're going to see what your outlook wants you to see. To describe it as "People love iPhone" sounds absolutely normal...
I think I echo @NaraVara's comment here about Apple being a Rorschach test. You're going to see what your outlook wants you to see. To describe it as "People love iPhone" sounds absolutely normal to me—and is additionally one of the main points of Apple's style guide for product naming, I'm sure I could pull up the exact entry if you'd like. It's a highly intentional decision designed to elevate it from a product to a lineup/phenomenon. It's brilliant marketing and yes, also grammatically correct.
I think this is a very specific example though. If you were to say: "iPhone supports wireless earbuds", or "iPhone functions underwater", it starts sounding weird again.
To describe it as "People love iPhone" sounds absolutely normal to me
I think this is a very specific example though. If you were to say: "iPhone supports wireless earbuds", or "iPhone functions underwater", it starts sounding weird again.
I'm more with Warzel here (yes, quite surprisingly, given I don't plan to own nor can afford Apple products, I've read both of these articles...): Gruber apparently (!) likes Apple stuff and sad that Warzel has noticed a trend. It's really funny how he concludes "It's all about himself, so full of himself this Warzel guy" (not a literal quote): the harmonics here tell "how do you say something which I could easily ignore but didn't, and how dare you say something, even if not to me directly, that may puncture the bubbles I live in!"
While I am not a fan of Apple products, and especially the iP* stuff (way to locked down for someone like me), the events are worth watching even for me because especially FOSS Desktop community follows where Apple goes.
Recent Apple events have nothing to do with what Jobs did. Just watch the event, it introduces absolutely zero innovations, and tries to sell multitasking as a new things ("hey, you can use two apps simultaneously! applause) as if it was 1960's. It even goes as far as to mock a Windows laptop (IIRC calling it a PC, which is funny because a Mac is a PC with MacOS installed, especially since they moved to Intel CPUs). Add to that the fact that the recent products are mostly non-substantial (compare how when introducing iPhone, Apple basically changed the world with a few slides), it all smells of lame upgrades for the sake of it. Add a third cam, up the specs a little, add a few features which are essentially software updates and shouldn't require buying the new hardware.
And the shifting tone of events, totally true IMO. The last few WWDCs really feel like produced by a mediocre HR department, with text similar to those that describe products in e-commerce websites who outsource the production of such snippets of text. Everything is amazing and new and innovative (they fucking sell multitasking as new in 2019) and great and beautiful. Everything is that-x more better faster quicker sleeker or this-x smaller lighter and whatnot.
The event is a pure consumerist ritual, and very religious-looking indeed. Just look at the beginning: if you give people great tools, they do great things. Almost as if Apple was some sort of Hephaestus-like God that gives the lowly people stuff they can't manage by themselves, and enable them to do things they couldn't otherwise. Well, meh.
It really looks like Apple has run out of ideas and instead of doing honest point-releases they're glorifying each iteration as brand-new unprecedented and unexpected stuff. Combined with fraudulent actions regarding repair and user-hostile stuff like this (which makes repair/upgrade have a mild life hazard), really bad image (and that's for a company comprised 3/4 of image). Apple stuff is really rich people material like luxury cars are: if you can afford to buy a spare iPad and a spare Mac laptop when it fails, if it doesn't bother you to pay for a whole motherboard and ram and CPU when something goes wrong with the motherboard, it may be good. But you can buy a flat in Eskisehir, a small university city for the price of a whole set of Apple product line here in Turkey, or if you want, you can even find two-story summer homes for that price.
Gruber has been the most insufferable Apple fanboy since...well...forever. It's really become apparent in the last few years that his defense of Apple comes more from a place of nostalgia than an unbiased view on the current state of Apple products.
This is a reductive argument in my view; and labeling him as "insufferable" is a below the belt accusation that attacks the person making the claim and not the claim itself. He's been very clear on a number of issues, most notably the MacBook Pro keyboard situation—that Apple sorely need to make immediate alterations to this product for him to consider recommending them to others.
I'm not sure where your nostalgia argument is coming from; and how that maps to a lack of perceived quality in "the current state" of Apple's lineup. I'm not entirely sure what you want a premium top-tier smartphone to accomplish that isn't already there? The fact of the matter is that smartphone iteration has peaked and the remaining changes to be made are incremental—there's nothing wrong with that.
