Apple had Siri out and was in the lead with voice control, then they wasted it. I never use Siri, she is nearly worthless, but I do use Alexa multiple times a day. Amazon is Leading the voice assistant market, and Google is right on their heels.
Home automation was supposed to get better with HomeKit but arrived basically stalled. They announced all these partners and sold their products at the Apple Store. Then when HomeKit finally was ready none of those products worked with HomeKit. You had to buy newer versions that had some proprietary Apple chip in it.
Apple's cloud offering is confusing and hard to manage, also it doesn't work with other platforms besides their own. Amazon and Google both do this much better.
AppleTv is a great product but Apple can't seem to really work with partners to make it actually innovative. The TV app is a cool idea, but I've yet to find any reason to actually use it.
It just seems like they've been wondering aimlessly and dropping half products out there then never iterating and finishing them. Is there some other hidden project (car?) taking all their top talent? Is there some sort of corporate culture issue that has driven all the best and brightest brightest elsewhere? Is there a lot of mismanagement and mixed signals coming down from above?
While on winter holidays my fiance pointed out to me:
- She just got a new Macbook Pro from her new job, which has only USB C ports
- She just got a new iPhone 7 from her new job, which is only a Lightning port
She cannot connect her phone to her computer to charge without a dongle. EDIT: a Lightning to USB C cable does exist now. That is still equivalent to a dongle in my opinion, as the consumer still has to buy it and it is a cable that won't be used for anything else.
She has to carry two sets of headphones, one for her computer, and one for her phone.
The unified vision at Apple is gone.
Now Microsoft has dedicated products for high-end creatives (Surface studio won't sell but still shows interest in pros), Linux Bash shell in windows 10. Meanwhile Apple wants pros to use a 9" tablet instead of a laptop.
Every single professional who uses the Surface Studio practically has an orgasm.
If Microsoft keeps support up for it long enough that the CAD program developers are willing to take the plunge on the new features and integrate them into their programs, it will completely displace Apple with the high-end professionals.
The question is whether Microsoft will keep pumping money into the line long enough to get the application developers on board. They've been burned several times.
I see a fundamental shift has taken place at Microsoft under Satya's direction. Open-sourcing the core technologies that act as the foundation for Microsoft is a huge deal. Surface Studio uncompromisingly for pros (a big problem for MS hardware in the past is that they try to hedge their bets- try to jam stuff in there for everyone).
When you think about how quickly this has changed, it looks like Satya has a clear vision for MS, and pros are part of that vision. When's the last time you've seen a 'visionary' Microsoft (that didn't involved delusional thinking)?
The difference is now Microsoft is providing the crapware, the crapware isn't malicious (like say, Superfish was), and it's not that difficult for power users to disable it or tuck it out of the way.
I love Windows 10 (at least, as much as my love for Windows goes), yes MS made some moves towards treating it a bit like Google and Apple treat their mobile OSes, but not horridly large steps.
I haven't seen it yet, but it's still early days.
You cite some examples, examples that are real, eye-catching, but for me not substantive. The fundamental shift I'm looking for is a true shift in customer focus. Microsoft's big customer is enterprise I/T, who is not the end user for much of the tech. Azure seems designed to help State Farm (to pick an F500 at random) add some of that new cloud stuff to their Windows ecosystem. A good business decision, but in the age of AWS and even google services, it's simply incremental.
I could be unfair in saying "not substantive" to the open source initiatives, simply because it's such a huge philosophical shift (to a small part of their business, at least so far). Otherwise, I'm not seeing it yet.
But it takes a very long time to steer a big ship like Microsoft or Apple.
I do agree though the Surface Studio gets my interest in a way that iMacs haven't since the iMac G4. It seemed like after the G4 they just kept phoning it in with yet another pizza box iMac.
I think it has huge potential outside of CAD. Anything that deals with complex flows of data/material would benefit from such an interface.
VR needs a couple of things, and they aren't going to happen in less than a year. First and most importantly, cheaper and better hardware. Daydream is nice, but at most it is good for 360 video and some cheap games. Get some head tracking in there somehow and then it becomes interesting. Also, it needs something like the oculus touch controllers or vive controllers so you can actually use your hands for things.
Secondly, an actual killer app. Some kind of game that only works in VR. Something that you want to keep coming back to.
Lastly - simplicity. Daydream is simple but too limited. The vive has all the features but setting up lighthouses is a pain unless you can permanently mount them. Also being tethered to your computer sucks (A solution for that is on the way, but it will only add to the cost.) Headsets are still bulky and uncomfortable to wear for long periods.
My point I guess is that Apple's typical timing with things would put them entering the market in 2018 at the earliest. This is like the early Windows Phone/PalmOS days before the iPhone (But I doubt Apple will be the one releasing the "iPhone" of VR.)
As for myself, even without a killer app, VR has gotten me saving memories as photo spheres, in addition to pictures and videos.
Costs will come down, but 2017 won't be the year. I expect VR to grow, but only in the gaming market.
I'm more interested in AR, personally. But it's hard for me to articulate why exactly because honestly I don't have much experience with it yet. It just seems more interesting to me. I'd really like to get a Hololens to start experimenting with, but can't really justify the cost of it right now.
(disclosure: I work for Microsoft, which makes Hololens. Not meaning to promote it, these are my personal opinions)
I work at an AEC firm. We give money and some privilege to 2-3 people at work to experiment with VR. It's interesting to some degree but, beyond being a marketing tool, I don't really see it being useful as a professional tool any time soon.
These things are hard to call though, like anything in future tech (or the future in general). They consider it revolutionary new tech whereas I'm on the side of "shiny new toy" and "wait and see" but the powers that be have no issue spending the money on it while I see some of core competencies and actual training for the future being ignored (transitions to BIM and training in better 3D modeling programs).
Not my company or money though.
I, and I think enough other people, already have a $1k+ PC for the huge amount of non-VR games it gives access to.
But the big catch for me is that there just doesn't seem to be enough content that will work with and (more importantly) be enhanced by a VR experience. I simply don't have the cash-on-hand to justify spending ~$800 to make Elite Dangerous slightly more immersive. But if a good VR headset was more in the $200 range (like the very similarly limited hotas I bought for the same reason) I would probably jump.
It does seem like this year may bring the cost of the devices down low enough that more devs and more audience can get on board and bring it in to the main stream because it is very nearly there already.
* Headset Pricing: Major OEMs will be releasing headsets starting at $300 
* Lowering system specs for VR 
* Not just a gaming focus: Windows 10 creators update puts an emphasis on 3D and Mixed-Reality, including a 'holographic' interface 
It honestly feels like only minor improvements in size/speed/usability will make it massively useful in normal life very soon.
