Apple isn't losing a war of words, it's getting its ass kicked in software. Just about everybody agrees that Android is now evolving faster than iOS. Many of their recent app releases have been mediocre or downright bad, and they still haven't really figured out how to run robust and reliable cloud services. Crucial new iOS APIs like AutoLayout are an absolute design-by-committee trainwreck.
Their hardware is still excellent if perhaps too conservative but I'm bearish on Apple mainly because I just don't see any evidence of the kind of software engineering discipline that's necessary to compete with Google.
> Just about everybody agrees that Android is now evolving
> faster than iOS
I don't. But with some selective picking you can argue anything you want.
> Many of their recent app releases have been mediocre or downright bad,
Like? Maps,and… maps? And even maps are OK.
> and they still haven't really figured out how to run robust and
> reliable cloud services
iCloud works just fine.
> Crucial new iOS APIs like AutoLayout are an absolute
> design-by-committee trainwreck
Since when AutoLayout is crucial? And what makes it trainwreck?
> but I'm bearish on Apple mainly because I just don't see any evidence
> of the kind of software engineering discipline that's necessary to compete with Google
You just hate Apple, I was able to guess the author of the comment without looking at the name.
And Apple competes with Google just fine.
I actually really like Apple's hardware and their core frameworks + Cocoa are mostly excellent. But I see bad policies and bad management steering the company in exactly the wrong direction so I speak up about it instead of dogmatically defending them at every turn.
He specifically accounts for this by stating that Apple is and ought to be held to a higher standard because they were previously the overwhelming hegemon in the industry. I don't necessarily agree with him, but the fact that Google also uses exclusively positive languages does not by itself invalidate his point. What he is attempting to point out is that Apple, who is now ostensibly under siege and on the defensive (which, although probably true, is being overrepresented and exaggerated by the media) seems illegitimate and or disingenuous when they remain so overwhelmingly positive: the whole world "knows" that they're screwed and their language seems like a facade. Google and Samsung, on the other hand, are the new dominant companies and thus are justified in using such language.
Really? I think he's mostly being fair and he can be very critical of Apple from time to time. Most recent example of this that comes to mind is his latest podcast (may be the one before that, not sure). The whole podcast is about Apple's mistakes/problems.
The point about Apple being "the Man" is interesting. Reading comments here, it seems that everyone hates every company these days, often irrationally. Are there any companies that anyone likes, or has the written word devolved to only be able to share negative opinions?
It's the tragically hip syndrome, people only like companies that it gives them a social advantage to like and tell people about. In other words, obscure indie startups from Portland are more likable than global behemoths... Justin Bieber may be more profitable, but I get more street cred for telling you about Brainstorm http://brainstormbrainstorm.bandcamp.com/
The social economy of startup marketing is almost an exact parallel to that of independent music...
I dislike and refuse to support any Apple product because they want to take away my option to choose what I want in a free market. Their frivolous, anticompetitive and innovation-stiffling lawsuits have cost them all credibility as a real tech company. They are now no better than a patent troll.
They have absolutely zero cool.
That and I don't appreciate locked in ecosystems. Plus iOS has been a daft, stale platform for the last 3 years or more.
Wow there is so much wrong with your viewpoint and understanding of Apple and it's vision.
I don't want to waste time addressing everything I think you're wrong about since you don't seem to be open to another viewpoint.
However, I would like to say that the frivolous lawsuits are literally ALL OVER THE INDUSTRY. Seriously, just take a look around. Do you think Amazon is a terrible company also, since they patented One-Click buying?
When you grow to be a company worth billions of dollars, you have the best legal team available at your disposal and as a BUSINESS you should use it to cover your ass wherever possible. They're not running a charity. Now I agree that being too aggressive without innovating or using such patents is what defines a patent troll, but Apple consistently innovates AND uses its own patents, so I'd say they're far from patent trolling. Aggressive? Certainly. Trolling? Hardly.
The issue remains to be solved by REGULATION by the government. It's not Apple's fault for taking advantage of a clearly broken system (since you know, they're a business and all). It's the government's job to prevent such things like that.
