Stopped reading at: "[Apple is] selling products that are little if any better than competitors, at premium prices. How can it do that?"
This is such a ridiculous statement. Apple's notebook line is dominating, not because it's "little if any better" than the competitors, but because it's head and shoulders above the competition. They've systematically and iteratively refined, both in software and hardware, all the most important bits of portable computing. Battery life. Display quality. Weight. Size. Noise. Keyboard. Trackpad. Durability.
I am typing this on a 2008 MBA that is now over five years old and looks brand new ... so there's that.
BUT, I cannot help but notice that existing macbook airs, five years later, have only very marginally increased their resolution - even as we're 2.25 years into the retina era.
... and over here are a bunch of Lenovo and Samsung netbooks with screen resolutions of 3200 x 1800[1] or so ...
So something is definitely slipping a bit. Don't give me blah-blah-battery-life - they should just figure it out. That's why they exist. And they're not.
Apple kickstarted laptops with high-resolution displays with the 15" Retina MBP less than a year ago; they still have one of the few high-resolution 15" laptops on the market. They also have a 13" version, although it is not as light as the MacBook Air. Most of those 3200x1800 products aren't out yet. Give them time.
(However, it is true that that 3200x1800 display is considerably higher resolution than the Retina MBPs. I'm curious where this is going.)
A retina screen will probably make it heavier (don't know for sure). The air is meant for portability, battery life, it's more minimal. If you want the retina you can get yourself a macbook pro 13 inch retina for about the same price. Apples goals are different from the other PC makers.
Slipping? Hardly, just remember who made high resolution actually matter.
It's worth noting that the 3200x1800 laptop in the linked article is 0.01 kg heavier than the 13" MacBook Air. However, it has 3 hours less quoted battery life, and may have sacrificed on quality in other ways.
Is a high resolution screen really necessary on a 13" device? I know we want great color reproduction, but that's why I have my 21" external monitor. I've just switched over to the new MBA (first Apple computer ever) and before I did so I did a heck of a lot of research.
Originally I wanted a touchscreen laptop with Windows 8 and 1080p, because, shit, here I am contemplating dropping a lot of cash on a new computer, might as well get spec'd out.
I tried everything out in stores, I think the only Windows computer I really liked was the Acer S7(?). However, touch screen on my laptop was a no-go (don't see the practicality of it). Just couldn't get comfortable with it. The lack of Haswell and battery life was also a deal breaker after I tried out the MBA13.
Sure I compromised on resolution, but I think I won big overall. 12 hours of battery life, Boot Camp (that I haven't even taken advantage of, but it's nice to know I have the option), OSX, and a great trackpad? I'll take that all day, every day.
Paired with my external monitor, mouse and keyboard. I think this thing is going to last me a LONG time. i5/8GB/256GB
I want gorgeous text and the option for more screen real estate. "150%" scaling (if it worked properly) would be a nice tradeoff. But I'd settle for the specs of a T/W530 on a X-series chassis.
I'd say the design, keyboard and trackpad are rather subjective if you think they're "systematically better". The Retina display currently is better than other offerings, but even the Nexus 10 offers similar DPI. Give me a ThinkPad with a N10 display over a MacBook anyday.
Also, there's no real reason Lenovo, Dell, etc. can't start shipping higher quality displays, keyboards, etc. While Apple's products are apparently solidly engineered, most of it is perception and design.
> Also, there's no real reason Lenovo, Dell, etc. can't start shipping higher quality displays, keyboards, etc. While Apple's products are apparently solidly engineered, most of it is perception and design.
I disagree with this statement entirely, for one big reason: you're leaving out Apple's mastery of the supply chain.
There are certainly component makers out there that will build stuff and slap it together for you, but Apple is the champ of running the whole stack with a relentless eye towards quality control. Think about the design and manufacturing of an iPhone, iPad or MacBook Pro. These are not things that you can compete with easily.