Take theaters for example. They have been looking for a market for years but since people have screens and streaming at home they don't tend to go as much. However they could find a new life by purchasing VR headsets in bulk and selling livestreams of plays/musicals/operas, and possibly sports games as well. These will always be experiences better seen live, but VR would be a significant step above television.
That way someone could enjoy VR at a very low cost, and possibly spur them to buy a headset themselves, when the price is right.
GTX 970 = $155: http://ebay.com/itm/371833128329
GTX 980 = $235: http://ebay.com/itm/291993305929
Gaming PC with GTX 970 = $540: http://ebay.com/itm/112250177638
Gaming PC with GTX 1070 = $690: http://ebay.com/itm/222369412011
And my thoughts are that Apple cannot bring the same Stevie vision of simplicity and use to VR, which is why they will never care about it.
They'll have to stick better graphics cards in their computers, but that's doable.
Probably their biggest challenge would be coming up with a headset that is "Apple-y", given that the design issues involved in creating them right now still create something fundamentally klunky. (VR is starting to take off not because anyone's figured out how to make it not klunky, but because it transitioned from intolerably klunky to tolerably klunky. Along with the latency improvements.)
I'm not saying they're going to do it. But they could.
Cheaper, lower-quality VR headsets will leave a bad impression on consumers. I don't think that's the direction we should be going. I'd rather see HTC and Oculus release higher-res, faster refresh rate HMDs, but I doubt they'd do that with no single GPU able to run those today.
You can further reduce the computational costs by using foveated rendering(http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/johnsny/papers...). You can use low-latency eye-tracking to spend more time rendering the portions of the frame that the user is actively looking at.
I think the combo of falling gpu prices, and clever hardware design means we will probably see headsets with effectively higher and higher resolutions sooner rather than later.
Wonder if that will help or hinder VR. Personally I think the Vive is just about the bare minimum needed for VR to barely be acceptable. If peoples first impression of VR is something less than that I doubt they'll be impressed enough to actually use VR for more than 15 minutes over the first 2 weeks after purchase.
Despite their "this is all about the developer" statements, making Windows Subsystem for Linux unable to co-exist with VMware and other virtualization tools was a deal-breaker for me.
Specifically, it's enabling Hyper-V which makes Windows incompatible with VMware. The incompatibility results in more issues than just those with the bash shell. The big one for me is Docker for Windows:
I think I will just try it out and revert back if there's an issue, since I can't find clear documentation about it being incompatible. So I assume I'm wrong.
I can let you know if you like.
But, I only have one USB-C port. I also want to charge my laptop. So I have a ludicrous dongle from Apple that lets me plug HDMI, USB, and power (over USB-C) at one time.
But, the USB port on the dongle is USB-A, and I need to use the USB-C port to charge, so I would have to use a USB-A cable to connect my iPhone if I am using that dongle.
Yes: I could always use the dongle and the USB-A cable. But that dongle is so annoying to bother with that I actually carry around all three: two cables and the dongle.
Maybe the understanding gap here is that you don't really use your laptop very much? I use my laptop constantly. I am a developer (as are probably most people on this website), and I own a fancy laptop so I can be mobile: not thinking about the use case of a mobile developer is very strange in the context of a conversation about mobile computers in a large group of developers.
(To be clear, to avoid even more miscommunication: despite the relatively small warts in this setup which seem to violate the standard design process of Apple, I like this computer and purposefully chose it with complete knowledge of what cables it would require. I wish it had a second USB-C port instead of the headphone jack, even though that would cause me to carry around another adapter, as the adapter usage would be less, but I appreciate this was essentialy their beta of USB-C and was not where and when they wanted to start the headphone war.)
Sorry i actually did not reread your original comment when replying and was assuming this was about the Macbook Pro... If you only have one port there is indeed only the usb-c hub solution which can be annoying.
So far as I can tell the idea is Lightning ports for devices which require charging, and USB ports for devices which require data transfer.
All cables designed to provide power utilize a USB A connector - this is the majority of Lightning cables. In their current lineup this can be used to charge an iPad, iPhone, Apple Watch, and Air Pods case.
I recognize a lot of users still use the Lightning cable to transfer data to/from the phone to/from a computer. I'm betting Apple views these users as the current edge case.
Given that - it seems only a matter of time until an iPhone which has no ports, similar to the Apple Watch.
I imagine they'd rather not deal with USB-C on their devices at all - given the madness behind the different power capabilities of cables that seem to plague the specification. But they also recognize that is the future of general-use cables and are embracing it accordingly.
Given the lack of ability to charge any Apple peripheral directly from the newest Macbook (12" or Pro) models I suspect the internal rule is that devices with batteries aren't considered charging sources.
I'm personally excited to see the directions Apple keeps moving towards. I think it'll end up a more unified future than we've had yet. But I'm also ready to be wrong. I'll try to look back on this in a few years and see how we are.
Unless we invent seriously good wireless charging, I just can't see that happening. There's too many cases where having your phone "docked" just doesn't work.
Personally, I usually fall asleep with my phone laying on the bed next to me playing YouTube/Netflix/etc. No way to do that if it has to be resting on a pad like the Watch.
And what about cars and navigation? Can't throw your phone in your cup holder and pull up Maps anymore. You either need a new car with wireless charging or need to strap some sort of wireless charging pad to the back, which defeats the entire purpose of wireless charging.
Given that general design I imagine sleeping with the phone next to you in bed or in a cup holder shouldn't be much different than it is now - if anything the rotational flexibility provided by the magnetic puck charger would be advantageous in both situations.
Jony Ive has a thing for reducing devices to their core-most functionality. It's a design trait picked up from the likes of Deiter Rams. One of the easiest ways to reduce a device is to reduce or eliminate points of ingress. An iPhone which has no port for charging and the updated speakers from the Series 2 Apple Watch designed for waterproofing would be more ideal.
* Firm enough that you can pick up and move the watch about using only the puck as leverage.
Ive likes to associate himself with Rams, and people like to throw around the "as little design as possible" meme, but Ive and Rams are really very different in their execution of that idea, which counts for a lot. Ive is much more willing to challenge convention in his reductions, which sometimes pays off, but sometimes it means his products are a pain in the ass for the user to figure out when they ship. This can't be said of Rams.
Except the new macbooks use USB C for charging, and one of the things Apple emphasized when they switched from 30-pin to lightning was the increased data rate. There's no consistency. This is just another case of everyone moving toward a standard (micro-usb and now usb-c) and Apple ignoring it, except this time Apple doesn't have any excuse.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we never been able to connect iPhone's to computers without a special cable.
It's baffling, but not new.
