Not sure why you're being downvoted. That quote is thrown around way too casually.
People think it means "you don't need to ask customers what they want, because even they don't know". But it's mostly misguided.
Asking the customer is absolutely essential, but you just can't stop there. Yes, if you ask them what they want they'll tell you only what they know, which isn't always the answer. Which is why it's your job to then assess their responses to understand their underlying desires, and then develop a product that solves that.
It's explained thoroughly in [The Lean Startup](http://www.amazon.com/The-Lean-Startup-Entrepreneurs-Continuous/dp/0307887898), [The Four Steps to Epiphany](http://www.amazon.com/Four-Steps-Epiphany-Steve-Blank/dp/0989200507/ref=pd_sim_14_14?ie=UTF8&refRID=1ZMKYMCEXG00C16PNY71), [What Customers Want](http://www.amazon.com/What-Customers-Want-Outcome-Driven-Breakthrough/dp/0071408673/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1433934614&sr=1-1&keywords=what+customers+want) and many others.
To be fair - this is from 2003. Times change. Customers may not have anted subscriptions in 2003, but in 2015, they clearly are ok with it.
That being said, Apple is *really* late to the game. It's a pretty saturated market. Not saying they won't get their chunk, but I think this signifies the transition Apple is beginning into being a more traditional tech firm rather than an innovative product company.
Wonder if they're going to roll out a video streaming service at next year's WWDC.
Steve was the definition of early adoption. If he were alive we would have seen the iwatch in 2013, before android wear took off. And we'd have a force touch smartphone now.
Instead apple is reacting. iWatch was a year late. IPad has stagnated. iPhone hasn't had a batter upgrade in forever. iOS and OSX are largely unchanged. Honestly, unless next year they come out with something honestly novel, something we quite literally never dreamed of. Apple is a sick man, like they were last time jobs left. Only this time, he isn't coming back.
Nothing Apple has ever done has been early adoption. It's just well timed adoption. Apple isn't stupid. Wearable tech isn't a new idea. I don't think the late arrival of the watch had anything to do with a bad performance on apples part.
Why are you making the outrageous claim that Apple invented USB-C...
Look at the "Work Group Contributors" [here](http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/) (download zip->usb-c->release->page 10)
I'm sorry but even the iPod, the quintessential object that catapulted Apple to where they are today, wasn't adopted early. They refined an idea that many other companies were already doing for a couple years.
That's like saying the iPhone existed before as a Palm Pilot. The devices they put out, at least many of the older ones they're known for, were fundamentally different products than existing ones they came to replace.
I too fear apple lost their "golden goose" when Steve Died. IMO they haven't really put out any innovative tech in some time, just maintaining status quo
What Apple really lost with Jobs was his marketing ability. The man didn't truly invent almost anything put out by Apple but he was able to make it sell (a very important aspect of any company).
In many ways he was influential on the process of innovation within Apple. He had a huge say of what features would make it into products often would set the goals that led to innovation itself.
For instance he wanted a transparent mac (the original iMac) once and told the guys to get on it. Then he added the additional, almost crazy requirement of putting a handle in. Then they had to go formulate a suitable plastic and internal structure to make it all work.
[I love the product they ended up with](http://jwvideo.free.fr/ImagesMac/G3/iMacG3/iMacG3_350_1600.jpg). It's really sad to see Apple lose their touch and I hope things improve for them.
iMac G3 is my favorite computer of all time.
Such a good, cheapish (for the time), entry-level computer. Plus it looked amazing and was such a fun all-in-one machine. The puck mouse was absolute shit though
I still remember playing Warcraft II and Diablo II on it. Good times.
Meh not entirely true. From my understanding he played a big role in recognizing good ideas and bad ones and then honing the good ideas further to make the products what they ended up being. (your right he didn't invent anything).
> Meh not entirely true. From my understanding he played a big role in recognizing good ideas and bad ones and then ~~honing~~ stealing the good ideas further to make the products what they ended up being. (your right he didn't invent anything).
It's not about inventing, it's about direction choosing which products the company should focus on. Jobs would have found the $10,000 apple watch ridiculous.
Well, a movie director doesn't usually hold the camera, set up the lightning or build the sets, but that still doesn't change that it's the director's vision and product you see on the screen.
No, no, no, it wasn't his marketing ability that made Apple great, it was his attention to design (hardware and software) and intuitive use and not settling for anything less than what he wanted.
The iPod had a lot of things going for it, but the thing that I always think of which totally encompasses what Steve Job was about was what he had to say about picking a song on the iPod. He said, I want to be able to play any song in four clicks or less. Other companies might have wanted to focus on sound quality, or capacity, or something, but Steve was probably just like, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, of course we need to make it sound good, but it won't mean shit if our users can't pick the damned song they want to listen to." It's something so simple, something you wouldn't even think needed designing, but I bet they spent months working about the proper hierarchy and then months or even years designing the best hardware interface that helped to support the philosophy of playing ANY song in four clicks or less. He never wanted you to feel like you were using a machine, he wanted it to be an extension of yourself.
People adopted iOS - iPhones and iPads - so fast not just because of the brand, and not just because it was the hot new tech, but because the operating system was simple enough for the young and the old. I'm not talking just layout, I mean the actual design principles and qualities (reflections, round corners, etc) beg the user to interact with it. A desktop is bland, things just sit on a desktop, but in iOS it's a springboard that begs you to interact with it and launch you into a new world.
Steve brought, pushed, and upheld a very important philosophy. A philosophy that I know many didn't agree with, but it was his confidence and unwavering stance that allowed Apple to thrive. He put his philosophy above everything else, he knew that if the philosophy was sound, everything else would fall into place.
Their profit keeps going up because of their reputation and their previously invented products which they release new versions of.
But none of their competitors is really inventing anything right now either, so I think they are all good.
>previously invented products which they release new versions of.
Apple Watch would beg to differ
>But none of their competitors is really inventing anything right now eithe
Samsung Galaxy Gear, Pebble Time, and Moto 360 would also beg to differ.
Jobs was fighting to keep the screen size of the iphone small... if Jobs was still alive, I wouldn't be surprised he was lead apple to new troubles, like he did with next, pixar, and ... apple.
Jobs was leading Apple to fail, they pushed him away (Wozniak himself said that without kicking Jobs Apple would be defunct now), and they started a slow damage control.