The nostalgia argument is that he clearly seems to be living in the past, where Steve Jobs would come on stage and single-handedly whip people into a frenzy over a technological marvel that actually changed the face of mobile computing as we know it.
Let's face it, that hasn't been a reality since Jobs died. Ever since then, it's been predictable release after predictable release. Thinner, lighter, but not fundamentally different.
I'm no Jobs fanboy: the guy was kind of a dick and the ultimate representation of his M.O. is how he died of a relatively treatable form of cancer because he thought his alternative treatments were superior to chemo.
But it's been a long time since the "magic" of the old keynotes, and it's grown to be very corporate, unoriginal, and back-patting.
Just go line by line through his post:
He argues that someone critiquing how downright boring and joyless Apple keynotes have become (gotta get that third camera!) is "removing joy from the world".
In response to Warzel's point about economic inequality and populist frustration, he defaults to "well but it's got millions of viewers tho!" as if that's somehow relevant to the discussion at all.
And the idea that people aren't there to "worship" a phone is kind of missing the point: Apple keynotes have always kind of been this "church of Apple" feel, and while they were introducing tech that changed the game, this held true. We'd all virtually shuffle into the hall as a congregation, ready to hear what the folks on high have discovered and are now ready to deliver to the masses.
And, by and large, the press that's actually shuffled into the keynotes have gushed over the stuff that's been unveiled there, leading to this whole "You've seen it online, but we've touched it, and wow, what a trip".
I mean let's take a look here:
So, he claims they're not at odds, but that...they offer a relief from the current moment. No explanation, no expression of the correlation of hyper-capitalism/corporatism with climate change or populism, just...."nuh uh".
Oh, and then after he goes "don't like it? Don't watch it." as if that's somehow an argument.
Well doesn't that kind of go against his earlier argument that people aren't there to "worship" iPhones? Was nobody around in the early days where iPhone fanboys would often be the loudest voice in the room exclaiming how no other company could even come close and how Android was a "laggy, crappy OS"? Did nobody else see the massive flame wars that, to this day, continue to paint outlets like "The Verge" as "Apple Fanboys" because they were founded by Topolsky and staffed with others who gave Apple products positive reviews?
It's like he's simultaneously arguing that there is no worship culture surrounding Apple, yet there is a massive worship culture surrounding it, simultaneously.
Okay, so somehow his opinion that they should isn't worthy of mocking, but the opinion that they shouldn't is worth ridicule, most of which has now been deleted off of Twitter, probably because these people were spending copious amounts of effort defending one of the largest companies to ever exist.
But the real key here is this bit:
This is one giant strawman he's created entirely at the behest of, again, one of the richest and most profitable corporations in the history of the planet.
He's arguing that we should absolutely be getting our information direct from the companies whose only profit motive is to extract as much money out of us as possible, that journalists serve no purpose other than to promote themselves, and that Warzel is simply trying to elevate himself as the sole arbiter of truth, which could not be further from the reality.
He then bring in an irrelevant point about Warzel's colleague mocking a person crying due to an emotional ad. Yes, the initial tweet was dismissive and insensitive, but it brings up a valid point about how easily our emotions are manipulated by profit-oriented companies who are trying to paint themselves as some kind of God's gift to mankind, rather than the profit-hungry extractors of wealth they really are.
And thus, Gruber proves my earlier categorization of "insufferable Apple fanboy". He's living in a past where a corporation changed the face of computing, and has since devolved into just another manufacturer of commodities, and every attempt to dethrone Apple from this untouchable position in his mind is met with stubbornness and all manner of low rhetorical blows.
Anyways this has been my TED talk.
There's no definition of "commodities" that can be reasonably applied to the iPhone, the iPad, or the Apple Watch. The most important parts of these devices—screens, SoCs, cameras, operating systems—are all custom Apple-designed components.
You seem to be using "commodity" to signify "I don't perceive value here," but that's not what it means. These products certainly aren't "commodities" in the literal sense of the word, that is, raw materials or agricultural products, nor are they "commodity hardware," that is, low-end, low-cost, broadly compatible hardware components.
I'm using the definition of "commodity":
Is this not one of the definitions?
