Thread: Steve Jobs dead at age 56

You said it. Analyzing. Liking, disliking. Opinion. Not the type of verbal diarrhea I've witnessed here on a condolences thread.

>> Good riddance, the world is finally rid of that idiot.
>> he's also the source of all the Evil™
>> The world would have been better off without him

For a moment there I thought we were talking about Omar Al-Bashir. But I was wrong.

Originally Posted by MK27

Just because you do not buy someone's products does not mean what they do is no concern of yours, or that criticizing them is inappropriate. If that were the case, we would have no environmental regulations at all, etc.

Analyzing consumer behavior and the consequences of such is a very valid thing to do -- how are you going to understand Modern Western Civilization otherwise? The snowballing impact of SUVs is a good example of this, not just because they are wasteful, but because of the situation it creates for everyone on or near a roadway. To say company X spearheaded the advertising campaigns that brought us to this (which is what I think Elysia is doing) is often just a statement of fact; the debate is about the significance of the consequences.

Quite right. Apple has set a "standard" in the industry. The whole closed market thing was really set into stone with Apple's doing, and now competitors feel they need to do something similar.
I don't buy Apple products, and I don't develop for Apple devices, but that doesn't change the fact that what Apple is doing is negatively effecting my surroundings, and I have every right to complain about that.

Could you please stop it?! This is a "Steve Jobs dead at age 56" thread, not a "Apple's Evil Ways" one!

Have some respect, will you!?

Originally Posted by MK27

Analyzing consumer behavior and the consequences of such is a very valid thing to do -- how are you going to understand Modern Western Civilization otherwise? The snowballing impact of SUVs is a good example of this, not just because they are wasteful, but because of the situation it creates for everyone on or near a roadway. To say company X spearheaded the advertising campaigns that brought us to this (which is what I think Elysia is doing) is often just a statement of fact; the debate is about the significance of the consequences.

That analogy doesn't really hold water. People who drive SUVs and add extra pollution to the areas surround the roadways negatively affect people who live/work/whatever near there. People who use an iPhone, with it's restricted/closed platform don't negatively affect those around them. If all those other people want to jump on the bandwagon of an overpriced toy with significantly less flexibility than the competition, the that's their problem, or maybe it's not their problem because they don't care about openness like some people do. They may like pretty, simple, restricted and highly controlled so they don't have to worry about it.

My contention with Elysia, and the reason I "liked" Mario's post is the whole "lack of choice" thing, or as Elysia put it, Apple being given "the right to take away choice from people". Having an iPhone gives you more choices in apps to download, etc, than not having one (note, I didn't say more than having a different smart phone). It's not like people were forced into using iPhones, then Apple said "if you own an iPhone, you no longer get to decide if you want fries with that, Apple will order your food for you" and everybody had to comply under penalty of death. An iPhone with an open platform where I don't have to live by Apple's rules is not some fundamental human right that Steve Jobs single-handedly stripped the world of. It's a commercial product and services (what is called a luxury item -- not necessary for basic life), so Apple has a great deal of flexibility with how they make it work or not work. You only have to live by their restrictive rules in their closed world if you choose to buy an iPhone. You always have been, are now, and will continue to be free to not buy an iPhone. Even Apple and the almighty Steve Jobs can't take that away from you.

Originally Posted by GReaper

Could you please stop it?! This is a "Steve Jobs dead at age 56" thread, not a "Apple's Evil Ways" one!

Have some respect, will you!?

What better way to honor the man in question, by discussing his legacy, be it good or bad?

His business model is disgusting, he sold his products through hype and aesthetics, and then strived for monopoly on every market he entered with incompatibility and proprietarity.

Originally Posted by Neo1

His business model is disgusting, he sold his products through hype and aesthetics, and then strived for monopoly on every market he entered with incompatibility and proprietarity.

By "disgusting", you mean brilliant, self-centered and profitable?

Originally Posted by GReaper

By "disgusting", you mean brilliant, self-centered and profitable?

Well that depends, are you a stock-holder, or a customer?

Originally Posted by Yarin

Indeed he was. But I think hardly calls for "disgusting".

This shouldn't matter by much. The stocks are effected by what the customers do. If everyone loves the products, they'll buy and stocks will go up. If everyone feels the way we do (that being, on the quality of their products), then the stocks would fall.

How is the physical qualities of their product (Materials, finish, internals), related to the way they treat their customers, the people who develop apps for their platform, the people who work for them?

They can make good products that sell well, and at the same time have a disgusting way of running their business, the two are not mutually exclusive in any way.

Originally Posted by Yarin

It's all related, because if their customers actually did have a problem with the way they get treated, then people would steer away. Keep in mind that even though Apple _is_ very monopolistic, MS still has it. Unhappy customers = Less customers = Less income = Lower stocks.

You assume that the products sell well because people are happy about the products, at the same time you state that Apple is very monopolistic, this is a contradiction. You think that iTunes would have been anywhere near as big a success as it was without the iPod? It's a perfect example of how Apple does, they take over the mp3-player market while it is still in its infancy, by releasing a great product that is light-years ahead of the competition (Which it no doubt was), then they force people to use the iTunes software if they want to transfer music to their iPod, and suddenly they're sitting on the music-software market as well.

A good product, but disgusting business practices. Again, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by Neo1

You assume that the products sell well because people are happy about the products

Actually, I think he assumes that they're happy about their products because they are happy about their products... Apple consistently has lower return rates and produces the highest customer satisfaction scores of any major tech company. Not to mention the fact that he, like I and I'm sure everyone else in the world, probably knows dozens of iPhone, iPad, or iPod owners... none of which have a major complaint about any of their products.

By the way... that "horrible business practice" is what allows them to produce the more streamlined (albiet technically limited) product on the market which in turn allows them to produce the high satisfaction ratings. It's because they know exactly what their product can and will interact with. If you start allowing your device to interact with third-party software, you put yourself at the mercy of their quality control... next thing you know people are complaining that they're having trouble uploading music to their iPod from XYZ software, so they begin to dislike their iPod when it's really XYZ's fault. It is, of course, easier for Apple to maintain how iTunes works with the operating systems it's written for than to maintain how their device software interacts with any software that chooses to interact with it.

You're right that this business model limits the user and the developer... but the fact is that it offers all of the functionality that most of the public needs and that's what the sales have shown. You could whine all day that people just don't know any better, but the fact is that most of them don't care or don't have the capacity to know any better... Apple is just catering to that fact.

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

You could whine all day that people just don't know any better

Code:

while(true)
         [whine] assert((Most)Users are idiots and are confused by functionality); [/whine]

It is sad that only those who respect and enforce this(&& also happen to have a crufty business policy) are hailed as visionaries!
Not that HE wasn't a great man, but the reputation is somewhat over-hyped because of those presentation/lectures. )

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

You're right that this business model limits the user and the developer... but the fact is that it offers all of the functionality that most of the public needs and that's what the sales have shown. You could whine all day that people just don't know any better, but the fact is that most of them don't care or don't have the capacity to know any better... Apple is just catering to that fact.

So Apple is exploiting the fact that most people have no idea that what they're doing is limiting to both customers and developers, yet their sales are through the roof. Hence, shady business model AND high profits, which is the very thing that Yarin argued wasn't possible, since, as we all know, <sarcasm> capitalism is fool proof and any company with an immoral business model will decay and eventually perish because their customers will find a moral alternative. </sarcasm>