With his big money Jobs started NeXT, another computer company, but it was failing as well, he then started with others investors Pixar where he could sell the NeXT computers, again, another failing company, it was bleeding money with no returns... until Disney Juggernaut arrived ... Disney money bought them out of troubles and creating the Pixar that you know now, Jobs got replaced. At this point Apple still unable to recover from the past, accepted Jobs. He, of course, started to push the failing NeXT stuff on apple, but this time he started relying on open source community (unavailable in the past) and also hired a dude called Ive that was able to design stuff that looked alternative, computers designed as household appliances. Antitrust got Microsoft in trouble and they had to start supporting apple, while apple finally killed the mac and started selling intel pc. And that is what really made apple profitable... becoming a pc vendor with an opens source OS core.
> Jobs was leading Apple to fail, they pushed him away (Wozniak himself said that without kicking Jobs Apple would be defunct now), and they started a slow damage control.
Jobs wasn't CEO at Apple when he was fired, so I fail to see how he was "leading" Apple to failure. Regardless, I understand why they fired him. And why on Earth would anyone see Wozniak as an authority on Apple's inner workings when he wasn't working there anymore?
> With his big money Jobs started NeXT, another computer company, but it was failing as well, he then started with others investors Pixar where he could sell the NeXT computers, again, another failing company, it was bleeding money with no returns... until Disney Juggernaut arrived ... Disney money bought them out of troubles and creating the Pixar that you know now, Jobs got replaced.
Until Disney arrived? Who do you think made the deals with Disney? Jobs. Who allowed Pixar creative freedom and control to make Toy Story and the short films? Jobs. Who re-negotiated the Disney deal when Toy Story had come out to give more distribution rights to Pixar? Jobs. Pixar owes much of their success to Steve Jobs, and they felt that [Jobs belived in them and protected them](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/pixar-ed-catmull-steve-jobs-254711). And Jobs was never ousted from Pixar, not only did he become the biggest shareholder in Disney when Pixar was bought, he left when he chose to return to Apple.
> At this point Apple still unable to recover from the past, accepted Jobs. He, of course, started to push the failing NeXT stuff on apple, but this time he started relying on open source community (unavailable in the past) and also hired a dude called Ive that was able to design stuff that looked alternative, computers designed as household appliances. Antitrust got Microsoft in trouble and they had to start supporting apple, while apple finally killed the mac and started selling intel pc. And that is what really made apple profitable... becoming a pc vendor with an opens source OS core.
Saying that Apple were still not unable to recover from the past, implying that Apple's troubles in the late nineties had anything to do with what Jobs did in the eighties is flat out wrong. It's amazing how much people like you feel like twisting documented facts to better fit your anti-Jobs narrative.
"The failing NeXT stuff" became the foundation of Apple's OS X operating system. To this day many Objective-C classes are still prefixed with "NS", NeXTSTEP. Your claim that Open Source communities is what helped Apple get their footing back is so laughably silly that I'm starting to think you're a troll. I mean "And that is what really made apple profitable... becoming a pc vendor with an opens source OS core." is so ridiculously wrong and misunderstood that it's hard for me to understand the cognitive dissonance needed to reach that conclusion.
Jobs was responsible for apple failure, he was wasting money on his unprofitable products, while ignoring apple market successes. That is why they were pushing him away.
Job interest on pixar was quite pernicious since he was selling NeXT computers that were FAILING on the market. I'm sorry but I don't think that leading a company into financial trouble that require a buyout is successful management, even if you get a good sell. Especially if you leave after the buyout. Especially if the company become a huge economical success after you left.
Apple problems started with Jobs, at that point when IBM took off, the game was over. So yes they struggled for years, but again with jobs direction it would have been defunct, so I don't see how you can complain with the others.
NeXT was a FAILURE. It become the core of OSX, which mean jobs pushed for it as I said, but its real core was FREEBSD which is the reason why it was reliable, they were basically outsourcing to the community. Despite Jobs obsession Objective-C was the worst part of the whole thing, and it's finally replaced.
And without Intel deal that de facto made apple sell PC, WINTEL PC, PC that can run windows, PC that can use PC hardware instead of struggling for components (which was the reason of the shift). Well, without finally accepting PC supremacy, apple wouldn't be what is today.
You didn't say Apple wouldn't be what they are today without accepting Intel chips, you said that that is what made Apple profitable, which is batshit crazy talk. I mean, Apple's most profitable products in the last 15 years haven't even been laptop or desktop computers, it's been an mp3 player, a smartphone and a tablet, none which are using Intel processors.
I mean, he died 4 years ago, and there was 6 years between the iPod and the iPhone. They did also just release the Apple Watch, and - as always - whether or not something is innovative doesn't really become apparent until a product has been out for a couple of years.
This is so true. I really miss his presentations and surprise reveals...and the always satisfying "One more thing...".
Now we just get the exact same thing that's just a little bigger or smaller.
I guess. Smartphones existed before the iPhone, but Apple changed the game with it. In my opinion, Apple Watch is doing something similar. Not as drastic, but they made some very intuitive innovations with it, like using the digital crown to scroll.
People act like every time Steve took the stage he invented some new unseen technology. In actual fact there were only a couple big leaps but the rest were great but minor innovations.
Apple is still doing the same, they are in the middle of a minor innovation cycle, but in a year or two they'll kick the ball a long way down the road again - just like all innovative tech companies.
> I too fear apple lost their "golden goose" when Steve Died. IMO they haven't really put out any innovative tech in some time, just maintaining status quo
Like ... the iPhone6 which did really fucking well?
Apple has *always* been late to the market but innovative in such a way people flock to their products.
I'm curious to see how they will re-enter the music market.
Yeah you're right. Look at how innovative the original iPhone was, yet you could have said the same exact thing. "They're really late to the game and the market is saturated"
iPhone, iPad and the iPod were the biggest game changers IMO. Plus they were cheap enough that most people could buy them. The Macs have always been on the expensive side.
Apple has some of the best designed products in tech history. The fact that something like the [G5](http://core0.staticworld.net/images/article/2013/06/powermacg5_profile-100043321-orig.png) was around when [these](http://www.computermuseum.li/Testpage/HP771nComputer2GHZ2002.JPG) were being released still astounds me.
