What's more worrying for me is that entire product categories are either left abandoned (Mac Pro) or updated with inferior products (latest MacBook Pro), and it seems that Jony Ive's form-over-function approach encounters no opposition within the company. We lose good functionality for no good reason, other than products become "simpler" and "more pure".<p>This in itself would not be a problem for me, if it weren't for the lack of competition. Mac OS is so far ahead in terms of "getting things done" and "just working" that it isn't even funny. And yes, I do know, I also regularly use Windows (10) and Linux (Ubuntu 16 LTS). I feel locked in: both "competing" platforms are huge time-wasters for me. I know some people feel different — past discussions have shown that most people do fewer things with their computers than me (for example, if all you need is a web browser, Ubuntu is a great choice).<p>Now that Apple is abandoning me as a customer (I'm not the mainstream), I feel squeezed: where do I go from here? What's even worse is that the cost of entry is now so high: developing an environment that works, and then convincing developers to embrace it is nearly impossible. And the only companies that have the resources to do it (Microsoft and Google) do it badly.
I'm not sure about hardware and design teams, but I'm noticing that the entire software org is going downhill at Apple fast.<p>Budget cuts, delaying releases for arbitrary reasons, more and more technical debt on key portions of iOS seem to be the norm rather than the exception. Each subsequent release of iOS is more bloated than ever, and teams are reluctant to port their stuff over to Swift because of the aforementioned technical debt.<p>Fundamentally, the problem is that the software org at Apple is a third class citizen. In order for that to change, there needs to be a shift in resources toward the SW org. But I don't see it happening any time soon :)
The author says Apple's leaving a void because Google and Amazon are inventing new product categories instead of Apple, but Apple's successes haven't been new inventions. The iPod wasn't the first MP3 player, the iPhone wasn't the first smartphone, the iPad wasn't the first tablet, and the MacBook wasn't the first laptop. What Apple does well is waiting to add enough incremental upgrades to products until it surpasses the "amazing" threshold. This ends up looking like Apple is either late to market (Apple TV) or so incredibly successful that it appears as if the market didn't even exist before Apple entered it (iPhone/iPad).<p>Based on Apple's history, we should really be expecting them to crush the Echo and Chromecast sometime in the next few years.
In the end he nails it without fully realizing it. The problem is that the iPhone is now everything for Apple. Having one single mega cash cow tends to result in the whole company organizing itself around that cash cow. Microsoft did it for Windows and Office and missed a generation or two of developers as a result.<p>This is why Apple is stagnating and only seems to care about phones and locking down that ecosystem. They are the new Nokia.<p>Of course Amazon and Google have their cash cows too, so they are not much different. Their home speakers are ways for them to more aggressively market and capture customer buying behavior. Personally I consider them deeply creepy for this reason and will not get one.<p>The true innovation is going to come from hungrier players: startups or older companies that are on the ropes like Apple once was. Microsoft is getting interesting again, and I'd also keep an eye on old PC vendors like Dell and HP or even old IBM. These companies now have nothing to lose.
While I do understand the author's point about the void - the particular example of the Amazon Echo and Google Home is something I really don't get. I find those devices invasive and irritating - I'm not sure I see the attraction.<p>That being said, I also hate talking on the phone so this may be more of an issue at interacting vocally with a device. It's somewhat lessened when I use FaceTime with my phone but only because I can see who I'm talking to.
I've been a Mac user for over ten years, drawn to the platform due to the combination of OS X and solid hardware. Since the disappointing MacBook Pro announcement, I've been preparing to transition myself back to the world of Windows and *nix. I bought myself a refurbished ThinkPad T430 to get myself used to Windows 10 and modern Linux desktop environments, as well as the software running on them. I'm trying to wean myself off OS X and the Mac ecosystem. If it turns out that I'll be able to transition to either Windows or Linux/BSD without too much pain, then sometime next year I plan to buy something like a ThinkPad P50, which has options for Xeon processors and 64 GB RAM. Apple sadly makes nothing like this.<p>I love OS X and I still believe it's the best desktop OS out there, but I'm very disappointed in Apple's direction, and this experience has made me realized the dangers of being locked to a specific hardware platform: if Apple doesn't make the hardware you want, then there are no alternatives if you want to stay on OS X legally. It was a fun ride while Apple made the hardware I wanted. But Apple started changing direction from powerful, expandable, upgradeable Macs to non-upgradeable, disposable computers for those whose computational needs aren't very intensive. I considered jumping ship back in 2013, but due to the controversies of Windows 8, GNOME 3, and KDE 4 at the time, I held my nose and bought a MacBook Air despite its non-upgradeability. This time I plan to jump ship. I learned my lesson regarding relying on closed platforms for my computing needs; you're at the mercy of the provider of the platform. For this reason alone I'm interested in returning to Windows and Linux/BSD, although I wish they one day will have the same level of polish as OS X.
Why do we say Apple came up with this and Apple came up with that? Steve Jobs came up with those things. The man left Apple, Apple tanked, requiring a bailout from Microsoft. Jobs comes back, very much Return of the King-esque, and Apple rises again. Meanwhile in his exile he helps start a little studio called Pixar. This is very much a "Built to Last" situation. Great book. Companies with Cult leader CEO's lose direction when that CEO leaves or dies. Cook is Apple's Ballmer. A great business man, not a great innovator. At some point, my guess is like Ballmer, Apple will fall far enough behind that someone else will get the job. Hopefully, Apple finds someone like Satya. But none of this has been surprising. You can't lose someone like Jobs and expect the progress to continue. The guy understood how to translate technology to the every day man woman and child like nobody else. These are the Ballmer years at Apple. Hopefully, they go by faster than they did at Microsoft.
It was always clear to me that the direction Apple was taking was not a good one for people outside the "2 sigma" chunk of the bell curve. Apple's focus has been on creating the smallest amount of products for the largest possible audience.
He's not sure why they bought Beats? Is there any proof that this deal didn't work out for them? They clearly integrated some of the IP into iTunes Music and it seems like the products are still selling like hotcakes.<p>I'm scratching my head.
It seems like the Echo is a repackaged Siri, with an optional wake word. The Echo Dot lets you buy stuff through it much like the Kindle which seems to be Amazon's thing.
Moaning about Apple leaving a "void" because of Google Chromecast is pretty hilarious. Especially when Apple's version, the Apple TV, is a superior device.<p>Chromecast is the best Google can do? Color me un-worried.