Having different histories does not infer that they won't both end up walking the same path.

I have always liked Apple for the Woz age of hacking and the ethos that produced, but this is not the path that they appear to be walking recently.

I would love to agree with your disagreement, but I find myself agreeing more with the concerns of the article. It may be a far-fetched rant but it makes a few points that presently fall not far from the target.

You paint Microsoft as an army of cloners, yet within the same argument you provide a compelling example of Microsoft innovation: Excel was a much better product than Lotus 123/G.

As PC-DOS was better than CP/M. The point of 123/G and Excel is that Microsoft let the market go in the OS/2 direction by publicly saying Windows was a transitory, doomed environment, while they went secretly in the Windows direction knowing their move would doom OS/2, along with their competition.

There is a gray area between "clever" and "dishonest". Lotus trusted Microsoft, as did IBM. In retrospect, we know nobody should trust Microsoft.

Frankly, I am surprised that, at that time, IBM trusted Microsoft after the PC-DOS/MS-DOS PC-clone thing.

Not many people can fool me twice.

And, I have to say, Apple did fool me once: http://www.dieblinkenlights.com/blog_en/i-really-want-to-lik...

I don't agree with the above analysis, I prefer:

IBM doomed OS/2 with their earlier promise to MIS managers (as they were called then) that the PC-AT would be the last personal computer they'd have to buy for a long time.

Microsoft correctly hated the diversion of effort and compromises needed to get it to run on the 286 (which was truly awful when not being just a fast 8086) and didn't stop their Windows effort and at some point started up NT (well, we know the point, when DEC killed the Prism project, I just don't remember its relation to the other events).

This all came to a head when the 386 was the standard minimum CPU in a machine. OS/2 did not run competitively on it, Windows 3.0/1 could take significant advantage of it, was less complicated and imposing and I'm sure cost a lot less. And it could run multiple isolated DOS boxes.

That set the stage for what then happened.

I don't. Apple hasn't impressed with anything it's really done. People point to apple products as innovative, and remark how it's amazing they work so well. It's really not. It's much harder to develop a product that works well on things you can't control then when you can control the entire ecosystem. Windows doesn't just work on HP computers. They work within a standardized ecosystem, and place Apple doesn't play. If MS closed up and did what Apple was doing, of course it would be easier to do everything Apple did.

It's why Linux still suffers on the desktop. Linux support is incredibly wide. Gnome has to keep this into consideration, as does KDE. They don't have the easy route to development that Apple has: a closed, controlled world.

Apple gets credit for that final polish, and they do deserve it. And at the consumer end, they end up with great products. I'm not saying their approach is wrong. They live and breathe DRY. But I don't see that they are pushing boundaries. They let other people do that. And when the other people succeed or fail, Apple takes note of that, and then comes out with their own effort, usually lacking significant features.

People disagree but don't give a reason.

Maybe one of those people can explain why it's harder for Apple to develop for a single ecosystem on a closed platform then it is for someone like Canonical to develop on multiple ecosystems on an open platform?

Or maybe someone can explain how they are impressed that Apple is able to offer the performance they do in their limited environment when they control every aspect of that environment?

Or maybe they can explain why Apple shouldn't get credit for a final, polished experience? Maybe someone who disagrees can explain why they shouldn't live on DRY.

And finally, maybe someone can explain what boundaries Apple pushed when they came out with an MP3 player, a mobile phone, or a touch pad computer?

As for your first two questions, it has nothing to do with "this is hard." People don't care about perceived difficulty, they care about results. Apple creates tools that are reliable, easy to use, and work well.

> why Apple shouldn't get credit for a final, polished experience?

I think you were downvoted for the rest of your comment. I agree with you here.

> what boundaries Apple pushed when they came out with an MP3 player, a mobile phone, or a touch pad computer?

The iPod was revolutionary in that it was the easiest to use MP3 player. The iPhone was revolutionary because it was one of the first phones that didn't suck. The iPad is revolutionary because many other people have made touch screen computers, but the iPad is one of the first that was designed for touch in the beginning, not just 'you touch the screen instead of the mouse.'

I expect you also might be getting downvoted because this is 'Apple business analysis 101.' These topics were discussed endlessly ever since the release of the iMac. People are probably sick of hearing, "It's just a phone, wtf?"

With that said, I didn't downvote you, so I can't speak for those that did.

"As for your first two questions, it has nothing to do with "this is hard." People don't care about perceived difficulty, they care about results. ."

Which is no surprise, considering they control everything. And, considering they control everything, I'm surprised it takes them so long to actually get features in. The point is, they aren't doing anything special. If anything, they aren't doing enough compared to what other people accomplish. The difference is that Apple does it in the only area that end users really see: The end user experience.