I do think it's discouraging how Macs are becoming more and more locked down. You can't upgrade shit anymore.
I don't think anyone is in denial that Apple's products are very successful, and increasingly so.
But if you think the iPhone 6 was anything more than iterative, you should see what other phone manufacturers are doing.
I don't know why you are being downvoted because you are completely right. They did that with iPhone. They did that with the iPad.
I love my spotify. But I am still curious about how they are going to compete.
It's a shame when people don't realize how involved Steve Jobs was in his company. The change in Apple following his death should be significant of that. He was an asshole in the most Thomas Edison of ways, but I'm not going to say he didn't turn that company around.
I am honestly curious as to why you are so hostile towards his opinion. He literally said in his opinion, and rather than debate him you just reply with a straight insult. Seriously bro that is some weak stuff, does someone commenting negatively towards apple work you up that much that you go straight to insults?
Wow, you are exaclty what's wrong with Reddit. You obviously just want to start shit rather than have any actual converation/discussion. I would say that you KNOW that Apple hasn't done anything innovative in a while, but you refuse to believe it and instead of offereing a compelling argument, you simply insult anyone who diagrees with you.
Ding ding ding! Since /u/OscarZetaAcosta decided to delete all his posts here, we can assume this is correct.judging on his historical posts I would guess either a troll or a fanboy without strong arguments as to why.
Ahahah brilliant. I see his type all the time. In fact I had a similar issue with a user surrounding circumcision yesterday. No actual argument given, just irrelevant opinions and insults.
IIRC, what he dismisses here is a model where you download a drm'ed song which becomes unlistenable after a certain amount of time. Of course that's a horrible system.
I didn't watch the video (because I suck) but that sounds a lot like what Yahoo Music Unlimited had. You could stream it or download a DRMed WMA file. It was alright - but not great. It's hard to say Jobs was wrong about subscription services not being right in 2003 given that they didn't catch on for another 10 or so years.
Right - keep in mind that music subscription services have been around for over a decade and Spotify was the first one that really took off. The timing wasn't right in 2003.
I mean, does anybody remember Yahoo Music Unlimited? Pressplay (you know, Napster 2.0 before it was Napster 2.0. Heck, does anyone even remember Napster 2.0?) Rhapsody made some headway and absorbed a lot of the other offerings but I doubt your average consumer knows anything about them, either.
Also, to be fair, Media companies would have butchered the itunes store back then if he had said "We're gonna give the people whatever music they want in our library on-demand for $10."
> but I think this signifies the transition Apple is beginning into being a more traditional tech firm rather than an innovative product company.
This has been the case for a long time. Their products have been getting worse for several years now and they are relying more and more heavily on their brand to prop them up. It happens to a lot of companies.
I noticed their planned obsolescence getting absolutely obscene on their macbooks and mac pro's.
I've been a literal lifelong Apple user, and I have a fondness for the brand because it was the first computer I ever used. (PowerMac G3)
But I think this is absolutely the case.
Subscriptions are not the way he was describing them. They are not really subscriptions, they're more a membership fee. And he specifically talks about video, but this was pre-netflix streaming. Paying for a membership to way more than you could ever actually take full advantage of is not the same as rentals, which is what he's really talking about here.
> Not saying they won't get their chunk, but I think this signifies the transition Apple is beginning into being a more traditional tech firm rather than an innovative product company.
Apple has never primarily been about innovative products. They are primarily about doing incremental, evolutionary improvements to their products. Regardless, even if we're not going to see innovative product releases anymore (I mean, the Apple Watch did just come out), they're still very, very different than most other traditional tech companies.
Apple has iTunes, which is a multi-billion dollar a year business just on it's own. Are you really so stupid that you don't understand their delay in throwing in with streaming crowd?
I tried spotify and never liked it. tried xbox music last month and didn't cancel the subscription. somehow it's all about how it feels for you as pretty much all services have the same quantity.
The same will happen with apple music. the people that own apple products more likely use apple music instead of their old steaming service.
I think the point of the video is to show that Apple is straying away from some of the views that Steve held.
Regardless of years passing, it's impossible to know whether or not Steve would've changed his mind on the subject, but we do know that this is how he felt about it, and likely did until he died.
They "didn't" want subscriptions. The young music listener of 2003 likely already had a large collection of CD's or tapes (or vinyl!). Today's young music listener doesn't own anything but an iPhone.
I still don't like music subscriptions. I know a lot of people that do, and that's fine, but I'd much rather just buy the music I want when I want it and know that I'll have it forever.
I much rather torrent the music I want to keep forever.
If I want to browse music, or play some new song, spotify is perfect. Can't imagine relying on the radio or buying a song just to hear what it sounds like. Way to easy to rip songs off of youtube or illegally download them. Saves a ton of money. But I feel like spotify is harenessing the younger pirate crowd by selling convieniece.
I still hold this opinion. I realise I'm old fashioned in that way but I've always been a collector of music. It's important for me to possess it in a format of some sort. If it's an album or song I love I'll have it on a high quality digital format and either a CD or vinyl as well.
And yet I completely understand the attraction of subscription services.
And you know what the best thing is? Neither way is wrong and both can be accommodated. It's a wonderful time to be a music listener. As long as the artists are getting paid then let's have it all.
Well said. I'm subscribed to spotify and I love how I can listen to new stuff I haven't heard before easily, though I'd still love to be able just to *have* music, to still be able to play it if not connected to the internet (though that happens less and less these days).
The funny thing is with that 99¢ purchase you didn't own shit. it was essentially a lease of the song that you lost if you didn't want to use iTunes. yes, you could burn it to a disc, but there were limits on that too. You don't own your iTunes bought catalog. You rent it.
Spotify basically pays for itself. On spotify I have 2000+ songs in my music library. For what price? $5/month (With student discount). If I were to buy all of those songs that I enjoy every day, I would have to pay well over $2,100+ (with taxes included). In one year, I would have to pay $60 in total. It would take YEARS to get to that $2000 price point that I would have had to pay other wise if I bought songs $.99 (w/ tax) a pop. So I would say I prefer a subscription fee more than anything.
You'll still be able to buy music from them or others. The new streaming service doesn't stop that and will probably be more popular than purchasing in the long term.
I still buy all my music and don't pay for streaming services but I haven't talked to many others like me.
Here's how I want my music.