However, I would like to say that the frivolous lawsuits are literally ALL OVER THE INDUSTRY.
That was hardly true until Apple started requesting product-bans world wide. They broke the truce. They started the avalaunch. They get the bad karma. That's how it works.
They're not running a charity.
And so? That still doesn't prevent you from making extremely bad judgement calls.
Now I agree that being too aggressive without innovating or using such patents is what defines a patent troll
Trying to hijack the entire future of mobile computing by exploiting bad laws and preventing everyone else from entering market still makes you an asshole, a wanne-be monopolist and generally shows off your true identity.
You want everyone locked in to your solutions with no way out. In fact you dont want there to be any other ways at all.
Which by no means is illegal. It just means that you are showing off values which are completely orthogonal to everything I believe in: freedom.
You believe in zero freedom. You want to take mine away. I am free to hate you for that. Deal.
but Apple consistently innovates AND uses its own patents
Yes. They are using their rounded corners and want everyone else in the mobile industry to create devices made out of spikes.
Cry me a river. Design and trivial UI implementation details should not be patentable. Apple has bad karma for exploiting these laws.
The issue remains to be solved by REGULATION by the government.
Agreed.
It's not Apple's fault for taking advantage of a clearly broken system
Not agreed. I can hate both the player and the game. Gues what? I do.
In Apple's case they have shown that they are willing to take the game anywhere their products are facing competition.
There is nothing misguided or wrong about my point of view. Stop being appologetic for the actions of a mega-corp.
Ok so I'd like to start off by saying thank you for expanding your views. I enjoy debating with people who are willing to provide reasoning for their views. I didn't really like your original comment, but your response was much better.
>That was hardly true until Apple started requesting product-bans world wide. They broke the truce. They started the avalaunch. They get the bad karma. That's how it works.
I'd like to argue that those types of lawsuits weren't widely publicized until Apple's whole situation since everything Apple does is high-profile. I think to an extent they were right in wanting to ban blantantly similar looking devices, as they take their original designs very seriously, design is at the core of Apple. Samsung has a history of blatantly ripping off Apple design, and as such deserved the outcome of the lawsuits. You might accuse me of being an Apple fanboy, but the one thing that tipped me in Apple's favor is this Samsung cable connector: (http://johncblandii.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/samsung30...). Now be honest, does it not piss you off that a company would be so committed to copying another company's design to the extent that they would rip of a completely proprietary connector that Apple have been using for 10 years (since the OG iPod)?
>Trying to hijack the entire future of mobile computing by exploiting bad laws and preventing everyone else from entering market still makes you an asshole, a wanne-be monopolist and generally shows off your true identity.
I think hijack is a strong word that should be reserved for Microsoft and IE6. I agree that they were very aggressive and certainly not very "open" as a company, and maybe you don't like that, which I can completely understand. But this is the way Apple has always been. They were never about being open. They had their entire proprietary stack of hardware and software and that's what makes Apple..Apple and consumers seem to love that ecosystem, as well as developers. Not defending them at all here, but just saying that they never claimed to be a company committed to "openness". Also, to be fair, the iPhone and iPad completely revolutionized the future of mobile computing. Android is certainly pushing the boundaries today, I agree (Google is a software powerhouse), but you may forget that back in 2007, the iPhone was an absolute revolution and magical in every sense of the word. The iPad wasn't nearly as magical when it came out, but it's widespread adoption set the tone for the tablet market as we know it today. I don't think you'll disagree with me here. Does this give them the excuse to be so aggressive? Maybe not, but that's the way they've been, and you should give credit where credit is due, regardless.
>You want everyone locked in to your solutions with no way out. In fact you dont want there to be any other ways at all.
Which by no means is illegal. It just means that you are showing off values which are completely orthogonal to everything I believe in: freedom.You believe in zero freedom. You want to take mine away. I am free to hate you for that. Deal.
I don't know how Apple is taking away your freedoms. Can you explain a little more on how you think they're contributing to that? You're free not to buy into Apple's proprietary stack, just like you're free not to buy into Facebook's proprietary stack, or Google's increasingly proprietary stack (killing off Reader and CalDAV was for a reason), or Microsoft's proprietary technologies. Apple is kinda known for being extremely proprietary but lets not forget the other elephants in the room either. How do you think these companies are taking away your freedoms? What freedoms did you have before that you miss now because of what Apple did?
