pasta_2

>One of us, Tognazzini, worked at Apple with Steve Jobs in the early days. Norman joined Apple shortly after Jobs departed and then left shortly after Jobs returned in 1996. We were not present during the shift from the days of easy-to-use, easy-to-understand products (where Apple could honestly brag that no manual was necessary), to today’s products where no manual is included, but is often necessary. We do know that before Jobs returned, Apple had a three-pronged approach to product design: user experience, engineering, and marketing, with all three taking part in the design cycle from day one to when the product shipped.

>Today’s Apple has eliminated the emphasis on making products understandable and usable, and instead has imposed a Bauhaus minimalist design ethic on its products.

I actually love this article because when people look back with rose tinted glasses about how things were great when Forstall was around, I can send them this article about how Apple's usability suffered when Jobs came back, an era where they claim that Apple's products was the best they ever were from a usability stand point.

Tesla has a small rabid fan base (here and on Reddit) that are willing to overlook its shortcomings. If Tesla actually delivers on its Model 3 any time soon and manages to penetrate the mainstream at all, you can be sure those customers won't be giving Tesla a pass.

https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/3mtoxa/im_not_...

Take a look at that thread in /r/teslamotors (which is full of Tesla fanboys). Tesla's problems with quality and reliability are talked about as if that's what they're known for, and the comments are being upvoted (at the same time they're very optimistic about it improving but that's to be expected given its /r/teslamotors).

The problem for Tesla is they are 1990s Apple. A bigger problem for them is if when Apple enters the car market in 2020, they come in as 2015 Apple.

Serenity Caldwell wasn't able to duplicate this, probably a bug.

https://twitter.com/settern/status/627162699076665344

It's truly bizarro world if you think the Spotify UI is good.

lol

It couldn't possibly be that Google did anything wrong.

Spotify is truly fucked if Apple is going to pay during the free trial AND pay higher overall royalties. When the negotiations come up again with Spotify, who is already running increasing losses, things will just get worse.

It was always a crock of shit to equate Snowden to the Pentagon Papers or the Watergate scandal, and this is why.

Tech/media companies dependent on advertising should just adapt. As techies told a complaining music industry, just do concerts and sell t-shirts. Now maybe this won't be as profitable as the current business model, and maybe the industry will be smaller and more consolidated, but that's capitalism. No one guaranteed you would keep growing and making more money.

Perhaps you'll have to stop using third-party ad networks and start selling and creating your own ads. Native ads like Buzzfeed's sponsored posts could work. It'll probably require more capital and won't scale as well, but you'll just have to deal with that.

Did this guy e-mail Apple product security?

https://www.apple.com/support/security/

If what Tim Cook said could be easily discounted as puffery, it would be largely ignored by the Google fanboys. But the fact that you don't even have to believe what Tim Cook says or even trust him, because Apple's business model doesn't benefit from the perverse incentive that Google's does, is driving them crazy. And no iAd doesn't count, that's a service for third party developers to monetize their own apps. There are no ads in Apple's first party apps. It's also been criticized by advertisers because of Apple's protection of customer privacy. http://adage.com/article/digital/amazon-apple-catch-a-break-...

It's an interesting twist for HN, which is normally ready to take strong pro-privacy positions in the wake of the Snowden leaks under the premise of potential abuse by governments.

Says a lot about Google Ventures that when something goes south with one of their investments they'll go to the press and slam you.

Not the first time either.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-happened-between-google-...

Samsung Electronics is a publicly traded corporation and the market value is what it would cost to acquire them (plus some premium). This is sort of academic because it would be a dumb use of Apple's cash to acquire them and probably wouldn't be approved.

That part about Andreessen warning about "risks" was really just a response to Bill Gurley sounding the alarm in a WSJ story. Until that time if you followed Andreessen on Twitter, you'd see him talking down the idea of a tech bubble, mocking Janet Yellen for her warning about valuations in social media, etc. It was basically that or go against another prominent VC in a fight about valuations. And this is not like the rest of Wall Street, there's not going to be any Icahn vs. Ackman style fights in the VC world. Relationships matter too much.

But at least 10 years from now once the current cycle has come to an end Andreessen can point to that one time he was on the record as warning about "risks" when really his M.O until then was to talk up valuations.

2/10 troll

What comes around goes around.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/technology/companies/25goo...

It's really amusing that so many of you actually think that Apple is threatened by Pebble in the slightest that they would remove apps that supported it.

I love that coders are all worried about their "craft" being devalued while these are the very same people that will unironically tell music artists that they should sell t-shirts and to do concerts.

Well my friends, like the music industry it's time to adapt. It's time to start selling t-shirts.

Ironic given how the rhetoric suggested the "walled garden" was an evil to be avoided. Over time Apple is being proven right.

A great ad for Apple's security.

Nice of Elon Musk to open source Tesla's patents, will make things easier for Apple.

I love backhanded compliments about Apple's marketing. If marketing had the impact you seem to think it does, Samsung would be doing a whole lot better than they are.

Android doesn't bring in the bacon and the Nexus devices bring in less, they don't care about the little things as long as everyone's devices have Google services installed on them.

Is there any evidence that the NSA has targeted dissidents?

The intention was never to break them up. MEPs calling for it is just to show the EU Commission that they have the political support to take the gloves off.

If you actually want to know the justification for the EU doing this you should read this paper by Ben Edelman.

http://www.benedelman.org/publications/google-tying-2014-10-...

He's consulted for various Google competitors but he's also a professor at Harvard Business School, and the argument he makes is sound.

Google is a search advertising company not a consumer products company. They haven't had one successful product in hardware yet.

Which makes the thought of Google actually executing on a driverless car pretty laughable.

Net Neutrality is really a fight between two industries about shifting their costs onto one another, with really good PR from the tech industry that has enlisted normal people onto their side.

T-Mobile's zero-rating of data from certain music services supposedly violates "net neutrality", but customers like it and it allows them to compete with ATT and Verizon. It may be unfair to some other music service start up, but who cares? It's unfair in the same way that an incumbent has more resources to advertise their product than a start up.

Before people start suggesting this is some anti-American agenda from the EU, keep in mind there are many American companies that have been complaining to the EU such as Yelp and Expedia. They want to stop Google's tying practices such as using their monopoly in search (another thing to keep in mind is that their market share in the EU is something absurd like over 90%) to benefit other products and services. It's not really calling for breaking up the company. Also this is specifically about raising the temperature on the European Commission. Parliament itself doesn't do this.

This is a signal from politicians to the European Commission that they can go hard.

Before people start suggesting this is some anti-American agenda from the EU, keep in mind there are many American companies that have been complaining to the EU such as Yelp and Expedia.

They want to stop Google's tying practices such as using their monopoly in search (another thing to keep in mind is that their market share in the EU is something absurd like over 90%) to benefit other products and services. It's not really calling for breaking up the company. Also this is specifically about raising the temperature on the European Commission. Parliament itself doesn't do this