There is a massive amount of effort involved in order to build a machine of comparable quality to an Apple device, and that remains one of their key advantages in the market. This is also an advantage they are dead-set on keeping. Most competitors don't have anywhere near the supply chain controls that Apple commands, and often don't even design their own devices (Dell).
Finally, quality is a very important component of design. The prettiest laptop in the world is bad design if it falls apart or feels flimsy. Think less about design being the way something looks - instead, add how it feels, sounds, smells even, and every other part of the way you interact with it. That is design.
Dunno about your experience, but mine and everyone I've talked to seem to think IBM ThinkPads had top notch build quality (minus the gripe about the screens). The keyboards, even on the 12" X-series are as good as any full-size kb save the Ergo 4000. Trackpad with 3 buttons is amazingly useful. Then again, ThinkPads are in another realm, and aren't cheap for good configurations. So Lenovo certainly could pull it off if they don't screw it up.
Wow, Apple is good at their marketing/brand loyalty. Reminds me of the Apple brand loyal friends I had in the late 90s. He would go on about the build quality but had to point a fan at his laptop to keep it from overheating.
Funny you mention quality. The Retina MBP has been plugged with issues such as image retention and hanky scrolling. Not something you expect when paying $2,000+ for a laptop. Stop by the MacRumors forum to see all the complaints.
I admit I never saw the quality of Apple products. They were well done but the sort design ideas where if they could get away with it they would be a solid block to prevent you from peeking.
I guy I know put it best with Apple products: With Apple things are either easy or near impossible.
I am the sort of person that will constantly but heads with the design choices so I avoid the products.
But that's the point. Dell and company could, but they don't and instead choose to go further down market chasing thinner margins. They don't compete in the high end market so the perception is that Apple products are high quality, and PCs are low quality.
Honestly, I wouldn't say that apple's notebook line is dominating. Ultrabooks have caught up, and most people who have a macbook aren't pressed to refurb it like with an iOS device. Apple's market share has held steady around 8-10% over the past 5 or so years, and isn't projected to change very much. For an example see [1].
I don't disagree that Apple hardware is a bit better in some places, but is that worth the $3-700 premium over a similarly specced Lenovo, Dell, or HP? Not to me. I'd say that it's hyperbole, but has an underlying valid point.
Of course, that's just a corollary to "the future is hard to predict." Honestly, what group of people gets it 'right' with any kind respectable frequency?
He's a little out of his element in this space, and a lot of his article feels like off-the-cuff ramble without much support.
But he does raise one really strong point: namely, that Microsoft's lead was largely secured on the back of enterprise sales -- a tougher moat to build, but a very protective and lucrative one once built. Apple's lead was secured on the consumer side, and consumers tend to be two things in the long run: price-conscious and fickle. Consumers picked cheaper and more ubiquitous Wintel machines over the more beautiful and expensive Apple machines in the 90s. Now they're picking cheaper and more ubiquitous Android devices in sufficient numbers to threaten Apple pretty seriously.
It's way too early to write Apple's epitaph in the mobile war, but things aren't as rosy as they once were.
This is ludicrously, hilariously, almost unbelievably ironic, coming from Krugman:
>>"In general, the thing about Apple is that it reflects the spirit of Steve Jobs, who knew what was good for you — and left you no way to do things differently. And if you are an atypical user, you end up putting a lot of effort into fighting iOS in order to do simple things."<<
It should baffle me that this problem is so obvious to Krugman and others in the field of electronics, but simply beyond mention when it comes to governance. It doesn't baffle me because it's clear that Krugman and others stopped being scholarly thinkers as soon as they gained a national audience to preach to.
The headline here is, well, bizarre. The headline on Krugman's article is "On The Symmetry Between Microsoft And Apple", and the conclusion is that Apple's dominance now on mobile is less secure than Microsoft's on the desktop at the peak of Microsoft's desktop dominance.
