Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Listen to the playful casualness of Steve's voice, vision & direction.
And it led to the creation of a thing that's the major money-maker
for the biggest corporation in Earth's history.
Apple is so missing that magical "certain something" that made it what it is now.
Anyone who says Cook is just as good at it is insane.
 
Best move by Apple, like QuickTime, to be cross-platform, very early.

One of many "Secret" Apple moves to become such an envied and loved platform.

All in-house (Turnkey) is the best way - ask any other industry that is in production!
 
  • Like
Reactions: iPadCary
I don't think this kind of vision is at Apple anymore with Steve gone - he made the impossible happen and pushed the entire industry forward. Who's doing that now?
 
So the gist is what Steve did was 1) not want to implement iTunes on the PC, 2) say "keep trying", and 3) wanted to put multi-touch on the phone, but at the time it was only available on a huge ping-pong sized table.

Somebody remind me where's the genius again? Seems to me it was in the developers, and Steve just chose what he liked.


Steve plays the orchestra. The developers play the instruments. A piccolo or a violin is nice, but it doesn't really mean anything until you have a master composer and director put it together in the perfect combination.
 
Cook is tech illiterate so the only thing he's pushing is profit$. Forecast is cloudy unless they fire Cook and replace him with the original founder Wozniak.
 
January-2007-iPhone-introduction-iPhone-meets-iPod-slide.jpg

This joke seems a little funnier now.

He put that up not only as a joke, but as self-protection against anyone later noticing that Apple had indeed filed for a patent for an iPod based Phone:

2005_apple_patent.png


Jobs (and Ive) seemed to have a tendency to first try to reuse whatever worked before. App icon based GUI. Rounded corners. Chrome bezel. Clickwheel. Makes sense, though. Why mess with success? :)
 
Cook is tech illiterate so the only thing he's pushing is profit$. Forecast is cloudy unless they fire Cook and replace him with the original founder Wozniak.
Not gonna happen. Nothing wrong with profit$. Welcome to the new Apple; hope you like it.
[doublepost=1456923056][/doublepost]
Listen to the playful casualness of Steve's voice, vision & direction.
And it led to the creation of a thing that's the major money-maker
for the biggest corporation in Earth's history.
Apple is so missing that magical "certain something" that made it what it is now.
Anyone who says Cook is just as good at it is insane.
Insane? Really? It's better off being emotionally detached from companies whose products you buy.
 
What an odd use of the word immoral.
Was Apple immorally copying Samsung when they came out with a larger IPhone?

If you don't get it Bubba, here's clearly no point in explaining it to you.
[doublepost=1456968915][/doublepost]
Apple invented nothing fundamentally new or unique in the touch world. Multi-touch, finger friendly UIs, inertia scrolling and all the rest was well known stuff. Most just hadn't been commercialized yet to the mass consumer.

Moreover, without Google's crucial help via Jobs' placement of his admirer Schmidt on his board, the first iPhone would've been missing Google Search, Maps, YouTube, and the original Google wifi/cell tower location method. Wouldn't have been very useful a device without those features.



Not your fault for getting that impression, but that didn't happen. All that Fadell meant was that Jobs had shown him an example of multi-touch on a big platform. Not that the large platform was later shrunk.

It wouldn't even have been the same hardware technology used. Not even close. A big touch table would've most likely used projectors and cameras, not the transparent conductive lines (and other methods) used in front of much smaller CRT and LCD displays.

Shrinking was not the problem. The difficulty was finding someone able to manufacture smaller screens in quantity. Although there were at least a half dozen touchscreen manufacturers at the time, most were geared only towards making desktop monitor sized touchscreens.

So when Apple needed a smaller screen multi-touch projected capacitance screen in 2006, probably only Synaptics and a Taiwanese company called TPK had the ability to ramp up enough production in time.

As it turned out, an established German company called Balda had bought half of TPK in 2006, and Balda was able to make a deal with Apple to supply the iPhone's original touchscreen.

You're right. No one had commercialised it, hence Apple taking all the risk. Not to mention the energies and monies expended in investigating abortive solutions.
 
You're right. No one had commercialised it, hence Apple taking all the risk. Not to mention the energies and monies expended in investigating abortive solutions.

Not much of a risk.

Monetarily, they've said they only spent about $100 million on developing the iPhone over a year and a half, which was less than 0.5% of their revenue. Other companies spend far more than that on R&D that never reaches production.

Reputation wise, the only other phone they'd been associated with was the ill fated ROKR. Thus their phone rep had nowhere to go except UP from that point :)

Everyone in the business knew that capacitive touch friendly phones were going to be hot items, but all felt they had to move slowly since they had mostly legacy enterprise users. Apple's lack of legacy button and stylus based devices is why it was able to jump in ahead of others.

Although, yes, Jobs wasn't sure how well it would actually do in the market. That's why he said he'd be happy with even a 1% share. But if it had failed, it could always become another "hobby". Fortunately, it eventually did take off in sales, especially after he relented and allowed third party apps. Kudos to him!
 
  • Like
Reactions: samcraig
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.