I disagree, their unified vision is a wireless one. But you could say they rushed it at the expense of the consumer.
But how many dollars worth of experience, education, and attentiveness?
That MacBookPro 13" without touchbar comes with just two USB-C and an old-school audio port (gone in iPhone7) is just stupid, as one USB-C port is used to charge the notebook.
Steve Jobs vision and his personal testing of products is missing. He would have prevented such things leaving the factory.
Beside that little ports and touchbar fiasco, the MacBookPro is a good notebook. (though I wished Intel would get their act together and finally release a chipset for 32GB RAM)
My theory is that something happened and Apple felt it was forced to release the new MBP 6 months or maybe 1 year before the whole line was ready.
An iPhone 7 buyer is far more likely to find a USB-A port to plug into. Your idea would be to make the masses buy a dongle, instead of the minority who own brand new laptops.
The AirPort has never come with an Ethernet cable
The iPod never shipped with both FireWire and USB to 30 pin cables
The ThunderBolt Display was incompatible with Macs without ThunderBolt ports
The 30" Cinema display was only compatible with the Mac Pro when it launched and later required adapters (not included) to be used on other Macs
The original iPhone's recessed headphone jack required an adapter to use older iPod headphones
The first generation of Apple USB mice/keyboards did not come with an ADB adapter
* Buy adapter.
* Buy extension cord.
* Buy USB-C cable.
Those aren't packaged together anymore so now you get 3 separate boxes full of packaging just for a power adaptor. It feels wasteful... not to mention annoying if the apple sales person forgets to tell you you need to buy USB-C separately! And the correct one at that.
Unless the latest macbook and the latest phone are released at exactly the same time, this was always going to happen.
They could have added 2 cables, which is a huge waste since most people only need one.
Or they could have kept a shitty USB-A port on the macbook, which is not progressive enough for Apple.
Is it still a valid point once USB-C to Lightning Cable is out?
At least i can't remember the last time I did.
Especially the Pro model consumers. It's fine for reduced ports on an Air or MacBook, you're going to make sacrifices for portability. For a flagship laptop consumers expect options.
It seem some friction to be inevitable when new physical connector is introduced.
I have a cable that never moves from my bedside, it plugs my Pixel C-to-C into the brick. I have C-to-A cables at my desk at work and at home, neither moves. Your car's C-to-A cable (presumably) doesn't leave your car.
The move to C on the host end is something that hasn't happened recently (not since A took off >10 years ago), but the move to C on the device-end is comparable to the move to the original 30-pin i-device cable, Mini/Micro-USB, or Lightning. It's obnoxious but inevitable.
Far more people own laptops with USB-A ports, and far more people never even plug their phones into anything besides their wall charger.
The iPhone isn't just for Mac users.
USB type-c to type-a doesn't require an active dongle.
And why does your girlfriend need two sets of headphones when there is an included 3.5mm adapter with the iPhone ?
So many questions. Because literally nothing you wrote seems to make much sense.
It feels like all the protests about Vista back then. When in reality this was trivial compared to the fact there was virtually nothing exciting coming out from them and they misstepped on huge new markets.
I honestly get the impression they are shocked that people don't love all the new stuff as much as they expected.
I live in London. Apple maps is a disaster. Businesses which have moved shop years ago are in the wrong place. Traffic routes which are congested every day are recommended. It's literally a waste of my life to use this software.
Despite this flaw (and the fact that the head unit is actually useless until your plug in your iPhone), Apple maps is the only navigation software permitted to run on these head units; even though, it is permissible to use Google Maps or Waze when I am walking on the pavement; even though, it is permissible to mount my phone to my car and use an alternative navigation software.
Additionally, on the subject of "wireless grand unification," you can only connect your phone via USB.
Are people submitting corrections? It's amazing how quickly they respond here in the US, at least where I am. I submit corrections and usually see a notification within a week that it's been addressed.
No defense for the maps restriction, however.
Thankfully that doesn't bug me so much, because I tend to want to charge my phone when I drive anyway.
Imagine if, instead of Apple Watch, they had put those folks into building the AppleTV into a home hub based on Siri. I feel like Apple Watch was to be their "always available assistant" but I just don't see it succeeding in that market for most people.
(Siri isn't as good as Alexa or Google's thing but that's a separate issue...)
The problem was they each always try to just extend their corporate wall around your home. Rather than giving an inviting place to encourage innovation in your home. Apple has the same "our way, on our time" mentality that stifles innovation by third parties. For a time, this was offset by the awesome innovations they were providing. That time seems to be ending.
The XBox has Cortana, I think, but does the PS4 have a "smart assistant"?
That's why I unhooked the Kinect that was forced upon me when I bought a launch day box, and put it in the garage. That pile of garbage worked just often enough to trick me into trying to rely on it. But 80% isn't anywhere near good enough, IMO.
- Apple had Siri out and was in the lead with voice control, then they wasted it.
- Home automation was supposed to get better with HomeKit but arrived basically stalled.
- Apple's cloud offering is confusing and hard to manage
- AppleTv is a great product but Apple can't seem to really work with partners
I think this statement can be generalized to almost every single product Apple sells or has sold. They've seriously excelled at innovation in the past (tons of great historic computers, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad, Siri, etc.) but then it's like the whole company eventually gets bored with Product X and moves on because "Innovation is Out There!"
So did iOS, well before Android. They just didn't have a cutesy name for it.
But otherwise, it was the future. Just think if you were supposed to control your device with voice only. Blind people could use it. Car drivers could use it. Lazy people could use it.
Siri took a long time to integrate into apps. Siri took a while to get some intelligence. Siri took a while to integrate more into the OS. Siri became just another app but with a hardware shortcut. Nothing more. Future spoiled.
That's rather subjective. My experiences with Siri have been way better than with Google.
> You had to buy newer versions that had some proprietary Apple chip in it.
Not accurate at all.
> Apple can't seem to really work with partners to make it actually innovative.
Neither can Google or Roku. Content providers are stubborn.
> they've been wondering aimlessly and dropping half products out there then never iterating and finishing them
You just described Google, actually.
(side note: in my experience Alexa is much worse at understanding what I'm asking)
edit: to quote the article: "Shrinking iPhone sales last year caused Apple to suffer its first annual revenue decline in 15 years." Apple is incredibly successful, all of this declaring them dead because they had a bad quarter is kind of dumb.
A few sources disagree:
> "Apple’s MFi guidelines require manufacturers to use only Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, and also include a specialized chip for authentication"
> "The certification ensures that these smart home devices have an authentication chip and have undergone rigorous testing to get Apple’s official seal of approval"
> "Apple Inc. requires anyone making a device compatible with its HomeKit environment to buy and use a special identity chip."