>Yes. They are using their rounded corners and want everyone else in the mobile industry to create devices made out of spikes. Cry me a river. Design and trivial UI implementation details should not be patentable. Apple has bad karma for exploiting these laws.
I really hate the "rounded corners" argument. I know the patent may say "rounded corners" but if you read deeper into such patents you being to realize that its a much more specific patent than the phrases suggest. Patents are usually given to a very specific implementation. You can't judge a patent based on it's name or one little excerpt that you read. Now, we both agree that patents needs reform. How that reform plays out and how it will deal with such patents remains to be seen.
Let's ASSUME that Apple did have a patent for just "rounded corners" and it really was as straightforward as that. Why the hell was Apple awarded a patent for rounded corners? Who the hell was in charge of giving Apple that patent? That's the real issue. If I was a company and I had tons of money laying around, I would for-sure try to enforce any patents I had (again, remember I'd be a business). The problem would be giving me patents like "rounded corners" which gives me more ammunition against my competitors. But remember, this is all assuming that "rounded corners" is really as simple as the phrase suggests, which I can assure you isn't. However this doesn't mean there is an excuse for Apple being allowed to hold such a patent either.
>Not agreed. I can hate both the player and the game. Gues what? I do. In Apple's case they have shown that they are willing to take the game anywhere their products are facing competition.
This is your opinion and I gladly respect it. I don't think you're wrong for holding this opinion as its completely valid. I can understand your hatred of companies that are aggressive and use such tactics.
My point was that many many companies use such tactics and you shouldn't single out Apple just because the media loves to single them out for page-hits. You should take a look at the lawsuits Amazon have started for their one-click patent (which I'm sure we can both agree sounds just as frivolous as "rounded corners"), or any of the other numerous patents. We can take the argument one step further and criticize Twitter and Facebook for heavily regulating their API (which we can draw parallels with patents since both are proprietary), but at the end of the day I still like the technology that they build and I can respect their business decisions even though I may not agree with them. Twitter needs to make money, as does Facebook and they're trying to stop the commoditization of their data in exchange for perhaps a less free and open API. Does this mean they're hijacking the future? I wouldn't say so, but you might feel different and like I said, I can respect that.
That would only apply if he said that the conclusion was wrong because of who the author is. But he merely suggested laughing, which is not a fallacy at all.
> But he merely suggested laughing, which is not a fallacy
Scorning criticism because "they, of all people..." is textbook ad-hominem. Maybe there's irony there too, but they doesn't seem at first glance what philwelch intended.
mikeash understood what I was getting at. You're acting like an eighth grader who just discovered logical fallacies on Friday.
In case you didn't know, Jean-Louis Gassée was, along with John Sculley, one of the principal figures who ran Apple into the ground after Jobs left. I find this adds an interesting subtext to his commentary on Apple now. He may very well be right, but it's amusing that he writes publicly about the subject at all.
A good comparison is this letter from Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan about his handling of the Iran-Contra scandal: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/09/let-stillborn-midget-re... Nixon was probably right, but it's amusing that he of all people chose to give unsolicited advice about handling presidential scandals.
JLG was implicit in the (precipitous) decline of Apple after Jobs was fired, but because there was a serious power vacuum. Sculley did not step up and lead the company, and the senior management fragmented, each trying to point the company in a different direction. JLG eventually was also forced out and went and started Be.
It looks like Tim Cook isn't repeating that mistake - he forced out Scott Forstall to remove a potential challenger (or loose cannon, depending on who you ask). I see the current blandness by Apple as both a consequence of that (necessary, IMO) action, as well as having a missing visionary.
An ad hominem is a fallacious argument that someone's thesis is wrong because of some particular bad thing one can say about that person. I never questioned anyone's thesis, let alone on the grounds of an ad hominem argument. Please learn what logical fallacies actually are before running around accusing people of them.
