[colmustard]

Quote:

So what you're saying is that my 81 year-old uncle loves the iPad because he is trying to appear cool and hip.
Interesting.
I'll run that one by him this Sunday - he has a wonderful sense of humor and will have a laugh.
He has hated computers for the better part of 30 years. Useless. Too many problems. He complained about the fuss over the iPad. So I put mine in his hands. Showed him how to open the NYT and IMdB apps then left him with it. He got a little choked up after 15 minutes. It all made sense. Mentioned that books and music were available, and he was sold.
Specs don't matter. At all. Reliability and ease of use are everything.
20 years ago, I was accepted as a computer science major at a couple schools. I'm glad I didn't take that route. I don't care about specs or computers any more. I just want information and a lack of problems. Yes, that's worth a premium. Seems like I'm not the only one.
When you've lived a few more years, you'll have a different perspective on life. Some things just aren't important, like pretty much every argument you listed against Apple. I'm sure you'll disagree. But you'll see things differently when you hit 30, 40 or 50.
Apple products aren't for the spec-driven young men. Sales go to a wide variety of people, not just 20 year old white guys. There's a reason why my seven year-old nephew is attached to his iPad. Hint: it ain't status-seeking.
Or when I bought my Mom an iPhone in 2007. She was 65 at the time. I let her play with mine. The conversation was mostly her saying things like, "that's it? That's all I have to do? It'll make a call when I press the name? Really? That's all I have to do? I can use Google on my phone? Really?" So I bought her one the next day. She's been a die-hard user since. She especially loves taking photos and sending them around.
The genius of these products was making advanced communications and data use available to everyone. If you don't see that, you truly do not understand.
Also, I'll take a swing at useless knowledge hipsterism. There's a certain "cool" in being able to do a complex task that requires a lot of learning. The people who invest a lot of time in this stuff are cheesed off by "amateurs" who can use a computer without the deep learning. So it's fashionable for that set to hate Apple. More defense isn't necessary; the sales figures speak for themselves.

Points well received.
 
It occurs to me that nothing in my arguments apply to the users who have no technical background. They are after all the opinions of a 19 year old comp sci major, but I do see this disconnect.
 
I won't engage in an anti-apple rant here because it would be in poor taste. Our opinions are vastly opposed, as stated due to the difference in our generation. But I do stand by what I said in that article, especially about brand marketing.
 
But the reason I wrote that is simply that I feel sick when I turn on the News and I see an iPad commercial in correspondance with the news of Steve's death. While I don't particularly like Apple or Microsoft for that matter, I hate to see a man's legacy distorted for the purpose of selling a product. I have always had the utmost respect for Steve as a visionary in the world of simplistic design. I actually think (but can't prove) that he has played a large roll in the development of web 2.0 design.

 

[DJGeorgeT]

too bad, rip Steve
 
even the most hardcore anti-apple geeks finally buy something from Apple and can appreciate the unique functionalities. I could not see myself using an Ipad, and now look at me. I take the thing everywhere and has replaced my other ebook readers.

 

[Spareribs]

Many anti Apple people finally succumb and love it unless they are one of those good tech guys who are skill full savvy with other non Apple products and get the best out their ware, which is fine too. In the end, we all chase dreams and rainbows and technology is just a mode of transportation.
 
How we achieve what we want should not be the focus. When I go on vacation, I don't want to focus on my airline. I want to focus on my destination. Technology achieves your destination but the pitfall can be that technology can also make society more complicated. 
 
Perhaps technology is also an opiate of society too. Steve Jobs knew that technology can be a fun toy. But can happiness be achieved with technology? Perhaps so if it enables people to connect and communicate and enabling people to be busy. What's most important are the main goals and final destination.

 

[Currawong]

colmustard: TV advertising is arranged for well in advance of showing. If anything, I have zero doubt that at the iPhone 4S keynote, everyone involved knew Steve was about to die, yet they said nothing and did the best they could.  There was only an empty seat at the front with "Reserved" on it.
 
Here's the thing though: I don't think people worshipped Steve. If anything, he copped a lot of criticism, especially from people who owned Apple gear*. It's only really started to hit home how much he changed the world for me after I bought an iPhone and an iPad (actually two of both). After owning so many crappy phones (earlier, simpler Nokias excepted) and so badly wanting portable internet and whatnot that didn't require carrying around a heavy laptop and other complications, both devices were a revelation. But the real thing is, he totally dedicated his life to this, to the point, I believe, it killed him, and did this so we wouldn't have to put up with crap computing hardware any longer and instead, realise the kind of connected society we only read about in science fiction novels. So, regardless of what you think of Apple or its products, Steve was totally genuine, no BS and honest and cared about what people felt, not only friends (there are many anecdotes) but also read much, if not all, email sent to him by people, good or bad.
 
I reckon TheOnion summed it up perfectly.
 
*It always amused me when non-owners had a go at Apple as they honestly had no idea about what was really bad about any of the products.

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

This is how I feel. While it may be hard to realize, I wrote this with the best of intentions, while mixing in some reasons why I am anti-apple. The main point I'm trying to make in the article is that the media attention of his death is misplaced. Rather than focusing on the company he ran, we should be looking at the person he was.
 
http://breakthenetwork.com/2011/10/06/an-anti-apple-viewpoint-of-steve-jobs-and-his-death/

 
 
It's a bit unfortunate to see this in a thread about Steve's passing.  You know very little about branding.
 
When someone dies who created things that affected huge numbers of people, we are going to be talking about those things that the person made that had such a big impact.  When an artist dies, people talk about the work they did.  When an inventor dies, we talk about their inventions.  When a poet dies, we talk about their poems.  We talk about what made the person so special.  Yes Steve had admirable qualities, but it was the products he created/ helped create that made him famous.  It has nothing to do with branding.  And people don't really care that someone was "business savvy", that isn't what makes people sad about his death.  Do you think people will be this affected when Warren Buffet dies? 
 
Yes, branding has something to do with Apple's success.  But they are unique in that they create a product that backs up the image they are creating, which makes the advertising that much more powerful.  It's simply false that Apple's success is purely about branding.  Here's is an example of pure brand based success.  There is no substantive difference between a Nike t-shirt and a Hanes t-shirt.  You won't perform differently in a Nike shirt, it doesn't fit differently, it won't last longer, it's color won't fade slower.  In fact, