Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #49444 > unrolled thread

Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-05 09:21 -0700
    Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-10-05 15:46 -0400
      Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-06 09:35 +1300
        Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-05 16:40 -0400
      Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-06 08:02 +1100
        Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> - 2013-10-05 20:45 -0400
          Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-10-05 23:04 -0400
            Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2013-10-16 22:56 -0700
              Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-17 02:48 -0400
                Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2013-10-20 00:46 -0500
          Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-06 14:05 +1100
    Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-06 08:04 +1100
      Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-10-05 18:48 -0400
        Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-06 10:18 +1100
          Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> - 2013-10-05 23:12 -0400
            Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-06 17:16 +1300
              Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-06 17:09 +1100
              Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-10-06 02:10 -0400
                Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-06 19:51 +1300
                Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-06 19:35 +1100
                Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-06 08:11 -0700
            Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-06 17:00 +1100
              Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-10-06 09:30 -0700
                Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-07 04:00 +1100
                  Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-10-06 15:32 -0700
                    Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-07 10:05 +1100
                      Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-10-06 19:01 -0500
                        Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-07 12:00 +1100
                    Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-10-06 18:48 -0500
                      Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Neil Ellwood <cral.elllwood2@btopenworld.com> - 2013-10-08 06:40 -0500
                        Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-09 09:05 +1300
                    Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> - 2013-10-06 21:00 -0400
                      Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-06 19:55 -0700
                        Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> - 2013-10-07 08:28 -0400
              Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> - 2013-10-06 14:26 -0400
                Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-07 07:57 +1100
            Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-10-06 02:47 -0400
    Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Jon <jon@no-email.org> - 2013-10-06 17:34 +0100
      Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-07 04:05 +1100
      Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Prancer <prancer@prancer.commatose> - 2013-10-06 10:22 -0700
      Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-07 09:10 +1300
    Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Saint Isidore Patron Saint of the Internet <tadapope@gmail.com> - 2013-10-21 21:44 -0700
      Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2013-10-21 22:10 -0700
        Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-22 18:54 +1300
          Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-22 02:35 -0400
        Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-22 02:35 -0400
          Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-10-22 03:15 -0400
            Re: Two years after Steve Jobs' death, how's that new CEO working out? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-23 13:34 +1300

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#49527

In article <5250fec5$0$59839$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > iWatch, iTV, ... or maybe iGlasses.  ;-)
> 
> Nobody has mentioned iBelt. Think about it. Good location to put in 
> stuff, and if the belt is well designed, you can hang your phone on it 
> too.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw2nkoGLhrE>

-- 
All usenet users are quirky, but some are more quirky than others.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49510

Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>> Or realises that it's a mature market now and isnt
>> even trying to find a radical new product anymore.

> Oh, I'm sure they're working on SOMETHING,

Sure, but not a radical new product. They have never had
one of those since the original computer and then the Mac.

Everything since then has just been doing much better what
is already a buyable product and very late with the iphone too.

> some product that might not be ready for another decade.

I don't think that is at all likely. They have never done that before.

Even the original computer wasn't that either.

> You say "mature market" as if there is
> only one market Apple is dealing with.

No, I was talking about all the markets that Apple is involved in and
others that are likely markets that Apple might be interested in.

> Somewhere in Apple, a team is coming up
> with new products others haven't tried yet.

I don't believe that given that they never have done anything like that.

> Somewhere else in Apple, they're looking at products that have flopped in
> the past and seeing if they can finally get them good enough to be a 
> success.

Sure, but there isnt any real evidence that Apple
has ever come up with a viable product that way.

Even Siri isn't anything like that.

The original Mac GUI wasn't either.

> They have the money, and tradition, to take the long view of development.

Sure, but that hasn't produced anything radically new.

> To not, for example, release an unready Newton, but instead keep
> products in development until they actually are consumer ready.

They didn't even do that with the ipod or iphone or ipad or Mac. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49538

In article <bbcclsFol1dU1@mid.individual.net>,
 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> wrote
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> 
> >> Or realises that it's a mature market now and isnt
> >> even trying to find a radical new product anymore.
> 
> > Oh, I'm sure they're working on SOMETHING,
> 
> Sure, but not a radical new product.

Like you know.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49542

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>>> Or realises that it's a mature market now and isnt
>>>> even trying to find a radical new product anymore.

>> > Oh, I'm sure they're working on SOMETHING,

>> Sure, but not a radical new product.

> Like you know.

Yep, because there are no radical new products that are going
to show up any time soon, that we don’t know about already. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49584

In article <bbdjbdF27niU1@mid.individual.net>,
 "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> wrote
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> 
> >>>> Or realises that it's a mature market now and isnt
> >>>> even trying to find a radical new product anymore.
> 
> >> > Oh, I'm sure they're working on SOMETHING,
> 
> >> Sure, but not a radical new product.
> 
> > Like you know.
> 
> Yep, because there are no radical new products that are going
> to show up any time soon, that we donšt know about already. 

