
This is not Steve's Apple - davewiner
http://threads2.scripting.com/2012/november/steveWouldntHaveShippedTheIpadMini
======
swombat
Silly. Unlike Dave Winer to post such a one-sided rant.

He may not like the mini's screen, but it's evident lots of people do.
Generalisation rarely makes for good arguments.

As for Apple not compromising before Jobs died? Are you kidding? If Apple
should be known for any particular modus operandi, it is precisely that they
make compromises - but the right kind of compromise, which they believe will
deliver the best product. Microsoft is much more likely to make no compromise,
and therefore try to do everything at once.

~~~
davewiner
It's a blog post. Do you know what a blog post is?

Hint: It's where someone tells you what they think based on their personal
experience.

~~~
swombat
What I'm criticising is not the personal viewpoint - that's fine - it's the
huge generalisations coming off the back of it: "I don't like the iPad mini
for this one reason and therefore Apple is fucked an Jobs would never have let
that happen!"

~~~
davewiner
Can I make a suggestion that you not put "in quotes" things the person you're
conversing with did not say. That's a fairly hostile thing to do. Speak for
yourself, not for the other guy.

Everything in everything I write has an implicit IMHO.

So ease up there buddy -- and don't get all derailed just because someone had
an opinion you don't like or agree with. It's the beauty of life -- we all get
to have our own opinions and act on them.

YMMV.

~~~
swombat
> _Can I make a suggestion that you not put "in quotes" things the person
> you're conversing with did not say. That's a fairly hostile thing to do.
> Speak for yourself, not for the other guy._

You do realise that you just used quotes in a way that contradicts what you
just said, right?

I (and many others, you included, it seems) use quotes to single out a
statement or phrase. In this particular case, I used them in an even more
boring way: to mark a statement that I felt paraphrased your post.

I don't see how that's hostile. You seem to have a thing about quotes, though,
since you remarked on them to someone else on this thread!

Anyway, I'm not the one who's worked up :-) I'm certainly not "derailed" (am I
allowed to use quotes this time? Cheers!)... I was merely stating my opinion
in response to your opinion!

------
ChuckMcM
Some people obsess over typography, I don't get it, they are just letters.
Others obsess over pixel density (that I understand a bit better having
started on a 16 line x 64 character screen stretched across a converted TV
set).

The point Dave tries to make as far as I can tell, is that there principles
that define a company (for example Wallmart defines itself as the cheapest
source of things, Round Table Pizza as an 'honest' pizza). And when the
company does something out of character from their perceived principles it
makes one wonder.

His complaint is that the iPad Mini seems like it was there to address the
'portability' issue of the 10" iPad and yet it stepped backwards on the
'principles' of high density displays that Apple has so successfully leveraged
since they first shipped one on the iPhone. The argument that they have
'cheapened' themselves to have a product bounded on either side (iPod touch,
iPad 10") with high PPI displays.

Those kinds of moves can be disconcerting.

However that Apple will change as it ages should not be unexpected. Tim Cook
is not Steve. Move on people, different doesn't have to be bad.

That said, it seems like Apple is moving to high PPI displays across the board
so I would expect the mini to get one as soon as they are available in
sufficient quantity.

~~~
davewiner
Outstanding quality is what defines Apple. Imho of course.

------
nicholassmith
This is quite amusing, boiled down "Apple has released a product that I don't
like that much, so I think Apple is done. FYI, Steve would have hated this".
Except unless Apple had an astonishingly quick run on this the prototype was
probably blessed by him at least 18 months ago.

Guess what Apple also did when Steve was alive? They sold an iPhone that
didn't have a retina display, to large numbers whilst selling one with a
retina display. Guess what Apple did when Steve was alive? They sold an iPod
Mini that a lot of people thought was pointless as the storage space was so
small.

Apple will happily sell a product that has trade offs because they believe in
the product. I had a choice between buying an ipad 3 and an ipad 2, I quite
happily picked the 2 and off I went, no regrets. The Retina displays are
utterly fantastic but for a lot of people it's an optional extra. Apple isn't
doomed because they've made a product with a feature you don't like, they're
going to sell these hand over fist.

Postscript: I saw an iPad Mini in the flesh today, the display still looks
fantastic unless I shove it all the way up to my eyeball and declare I can see
the pixels. They're also selling second hand for an £80 markup. Seems
consumers are still keen.