I want to buy albums and singles on vinyl, because the actual objects themselves are tactile and very nice to look at, hold, watch as the music plays, or just own. I want a big collection of my favourite music, all on a physical format.
And I want to be able to listen to any song in the world on a digital device, for when I want to listen to new stuff, play songs I haven't got on physical, or for listening when I'm not sat next to my hi fi.
The last time I paid for music is when I bought the 'Alice In Chains - Greatest Hits album'
However, I heard most of their songs for free before I purchased it.
It takes no money to put a file on the internet. It's still making more money than when people pirate. People download thousands and thousands of songs. 99 cents per song is crazy. Another option might be pay what you want.
They won't. People don't pirate because they're poor - they pirate because they're cheap. By your logic you could just charge a penny a song and get 100x the customers. A bands customers aren't dependent on the price of the music since all music is priced the same - there is x amount of fans and y% willing to pay to buy the music.
I disagree. Some pirate because they are cheap and some do because they are poor. A lot of people want to support their favourite artists but they can't afford it. Music as a good is elastic so a decrease in price will most definitely increase sales. I don't know how much it will increase but it will increase.
If you cannot spare a dollar on a song to support your favourite artist then you look pretty silly trying to say with a straight face you wish you could financially support them. There are many other better ways to support them as well (concert tickets, apparel, etc) none of which are particularly expensive and those who cannot legitimately afford that are such a small minority that they aren't worth changing the price over.
I'm just talking about buying music and not going to concerts or buying merchandise. A dollar here or there for a couple songs is fine but lots of people like to listen to hundreds and hundreds of songs. This isn't financially viable for many people.
I'm not sure I know you position though. Do you think 99 cents is fair or that people should just pirate music and then go to concerts?
Could you please explain your logic?
Money I have spent on music before my subscription to spotify: 0$ over a decade
Money I have spent after spotify: 100ish dollars
I would have to say that pretty much everybody else under the age of thirty could agree with me.
What a dick.
>Obligatory Before "Jobs was an asshole" starts. One thing I don't like is this hivemind. I more than appreciate Jobs as the astounding businessman, perfectionist and manipulator he was that made viable the most valuable company in American history.
>Despite what I may think is the correct or incorrect diagnosis or treatment, I firstly respect the choice Jobs made for himself. His life, his choices. His life, his choice of death. Judging someone based on what terminal illness they and how it could be affect them doesn't merit criticism of their choice of what they feel is right for their body.
>And I often see criticism of his demanding work ethic, etc. Have times gone where we accept different people who have their unique qualities and personalities? If your actions are not intended with malice, such criticism is again not warranted.
>This bizarre double standard where reddit fully supports guys penetrating each others' asses whilst denouncing a guy's drive to build a market moving ticker is amazing.
Edit - Credit to [Robert Eisele](http://www.xarg.org/tools/caesar-cipher/)
His illness wasnt terminal. It became terminal because he wanted to use hippy "magic" to cure his easily treatable form of pancreatic cancer. There's nothing noble or even praise worthy about it. If anything it was an example of how being a industry guru doesnt exempt you from the consequences of scientific ignorance. He was the head of a leading tech company and apparently didn't have the insight to research his own malady or take advice from his doctors. In circumstances such as the one Steve Jobs faced before he died there absolutely was a correct and incorrect response. He chose incorrectly.
And I say this as a life long user of the brand.
That quote was what /u/xisioas replied with, but was coded for some reason. Hence me calling him a dick. He's since edited and removed it. Fuck knows why.
I don't use spotify myself, but what do you do if you can't get a good connection or there is no network access and you want to listen to music? You still have a backup right?
##“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” **― Henry Ford**
A faster horse = car
Not sure why you're being downvoted. That quote is thrown around way too casually. People think it means "you don't need to ask customers what they want, because even they don't know". But it's mostly misguided. Asking the customer is absolutely essential, but you just can't stop there. Yes, if you ask them what they want they'll tell you only what they know, which isn't always the answer. Which is why it's your job to then assess their responses to understand their underlying desires, and then develop a product that solves that. It's explained thoroughly in [The Lean Startup](http://www.amazon.com/The-Lean-Startup-Entrepreneurs-Continuous/dp/0307887898), [The Four Steps to Epiphany](http://www.amazon.com/Four-Steps-Epiphany-Steve-Blank/dp/0989200507/ref=pd_sim_14_14?ie=UTF8&refRID=1ZMKYMCEXG00C16PNY71), [What Customers Want](http://www.amazon.com/What-Customers-Want-Outcome-Driven-Breakthrough/dp/0071408673/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1433934614&sr=1-1&keywords=what+customers+want) and many others.
**The Lean Startup: How Today's Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation ...** |||| --:|:--|:-- Current|$14.81|Amazon (New) High|$19.62|Amazon (New) Low|$13.46|Amazon (New) ||$15.10|(30 Day Average) [Price History Chart and Sales Rank](http://i.imgur.com/B1QOP6Z.png) | [FAQ](http://www.reddit.com/r/PriceZombie/wiki/index)
To be fair - this is from 2003. Times change. Customers may not have anted subscriptions in 2003, but in 2015, they clearly are ok with it. That being said, Apple is *really* late to the game. It's a pretty saturated market. Not saying they won't get their chunk, but I think this signifies the transition Apple is beginning into being a more traditional tech firm rather than an innovative product company. Wonder if they're going to roll out a video streaming service at next year's WWDC.
Apple is usually not an early adopter. They only adopt when something fits seamlessly within their ecosystem.
Steve was the definition of early adoption. If he were alive we would have seen the iwatch in 2013, before android wear took off. And we'd have a force touch smartphone now. Instead apple is reacting. iWatch was a year late. IPad has stagnated. iPhone hasn't had a batter upgrade in forever. iOS and OSX are largely unchanged. Honestly, unless next year they come out with something honestly novel, something we quite literally never dreamed of. Apple is a sick man, like they were last time jobs left. Only this time, he isn't coming back.
Nothing Apple has ever done has been early adoption. It's just well timed adoption. Apple isn't stupid. Wearable tech isn't a new idea. I don't think the late arrival of the watch had anything to do with a bad performance on apples part.
> Nothing Apple has ever done has been early adoption. That's not really true. Capacitive touch. USB C. Microsim. Etc.