Like you can predict the future.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49591

Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>> Or realises that it's a mature market now and isnt
>>>>>> even trying to find a radical new product anymore.

>>>>> Oh, I'm sure they're working on SOMETHING,

>>>> Sure, but not a radical new product.

>>> Like you know.

>> Yep, because there are no radical new products that are going
>> to show up any time soon, that we don¹t know about already.

> Like you can predict the future.

Don’t need to predict the future, just look at what Apple has ever done.

There are in fact very few radical new products that ever come out
of an industry major. Xerox Parc is one of the very few examples of
that and Apple has never done anything like that. All its ever done
is see what others have already produced radical new product wise
and done a hell of job of producing a viable consumer product. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49595

On 10/6/13 6:05 PM, in article bbe8nsF6oddU1@mid.individual.net, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> 
>>>>>>> Or realises that it's a mature market now and isnt
>>>>>>> even trying to find a radical new product anymore.
> 
>>>>>> Oh, I'm sure they're working on SOMETHING,
> 
>>>>> Sure, but not a radical new product.
> 
>>>> Like you know.
> 
>>> Yep, because there are no radical new products that are going
>>> to show up any time soon, that we don¹t know about already.
> 
>> Like you can predict the future.
> 
> Don’t need to predict the future, just look at what Apple has ever done.
> 
> There are in fact very few radical new products that ever come out
> of an industry major. Xerox Parc is one of the very few examples of
> that and Apple has never done anything like that. All its ever done
> is see what others have already produced radical new product wise
> and done a hell of job of producing a viable consumer product.
> 

And you are telling us that the iPod and it's ecosystem was NOT a radical
new product?!? Gimme a BREAK already!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49602

George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>>>> Or realises that it's a mature market now and isnt
>>>>>>>> even trying to find a radical new product anymore.

>>>>>>> Oh, I'm sure they're working on SOMETHING,

>>>>>> Sure, but not a radical new product.

>>>>> Like you know.

>>>> Yep, because there are no radical new products that are going
>>>> to show up any time soon, that we don¹t know about already.

>>> Like you can predict the future.

>> Don’t need to predict the future, just look at what Apple has ever done.

>> There are in fact very few radical new products that ever come out
>> of an industry major. Xerox Parc is one of the very few examples of
>> that and Apple has never done anything like that. All its ever done
>> is see what others have already produced radical new product wise
>> and done a hell of job of producing a viable consumer product.

> And you are telling us that the iPod and it's
> ecosystem was NOT a radical new product?!?

The ipod clearly was not given the media players already around.

Like I said ALL Apple EVER does is take an existing product
and do a hell of a job of producing a viable consumer product.

In this case both with the hardware and
the convenient way of buying stuff for it.

Its not as if even the 'ecosystem' of the ipod
was a radically new product either given that
we had already been able to buy mp3s on the
net before the ipod showed up.

Like I said, ALL Apple did was do a hell of a job
of improving the user interface stuff with both.

> Gimme a BREAK already!

You don’t qualify for any BREAK. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49594

On 10/6/13 5:32 PM, in article
jollyroger-752B32.15321806102013@news.individual.net, "Jolly Roger"
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <bbdjbdF27niU1@mid.individual.net>,
>  "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> 
>>>>>> Or realises that it's a mature market now and isnt
>>>>>> even trying to find a radical new product anymore.
>> 
>>>>> Oh, I'm sure they're working on SOMETHING,
>> 
>>>> Sure, but not a radical new product.
>> 
>>> Like you know.
>> 
>> Yep, because there are no radical new products that are going
>> to show up any time soon, that we don¹t know about already.
> 
> Like you can predict the future.

Well, his name contains "speed". Maybe he drives a DeLorean?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49685

On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 18:48:46 -0500, George Kerby wrote:

> On 10/6/13 5:32 PM, in article
> jollyroger-752B32.15321806102013@news.individual.net, "Jolly Roger"
> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <bbdjbdF27niU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>  "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> 
>>>>>>> Or realises that it's a mature market now and isnt even trying to
>>>>>>> find a radical new product anymore.
>>> 
>>>>>> Oh, I'm sure they're working on SOMETHING,
>>> 
>>>>> Sure, but not a radical new product.
>>> 
>>>> Like you know.
>>> 
>>> Yep, because there are no radical new products that are going to show
>>> up any time soon, that we don¹t know about already.
>> 
>> Like you can predict the future.
> 
> Well, his name contains "speed". Maybe he drives a DeLorean?