"The iPod was revolutionary in that it was the easiest to use MP3 player."

That's debatable. The iPod was, and still is, incredibly backwards in how it needs to load and unload media. The iPod had a gimmick (the wheel), which they've removed in favor of the design they where originally trying to replace.

The iPhone wasn't revolutionary. It was evolutionary. There is a big difference. The iPhone was a natural progression everyone saw from the iPod. Nor were they phones prior to the iPhone that weren't good. What made the iPhone popular was it was Apple, and more importantly, it built itself into iTunes.

If anything is revolutionary, it's iTunes, and everything that's extended out of it. And even that isn't something Apple came up with. iTunes is nothing that hasn't existed in the open source world for a long time. Debians Apt repositories are the earliest I can think of (and I'm sure others can come up with older things). Heck, even Lindows did the same thing with their CNR stuff (though, I think that came out after iTunes, I'm getting my time lines mixed up).

Anyways.

"I expect you also might be getting downvoted because this is 'Apple business analysis 101.'" I don't imagine anything I said is new, but it doesn't mean it's not relevant, or incorrect. It really comes down to Apple doesn't impress. When you have complete control over every aspect of your product, then you should deliver. Indeed, I'd go so far to say that Apple is behind where it should be.

You can make great products, but that doesn't mean you are doing anything special.

Maybe I'm just not as easily impressed?

> The point is, they aren't doing anything special.

Yes, they are. They're the only company that's realized that if you want a stable, integrated experience, you need to control the entire product, top to bottom. They're the only (major) computer company that does this, which kind of makes them special by definition, right?

> The difference is that Apple does it in the only area that end users really see: The end user experience.

But ultimately, that's the only thing that really matters. I hate to be utilitarian about it, but the value a product brings to the end user is the only thing that matters.

> The iPod was, and still is, incredibly backwards in how it needs to load and unload media.

From a technical standpoint, yes. From a user's standpoint, it's _awesome_. I just click a button, and wait a few seconds? Great.

> The iPhone was a natural progression everyone saw from the iPod. Nor were they phones prior to the iPhone that weren't good.

It's true that the details of the phone weren't important, but it doesn't mean it wasn't a truly great phone. Remember the ROKR? That's what happens when non-Apple companies design a phone. That's what pretty much any non-iPhone non-Andriod phones are like. Maybe I'm just too hard on cell phones, but until I bought my Nexus One, I still had a really old 'feature phone' because I couldn't bring myself to buy any of the shitty, shitty phones that are out there.

> iTunes is nothing that hasn't existed in the open source world for a long time.

Same thing. It's not about the tech, it's about ease of use for the end consumer.

> I don't imagine anything I said is new, but it doesn't mean it's not relevant, or incorrect.

I mean, I agree. I'm not saying you should be downvoted, I'm just trying to guess why others were. Hearing the same arguments gets really old, especially in a series of articles like these, which are basically just shouting matches of the same opinions, over and over.

> Maybe I'm just not as easily impressed?

Nope, I think that you're just impressed by things that aren't Apple's core competencies. That's okay, I don't think, for instance, Exxon-Mobil is impressive, and they're one of the few companies bigger than Apple. Different people value different things.

I used to be obsessed with technical details, until I came to the startup world, where I realized it's all about value creation, not about the tech. It's disappointing, and we programmers tend to be an exceptionally meritocratic bunch, but really, even in the tech industry, tech is kind of irrelevant.

"Yes, they are. They're the only company that's realized that if you want a stable, integrated experience, you need to control the entire product, top to bottom."

I don't think that's accurate, on multiple levels. First, they aren't the first company to realize that. However, it is easier to have a stable, integrated experience when you control the product line. Which is what I've been saying this entire time. They essentially took the easy way to quality.

Which leads to:

"But ultimately, that's the only thing that really matters. I hate to be utilitarian about it, but the value a product brings to the end user is the only thing that matters."

I agree. And I never argued that. I said that from the beginning. I apologize if I came off suggesting that they made shoddy products. That was never the point nor my intention. =)

"I mean, I agree. I'm not saying you should be downvoted, I'm just trying to guess why others were. Hearing the same arguments gets really old, especially in a series of articles like these, which are basically just shouting matches of the same opinions, over and over."

I understand, but it's still stupid to downvote something just because you've heard it before. I've heard a lot of things before. Doesn't mean I down vote. Should I down vote every comment that has repeated something I've read before? If a comment doesn't add value, fine. But if it's a comment you are tired of, just ignore it and don't upvote it! And, I'm not referring to you, rather, I'm referring to the royal "you". =)

"I used to be obsessed with technical details, until I came to the startup world, where I realized it's all about value creation, not about the tech. It's disappointing, and we programmers tend to be an exceptionally meritocratic bunch, but really, even in the tech industry, tech is kind of irrelevant."