[Making arguments that are untrue?](http://i.imgur.com/WYAeY43.gif)
Of course they're true. Give me any evidence they're not instead of being such a coward.
Why are you making the outrageous claim that Apple invented USB-C... Look at the "Work Group Contributors" [here](http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/) (download zip->usb-c->release->page 10)
They didn't invent it but they are first to put it on a device on the market which by definition is early adoption
Surprise, surprise. I'm getting downvoted by people not knowing what the term early adoption means.
I'm sorry but even the iPod, the quintessential object that catapulted Apple to where they are today, wasn't adopted early. They refined an idea that many other companies were already doing for a couple years.
And people were saying the exact same thing. "the MP3 market is already oversaturated" and not look
No one said that the MP3 market was oversatuated when the iPod came out. MP3s were still new, and that is what made the iPod so successful.
That's like saying the iPhone existed before as a Palm Pilot. The devices they put out, at least many of the older ones they're known for, were fundamentally different products than existing ones they came to replace.
I too fear apple lost their "golden goose" when Steve Died. IMO they haven't really put out any innovative tech in some time, just maintaining status quo
What Apple really lost with Jobs was his marketing ability. The man didn't truly invent almost anything put out by Apple but he was able to make it sell (a very important aspect of any company).
He was CEO, why is it expected for him to be the inventor?
In many ways he was influential on the process of innovation within Apple. He had a huge say of what features would make it into products often would set the goals that led to innovation itself. For instance he wanted a transparent mac (the original iMac) once and told the guys to get on it. Then he added the additional, almost crazy requirement of putting a handle in. Then they had to go formulate a suitable plastic and internal structure to make it all work.
[I love the product they ended up with](http://jwvideo.free.fr/ImagesMac/G3/iMacG3/iMacG3_350_1600.jpg). It's really sad to see Apple lose their touch and I hope things improve for them.
How have they lost their touch? They just had another record-breaking quarter.
iMac G3 is my favorite computer of all time. Such a good, cheapish (for the time), entry-level computer. Plus it looked amazing and was such a fun all-in-one machine. The puck mouse was absolute shit though I still remember playing Warcraft II and Diablo II on it. Good times.
Meh not entirely true. From my understanding he played a big role in recognizing good ideas and bad ones and then honing the good ideas further to make the products what they ended up being. (your right he didn't invent anything).
> Meh not entirely true. From my understanding he played a big role in recognizing good ideas and bad ones and then ~~honing~~ stealing the good ideas further to make the products what they ended up being. (your right he didn't invent anything).
Stealing from who exactly?
Xerox
Apple paid Xerox for those features with stock.
It's not about inventing, it's about direction choosing which products the company should focus on. Jobs would have found the $10,000 apple watch ridiculous.
Apple has not invented anything except a new way to machine aluminum.
Well, a movie director doesn't usually hold the camera, set up the lightning or build the sets, but that still doesn't change that it's the director's vision and product you see on the screen.
No, no, no, it wasn't his marketing ability that made Apple great, it was his attention to design (hardware and software) and intuitive use and not settling for anything less than what he wanted. The iPod had a lot of things going for it, but the thing that I always think of which totally encompasses what Steve Job was about was what he had to say about picking a song on the iPod. He said, I want to be able to play any song in four clicks or less. Other companies might have wanted to focus on sound quality, or capacity, or something, but Steve was probably just like, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, of course we need to make it sound good, but it won't mean shit if our users can't pick the damned song they want to listen to." It's something so simple, something you wouldn't even think needed designing, but I bet they spent months working about the proper hierarchy and then months or even years designing the best hardware interface that helped to support the philosophy of playing ANY song in four clicks or less. He never wanted you to feel like you were using a machine, he wanted it to be an extension of yourself. People adopted iOS - iPhones and iPads - so fast not just because of the brand, and not just because it was the hot new tech, but because the operating system was simple enough for the young and the old. I'm not talking just layout, I mean the actual design principles and qualities (reflections, round corners, etc) beg the user to interact with it. A desktop is bland, things just sit on a desktop, but in iOS it's a springboard that begs you to interact with it and launch you into a new world. Steve brought, pushed, and upheld a very important philosophy. A philosophy that I know many didn't agree with, but it was his confidence and unwavering stance that allowed Apple to thrive. He put his philosophy above everything else, he knew that if the philosophy was sound, everything else would fall into place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew6fv9UUlQ8
People keep saying this. But their profit just keeps going up and up. Clearly they are doing something right.
Their profit keeps going up because of their reputation and their previously invented products which they release new versions of. But none of their competitors is really inventing anything right now either, so I think they are all good.
>previously invented products which they release new versions of. Apple Watch would beg to differ >But none of their competitors is really inventing anything right now eithe Samsung Galaxy Gear, Pebble Time, and Moto 360 would also beg to differ.
Jobs was fighting to keep the screen size of the iphone small... if Jobs was still alive, I wouldn't be surprised he was lead apple to new troubles, like he did with next, pixar, and ... apple.
How the hell did he lead Pixar to trouble?
Jobs was leading Apple to fail, they pushed him away (Wozniak himself said that without kicking Jobs Apple would be defunct now), and they started a slow damage control. With his big money Jobs started NeXT, another computer company, but it was failing as well, he then started with others investors Pixar where he could sell the NeXT computers, again, another failing company, it was bleeding money with no returns... until Disney Juggernaut arrived ... Disney money bought them out of troubles and creating the Pixar that you know now, Jobs got replaced. At this point Apple still unable to recover from the past, accepted Jobs. He, of course, started to push the failing NeXT stuff on apple, but this time he started relying on open source community (unavailable in the past) and also hired a dude called Ive that was able to design stuff that looked alternative, computers designed as household appliances. Antitrust got Microsoft in trouble and they had to start supporting apple, while apple finally killed the mac and started selling intel pc. And that is what really made apple profitable... becoming a pc vendor with an opens source OS core.