You do mean the car that was produced in Northern Ireland by a fraudster.


-- 
Neil
Reverse ‘a’ and ‘r’ 
Remove ‘l’ to get address.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49706

In article <-9ednXBiDYKwcs7PnZ2dnUVZ7qidnZ2d@bt.com>, Neil Ellwood
<cral.elllwood2@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 18:48:46 -0500, George Kerby wrote:
> > On 10/6/13 5:32 PM, in article
> > jollyroger-752B32.15321806102013@news.individual.net, "Jolly Roger"
> > <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> In article <bbdjbdF27niU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >>  "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
> >>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>> Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> wrote
> >>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Or realises that it's a mature market now and isnt even trying to
> >>>>>>> find a radical new product anymore.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Oh, I'm sure they're working on SOMETHING,
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Sure, but not a radical new product.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Like you know.
> >>> 
> >>> Yep, because there are no radical new products that are going to show
> >>> up any time soon, that we don¬¼t know about already.
> >> 
> >> Like you can predict the future.
> > 
> > Well, his name contains "speed". Maybe he drives a DeLorean?
> 
> You do mean the car that was produced in Northern Ireland by a fraudster.

He may have been a fraudster, but the car was real and produced - if in
limited, over-priced numbers and being unreliable and easily damaged.

A while back someone was planning to bring the car back again and make
updated versions running on electric motors. It was supposedly due for
release in 2013 ... well, they'd better hurry up.
<http://www.gizmag.com/delorean-to-be-resurected-with-us100000-125-mph-e
v/20188/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49601

In article <jollyroger-752B32.15321806102013@news.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <bbdjbdF27niU1@mid.individual.net>,
>  "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
> > > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> > >> Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> wrote
> > >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> > 
> > >>>> Or realises that it's a mature market now and isnt
> > >>>> even trying to find a radical new product anymore.
> > 
> > >> > Oh, I'm sure they're working on SOMETHING,
> > 
> > >> Sure, but not a radical new product.
> > 
> > > Like you know.
> > 
> > Yep, because there are no radical new products that are going
> > to show up any time soon, that we donšt know about already. 
> 
> Like you can predict the future.

It's tough to predict about anything, especially the future. 
-- Yogi Berra

-- 
PRAY, v.  To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf
of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. -- Ambrose Bierce

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49605

In article <tom_stiller-1FF1D5.21002306102013@news.individual.net>,
 Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It's tough to predict about anything, especially the future. 
> -- Yogi Berra

He also said "The future ain't what it used to be."

-- 
All usenet users are quirky, but some are more quirky than others.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49618

In article <michelle-0DE7DD.19555306102013@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <tom_stiller-1FF1D5.21002306102013@news.individual.net>,
>  Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > It's tough to predict about anything, especially the future. 
> > -- Yogi Berra
> 
> He also said "The future ain't what it used to be."

I like that.

-- 
PRAY, v.  To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf
of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. -- Ambrose Bierce

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49548

In article <bbcclsFol1dU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> wrote

> > You say "mature market" as if there is
> > only one market Apple is dealing with.
> 
> No, I was talking about all the markets that Apple is involved in and
> others that are likely markets that Apple might be interested in.
> 
So every market, for every conceivable product, is now mature. Well,
that's good to know.
 
> > Somewhere in Apple, a team is coming up
> > with new products others haven't tried yet.
> 
> I don't believe that given that they never have done anything like that.

Oh, I'm sure they've done it lots of times. They just never led to
anything that could be released :)

> 
> > Somewhere else in Apple, they're looking at products that have flopped in
> > the past and seeing if they can finally get them good enough to be a 
> > success.
> 
> Sure, but there isnt any real evidence that Apple
> has ever come up with a viable product that way.
> 
The iPad is one. Tablets were a failure, always had been. Now suddenly
they're selling. I'd argue the same thing about the original iPod. MP3
players existed, but nobody cared.

> > To not, for example, release an unready Newton, but instead keep
> > products in development until they actually are consumer ready.
> 
> They didn't even do that with the ipod or iphone or ipad or Mac. 
> 
Sure they did. The old Apple, in the 1990's, would have publicly
announced they were working on an iPhone with a touch screen years
before it was ready, probably rushing something out to prove they were
serious. The modern Apple waited until the thing actually worked until
even letting on they were even moving in that direction.

(actually, my theory is the iPad was the goal since Jobs returned to
Apple, and as R&D finally solved a problem a secondary use for that
tech was found. We got the iPod, iPhone, maybe even the flat screen
iMac, because the tech was there but the iPad still wasn't ready)

-- 
Chris Mack       "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan'             - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49574

Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> wrote

>>> You say "mature market" as if there is
>>> only one market Apple is dealing with.