Which is, for one thing, quite a bit different than the characterization in the current HN headline (he doesn't say anything like "Apple Is Doomed") and, for another, quite obvious (I mean, just compare Apple's current marketshare in any relevant market to Microsoft's at the peak of its desktop dominance, or compare the trends.) Apple is well past its peak dominance in, say, mobile -- and at its peak it was less dominant there than Microsoft was on the desktop at its (much longer) peak. Heck, less so than Microsoft is on the desktop now.
In fact, Apple's trajectory in mobile is a lot like Apple's trajectory in the "personal computing" space in the 1980s -- lead initially, establish a firm loyal base willing to pay premium prices, and then starting losing the rest of the market (which has lower margins) to other players. Really, except to exploit attention directed at Microsoft because of the current CEO drama, there's not a lot of reason to look to Microsoft's history for a comparison, when Apple provides a better one in its own history.
Right, it's a little disappointing that the blog of a fairly well-known economist just uses some basic anecdotal evidence. I'd hope he'd provide some kind of deeper insight, but I guess that's what passes for quality on the Times these days.
> the wonderful people in the Wilson School IT department, who have saved my life multiple times, aren’t set up to deal with Apple products.
I would argue that not only do you have full access to the Apple Store geniuses but if you happen to not have a Apple Store near you there will be Apple certified repair people you can use. Also I would guess that you would not have to get your mac repaired anywhere near as often as you do your windows machine.
"I’ve had an iPhone — which, sad to say, did not survive dunking in water — and now have a Samsung, and the differences don’t seem huge"
everyone new to contemplating the mobile scene always seems to miss out on the longer term advantage of apple phones due to upgradability. it's an absolute hell with andriod. im not saying this will create a swing back in apples direction for marketshare, not at all. I'm just saying that difference is indeed huge to anyone that looks at it.
(disclaimer, I've had iphones and andriod phones and i think they all suck equally. i role on motorola c155 with 3 text line display)
OS updates are not something non-techies think about, in my experience. For the vast majority of users, they mostly care that their favorite apps continue to work, and this is something that Android provides good tools for.
and hence we come full circle to the argument that the fragmented update makeup in andriod adversely effects apps and users than ios. (again, i have neither and dont care... but one clearly has a problem)
I'm surprised iPhones don't survive been dunked in water. I've dropped my $150 nokia smartphone in water numerous times with no problem. I would certainly expect a much more expensive phone to have the same level of durability.
They can. My wife dropped hers in the bathtub once. We put it in a sealed container with uncooked rice overnight, and the next day it was fine (other than the piece of rice that ended up in the microphone jack somehow).
It's a crapshoot though. Sometimes you're lucky, sometimes you're not.
This article is pathetic on so many levels. He starts off saying he basically has no clue about technology or the industry, and then concludes with Apple is doomed because it's hard to organize his youtube downloads in iTunes. Really?
There is no reason this should be on the front page, and the only reason it is there is because the headline has been editorialized.
Apple may or may not be doomed, but one thing I've learned over time is not to trust economists straying too far from their turf. Krugman blaming a dead CEO on his inability to use an iPhone does not equate to calling up the corporate coffin maker.
When I saw the title, I was hoping for a more economic reason about trade, network effects or competitive advantage.
I have to back him up on iTunes. I hate it. I've always hated it. I'm not sure it dooms Apple, but I've seen lots of products die as a result of infuriating design choices. It takes a while, but it does happen.
This article, along with most of the stuff Krugman wrote about bitcoin, is utter bs. Apple is doomed cause iOS doesn't let Krugman organize his Youtube downloads.
Completely agree. The parallel he is drawing between MS in the 80's and Apple now is some kind of uninformed fantasy. He even says "I am not a tech industry maven, so I am busy coming up to speed"... Then he side-steps and says his real complaint is:
>So, my problem with Apple. In general, the thing about Apple is that it reflects the spirit of Steve Jobs, who knew what was good for you — and left you no way to do things differently.