Now, I don't have access to the official docs for MFi - so maybe these sources are all wrong. But I'm pretty confident a special chip is required.
Homebridge is presumably making use of some debug mode that you wouldn't use in a shipping product - and if you did, Apple wouldn't let you advertise it as officially compatible with HomeKit.
Still neat - but hardly the sort of thing that implies you can ship a product utilizing Homekit without following the MFi spec.
These devices all have active developer communities and good API/interaction. I plugged my Amazon Echo in and it immediately detected all three and allowed me to control them seamlessly. I don't know what the specific issue is but it sure seems like Apple is the problem.
Considering the rise in IoT based DDoS attacks and the ftc going after companies like D-Link for poor security practices, aren't security standards like Apple is requiring something we want to commend?
You can also install a general homekit proxy with a general nodejs server called homebridge. That homekit proxy can control anything with any kind of security.
So at this point it's just another proprietary standard unfortunately :( Might as well call it another MFi program.
What would you like Apple to do?
> Where many companies fail to secure their products at all or use simple 128-bit encryption, all HomeKit certified hardware includes a dedicated security co-processor paired with 3072-bit keys and the very secure Curve25519 key exchange system
No clue where you're getting this from. HomeKit is bigger/better than ever. There are tons of new HomeKit compatible devices being shown at CES this year. You can goto major hardware stores like Home Depot and Lowes and buy HomeKit lights, outlets, switches, door locks, etc. Apple made some nice improvements to HomeKit in iOS 10 by adding the 'Home' app and including control of HomeKit accessories in Control Center. They also added a bunch of new features to the HomeKit APIs to support new types of devices. I've never heard anything about incompatible HomeKit devices. It's possible but I'm using all first-gen devices and they work fine so I doubt it.
Just ask "Who's the next President of the United States of America." OK Google gets it. Siri shows you a list of web/wiki articles.
But when you're an executive and the different in bonus is $8M vs $5M? Sure its a huge number that you didn't get an extra three million dollars but what can you do differently with $8M that you can't do with $5M? So my question to the Oracle exec was "Does it really motivate you to work harder, smarter, etc if the difference between hitting it out of the park and not doing so has no impact on your lifestyle?" And his answer was that most of the people that he worked with were "score" motivated, it wasn't the money it was that they had a bigger score than their competitive exec.
I'm not sure I really believe that. I mean could Oracle just have Brownie Points as their bonus metric and still get the same performance effort? But it really did surprise me that the number was important even though the effect of the number on their lifestyle was probably not noticeable.
I think Tim needs to avoid being painted like Steve Ballmer, an exec that led Microsoft to higher growth, profit, and sales, and into the swamp. And for that reason, not the size of his bonus this year, he needs to pay attention to the changing forces in the market.
i think it's important to realise that the scale of income has an extreme range and we are already on the upper end and definitely rich by global standards. my personal opinion is that a majority of people living in the western world is actually rich and any complaints on salaries by these are just first world problems.
on a more constructive note, i think i've seen a study that said that higher salary actually does motivate more, but hits the point of diminishing returns at about (i think) 80k or 100k. I don't remember which country and whether it was $ or €, but that should give a sense of the rough order of magnitude.
My experience of being an engineer in the Bay Area, with three kids and a wife, has been that much of my annual salary has been consumed in costs which I felt I "had" to pay (mortgage, power, food, pre-school or school, clothes, saving for the future (401k)). And while I recognize that from an annual salary, property ownership, and actually having savings for retirement that made me "rich", a bit of extra money from bonuses would enable things like replacing an older car, or a family trip to Hawaii. Often times the bulk of any "extra" money would go into things like the savings fund for my kids college tuition.
For me, and my living situation, when I had the option of earning a bonus it would enable something in my life (saving for kids educations, a vacation trip) that would normally be outside of my financial profile. As a result I was motivated to compete for those bonuses. But had all those other things been covered vacationing every year in the Alps in my chalet, private jet service where ever I wanted to go etc. Extra money would have very little motivation for me. That is why I was really curious about how it motivated someone who had a multi-million dollar bonus program.
1. Wealth is exponentially distributed.
2. People tend to socialize with people in their rough income range.
3. Expenses tend to grow to fill any budget.
4. US society isn't very good at saving money, so most
people's budget for spending is their entire income.
1. People tend to know a few people who make >10x what they do,
a few people who make <1/10x what they do,
and a lot of people that make about what they do.
2. Normal expenses in a milieu are enough to use up a person's entire income.
3. A person's idea of a luxury will tend towards something
that would require >10x their income to be affordable.
When I moved to the Bay Area from LA it was with the plan to get a house as quickly as I could, build up some equity in the house while working for a company with offices outside of the Bay Area and then transfer to one of those offices when we had kids so that using the equity in our California house we could greatly reduce our burn rate and in a lower cost of living location and support a one earner payroll. So paying attention to our burn rate as a family was critical to understanding what the payroll requirements would be on a single earner to maintain a lifestyle that didn't add stress to our lives.
And there are lots of things that incrementally add burn rate, communication charges, cable service, eating out, expensive to maintain cars, debt (especially credit card debt) etc. I also had aspirations for paying my kids college tuition (even though tuition was rising much faster than incomes or inflation) and being able to reach a point where I could develop enough passive income from investments/dividends/royalties/what have you that I would not be required charge an employer for my services in order to survive. Doing that math kind of make #4 a necessity, had to send money into the future (save) so that it could cover those costs which I wouldn't be able to cover out of a paycheck.
On your corollaries I find #1 is blown away by attending a church. It is especially true if you're volunteering for some of the community service activities at said church.
I certainly see #2 as a valid up to a point, per the $75K mention earlier. I remember working as a summer Intern and getting paid $200 a week and thinking "Wow, I can't even spend all the money I'm making!" but yes, you can always spend more without too much effort. During (and after) the 2009 banking crisis when people I knew were out of work and looking at being so for a "long" time a few of them were astonished at how much their monthly expenses has creeped up on them without thinking about it. One guy who was out of work for 18 months, once he got back to work he and his family made an explicit agreement to talk about 'incremental' costs before they took them on.
I also don't know about Corollary #3. Perhaps its a magnitude thing.
Corollary #3 is the one I feel the shakiest about. Interesting point about church. Childhood friends who went into careers with diverse income ranges, combined with a social scene outside my career does some of the same things for me, but I suspect church would do a yet better job in keeping me grounded.
another thought: you could donate all of it. the perfect money sink. it actually helps, and more of it helps better. so with an altruistic mind you can get motivated with that no matter on which salary level :)
But how about you? Do you feel better about yourself if you have more art? or more cars? a bigger house? a staff?