~~~
davewiner
I never said those words that you put in "quotes."

I love it when people argue with words they "made up."

:-)

------
elorant
That’s what happens when people are idolized beyond common sense. Everyone now
believes that a multibillion company with some of the greatest minds in the
market can’t keep their shit together because the enlightened leader left for
greener pastures.

Apple had flops with Jobs around also. Stop assuming that he had the answer to
every problem because he didn’t. Many of his predictions were way off (as it
should, no one is God to know everything). Steve this and Steve that. Well the
guy is dead, get over it.

Assuming that the market will devalue Apple to the point that would signal
their demise is utter nonsense. Microsoft have had a decade of flops and
they’re still alive and kicking. Apple will be around for many years to come
and I’m sure they’ll be as innovative as we’ve come to expect them.

------
arrrg
Apples’s Steve Jobs is awesome at compromising. It nearly always picks the
right compromises. If all your products fit on one table you have to be.

Here are the trade offs involved in the decision of whether or not to bring a
retina screen to the iPad mini:

Weight vs retina

Volume vs retina

Battery life vs retina

Price vs retina

Weight, volume and battery life are all related and weight plus volume can
also be traded off with reduced battery life.

Apple seems to believe that weight, volume and price are preferable to a
retina screen. To me that sounds like a pretty reasonable trade off,
especially given that one of the principal complaints about the iPad (and also
mentioned in the article) is that it’s so damn heavy.

------
statictype
The crux of this article seems to be that Steve Jobs would never have let a
non retina iPad ship after retina displays became available because he
wouldn't like to ship anything that could be perceived as inferior in any way.

Here's the problem with that: Outside of geeks, the retina display matters a
lot less than most of us would think. You'd be surprised at how many people
can barely tell the difference between the two displays.

The high resolution display is simply not as an integral part of the
experience as the author seems to think. The display _is_ just a feature. Like
disk space and RAM.

~~~
davewiner
Actually people who are not geeks whose vision isn't that great can really see
the difference. I happen to be such a person. Even though of course I am quite
technically proficient, which I suppose would make me a "geek."

------
olgeni
> "Steve never would have shipped it."

One can only hope that by 2050 this daily Steve-o-rama lament will be replaced
by something slightly more interesting.

> "Steve's Apple never deigned to do something as crass as "competing."

The yearly iTunes connect shutdown for "winter holidays" looks crass enough
and it should suffice.

------
appleflaxen
Taken in combination with Apple's fumble of the recent court-mandated apology
and issues with map functionality, it's easy to understand why their share
price has retracted. They are still at the top of the mobile food chain, but
these recent events are frustrating.

------
js2
Summary: Jobs wouldn't have shipped the iPad mini with a non-retina display.

~~~
AndreasFrom
And Apple are starting to do things to compete with, for instance, Google and
Amazon. Steve's Apple didn't have to compete because they were years ahead;
there was no competition.

------
prospero
_Not my idea of what Apple is, and definitely not Steve's._

Because Steve and me, see, we were like peas in a pod. He would have run this
whole iPad Mini thing past me first.

~~~
davewiner
Hah!

I should have put "imho" at the end of every sentence.

You got me!! :-)

------
pacomerh
Hurts my eyes to read this kind of stuff, so I had to stop. OMG it doesn't
have the shiny little pixels, I can't do this, this is horrible. (gun in my
head)

------
jeffehobbs
ouch. Spot on. The lack of Retina Display is a deal-breaker and a weird
backslide.