His example is that iTunes doesn't do what he wants it to do.
Well it doesn't always do what I want it to do either, but as a product it is an enormous success and it earns Billions of dollars. So that's nonsense.
The best part of this article is that Paul Krugman listens to Arcade Fire!
Weird post - he's definitely a smart guy, but clearly not an expert in this area. In fact, he sounds a lot like my dad.
Why do we care what he thinks here?
I am a big android fan, but I definitely see differences in quality between Apple products and others. I don't care as much about the polish, though - I like the freedom that android can afford.
But comparing Apple now to Microsoft in their hay day is not original, compelling or even that accurate. I mean, they're still selling computers, true, but the whole space seems pretty different than how it was when Microsoft was dominating... isn't that why Microsoft's in trouble in the first place?
I guess his point is more general - that Microsoft gained market dominance not through making a superior product, but simply by gaining traction and having the largest consumer base - that may be true, but Microsoft allowed a lot of freedom and control over your devices while Apple does not. Furthermore, Android has dominated the market in terms of numbers for a while now and yet Apple is still in the game - presumably due to the quality of their products, not the fact that lots of people use them.
Anyways, I'm probably rambling. My point is simply that Krugman should probably sick to his area of expertise.
Eh. He is right about Apple forcing you to work their way, and only their way. Try to select all on iPhone email, or try to access the file system. For the computer literate, the lack of these options on a stock iPhone is beyond annoying. they are just a sample of frustration encountered when using Apple products, no mater how good their quality is.
> "My casual impression is that Apple’s lock isn’t nearly as secure, in part because it’s relying on the loyalty of individual customers — in contrast to Microsoft, which was largely relying on the loyalty of corporate IT managers, who are inherently more conservative."
The important thing is right in this quote. Apple cares about making product we want to buy, not product we are forced to use.
To stay relevant, Apple needs to keep going. And because they rose so high, they pushed other players to offer amazing product to compete. That's almost like capitalism at its best.
Of course they could fail, and they will not be saved by IT Managers inertia. Well too bad, I will have fond memories like I have fond memories of my C64 and Amiga500.
Krugman's a smart guy about a lot of things, but he didn't get computers and the internet, didn't believe that measured productivity gains from using them were real (to his credit, he did publish a mea culpa or two years later) and I think he's just as ignorant about what differentiates Apple's products from Microsoft's. It's interesting that he doesn't understand the difference between their value propositions (Microsoft is competing, in a sense, with Google -- which sucks because Google gives away its products -- while Apple is competing with Amazon and Samsung).
> It's interesting that he doesn't understand the difference between their value propositions (Microsoft is competing, in a sense, with Google -- which sucks because Google gives away its products -- while Apple is competing with Amazon and Samsung).
In what space is Apple competing with Amazon or Samsung where it is not also competing with Google?
He doesn't get that iTunes is not a media player, but a music and video shop sneakily embedded in your computer. Media player functionality is only added there to lure you in so you would buy content from Apple.
Obviously, Apple doesn't care for your youtube videos. But I wouldn't expect a Keynesist to understand the nuances of how modern products are structured and real product often concealed behind a freebie.
If you want a media player, just download one. My favourite is AVPlayer for iPhone (and AVPlayer HD for iPad). Plays all formats I tried.
Not sure if I agree. Apple consistently provides better experience because they control both hardware and software. Google is now realizing that or else they wouldn't have built nexus.
I feel like its just one of those days where you have to turn something in but procrastinated and said "Fuck it, I'll just compare Apple and Microsoft". Slow day...
This is such a ridiculous statement. Apple's notebook line is dominating, not because it's "little if any better" than the competitors, but because it's head and shoulders above the competition. They've systematically and iteratively refined, both in software and hardware, all the most important bits of portable computing. Battery life. Display quality. Weight. Size. Noise. Keyboard. Trackpad. Durability.