I agree. And that's a good point. I fully realize where Apple's value lies. However, that doesn't mean I'm not an idealistic thick-headed fool that's going to speak his mind, even when it's not the most popular. Being opinionated and stubborn has worked so far. =)

Basically, I just feel like Apple gets a lot of credit for doing things it shouldn't. They do a lot of really cool things, but at the end of the day, I realize it's not really that impressive when you realize the slate they have to work with.

Good questions/challenges. Sorry if you've had this discussion before. I've never really discussed this particular angle. Most of my friends aren't geeks!

> First, they aren't the first company to realize that.

I meant within the consumer computer industry, sorry. It's not like they invented vertical integration.

> I agree. And I never argued that. I said that from the beginning.

Okay. It's just with quotes like "they took the easy way to quality," you seem to be saying that the process means more than the end result. That's what this all boils down to.

> Good questions/challenges. Sorry if you've had this discussion before. I've never really discussed this particular angle. Most of my friends aren't geeks!

No problem. The first computer I ever used was a Mac, so I've been having these discussions forever. I was totally the little fanboy in 7th grade, holding my copy of MacAddict with pictures of those amazing new Bondi Blue and white G3 towers, arguing with my friends that (to quote Hackers) "RISC will change everything."

In any case, it's always great to have real-actual, in-depth discussion. Thanks just as much to you.

Identifying and realizing "the easy way to quality" is impressive. Especially when no one else seems able to duplicate it.

That's the holy grail of your industrial & operations type.

It's like you're deriding an app for being written in Python instead of C. The easy way is the smart way!

"Identifying and realizing "the easy way to quality" is impressive."

Except they aren't doing that. For 3 version multitasking was bad, and they told you why multitasking wasn't needed. Now, apparently, it's good.

As for others not being able to duplicate it, that's not true. Apple isn't the only place to find easy to us. Heck, half their stuff isn't easy to use. It's just as difficult and confusing as PC stuff. It just appears easier/cleaner. They have less wires. Just one look at iTunes and syncing Audiobooks with your iPod is a perfect example of how they dropped the ball.

> Maybe one of those people can explain why it's harder for Apple to develop for a single ecosystem on a closed platform then it is for someone like Canonical to develop on multiple ecosystems on an open platform?

I don't choose which products to buy based on how hard they were to make. All I care about is how well designed they are (aesthetically and functionally). I suspect that most customers are the same way.

> Or maybe they can explain why Apple shouldn't get credit for a final, polished experience?

Apple gets "credit" by profit: customers choose to buy their products, and they do so knowing that Apple is selling them for more than the raw cost of material inputs. This is good, because to make an honest profit (wherein all parties agree to a transaction voluntarily) is what everyone should try to do.

Companies should try to make the best products they can, which means making products that present the least hassle to users. Apple does this best because they honestly care the most about the user experience. And it's not just that it's harder to interoperate and make products work well - when the standard is badly misconcieved, no amount of effort to interoperate will make your product work well. So Apple is right in thumbing its nose at things that are either obsolete (floppies, flash, etc.), or just brain-dead (X-Windows). Apple is the one computer company brave enough to think in principle about what people will want in the future.

If this were so easy, why isn't everyone else doing it?

rbanffy is an Apple shill.

http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=rbanffy

Did you read any of those comments you linked to? Perhaps you missed these:

  Microsoft's keyboards are much better than Apple's

  Every single computer I installed Ubuntu, 
  since the 6.x releases, has worked flawlessly ...

and so on. No more name calling please, ok?

I heartily approve and endorse your downvote of my comment. I posted a knee-jerk response and I paid the price for it (PWNed like a n00b in a first-person shooter). Nevertheless, it was satisfying to call some one a "shill", and I DO detect traces of shillery in every Apple-vs-Adobe polemic to be waged on this site in the past fortnight.

To be fair, my first computer was an Apple II and I have a large collection of Apples, from II clones to about a dozen Macs and a Newton (also a couple RS/6000, Suns, one PA-RISC, two Amigas and one 8-bit Atari). I still use my PowerPC iMac, but mostly to sync my iPod.

My wife has a Macbook. I tried to use Macs for work, but I prefer a more traditional Unix desktop, one with X and select-and-middle-click goodness.

We are a multi-platform household here ;-) I even have Windows on a VM.

rbanffy is still an Apple shill.

http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=rbanffy