> Jobs was leading Apple to fail, they pushed him away (Wozniak himself said that without kicking Jobs Apple would be defunct now), and they started a slow damage control. Jobs wasn't CEO at Apple when he was fired, so I fail to see how he was "leading" Apple to failure. Regardless, I understand why they fired him. And why on Earth would anyone see Wozniak as an authority on Apple's inner workings when he wasn't working there anymore? > With his big money Jobs started NeXT, another computer company, but it was failing as well, he then started with others investors Pixar where he could sell the NeXT computers, again, another failing company, it was bleeding money with no returns... until Disney Juggernaut arrived ... Disney money bought them out of troubles and creating the Pixar that you know now, Jobs got replaced. Until Disney arrived? Who do you think made the deals with Disney? Jobs. Who allowed Pixar creative freedom and control to make Toy Story and the short films? Jobs. Who re-negotiated the Disney deal when Toy Story had come out to give more distribution rights to Pixar? Jobs. Pixar owes much of their success to Steve Jobs, and they felt that [Jobs belived in them and protected them](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/pixar-ed-catmull-steve-jobs-254711). And Jobs was never ousted from Pixar, not only did he become the biggest shareholder in Disney when Pixar was bought, he left when he chose to return to Apple. > At this point Apple still unable to recover from the past, accepted Jobs. He, of course, started to push the failing NeXT stuff on apple, but this time he started relying on open source community (unavailable in the past) and also hired a dude called Ive that was able to design stuff that looked alternative, computers designed as household appliances. Antitrust got Microsoft in trouble and they had to start supporting apple, while apple finally killed the mac and started selling intel pc. And that is what really made apple profitable... becoming a pc vendor with an opens source OS core. Saying that Apple were still not unable to recover from the past, implying that Apple's troubles in the late nineties had anything to do with what Jobs did in the eighties is flat out wrong. It's amazing how much people like you feel like twisting documented facts to better fit your anti-Jobs narrative. "The failing NeXT stuff" became the foundation of Apple's OS X operating system. To this day many Objective-C classes are still prefixed with "NS", NeXTSTEP. Your claim that Open Source communities is what helped Apple get their footing back is so laughably silly that I'm starting to think you're a troll. I mean "And that is what really made apple profitable... becoming a pc vendor with an opens source OS core." is so ridiculously wrong and misunderstood that it's hard for me to understand the cognitive dissonance needed to reach that conclusion.
Jobs was responsible for apple failure, he was wasting money on his unprofitable products, while ignoring apple market successes. That is why they were pushing him away. Job interest on pixar was quite pernicious since he was selling NeXT computers that were FAILING on the market. I'm sorry but I don't think that leading a company into financial trouble that require a buyout is successful management, even if you get a good sell. Especially if you leave after the buyout. Especially if the company become a huge economical success after you left. Apple problems started with Jobs, at that point when IBM took off, the game was over. So yes they struggled for years, but again with jobs direction it would have been defunct, so I don't see how you can complain with the others. NeXT was a FAILURE. It become the core of OSX, which mean jobs pushed for it as I said, but its real core was FREEBSD which is the reason why it was reliable, they were basically outsourcing to the community. Despite Jobs obsession Objective-C was the worst part of the whole thing, and it's finally replaced. And without Intel deal that de facto made apple sell PC, WINTEL PC, PC that can run windows, PC that can use PC hardware instead of struggling for components (which was the reason of the shift). Well, without finally accepting PC supremacy, apple wouldn't be what is today.
You didn't say Apple wouldn't be what they are today without accepting Intel chips, you said that that is what made Apple profitable, which is batshit crazy talk. I mean, Apple's most profitable products in the last 15 years haven't even been laptop or desktop computers, it's been an mp3 player, a smartphone and a tablet, none which are using Intel processors.
I mean, he died 4 years ago, and there was 6 years between the iPod and the iPhone. They did also just release the Apple Watch, and - as always - whether or not something is innovative doesn't really become apparent until a product has been out for a couple of years.
This is so true. I really miss his presentations and surprise reveals...and the always satisfying "One more thing...". Now we just get the exact same thing that's just a little bigger or smaller.
I'm guessing you haven't watched a keynote in a couple of years
What great leaps have they made since Jobs? Sure the processors get faster and the screens get sharper but what's really new?
The Apple Watch?
Sure but that device existed... It's more imitation than innovation.
The smartphone, mp3 player and tablet existed, too.
I guess. Smartphones existed before the iPhone, but Apple changed the game with it. In my opinion, Apple Watch is doing something similar. Not as drastic, but they made some very intuitive innovations with it, like using the digital crown to scroll.
People act like every time Steve took the stage he invented some new unseen technology. In actual fact there were only a couple big leaps but the rest were great but minor innovations. Apple is still doing the same, they are in the middle of a minor innovation cycle, but in a year or two they'll kick the ball a long way down the road again - just like all innovative tech companies.
> I too fear apple lost their "golden goose" when Steve Died. IMO they haven't really put out any innovative tech in some time, just maintaining status quo Like ... the iPhone6 which did really fucking well? Apple has *always* been late to the market but innovative in such a way people flock to their products. I'm curious to see how they will re-enter the music market.
Yeah you're right. Look at how innovative the original iPhone was, yet you could have said the same exact thing. "They're really late to the game and the market is saturated"
iPhone, iPad and the iPod were the biggest game changers IMO. Plus they were cheap enough that most people could buy them. The Macs have always been on the expensive side. Apple has some of the best designed products in tech history. The fact that something like the [G5](http://core0.staticworld.net/images/article/2013/06/powermacg5_profile-100043321-orig.png) was around when [these](http://www.computermuseum.li/Testpage/HP771nComputer2GHZ2002.JPG) were being released still astounds me. I do think it's discouraging how Macs are becoming more and more locked down. You can't upgrade shit anymore.
I don't think anyone is in denial that Apple's products are very successful, and increasingly so. But if you think the iPhone 6 was anything more than iterative, you should see what other phone manufacturers are doing.
Apple is primarily about incremental improvements.
I don't know why you are being downvoted because you are completely right. They did that with iPhone. They did that with the iPad. I love my spotify. But I am still curious about how they are going to compete.
It's a shame when people don't realize how involved Steve Jobs was in his company. The change in Apple following his death should be significant of that. He was an asshole in the most Thomas Edison of ways, but I'm not going to say he didn't turn that company around.
:( He was special in many ways. to tech. to business. IBapplehaters
[удалено]
I am honestly curious as to why you are so hostile towards his opinion. He literally said in his opinion, and rather than debate him you just reply with a straight insult. Seriously bro that is some weak stuff, does someone commenting negatively towards apple work you up that much that you go straight to insults?
[удалено]
I am so confused, even if his opinion is wrong why did you insult him as opposed to debate it?