Right, and as I said, this definition of "commodity" cannot reasonably be applied to the iPhone. The notion that the iPhone is indistinguishable from a Galaxy or a Pixel is absurd, as is the notion that the iPhone competes on price. You're attempting to conflate a subjective assessment—"the competitive advantages of the iPhone are not valuable to me"—with an objective assessment—"the iPhone is a commodity"— and this attempt at linguistic sleight of hand undermines your entire argument.
How is that absurd? Hardware-wise, they're equivalent. Software-wise, again, equivalent. The main difference is software, but looking at what software most people tend to use and considering most if not all of those are available cross-platform, the difference is essentially that of a variation on a theme.
An iPhone is just another smartphone, it's not a different thing because Apple says so and it costs double the price.
These are opinions, not facts. There are clear differences in both software and hardware, you’ve just decided these differences don’t matter.
Do they not both make phone calls? Receive and send email? Browse the web? Have almost identical app stores? Have nearly identical feature sets?
You keep denying my perspective outright but provide absolutely no justification for your contrarianism.
The prices are nearly identical. People often choose whichever is cheaper.
Words have meaning, and this is unequivocally not what "commodity" means. No person intending to use words like "product" or "commodity" accurately would label phones "commodities." Aluminum is a commodity. Pork bellies are commodities. A commodity is a good where the only difference from offerings by different vendors is price.
Now, I know where your mind is going: "but the only difference between an iPhone and a Galaxy is price!" That's not true, it's just your perspective. You don't care about the difference between the iPhone and the Galaxy, but there are differences: the screen, the camera, the processor, the physical design, the operating systems. These are objective differences. They are differences you don't care about, because these differences have no impact on your smartphone use case of calls, email, web, and basic apps, but they are differences. Furthermore, they are differences which entice people to pay a premium for both iPhones and Galaxies. That means that smartphones are competing on dimensions beyond price, and that means smartphones are not commodities by your own definition:
That these differences exist is objective. That these differences don't matter is subjective. And this is all well and good, right up until the point where you extrapolate your own limited perspective into "[Apple] has since devolved into just another manufacturer of commodities." This is a flat out incorrect statement, and just to head off any accusations of fanboyism, it's equally true for the phone divisions of Samsung, Huawei, Motorola, OnePlus, etc.
Phones aren't commodities. There is healthy competition in the phone industry beyond the dimension of price.
Words have meaning, but they're also metaphorical. Language also changes over time.
But thank you for taking the most technical aspect and ignoring the overall point: The entire reason why Android ate Apple's lunch was because people didn't see the value of keeping an iPhone over any other smartphone. To the average consumer, the difference between a Galaxy phone and an iPhone is minimal at best, to the point where people switch on the regular.
On the contrary, both platforms have a retention rate above 80%. There are some leading indicators that it's dropping, but 70% is still high, and this survey was conducted with a group which probably has some selection bias, which to be fair the survey does point out in the title: "Trade-In Savvy iPhones Owners."
I will again point out that you are, of course, entitled to your perspective, but the point at which your "TED talk" falls flat is when you project your own perspective onto the "average consumer." It's not my intention to deny your perspective, but your perspective is difficult to reconcile with data and the definitions of some of the words you're using to articulate it.
This is far, far too long to reply to in full detail (you could possibly have made the same points while writing half the words?), so I'll keep this brief: I like the description of Apple being a rorschach test for your outlooks on technology & fashion, and I think we're both going to see what we want to when we look into the depths of that glowing fruit logo.
Given we're not going to agree on this topic, all I can say is I can appreciate your viewpoint but calling someone insufferable merely for expressing their opinion is a childish insult that didn't need to be aired. People clearly like Gruber, and he still commands a serious following—why else would companies pay $8000 weekly for sponsorship on DF? To me that's an indicator being as dismissive of his opinion as you are is not quite correct.
You could use this exact same argument about MLMs and Scientology.
What? No, not at all. Because Gruber delivers clear value in a capitalistic society to his sponsors, who have freedom of choice to either partner with him or not. Gruber is not in a position of power here and has to submit to the will of the market. Scientology & MLM is based on beliefs that target weak-minded individuals.
That's a highly flawed analogy that breaks down with even a modicum of critical thought.
You know, you're being especially rude to everyone that you disagree with here. Like, it's one thing to disagree with my pithy analogy but you're being unnecessarily hostile in your disagreement.