And if so, why does that make you feel better about yourself?
Whoever said that money was an obedient servant but a cruel master pretty much nailed it.
There are, of course, plenty of things to worry about that money cannot solve. But having known the kind of worries brought on by too little money, I very much appreciate that none of my current worries are about money. Anything beyond that is nice to have, but I doubt anything could beat that feeling of not having to worry about money any longer.
Sure my family with an extra 100k could do a handful of extra things in life but quality of life isn't going to change because of it.
Happiness does not grow linearly with salary and happiness is what you ultimately want to maximize. Income is only one input, and as it grows, it can actually complicate your life decreasing your happiness.
A person making 60k a year losing 15% of their income? There's likely to be significant lifestyle changes.
Furthermore, I think any financial advisor would advise that your 'lifestyle' not depend on one year's bonus!
but of course it's true that the further you go up the scale, the more absurd it becomes to talk about serious comfort losses, and there's a point on the lower end where we're talking about actual poverty.
 (warning self starting video) http://www.investopedia.com/articles/financialcareers/10/buf...
Piketty, Capital in the Twenty First Century
It is very difficult to give a precise estimate of the value of Tim Cook's contribution to Apple, or indeed what it might be at any other firm. Competitive markets do not need (and often must not) rely on comprehensive estimate analysis pricing to determine the value of something to the parties making the exchange. This is why they were much more successful than totalitarian central planning: central planners found themselves forced to try costing out all prices in terms of their complete component parts and recursing ad nauseam, rapidly running into limited knowledge issues. Instead, I find the more Hayekian analysis of prices emerging through human behaviour on voluntary transactions much more compelling.
While Piketty is right to mention that the market is embodied in specific institutions and that no market exists in pure isolation from institutional dynamics, these different institutions do exert competitive pressure on one another.
I agree with the basic thesis that as the productivity of workers (as measured by $ generated per worker hour of labor) has gone up tremendously in the silicon age, and that the fruits of that gain have been disproportionately allocated to management. But as the root of that gain has been the transition for goods economies to information economies, and information economies are particularly susceptible to price correction through antagonistic action Given the challenges of creating barriers to entry, the information economics will (in my opinion of course) eventually force capital to the creators away from management.
 In the goods economy if the price of a car is too high you substitute other goods (like bikes or motorcycles) but in an information economy if your price is too high people simply pirate the content and take the capital out by force. cite: Netflix vs Napster vs MPAA.
Piketty argues that the root of the move towards equality from 1945-1995 was long-lasting economic shocks after WWII:
Quite different in their effect were the rates of 20–30 percent or higher that were imposed in most wealthy countries in the wake of the military, economic, and political shocks of 1914–1945. The upshot of such taxes was that each successive generation had to reduce its expenditures and save more (or else make particularly profitable investments) if the family fortune was to grow as rapidly as average income. Hence it became more and more difficult to maintain one's rank. Conversely, it became easier for those who started at the bottom to make their way, for instance by buying businesses or shares sold when estates went to probate.
> Given the challenges of creating barriers to entry, the information economics will (in my opinion of course) eventually force capital to the creators away from management.
Until we can eat information, or make a house out of information, we won't be living in an information economy. (Even at that point you can bet that someone will have figured out how to gate/moat/control/curate/distribute the most "necessary" information, much as corporations and the press do today). For now we need to rely on taxation to redistribute the returns on capital:
Without taxes, society has no common destiny, and collective action is impossible. This has always been true. At the heart of every major political upheaval lies a fiscal revolution. The Ancien Régime was swept away when the revolutionary assemblies voted to abolish the fiscal privileges of the nobility and clergy and establish a modern system of universal taxation. The American Revolution was born when subjects of the British colonies decided to take their destiny in hand and set their own taxes. ("No taxation without representation"). Two centuries later the context is different, but the heart of the issue remains the same. How can sovereign citizens democratically decide how much of their resources they wish to devote to common goals such as education, health, retirement, inequality reduction, employment, sustainable development, and so on?
2016 net sales and operating income were
96.4% and 99.5% of the respective target
goals set by the Compensation Committee.
This performance resulted in a combined
payout at 89.5% of target for each named
executive officer ... the 2016 payouts to
our named executive officers were significantly
less than the annual cash incentive payouts for
2015, reflecting strong pay-for-performance alignment.
The Compensation Committee determined that no downward
adjustments to the payouts would be made, based on
Apple’s 2016 performance and the individual
contributions of our named executive officers.
I can believe it. I once worked at an investment bank where, during bonus time, I needed to deal with an issue at a trading desk. While there I had the following conversation with a particularly angry fixed income trader.
Me: Hey Trader, what's got you so pissed off?
Trader: Just got my bonus. I got 13MM, but Trader2 got 16MM! Can you believe it?! I made way more money than Trader2 this year!!!
Nice problems to have.
No, because brownie points are not backed by the full faith of the US government.
Bigger is better. As simple as that.
You can do a heck of a lot more with $3m than $13k.
I know you're thinking proportionally, but that's not necessarily correct.
And you can always find things you really need the money for. Want a mega-yacht? Better start saving, because $13M ain't gonna cut it.
Apple has always made controversial decisions of this fashion in its history, many today don't remember because they weren't Apple customers then. I think those who said Steve Jobs wouldn't have let these decisions happen couldn't be further from the truth. But these decisions have usually paid off, there just were less people then to notice/complain.
A lot of the decisions made on the products released last year actually make a lot of sense to me. If anything, Apple should simply stop including the earpods with the iPhone to reduce confusion and waste. Moving away from the headphone jack is not just about wireless and space, but making the DAC part of the speakers/drivers system. The lightning port is destined to disappear eventually too, with induction or wireless charging.
I think a lot of this is the result of Apple being ahead of the curve (and partly driving it), and is consistent with Apple looking ahead and delivering long-term value products. A wise investor would see the stance of the company keeping course for the vision in the face of such bad publicity as a good sign it hasn't lost its edge.
Uh, they subside because people don't want to argue over stuff that happened 1-2 years ago... do you still argue about apple's change from it's 30-pin to lightning connector that happened in 2012? no, because you either 1: just dealt with the annoyance that you had to rebuy charging cables or 2: decide buying these cables was not worth your loyalty to apple and just stopped buying iphones.
i'm not going to argue about the new iphone only having a lightning connector and no headphone jack in 2 years. why? because i'll either be using a device that actually has a headphone jack or i'll just give in and buy lightning headphones. the difference between the "uproar" is whether this causes people to start rethinking buying an iphone.
another thing: the decisions apple made for the macbook pro will _probably_ make sense in 2 years, the problem is this laptop exists now. not 1-2 years from now when, "it will make sense"
And I recently went from "kinda upset about the headphone jack" to "oh man, these airpods are infinitely better", so...