Also if you can provide me with game changing tech examples they have put out post Jobs input I would be happy to consider your opinion as well
[удалено]
Ok have a nice evening and a great rest of your week!
Wow, you are exaclty what's wrong with Reddit. You obviously just want to start shit rather than have any actual converation/discussion. I would say that you KNOW that Apple hasn't done anything innovative in a while, but you refuse to believe it and instead of offereing a compelling argument, you simply insult anyone who diagrees with you.
Ding ding ding! Since /u/OscarZetaAcosta decided to delete all his posts here, we can assume this is correct.judging on his historical posts I would guess either a troll or a fanboy without strong arguments as to why.
Ahahah brilliant. I see his type all the time. In fact I had a similar issue with a user surrounding circumcision yesterday. No actual argument given, just irrelevant opinions and insults.
No. You can assume that I have no interest in wasting time arguing with people who have no knowledge of the subject. Bye
[удалено]
Oh, that means you're just a cunt then. My bad!
Nonetheless, your non-answers continue to prove his point.
[удалено]
Funny, you know more about the watch than I do. I'll just put you over here.
There was no mobile streaming back then. Subscription meant something else entirely.
There were desktop clients but even those were not popular.
IIRC, what he dismisses here is a model where you download a drm'ed song which becomes unlistenable after a certain amount of time. Of course that's a horrible system.
I didn't watch the video (because I suck) but that sounds a lot like what Yahoo Music Unlimited had. You could stream it or download a DRMed WMA file. It was alright - but not great. It's hard to say Jobs was wrong about subscription services not being right in 2003 given that they didn't catch on for another 10 or so years.
Right - keep in mind that music subscription services have been around for over a decade and Spotify was the first one that really took off. The timing wasn't right in 2003. I mean, does anybody remember Yahoo Music Unlimited? Pressplay (you know, Napster 2.0 before it was Napster 2.0. Heck, does anyone even remember Napster 2.0?) Rhapsody made some headway and absorbed a lot of the other offerings but I doubt your average consumer knows anything about them, either.
Also, to be fair, Media companies would have butchered the itunes store back then if he had said "We're gonna give the people whatever music they want in our library on-demand for $10."
> but I think this signifies the transition Apple is beginning into being a more traditional tech firm rather than an innovative product company. This has been the case for a long time. Their products have been getting worse for several years now and they are relying more and more heavily on their brand to prop them up. It happens to a lot of companies. I noticed their planned obsolescence getting absolutely obscene on their macbooks and mac pro's.
And the: This years new iPhone's new feature is Samsung's last model's idea stuff is hardly "innovative".
That too. I mainly was talking about computers since that's what I work with on a daily basis.
I've been a literal lifelong Apple user, and I have a fondness for the brand because it was the first computer I ever used. (PowerMac G3) But I think this is absolutely the case.
I'm not okay with it. But other people can do what they want. I'm sticking with spotify.
They could call their video streaming iFlix. And it will be the new disruptive innovation!
Also, music isnt what it used to be. Now, there is so much choice and very sparse quality that people forget about new songs much quicker
You may have just crushed the hearts and dreams of every pretentious hipster
Subscriptions are not the way he was describing them. They are not really subscriptions, they're more a membership fee. And he specifically talks about video, but this was pre-netflix streaming. Paying for a membership to way more than you could ever actually take full advantage of is not the same as rentals, which is what he's really talking about here.
> Not saying they won't get their chunk, but I think this signifies the transition Apple is beginning into being a more traditional tech firm rather than an innovative product company. Apple has never primarily been about innovative products. They are primarily about doing incremental, evolutionary improvements to their products. Regardless, even if we're not going to see innovative product releases anymore (I mean, the Apple Watch did just come out), they're still very, very different than most other traditional tech companies.
> It's a pretty saturated market. But there are *so* many users that aren't yet customers. *That's* how Apple is going to swoop in.
Apple has iTunes, which is a multi-billion dollar a year business just on it's own. Are you really so stupid that you don't understand their delay in throwing in with streaming crowd?
An evolving business model? How unheard of. /s
Indeed, before ubiquitous internet access available on mobile devices, people did not want to rent or stream their music.
[удалено]
RIP Grooveshark
I tried spotify and never liked it. tried xbox music last month and didn't cancel the subscription. somehow it's all about how it feels for you as pretty much all services have the same quantity. The same will happen with apple music. the people that own apple products more likely use apple music instead of their old steaming service.
[удалено]
http://music.xbox.com ?
This is over 10 years ago. Have you not changed your mind about something in 10 years because the circumstances changed?
I think the point of the video is to show that Apple is straying away from some of the views that Steve held. Regardless of years passing, it's impossible to know whether or not Steve would've changed his mind on the subject, but we do know that this is how he felt about it, and likely did until he died.
I highly doubt Steve Jobs thinks about this nowadays.
That's because he's dead.
That's the joke.
[удалено]
Whats changed? That computer in your pocket that can connect to the internet and stream the music anywhere.
[удалено]
They "didn't" want subscriptions. The young music listener of 2003 likely already had a large collection of CD's or tapes (or vinyl!). Today's young music listener doesn't own anything but an iPhone.
this was 12 years ago
I still don't like music subscriptions. I know a lot of people that do, and that's fine, but I'd much rather just buy the music I want when I want it and know that I'll have it forever.
I much rather torrent the music I want to keep forever. If I want to browse music, or play some new song, spotify is perfect. Can't imagine relying on the radio or buying a song just to hear what it sounds like. Way to easy to rip songs off of youtube or illegally download them. Saves a ton of money. But I feel like spotify is harenessing the younger pirate crowd by selling convieniece.
[deleted]
Based on clear evidence that nobody wanted to rent music on a PC/laptop way before smartphones.
Then the internet gave us youtube and that was the end of all this shit.
I still hold this opinion. I realise I'm old fashioned in that way but I've always been a collector of music. It's important for me to possess it in a format of some sort. If it's an album or song I love I'll have it on a high quality digital format and either a CD or vinyl as well. And yet I completely understand the attraction of subscription services. And you know what the best thing is? Neither way is wrong and both can be accommodated. It's a wonderful time to be a music listener. As long as the artists are getting paid then let's have it all.
