I see what you're saying. I have a Thinkpad with the fingerprint scanner and it works great.
All I am saying is, if all APPLE has is a fingerprint sensor, iOS7, and maybe a new A7, they are not innovating and will be in trouble.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Board of Directors 'Concerned' About the Speed of Innovation?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I see what you're saying. I have a Thinkpad with the fingerprint scanner and it works great.
All I am saying is, if all APPLE has is a fingerprint sensor, iOS7, and maybe a new A7, they are not innovating and will be in trouble.
What all did Steve Jobs "innovate" in the past 10 years? The iPhone? OK... The iPad? It's just a derivative of the iPhone. Derivation is NOT innovation. Hell, even the iPhone was derivative of already existing iPhones. AppleTV is going nowhere fast. I REALLY don't see WTF the big deal is. Just because something SELLS doesn't make it innovative. The film projector was innovative. The iPhone is just a freaking computer + phone with a relatively nice interface. Doing something better than others doesn't equal innovation.
In short, Steve Jobs was NEVER what I'd call innovative. His Macintosh was a freaking rip-off of something XEROX made. He just made it useful for everyday people. The original iMac was just sticking a computer into the back of a monitor with gummy bear colors. Then he went all GREY. Yay. Grey is innovative! NOT.
I honestly think the market place is just sore that Apple stock has moved down to a more reasonable number from an unrealistic HIGH based on GAMBLING investors, not long-term ones. Where was Apple's stock the first Christmas after the iPhone came out? Under $100? Sky-rocketing to the stratosphere in such a short period of time after decades of existence isn't a "stable" sign for ANY company. It's the sign of a FAD. The Swatch was pretty popular for a short period of time.... It didn't last. The iPhone can't stay "unique" forever. History proves that. Microsoft didn't win the war against the Mac in the '90s because it was original. It won because it was cheaper and had better business connections. Trying to stay ahead of Android is ultimately going to be a losing proposition. They should be looking for something to REPLACE the smart phone ENTIRELY at this point to stay ahead. Kill the iPhone. Make the iMplant! A chip that interfaces to your brain and provides full computer and phone access through a neural interface. That would make EVERYTHING out there obsolete.
Google is at least TRYING to do something new with eyeglasses. I think it's a major privacy invasion and will enable credit card thieves whole new avenues to grab your card as you slide it at the supermarket, but at least it's venturing into new 007-like areas for computing (Although seriously, who the frack wants to wear glasses if they don't HAVE to?). But an iWatch? There's a REASON why TV Watches never caught on. The screen is too darn small!!!
In short, Steve Jobs was NEVER what I'd call innovative. His Macintosh was a freaking rip-off of something XEROX made. He just made it useful for everyday people. The original iMac was just sticking a computer into the back of a monitor with gummy bear colors. Then he went all GREY. Yay. Grey is innovative! NOT.
I honestly think the market place is just sore that Apple stock has moved down to a more reasonable number from an unrealistic HIGH based on GAMBLING investors, not long-term ones. Where was Apple's stock the first Christmas after the iPhone came out? Under $100? Sky-rocketing to the stratosphere in such a short period of time after decades of existence isn't a "stable" sign for ANY company. It's the sign of a FAD. The Swatch was pretty popular for a short period of time.... It didn't last. The iPhone can't stay "unique" forever. History proves that. Microsoft didn't win the war against the Mac in the '90s because it was original. It won because it was cheaper and had better business connections. Trying to stay ahead of Android is ultimately going to be a losing proposition. They should be looking for something to REPLACE the smart phone ENTIRELY at this point to stay ahead. Kill the iPhone. Make the iMplant! A chip that interfaces to your brain and provides full computer and phone access through a neural interface. That would make EVERYTHING out there obsolete.
Google is at least TRYING to do something new with eyeglasses. I think it's a major privacy invasion and will enable credit card thieves whole new avenues to grab your card as you slide it at the supermarket, but at least it's venturing into new 007-like areas for computing (Although seriously, who the frack wants to wear glasses if they don't HAVE to?). But an iWatch? There's a REASON why TV Watches never caught on. The screen is too darn small!!!
For sure, but they completely changed their strategies to mirror Apple's iPhone; a touchscreen the size of the device, dedicated mobile OS (no more Windows Mobile crap), etc. - point is, Apple isn't falling behind their competitors in terms of innovation given that their competitors aren't innovating.
And again, this is all assuming that what Fox meant by "speed of innovation" was the speed at which Apple is entering completely new product categories.