Oh, and I also checked out the 13" Mac Pro in-store. I was a very upset Mac Air aficionado, but I could see myself using the base-level 13" Mac Pro.
I'm not mad anymore about these things, I've just come around.
I could not be happier with the Lightning connector, I just wish Apple had opened the standard or proposed its use for USB.
So nothing wrong with the audio jack, it's just that exporting it from the phone usually makes for a better user experience. Ultimately earphones should not be tied to a device but thought of as tied to your head and be able to switch between your devices seamlessly.
I feel like "usually" is a kind of a big leap here, since there's been exactly one phone to do this, and the verdict is still out about whether it's a "better user experience".
> Ultimately earphones should not be tied to a device but thought of as tied to your head and be able to switch between your devices seamlessly.
That's exactly what we had before when every single device had a headphone jack. I'm not sure having my headphones work normally on most devices but then randomly need a dongle for another is "seamless".
The funny thing is they'll probably come with a quarter inch adapter because a lot of Pro audio gear and some of the highest quality vintage stereo equipment ever made only have quarter inch jacks.
There is just no rational narrative applicable when Apple launches their 2 flaghip products separated by 2 months (iPhone and MacBook Pro) and they have totally different ports.
That's a complete lack of strategy like the two teams didn't communicate with eachother.
I was considering moving on from Apple myself, but decided that I like their hardware and my workflow is good on macOS and iOS (on a iPad Pro). I just bought a MacBook and when my Android phone is 4 years old (soon), I am going to get an iPhone.
Apple products are expensive but I spend so much time with them that the extra cost is worth it. Still, I wish Tim Cook and the board of directors would sit down together and compare Siri with Google Now and Google Assistant.
Apple's stock price is being driven by buybacks and cheap liquidity (i.e. borrowing against their foreign cash hoard to pay out dividends). This ultimately has nothing to do with technology.
But those who were polarized in the positive direction probably got it and do love it.
I started as someone very sceptical about the touch bar. I don't like it yet, but I don't hate it now.
Apple is dropping faster than excrement in the bowl.
There are companies that use large (10% or more) dividend yields to inflate their share price, which lets them dilute their stock at better valuations. Small shipping companies do this. It's a strategy that's long ceased to be possible by the time a company's valued at a billion USD, let alone over half a trillion.
It seems to me that executive compensation has become so inflated, it's lost its incentive value.
If my bonus was a multiple of my salary I would probably think more about increasing the bonus at any cost.
I would hate to rely so much on bonus. You can't count a mortgage payment on it. Shouldn't really count retirement on it.
He basically lives off his salary and is building up a reserve from the bonuses that he will then plan to spend in a controlled fashion. The general sentiment of that industry though seems to be "you should earn enough to not care about money, and if you don't you probably aren't good enough to deserve to be a banker."
"Eh, I'm unhappy but I might as well stay around just another 6 months to get the next bonus. Then I'm gone."
The idea presented here by Steve about what happens when sales people run the company is becoming more and more true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBma82g3Uag
Jobs likely had zero tolerance for good enough products. Cook, I presume, would have wanted people to stay that course but looks like that didn’t happen, and he wouldn’t boss them around until it did, because maybe he himself doesn’t know what is great and what isn’t and delegates that to his lieutenants, and because that’s just not who he is and how he treats his people.
Apple execs have to do a lot of soul searching to do and should put their resources to a better use. Invest in quality products(that was their trademark but they kind of lost their way there), invest in ‘cloud’ services and AI/ML because they can’t afford not to, innovate in hardware, and understand that many of their competitors are constantly and consistently out-Apple-ing them so time is ticking.
I think it's very short-sighted of Apple to neglect their MacOS business in favour of iOS devices, even though iPhone sales might trounch MacOS's now.
Outside of the technology bubble, most people don't know or care about many of the issues you cited, or what "loyal followers" on internet forums think. Major investors, who are the only people who could force Cook out, care about the numbers. And while Apple's revenue declined this year, it's still insanely good by any reasonable, and unreasonable, measure. Plus, it comes on the back of many years of growth, much of which was delivered under Cook's leadership.
If there's a continued decline of revenue and profits, then you might see Cook forced out in a couple of years, but to ask why he hasn't been forced out already only demonstrates a total lack of understanding of how business works.
I see no evidence that Apple's products are becoming less popular. The iPhone is still the go to smartphone that I would recommend to anyone. I have switched back and forth between iPhone and Android since they came out, but I would never recommend an Android phone to a casual user. If they want the newest phone they get the iPhone 7. If they just want a phone the iPhone SE is a great phone for the price. It will last years and be secure with continued security software updates.
The Apple Watch is the only smartwatch I've seen bought en mass by non-techies.
The MacBooks are still the go to laptop for college students that can afford it. With the exception of some engineering circles where the Surface is popular, MacBooks are ubiquitous.
And while the AirPods had a delayed launch, they are in my opinion an amazing first gen Apple product. The ease of use and quality of the Bluetooth connection is not something I've experienced in Bluetooth before.
Apple will still be a hugely profitable and influential company, but it's no longer in a league all of its own.
Though for security of personal information it's still leagues above Android and Windows.
My wife is the apple user in the house, and I think she is indicative of a lot of them at this point. She chooses apple because they are cool status symbols and her friends have them. The issues with the iphone7 modem (yah I went out of my way for the qualcomm and then had an entertaining conversation with her about it) and headphone jack were completely off her radar. The apparent short life of her iphone 5s battery, and the weird wifi issues with the ipads after OS upgrades/etc don't enter her head as problems with the devices.
Yes, I would be happy to take their recent results in my own business and wouldn't at all be disappointed. You could also point out that management may well be taking the long view of a post-Jobs Apple and giving Cook room to find that Apple of the future... as opposed to being driven purely by short term results/quarterly reports: something that I think many on HN condemn in other contexts.
Still... think of post-Gates Microsoft. They had huge momentum (which showed in the financials as well), but everybody including me thought there was something deeply wrong with Microsoft, too. They were coasting on that momentum and doing very little aside from coddling their more conservative customers... just as you suggest Apple can get away with. Microsoft was losing their leading position and was getting on the slow death-march path. They may have turned that around while they still could.
No doubt, casting MAJOR screw-ups aside, Apple will not die as a company anytime soon. Apple and Cook are still completely in position to turn things around. But atrophy and possibility of ending-up as some sort of also-ran... that's not impossible and it's also fair to point that out.
Yes, but then again, those without a gift for prophecy had called Apple's impeding DOOM several times a year since 2001.