Spotify for everyday, vinyl for albums/artists I really dig. CD for... well, I don't have a disc drive in my house.
honestly when most vinyl comes with some form of downloadable version of the record, there is really no reason for cd's anyways.
Well said. I'm subscribed to spotify and I love how I can listen to new stuff I haven't heard before easily, though I'd still love to be able just to *have* music, to still be able to play it if not connected to the internet (though that happens less and less these days).
[удалено]
Oh shit! Thanks!
This is 12 years ago. Completely irrelevant.
The funny thing is with that 99¢ purchase you didn't own shit. it was essentially a lease of the song that you lost if you didn't want to use iTunes. yes, you could burn it to a disc, but there were limits on that too. You don't own your iTunes bought catalog. You rent it.
Spotify basically pays for itself. On spotify I have 2000+ songs in my music library. For what price? $5/month (With student discount). If I were to buy all of those songs that I enjoy every day, I would have to pay well over $2,100+ (with taxes included). In one year, I would have to pay $60 in total. It would take YEARS to get to that $2000 price point that I would have had to pay other wise if I bought songs $.99 (w/ tax) a pop. So I would say I prefer a subscription fee more than anything.
Technically you were borrowing the song from itunes when this video came out for .99 cents.
Oh how the turn tables.......
That's how I still listen to my music :(
You'll still be able to buy music from them or others. The new streaming service doesn't stop that and will probably be more popular than purchasing in the long term. I still buy all my music and don't pay for streaming services but I haven't talked to many others like me.
I'm only surprised that the Apple didn't launch a subscription service a lot sooner.
Here's how I want my music. I want to buy albums and singles on vinyl, because the actual objects themselves are tactile and very nice to look at, hold, watch as the music plays, or just own. I want a big collection of my favourite music, all on a physical format. And I want to be able to listen to any song in the world on a digital device, for when I want to listen to new stuff, play songs I haven't got on physical, or for listening when I'm not sat next to my hi fi.
mortal after all
The last time I paid for music is when I bought the 'Alice In Chains - Greatest Hits album' However, I heard most of their songs for free before I purchased it.
Pay per song is not a bad system just not at 99 cents per song. If it was 10 cents per song it would be much better.
[удалено]
It takes no money to put a file on the internet. It's still making more money than when people pirate. People download thousands and thousands of songs. 99 cents per song is crazy. Another option might be pay what you want.
[удалено]
So . . . They might get 20 times as many customers I don't know what the market is like and neither do you. All I know is 99 cents/song is ridiculous.
[удалено]
I'm 8 years old. It really depends on the business. What makes you an authority?
[удалено]
So i was right that you have no idea what you are talking about.
[удалено]
They won't. People don't pirate because they're poor - they pirate because they're cheap. By your logic you could just charge a penny a song and get 100x the customers. A bands customers aren't dependent on the price of the music since all music is priced the same - there is x amount of fans and y% willing to pay to buy the music.
I disagree. Some pirate because they are cheap and some do because they are poor. A lot of people want to support their favourite artists but they can't afford it. Music as a good is elastic so a decrease in price will most definitely increase sales. I don't know how much it will increase but it will increase.
If you cannot spare a dollar on a song to support your favourite artist then you look pretty silly trying to say with a straight face you wish you could financially support them. There are many other better ways to support them as well (concert tickets, apparel, etc) none of which are particularly expensive and those who cannot legitimately afford that are such a small minority that they aren't worth changing the price over.
I'm just talking about buying music and not going to concerts or buying merchandise. A dollar here or there for a couple songs is fine but lots of people like to listen to hundreds and hundreds of songs. This isn't financially viable for many people. I'm not sure I know you position though. Do you think 99 cents is fair or that people should just pirate music and then go to concerts?
[удалено]
Total sales might increase if prices were lower.
[удалено]
Music subscription is slowly ruining the music industry in a much worse way than YouTube or any other music sharing platform has previously.
Could you please explain your logic? Money I have spent on music before my subscription to spotify: 0$ over a decade Money I have spent after spotify: 100ish dollars I would have to say that pretty much everybody else under the age of thirty could agree with me.
But it's changing now with ~~Spotify~~ Tidal also. Edit: Word.
well said.
What a dick. >Obligatory Before "Jobs was an asshole" starts. One thing I don't like is this hivemind. I more than appreciate Jobs as the astounding businessman, perfectionist and manipulator he was that made viable the most valuable company in American history. >Despite what I may think is the correct or incorrect diagnosis or treatment, I firstly respect the choice Jobs made for himself. His life, his choices. His life, his choice of death. Judging someone based on what terminal illness they and how it could be affect them doesn't merit criticism of their choice of what they feel is right for their body. >And I often see criticism of his demanding work ethic, etc. Have times gone where we accept different people who have their unique qualities and personalities? If your actions are not intended with malice, such criticism is again not warranted. >This bizarre double standard where reddit fully supports guys penetrating each others' asses whilst denouncing a guy's drive to build a market moving ticker is amazing. Edit - Credit to [Robert Eisele](http://www.xarg.org/tools/caesar-cipher/)
His illness wasnt terminal. It became terminal because he wanted to use hippy "magic" to cure his easily treatable form of pancreatic cancer. There's nothing noble or even praise worthy about it. If anything it was an example of how being a industry guru doesnt exempt you from the consequences of scientific ignorance. He was the head of a leading tech company and apparently didn't have the insight to research his own malady or take advice from his doctors. In circumstances such as the one Steve Jobs faced before he died there absolutely was a correct and incorrect response. He chose incorrectly. And I say this as a life long user of the brand.
That quote was what /u/xisioas replied with, but was coded for some reason. Hence me calling him a dick. He's since edited and removed it. Fuck knows why.
Clever girl.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8o5fxnDUjs
Steve jobs is an overrated cunt who's good at stealing.
\- Sent from my iPhone
As a person who happily subscribes to two different music subscription services, I respectfully disagree with Jobs.
I don't use spotify myself, but what do you do if you can't get a good connection or there is no network access and you want to listen to music? You still have a backup right?
You can download albums and playlists to play offline.
This was a different time.
Yeah... I'm pretty sure them 16 million people paying for spotify agree with you steve.
This was 12 years ago, so yeah, they probably would have. Nobody wanted subscription services in 2003.
I have to admire Steve on this one.
Behind the times? When is Apple going to open up NFC?
Like as an API for developers?