That analogy, that pithy one I gave, "breaks down with even a modicum of critical thought"? Well, I suppose "critical thought" must involve moving goalposts and begging the question then, considering this has gone from "People buy from him, so it's incorrect to judge his biases" to "But not like when people buy MLM and Scientology, those are for idiots. People that buy into Gruber are smart because they do it capitalistically!"
People buy into MLMs and Scientology out of their own personal freedom and capital too, you know. It works in a similar enough way: people get convinced this body has all the answers, this body wants some money, people give that money because that body has convinced them that they have value. The only delineation you made is "yes, but those people are idiots!" Well, if they follow the same mechanism then wouldn't one follow the other? I wouldn't have called anyone here idiots but I guess you're taking the bold steps into that territory now.
I'd love to see what the argument is for John Gruber, the single most famous Apple commenter, one of the biggest bloggers ever, inventor or Markdown, and known for being quite feisty and implacable in his positions, having no power in the technology commentary or writing space and therefore regularly kowtowing to the "will of the market". I'm sure that will be a doozy.
And I would never say that John Gruber's fanbase is anything like MLM or Scientology, but the argument of "he's popular, and a lot of money goes around him, and therefore you can't question his positions!" works just as easily with MLMs and Scientology. They're popular, and lot of money swirls around them. Does that mean we can't question their biases, or be skeptical of their positions too, like Gruber, for those selfsame reasons?
Basically, if you want to say Gruber's got more integrity than the other person is ascribing to him, you're going to need to come up with a much, much better rationale than that weak one you gave. I quite like Gruber but I would never say that him conducting capital is why he's worthy of respect. Tons of crappy things conduct capital.
Scientology and MLM delivers clear value in a capitalistic society to their supporters, otherwise, how would they continue to be in existence? If they didn't deliver value, then nobody would contribute money to them, no?
Nor are MLM and Scientology, really. Their supporters could just....stop supporting them, no?
It seems you must define what you consider "clear value" here, because so far it doesn't seem like there's much of a difference.
You're using oddly similar arguments to Gruber in his defense of Apple... the similarities of non-sequitur "popular = valuable = right" are too close to ignore.
It's bizarre, and it doesn't even come close to touching my analysis of his statements, which, as I've shown, don't hold much internal consistency except to put down the person he claims is trying to expunge joy from Apple.
In addition, I was able to respond to his article in the depth you suggested, in something that wasn't "reductive" or "simplistic", and now I'm being criticized for using too many words.
I think, rather than calling me childish for naming Gruber as insufferable (which, by your logic, is just expressing my opinion), you should perhaps turn your attention to his own childish responses of twisting the words of a journalist to the point where he declares that, in fact, the journalist is making it all about him and essentially demanding that consumers listen to only the journalist, which is a patently ridiculous hyperbole.
I agree that they can't come up with genuinely exciting new features in recent years (which might be because we're reaching the end game of what a smartphone or laptop can be and AR/AI stuff just isn't ready yet). That's a problem and that is making their keynotes a little awkward since they have to fill them with a lot of absurdly convoluted features (some of which honestly feel like dead-ends – they just abandoned 3D-touch).
That being said, I don't really see a reason for any kind of grudge towards them having otherwise excellently done keynotes. Except envy, maybe? Honestly, their keynotes were always a bit much, even – and especially – under Steve Jobs (rose tinted glasses, anyone?) but they always and still have a perfectly clear vision of what messages they want to bring across (the best they can with what they have – sometimes it's introducing the iPod, sometimes it's adding fucking Memojis) and we can all learn from that. If you give a presentation anywhere, you can learn from Apple: About focus, about clarity and about adding a bit of pzazz at the right moment.
One last thing I can't resist commenting on, although I think it's a different issue: I think it's easy to mock them for putting emphasis on rather simple features but the multitasking example you gave IMO is a typical divider for either "getting" Apple or not. Multitasking, in its raw definition, is a solved functionality since at least the 80s. Of course it is, but that's not what they're pitching! What they presented was a solved, tested and polished implementation of multitasking in the touch-screen-oriented iPadOS. That's a design issue as much as a technical one, it requires (and with Apple, I trust they actually put a lot of work into that) tons of user testing of all possible setups (do you put them left or right or maybe at the top?, do you add a button for selecting or a gesture?, should they resize or should they stay a common width?, etc, etc). That's a massive amount of work and it's something Apple – even if they make mistakes – tends to get more right than their competitors. It's a real advantage they have. You can just feel the thousands of permutations that had to be tried, dropped or tweaked until they ended up with the one that ships and that's a valuable service. That's UX design.