>> No, I was talking about all the markets that Apple is involved in and
>> others that are likely markets that Apple might be interested in.

> So every market, for every conceivable product,

No, just the ones Apple is currently involved
in, and those its likely to be interested in.

> is now mature. Well, that's good to know.

>>> Somewhere in Apple, a team is coming up
>>> with new products others haven't tried yet.

>> I don't believe that given that they never have done anything like that.

> Oh, I'm sure they've done it lots of times.

Your surety is completely irrelevant to the real world.

> They just never led to anything that could be released :)

Easy to claim...

>>> Somewhere else in Apple, they're looking at products that have flopped 
>>> in
>>> the past and seeing if they can finally get them good enough to be a 
>>> success.

>> Sure, but there isnt any real evidence that Apple
>> has ever come up with a viable product that way.

> The iPad is one.

No. There were tablets around before Apple produced one.

Same with media players, phones, computers, everything they have ever 
produced.

> Tablets were a failure, always had been.

Wrong. The Palm alone wasn't.

> Now suddenly they're selling. I'd argue the same thing about the original 
> iPod.

More fool you.

> MP3 players existed, but nobody cared.

Plenty did. And plenty loved the walkman too.

>>> To not, for example, release an unready Newton, but instead keep
>>> products in development until they actually are consumer ready.

>> They didn't even do that with the ipod or iphone or ipad or Mac.

> Sure they did.

No. What they actually did was look at what was available to the
consumers from others and do their own that was a lot better
than most of the rest of what was on offer to the consumers.

> The old Apple, in the 1990's, would have publicly announced they
> were working on an iPhone with a touch screen years before it was
> ready, probably rushing something out to prove they were serious.

That didn't happen with the ipod. It didn't take that long
to produce a viable product that left the rest for dead.

It wasn't what happened with the original Mac either.

> The modern Apple waited until the thing actually worked
> until even letting on they were even moving in that direction.

That only happened with the iphone.

> (actually, my theory is the iPad was the goal since Jobs returned to
> Apple, and as R&D finally solved a problem a secondary use for that
> tech was found. We got the iPod, iPhone, maybe even the flat screen
> iMac, because the tech was there but the iPad still wasn't ready)

Not with the ipod alone which had a very different start,
particularly with the very minimal UI ipods like the Shuffle. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49514

On 13-10-05 23:12, Invid Fan wrote:

> only one market Apple is dealing with. Somewhere in Apple, a team is
> coming up with new products others haven't tried yet. Somewhere else in
> Apple, they're looking at products that have flopped in the past and
> seeing if they can finally get them good enough to be a success.

I think that before they get to that point, they look at technologies.
For the iPhone for instance, capacitive screens were not yet doable for
mass market with multi touch capability. When this became possible to
manufacture in large quantities, it opened the door to a vast new array
of devices. Apple was first to make use of it.

Advances in battery, LCD , sensors may enable new features in the
phones. Whi;e the rectangular slab of glass may remain the same for a
while, the functions inside may change quite a bit. Consider what that
M7 chip may enable as functions/applications.

And of course, Apple may drop ts conservative suit and start to allow
far more innovative apps and functions on phones even if carriers scream
against them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49539

On 05/10/2013 5:21 pm, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> His answer might surprise you.
>
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/05/tim_cook_and_apple_two_years_after_
> steve_jobs_death/>
>

It's not working out, Cook is just a bean counter, he has no vision or 
drive, he's a disaster of Ballmer proportions!

Scott Forstall should be CEO of Apple.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49545

Jon <jon@no-email.org> wrote
> Michelle Steiner wrote

>> His answer might surprise you.

>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/05/tim_cook_and_apple_two_years_after_steve_jobs_death/>

> It's not working out,

Corse it is, Apple continues to make useful enhancements
to the iphone and ipad and has worked out how to get their
act into gear on churning out itoys very effectively indeed.

> Cook is just a bean counter,

He's a lot more than just that.

> he has no vision or drive,

He knows enough to ensure that Apple employs those who do.

> he's a disaster of Ballmer proportions!

Bullshit. Nothing like the terminal stupiditys like the Surface,
purchase of the cellphone side of Nokia, etc etc etc.

> Scott Forstall should be CEO of Apple.

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#49546

In article <l2s3fg$eio$1@dont-email.me>, Jon <jon@no-email.org> wrote:

> It's not working out, Cook is just a bean counter, he has no vision or 
> drive, he's a disaster of Ballmer proportions!

What universe are you living in?

-- 
Ho Ho Ho my ass.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web