I don't disagree that part of why Forstall was dumped was due to his interactions with others based on things (rumors) that I have read about him. My point was that there is no video of Tim Cook saying that he fired Forstall because of his inability to collaborate with others. The video does not seem to exist... at least I can't find it. The person I replied to commented that a search on YouTube would find the video.
Getting told by a phone store clerk "how it is" is about as valuable as getting told by cab driver "how it is". Before you dismiss someone's education, you might consider going out and getting your own. Then spend 20 years of your life doing something productive with your education. Then maybe you can come back and tell people "how it is".
No, I didn't say that they were not redesigning stuff. I said that they weren't innovating. Making the iPod smaller at a time when there were many small digital music players on the market doesn't really count as innovation. Sorry, but my comment still stands: Tim has unrealistic expectations from the Apple fan base right now.
Anyone it seems can bring out wearable tech. LG had a wrist watch with touch screen five years ago, Sony, Pebble, even Nissan is touting one. Hell...even Samscumb managed to copy the LG launched five years ago and make it worse...
Innovation takes different forms. What Apple will most likely do is bring out a device that is fashionable to wear, not be clunky, have long battery life and have the type of integration that makes our phones easier to use. An iWatch needs to enhance our phone use...not replace it.
I fully expect Apple to leap frog the industry when they finally launch their wearable tech. Hopefully we see something tomorrow...but if not...soon enough. You don't have to be first to prove you can innovate...you just have to have the right product. Samscumb does not. The Gear is a clunky failure before it even launches.
Here is what I want to see in an iWatch:
- Thin (apple is great at this)
- Multi-day battery life
- UI that matches iOS (what Samscumb did was horrible)
- No phone feature...that is what I have an iPhone for. Allow me to see who is calling and mute/silence the ringer without pulling my phone out of my pocket.
- Read texts and email (the one redeeming feature of the Gear was the ability to launch the email on your screen)
- Control my music - playlists, artist, genre, etc...not just play stop.
- Biometrics.
- I don't need a camera - again...this is what I have an iPhone
If you want the examples of what people are talking about, honestly compare the first generation of Android devices with the current generation.
Then compare the first generation iPhone with the current generation. What's the biggest change? Siri? Hi-res displays? Slightly thinner and lighter?
The keyword in the title of this thread is "speed".
It's not like Apple can't innovate, it's just that greed or some other factors have taken priority. I agree with the board, whatever is holding Apple back must be eliminated. They are perfectly capable, but failing to perform.
It's not like Apple can't innovate, it's just that greed or some other factors have taken priority. I agree with the board, whatever is holding Apple back must be eliminated. They are perfectly capable, but failing to perform.
Someone who wants to know the time without having to pull things out of their pockets like old fashioned pocket watches perhaps????
I mean why do you think the wrist watch was invented in the first place over pocket watches?
Or do you have your iPhone glued to your head so much that it's just as fast to pull it away from your ear to see the time? (i.e. like most of the people I see driving anymore with the damn things glued to the side of their head causing accidents and needless fatalities over a conversation that amounts to, "Dude, you know where I am? I'm driving!"
)As an Apple enthusiast, today while not surprising, was indeed very disappointing. It was a further indicator that Apple, for reasons unknown to me, comes across as having lost its drive, it's desire to lead in any capacity other than to maintain its lazer like focus on profits above all else. How long Apple will be able to rake in the cash with a modest effort in upgrades will be interesting to watch.
Someone who wants to know the time without having to pull things out of their pockets like old fashioned pocket watches perhaps????
I mean why do you think the wrist watch was invented in the first place over pocket watches?
Or do you have your iPhone glued to your head so much that it's just as fast to pull it away from your ear to see the time? (i.e. like most of the people I see driving anymore with the damn things glued to the side of their head causing accidents and needless fatalities over a conversation that amounts to, "Dude, you know where I am? I'm driving!"
I work with Computers, I have an iPad, and I have a Laptop. The time is always somewhere within view.
I wasn't trying to be **very** facetious, i was just making a point that the iWatch wouldn't be the game changer (to me) that some people think it would.
And I work for one of the ten largest software firms on the planet, and on my office wall I have an analog clock with a pendulum rocking back and forth.
It's an art piece made by a local glass artist who does wonderful fused glass pieces.
I recently moved in bits and pieces to a new, larger window office.
The first thing to move was my workstation.
Second was the art glass clock - because it disturbed me not to be able to look up on the wall and see the time.
The fact that the analog and digital clocks on my workstation screen were "within view" didn't matter - the moving hands on the wall define time for me.
I have several very fine analog display Swiss watches (Rado, Baume et Mercier, Tissot,...) and several dozen fun Swatches.
I never pull my Thunderbolt out of my pocket to check the time.