And while it's perfectly appropriate to mock Apple for sometimes getting a bit too lost in their ways, it's something other companies could learn from. Not just companies, in fact the whole open source/Linux-y community has nothing but mockery for serious UX focus (to be fair, there's notable exceptions, like Firefox!) and that attitude puts them in a corner where a lot of the general public doesn't have the patience to even deal with the UI to experience the real functionality. You can laugh at Apple and call them superficial, but that "surface" is where user interaction actually happens, where technology meets the real world.
Grudge? Envy? Criticism. That's what it is.
So, I watch this, and.. meh. The pop up apps I had them in my Samsung Tab 8.9" in 2011. The split view was there in another Samsung phone I had back a few years ago. None of these features are new, actually, they're stuff that should've been there from day one at least on all tablets, given none of them were new at, say, year 2000 or even 1995. Let's not call what is "removing arbitrary limitations" "innovation and great design".
Except huge projects like Gnome, KDE, elementaryOS, Ubuntu, Fedora, LibreOffice, Firefox indeed, Chrome, Chrome OS, and so on. Thing is, in "Linux" world, there are different trade-offs: many users want to be able to reach under the hood, and customisability is the biggest "sales point". If a desktop Linux distro went all the way to become like MacOS, well, they could, but they'd have overlooked a big use case of the existing user base.
Apple and Unix-like-FOSS are two different paradigms that coexist with minimal competition among themselves: the former is a complete package you conform to in order to be productive; the latter is a huge DIY toolbox but there are kits that make it easier (say Ubuntu or elementaryOS), and you make it conform to you to be productive. You choose the one that's good for you, and I don't think one's better than the other necessarily.
This goes back to @notthis's point about getting Apple. That stuff wasn't polished as evidence by the fact that people barely used them. The thing tech heads don't get about Apple is that user experience doesn't distill to check marks on a spec sheet. They're not putting features to say "We have this feature" it's informed by an actual cogent vision of what they want the product to do and how they expect it to be used.
...which is why they killed 3D Touch, right?
I get that you think this is some kind of huge "gotcha" here, but I honestly have no idea what point you're trying you're getting across.
The reason why they killed 3D touch is because they completely misjudged their customers in their "cogent vision". They also completely failed to communicate this "cogent vision" to the end user or provide enough of an interesting use case to get people to actually use it.
So your argument is that occasionally new things don't catch on and therefore LOL APPLE SUX?
Ok. Consider me duly zinged
Wow, hyperbole much? This is a billion-dollar multi-national company, not your child.
You started by deriding "tech heads", as if tech heads don't run this market, then dream up a situation where Apple is dedicated to some "cohesive customer-focused vision" rather than simply trying to increase profits.
Nah, that was pretty much exactly your argument. Is there any disagreement with your opinions on Apple anyone could make that wouldn't have elicited this canned response?
They don't. Consumers do. "Tech heads" spend their time complaining on web forums about how stupid those consumers are for valuing what they value instead of what tech heads think they ought to value. It's a weird sort of solipsism.
They do the latter by performing the former. Certain quarters don't get it because of the solipsistic mindset I mentioned above.
I agree that Apple Keynotes (especially this latest one) are very stilted and odd. A lot of the commentary on this latest event have mentioned how it all seems way too rehearsed and artificial.
I was actually thinking about it the other day. One example that really sticks out to me is that they always say "iPhone" or "iPad" without the article in front of it, i.e., "We love iPhone!" rather than "We love the iPhone!"
It's not how normal humans talk and it makes the speakers seem very inhuman.
The funny thing is that Apple’s presenters, outside of keynotes, can be very human. If you watch Gruber’s own live interview shows (such as this one) you can see both sides.
A keynote is really a show. And the presenters are playing characters or presenting a persona. That’s just how it is. If they didn’t do it that way, they’d be criticized from the other direction for seeming too casual/unrehearsed.
There's a balance between the two extremes though. To me at least, it seems like they've swung too far toward the stilted and overly rehearsed side of things.
They're corporate executives whose primary areas of expertise are running large divisions of people. It's a bit unreasonable to expect them to have magnetic stage presences. This is, at the end of the day, a corporate event and not a broadway show.