I have, I think, a pretty nuanced view of Apple. It's looking increasingly like 2015 was the best year ever for Apple. 2016 was worse, and there's very little sign that 2017 will be better than 2016. That said, 2015 was the high water mark for a uniquely valuable company with a uniquely valuable product. There's a lot of value in Apple that doesn't require being literally the single most successful year in, like, the history of capitalism.
And I think that most of Apple's decline is due to secular, external forces -- basically, the maturation of the smartphone market -- not because Cook is fucking up. Probably any CEO Apple had would have had pretty similar results -- or worse ones.
But that said, all the people who are like, "What? No, there are no problems with Apple" are obviously wrong on the face of it. iPhone sales are falling. iPad sales fell off a cliff more than a year ago. The Apple Watch has not been successful enough for Apple to even tell us how many units were sold. This is not the picture of the company in 2007, 2010, 2012, 2014.
I am in the "doesn't matter" category... I'm less interested in Apple (I'm not an investor in Apple, in any sense of the word, nor even a customer) and more interested in how perceptions about a companies are formed and how companies in similar circumstances can have very different conclusions drawn about them. Emotional appeal, brand loyalties, etc. can have some interesting influences in this regard.
Microsoft was very profitable with Ballmer at the helm, but it can be argued he put the company in a very bad position that took them significant effort to fix and right the ship.
Apple is focused on the iPhone because that's where almost all their profits come from. It's annoying for us long time Mac users, but even Steve was focused on iOS devices when he died.
Update: also Antenna Gate, the fact that Steve didn't want any third party apps on iOS, the G4 Cube, iPod Hi-Fi, MobileMe (if you think their cloud services are a mess now...), iTunes Ping, etc etc. The list goes on.
>Long-time users were outraged that they'd be forced to buy new peripherals and couldn't back up the 4 GB hard drive with a waist-high pile of diskettes. They also wondered about the wisdom of using USB ports, ports that weren't yet widely accepted by the industry.
They're cheap on eBay though (~$100), go get one!
Because he was the COO that made them the most valuable company on earth, and the CEO that hit record points and maintained that position?
>just consider the damage Apple's brand is suffering. $300 books, headphone jacks, unreliable cloud services, missed product launches.
They always had BS hyperbole against them. It's the easiest click-bait target for hack journalists.
And those "unreliable cloud services" not only are much more reliable than they were in Jobs day (their old Cloud stuff was a joke) but earn tens of billions (just the iOS app store paid around 20 billion dollars to developers in 2016 alone), and are used by close to a billion people.
Your whole list of complains for damage to the brand is BS:
"$300 books" -> They put out a high-end, limited run, coffee table book. Didn't force anyone to buy it, and it's just a homage to their 30+ years of design work.
"headphone jacks" -> Competitors already had models out without headphone jack, and Samsung is following suit too. Some people might lament them, but going forward they bet on wireless for most people -- plus they offer an adaptor so all existing headphones can be used.
"unreliable cloud services" -> Compared to what? And how? I already spoke about their Cloud services above anyway.
"missed product launches" -> It's not the first time and it's not a big deal either. When you design for million unit production runs (unlike the smaller runs of competitors with 50+ product configurations), and you push the envelope in construction, machining, engineering tolerances, etc, you get those things. Not many places that can arbitrarily manufacture your stuff. They could always put out cruder products and get them out faster, but that's not their thing. Besides, Intel delays launches all the time, Microsoft has done it time and again, Google and co put out BS projects that often get lauded from the press for innovation but are half-thought, sell badly and get pulled (Google Glass for one, several first iterations of the Surface, etc.).
I think the "perception" you are talking about is just from gossipy tech blogs and people on Internet forums who have made a hobby out of getting upset about things like this.
Well a lot of these things have made the rounds on late night talk shows, which are watched by normal people (on TV and on viral YouTube clips).
Colbert made fun of the book . Conan made fun of the airpods  and even has an Apple Spoofs playlist . Kimmel made fun of Apple fans  a few months ago.
While Conan doesn't get big TV ratings, his Youtube videos do get a lot of views. I'm guessing the reason why Fallon doesn't do as many spoofs is because he is in some iPhone ads.
Er, what? Going back to the last iPhone that fell mostly in the Jobs era - the 4S - it was priced at $599 for the 16GB version.
Compare that to the iPhone SE which starts at $399 for the 16GB version. Or the iPhone 7 which starts at $649 for the 32GB version.
I'm not sure how users who could once afford the products no longer can.
As an example, a few years ago, I purchased a copy of Edward Weston's "Life Work" from Lodima when it was released. I think I paid ~$150 for it. They're now selling it for $1000 per copy because they have a limited number left.
If Apple printed thousands and thousands of these, then I doubt the cost is justified. But if it was a limited run, say less than a few thousand? Seems appropriate to me.
What bothers me out of this discussion is that people are getting upset about the price they choose to sell the book at. People feel way too entitled. They could sell it at a million bucks each and if people were willing to pay that then why would anybody complain. Unless you feel you somehow have a God given right to decide how people sell their own products.
I was just noting that the pricing mirrors what I've seen in the photo/art book world.
At 30$ or 300$ the company is not going to get meaningful revenue, or likely enough to pay the cost of production back. So, the pricing needs to relate to something else.
The bugatti veyron for example sells for ~$1.5 million, but it costs more than twice that to make ($6.25 million). However, as VW only sold ~50 veyron's per year it's was just not an issue for VW compared to the 10.14 million cars they sold per year.
That's a way bigger time/money sink than allowing your designers to put together an art book of Apple products.
As far as a consumer product or a moneymaker, yeah, it's crap.
In every market segment Apple plays in they're facing incredibly stiff and in many cases, superior competition. To make matters worse Apple "playbook", that attention to detail, the advertisements, etc -- yes it's taken a while but it's been mostly cracked. To be clear that's good for any of us who've been fans of that book, but it's absolutely not good for Apple should they choose to remain stagnant.
The result is a situation where Apple's hard won customers -- like me -- are looking to other companies and they're "speaking our language", offering products and services that are on-par and in many cases, simply better.
And it's not just desktop -- Siri is stagnant/broken, the iOS App Store is a mess, Email, on and on.
My point is at a time where competition and strategic advantages are under incredible stress, where incredibly obvious mistakes are being made in core product lines, Apple releases an outrageously high-priced picture book. It's totally fine, understandable, admirable even, if you think all's going well, but I do not think things are going well.
You can. Your brand new iPhone also came with a tiny little cable that you attach to your lightning headphones and now you can plug them into your Mac. It's really not that hard.