It's ad-hominems all the way down. He may be going for irony, but that snarky "In case you didn't know..." line kills it and veers back to targeting the person. (I know who JLG is. I just don't care.)
I know what you said. You didn't say word one about him being wrong .. or right either. You just laughed. IMHO That is a strongly implied negative statement on his accuracy.
I found the article to be a quite interesting look at the way that these companies are doing business with and against each other, and how the media makes narratives out of it. There seems to be a lot of truth in it. What JLG uses to good effect in the article is insider anecdotes.
I'm not that close to Apple or JLG that I have strong feelings about either one's point of view, I'm more interested in how the same driving forces will affect everyone.
Do you agree or disagree with the substance here? Try engaging with that.
I know what you said. You didn't say word one about him being wrong .. or right either. You just laughed. IMHO That is a strongly implied negative statement on his accuracy.
Bingo. Just because someone maybe didn't mean to imply something doesn't mean they didn't imply it.
I think Nixon's letter to Reagan was interesting and had a lot of truth as well, but that didn't stop me from laughing. I can't say I've seen any insight in what you've had to say, however.
Doesn't there have to be a logical argument for there to be a logical fallacy?
Can't speak for Phil, but I did come here simply to point out that the article comes off a little strange with JLG trying to sound like an outsider while talking about a company he worked at for over a decade, and in an executive capacity. It was twenty years ago, and by bringing it up I don't mean to imply a problem with what he's saying (I agree with it), I just wonder if he is a household name and this is considered common knowledge, or if anyone else thought it was an interesting omission.
Ok, my comment didn't contribute much. I'll try again.
I do know who JLG is, and that's exactly why I pay attention to what he says. There are few people with his experience that can actually talk about this stuff openly. So it's not funny, or ironic, that he offers his opinion. It's awesome.
Earnings calls and earnings press releases have an optimistic bias. Technology companies tend to be more zealous still. The experiment in the blog, while illustrative, could have been made more rigorous with a control.
A 2006 paper out of the St. Louis Fed investigated "whether managers use[d] optimistic and pessimistic language in earnings press releases" between 1988 and 2003 "and whether the market respond[ed] to" this variation [1]. It found an optimistic bias, with optimistic words appearing nearly three times as frequently as pessimistic words.
Given that "levels of optimistic and pessimistic language used by managers in earnings press releases reliably predict future firm performance" and the "significant market response" to this variation, investors believe "that managers credibly communicate information to investors via optimistic and pessimistic language usage". But the market is Bayesian; "managers have reputations" that investors use as their baseline.
I think the "You'll love the iPhone..." campaign Apple just launched is a little tacky, and un-Apple-like. It reads like one of their Valentine's Day or Back to School ads... except there's no holiday or event to back it up.
Except, of course, it coincides with the S4 reveal. Even if unintentional, it's poorly timed.
I always wonder though what if Jean-Louis Gassée and his BeOS won the deal (instead of Jobs and NeXT) in late 90's, what kind of Apple computer would have become? No doubt he is very capable, though I wouldn't bet on him myself.
He's a mixed bag in terms of track record: You've got the color Mac II which was nothing short of amazing (I know because I purchased a Mac IIcx) and yet you have the disaster known as the Mac Luggable which was terrible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_Portable
I think this is a very interesting question. My impression of NeXT is that they nearly priced themselves out of their own market. I am not sure they would have survived without being bought by Apple. Beyond that anything could be speculated. Maybe he would have abandoned computing and gone straight for media, what with Pixar's success.
Good article, good analysis of how the words are used in the press releases. Thus I won't agree with the intro. Google I/O is coming up and will probably bring up an update to the Android system. If this happens - the Galaxy S4 will have to wait.
About the only thing I agree with in the article is that Schiller going on the record of criticizing Samsung the day before their announcement was an error. It seems to me that the day before the cards are set, just let hand play out and then go and update your messaging.
Apple has done very well so what else are they going to say on the earnings calls? They could consult a thesaurus and come up with some less commonly used words but that comes off as snobby and unnecessary.
Their hardware is still excellent if perhaps too conservative but I'm bearish on Apple mainly because I just don't see any evidence of the kind of software engineering discipline that's necessary to compete with Google.