The Apple keynotes are, as John Gruber, Apple uberfan #1 points out in the OP, not corporate events. They're not made for the suits in the room. They're a sales pitch for the millions who follow from home. This sort of thing works when your corporate executive happens to also have a magnetic stage presence and legendary charisma. Perhaps it isn't such a great idea to put people "whose primary areas of expertise are running large divisions of people" on a big stage? How about you either do away with the stage or you find someone whose expertise is being on stage to be on stage?
They're product announcements. How many people expect product announcements to be done with the aplomb of a rock concert?
Why? It's sounding like you're not really familiar with how product keynotes go with literally any other company in any other industry. Not even game developer conferences happen at the level of production value you're talking about. There was like a 5 year period where Steve Jobs was delivering amazing keynotes with batcrap crazy products and you all have decided that it's some kind of cosmic law that this is the platonic ideal of a keynote presentation rather than a really cool snapshot in time.
Product announcements are a sales pitch. They're advertisement. They could have sent out the spec sheet and review units and left it at that, but they didn't. Why? Because they want to create hype, of course, and sell more products.
I never said it had to be like a rock concert, but to the extent that there is such a perception, it was created by Apple. And of course when they create high expectations for themselves and fail to deliver, there's going to be a backlash.
I hardly said anything about production value, so you're making assumptions. All I said was that maybe giving less space to people who are terrible public speakers is a good idea if you're going to do this kind of thing. My first thought was actually an example from the gaming industry. When CD Projekt Red showed Cyberpunk 2077 at E3 this year, they showed a clip from the game and then had Keanu Reeves come on stage. He's relevant because he's featured in the game, and he's an actor who happens to have had a resurgence in popularity recently. The result was that the audience went nuts just because he walked on stage, before he even said a word. That's the sort of thing that creates hype, and it used to happen when Steve Jobs walked on stage.
For the record, I'm familiar with other corporate product announcements, and think they're generally terrible. Which is why I don't pay much attention to them and prefer to wait until the details filter into the press. It hurts Apple more because they've created an expectation that this is going to be a spectacle, so a lot more people are watching. Their whole brand is based on being different, "think different" was literally their slogan for many years. So they can't afford to be doing the same thing as everyone else, especially when what everyone else is doing is terrible.
TBF for a while they literally were. Many times bands performed for these keynotes. That is, of course, no longer.
I think that’s partially a product of most of the presenters over the past couple years being very new to giving presentations under this sort of pressure. They’re coming off as very rehearsed because they are very rehearsed (I don’t know for a fact, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they rehearse these more than 10 times). If you look at the more experienced presenters like Craig Federighi or Phil Schiller, they come off much less stilted and more natural. Tim Cook, on the other hand, I think is just fundamentally an awkward guy, and comes off a bit odd no matter the context.
They omit the definite article because they're talking about the product category rather than any individual product. It's a bit like saying "I love indie rock" rather than "I love the indie rock."
It might be grammatically correct, but it doesn’t sound right to most people’s ears. They’re using the singular version, not saying “iPhones”, which makes it clear they’re referring to multiple different phones.
And I think the category that people think of is smartphone, not iPhone.
Not within Apple.
They're not referring to multiple different phones. They're referring to a category of products.
This is another one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't situations. Apple's always been a quirky company with its own way of doing things. Then in an entire article complaining they're not quirky enough to be entertaining we're going to drill down on a quirky thing they do with how they talk about their stuff?
Apple is a real Rorschach test of a company for lots of people. They will only ever see what they want to see in their actions.
A general trope of Apple's
dishonestymarketing is apparently to portray their smartphones, tablets, laptops, ultrabooks and PCs as if they did not belong to those categories I just mentioned. Pretending iPhone was not a smartphone or MacBook series, iMacs and Mac Pros aren't PCs, etc.I think I echo @NaraVara's comment here about Apple being a Rorschach test. You're going to see what your outlook wants you to see. To describe it as "People love iPhone" sounds absolutely normal to me—and is additionally one of the main points of Apple's style guide for product naming, I'm sure I could pull up the exact entry if you'd like. It's a highly intentional decision designed to elevate it from a product to a lineup/phenomenon. It's brilliant marketing and yes, also grammatically correct.
I think this is a very specific example though. If you were to say: "iPhone supports wireless earbuds", or "iPhone functions underwater", it starts sounding weird again.