I think it's clear that Apple has recognized that their target markets don't care to have useful computers. Just look way back to when Steve Jobs was still alive and he was talking about how "PCs are going to be like trucks. Fewer people will need them. And this is going to make some people uneasy."
They could certainly add features to make them more like general purpose computers, but there's a bit of product development and engineering "tax" they'd have to pay over time to maintain that aspect. Much easier from a product development standpoint to create products that provide a walled-garden experience, especially if that's what most customers want.
The truck metaphor is actually incredibly apt, because if you want to do "truck stuff" with your PC, a lot of people think you can't do that on a phone, but 90% of what people need a beefy computer for could be done on a phone if we had that kind of culture around it.
Macbook pros for a lot of us are effectively like daily driving a lifted Ford Raptor with a snorkel. Most of what I do on my personal device I easily could do on a Chromebook or tablet, and pretty much all of the rest is entirely possible on a Chromebook with the Linux subsystem setup (which is what I did pre-Macbook). It's like if I'd setup an expensive truck for off-roading, but in the end it turned out to be aspirational and I only take it somewhere that can't handle a Subaru Outback once or twice a year.
Hah this is very true, though I'd argue the real Raptor with a snorkel is the gaming PC. I'm typing this on one right now and I mostly play Factorio which could run on any old potato, so yeah I'm that guy. The MBP is probably more akin to the BMW when you could be driving a Honda.
All that said, I'll take this hobby over the truck hobby. $3k for a pretty good machine is great vs. $80k for the snorkel truck.
I will admit that "you can barely buy a sedan in the US anymore" was a bit of hyperbole, but certainly they have declined precipitously, from 80% of the US new vehicle market 40 years ago to about 25% today [0]. You can still buy sedans in the US, but not from american car companies [1].
If that's the case, then why do we go to work on a computer instead of a phone? Oh, wait. A screen. A mouse, a keyboard. Really, if they wanted to, you could simply dock your phone and have that experience if the company was willing to put in the time.
I agree. The demos were great. They really showed off how things you already do today are "better" on two screens. This is in contrast to the Vision Pro where the demos were of things that were neat but I can't see myself needing (watching 3D captures, watching a big virtual cinema screen).
I think this will be a hit, but the $2k is a bit much for me to even consider getting one. Obviously they'll likely drop that price over time.
Samsung is dead in the water. They cannot compete with the operating system or the four other Apple ecosystems that this new phone will integrate with seamlessly. That being said this new iPhone is probably in a 5% at most niche market within the overall iPhone market.
It's interesting that unit sales as a metric was there from the beginning of this kind of discussions (which company is more successful) - and is still in use.
It had not hurt Apple to not have the most unit sold in the past while taking most of the money.
I imagine that the $2000 Samsung Phone has a healthy margin and makes money insofar it's not great for them that apple enters this segment of the market.
But of course you are right: Samsung is of course not dead in the water. But it's obvious that it already lost in regard to mindshare (exemplified by the number of comments here).
I wonder if for many people today, it's not so much the art form of writing they are interested in, but rather having their thoughts and opinions validated by an audience. I mean, we live in a world where technology is constantly asking us to share our voice with the world at every opportunity. It's not asking us to phrase our thoughts well or to find meaningful things to share, but to get something out there quickly that captures people's attentions and to bask in it.
Your framing makes it seem like these companies decided to reduce the size of their products for the health of their customers. We all know they're doing it to save on costs and increase profits.
Why would news outlets go the extra mile and re-frame it as "Companies are reducing the size of unhealthy products while maintaining the same price and here's why that's a good thing..." unless they were in the pocket of these companies? That would be editorializing to me.
I used to be much more precious about notebooks myself. I may have also found tricks or games to play to on myself to force myself to use them without fear of mucking them up with bad sketches or poorly organized ideas.
Eventually I got over it now and just use them as places to scribble ideas and don't care if it's ugly. I find that over the years I just started caring more about getting the thing I wanted to accomplish done than making sure I had a pristine record of the thoughts that led up to it. Maybe it's an age thing.
I really hate that change. It's counterintuitive that a shell recognizes mouse clicks to mean "select this option".
Also, the auto-copy selected text feature is awful. That's another thing that is so counterintuitive. I have never seen a UI where just selecting text means auto-copy to the paste buffer. Who is coming up with these awful UX ideas?
On top of that, the scroll "feel" of the new client (at least on macOS) isn't quite as good as their old one. It just feels off and not like a native terminal.
I imagine they're suggesting that so someone who lands on the page and is unaware of Bellard can immediately know what he is (famously) known for instead of having to scroll through the long list of projects.
It sounds like another way to put it: tell people what they want to hear and you'll go far. Most people want their beliefs confirmed, whether what they believe is true or fiction. Unfortunately it can lead to an echo chamber-y world where people only associate themselves with others who have the same core beliefs, which is even easier when communities are online.
It's a common way to phrase a request in the corporate world. It's a bit more of a concrete and explicit than a simple request, something that can be written down in bullet points in a meeting notes summary or an email.
I hate it too (and others like "learnings" when "lessons" would suffice), but I see the purpose it serves. Asking a team "What's the ask?" is a way of explicitly asking what the concrete requests are which can be documented and followed up on (i.e. "circle back"), whereas just asking for "requests" is more like asking for preferences, which may not be binding, or a vague direction to go for planning.
The one on the shelf is probably a Akari paper lantern. I have an orange one that I quite like. You used to be able to buy them from Design Within Reach or the MoMA Design Store, but I can't find them on their sites now but they're on the Noguchi site. [1] The hanging sphere one might be similar.
For those not aware of them, Design Within Reach has a lot of nice famous designed furniture and shelving, but pricey. They often have 15% off season sales though. Good place to shop if you're into the stuff seen in this blog post.
They could certainly add features to make them more like general purpose computers, but there's a bit of product development and engineering "tax" they'd have to pay over time to maintain that aspect. Much easier from a product development standpoint to create products that provide a walled-garden experience, especially if that's what most customers want.
reply