More generally, the reasons for ditching the 3.5mm jack on the iPhone aren't really applicable to the Mac, so there's no reason to remove that jack from the Mac, which means it still has it. And the iPhone uses lightning for a lot more than just headphones, whereas if the Mac got lightning, it would literally be for just headphones. So it's really kind of a waste to add a second port on the Mac that is intended for just headphones, even though you can attempt to plug other shit into it (like a USB charger), which would be confusing, and since the Mac already has a dedicated port for headphones. Oh, and your lightning earpods came with a little adaptor that makes it work on the Mac. Also, don't forget, Apple's really trying to push wireless headphones as the future, and wireless headphones work on the Mac just like they do on the iPhone.
So it's really not that hard to see why Apple decided not to put a useless port on the Mac that would simply cause a lot of confusion down the road, seeing as there's really no reason to do that.
The list goes on and on.
I have the same feelings when I look at the latest macbook but using the previous years macbook I must say I can see the appeal and I might consider buying one.
It's funny that just when the public ire is growing I discover myself wanting to buy it....but the new chromebook from google with stylus pen and keyboard that can be flipped into a tablet + millions of android apps is a really good offering as well.
It's not like "the more the better".
Macs still did right click context menus (it's Control + click), and of course could accommodate two and three button mice just fine and use all of their buttons.
One button mice also meant that all apps were designed to be more usable with one button operation (and interactions like drag etc) compared to merely stuffing important stuff in context menus.
If your judgment of the entire company comes down to whether a new iPhone can be physically plugged into a new MacBook Pro, then I suppose it might seem to be in disarray. Apple's taking some heat now because they're working towards an ecosystem that is not based on wires at all to the greatest extent possible.
Apple has been the butt of jokes at least since 2008 when I first got my first Apple product (an old 17" MacBook Pro). Back when I was looking at laptops then, I saw the same complaints that I see about the new MacBook Pro: too expensive, specs aren't good enough, etc., etc. None of this is new.
But actually some of it is new. I go back to the Apple ][ days, so I've seen my share of disdain of Apple products from people who weren't users of Apple products.
A lot of the uproar in the past several months, however, has come from vocal Apple users who feel let down.
Even the controversial use of new ports or removal of old ones is not unfamiliar in the history of Apple.
I'm not trying to defend every decision Apple has been making, and I don't necessarily agree with them all myself. But, honestly, it mostly feels like business as usual to me.
The removal of ports with the first iMac happened when Apple had a much smaller customer base in a different era. Nobody was looking at Apple under a microscope the way they are today.
I may not like the direction Apple has taken (which caused me to switch a couple of years ago) but I don't have a problem with it. They are following the money. Who can blame them for that?
But anecdotally speaking -- since the 2016 Macbook Pro announcement, there have been more-than-usual negative Apple headlines (many of them being from Mac using bloggers) trickle into the HN front page, and I have never ever seen so many comments by Mac using HN'ers looking for non-Mac alternatives. I get that HN'ers are probably a small percentage of Mac users, but I also tend to think HN'ers are probably technology influencers in their social circles as well.
I was also a bit surprised to find out that 95% of the gaming market is still on PC . Guess I was a disillusioned Mac user, but I thought Mac was bigger in games.
Everyone for the past 2 decades knows you don't buy a Mac for games.
Big issue is Apple has no new innovative products. Apple Watch isn't really enough of new product to drive iphone like sales at least not yet and there is nothing else on the horizon.
Everything new maybe, but old audio gear, monitors/tvs/keyboards/drives, et c stick around a hell of a long time. I'll be surprised if my family's at more than 20% of peripherals, displays, and audio equipment on bluetooth/USBC in 5 years, personally. Probably more like 5-10%. 10 years? That's another story. Assuming the standard hasn't shifted again.
That's not much of an issue to the kind of customers that can afford a new expensive Apple laptop.
You mention: "monitors/tvs/keyboards/drives". Well, keyboards and drives are trivial, as they use USB. So those people can just buy a USB-A to USB-C cable for $10 and be done with it (no dongle required if the keyboard doesn't have a fixed cable, and hard disks don't have fixed cables in the first place).
As for tvs and monitors, not sure how hey wont be able to use them with the new Apple devices, but they can afford a new one if they are so inconvenienced to use an adaptor.
It's more that I can carry my 2014 macbook anywhere in my house or office or anyone else's and probably connect it to anything I want or need to, without an adapter. Works, say, 99% of the time. With the 2016 it would work 0% of the time today (well, audio equipment excepted I guess, since they weren't courageous enough to remove the headphone jack on the MBP, fortunately), and it would take a half-dozen dongles to come even close to that 99%. I don't expect the success percentage for a dongle-less 2016 MBP to go up much in the next 2 years. That makes stretching my 2014 for another year or two, or switching to another vendor, way more appealing than it might be otherwise, especially with the non-trivial price hike adding insult to injury.
[EDIT] OK, half-dozen was a slight overstatement. At least 4, maybe 5.
High end keyboards sometimes feature one. E.g:
That's what the forward march of progressing standards is about - you upgrade some, with adapters for legacy interfaces.
All that said, I feel bad for Tim—Does he even have time to read/focus on these products in any meaningful way right now? He is bombarded by the FBI, has to sit awkwardly with Trump (http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/58586bf5ca7f0c24018...), is working on the mothership with Ives, etc.
Not sure about the impact that will have, but my family and friends are doubling down on Apple purchases, so our anecdotes probably cancel each other out.
I have several inlaws who <3 Samsung but have iPads, others who do everything on their iPhones - in all of these cases they were running Archos, Blackberry or Windows exclusively.
Macs aren't growing, but iCloud/iMessage (mainly through iOS) is entrenched and extending.
Generally investing in your "headquarters" like this is a sign the company is in trouble.
It means that you don't have a better place to put all that money in the business itself.
Don't forget all the criticism towards MBP 2016.
> So I ask again? Why benefit is Apple gaining keeping him on?
Who says they aren't, or won't? This is what is publicly seen as a slap on the wrist.
It is a smart way to perform damage control. It is basically saying to the criticism towards Apple [from both shareholders as well as users]: "we know, we screwed up, you are right" without going into detail on who or what is exactly right.
Scott Forstall was probably the next best bet, and he was ousted long ago.
But what we have now is a fragmented ecosystem of Apple Products that no longer "just work" and even worse, fit together like square pegs in a round hole. They call it "courage" but really it's lack of a cohesive vision and borderline greed to pull as much money from customers.
Apple's philanthropic and environmental toting has largely surpassed their hardware innovation under Cook's direction. Yet one has to wonder - if these environmental footprint reductions costed more money than they saved - would Apple risk their profits to save the environment?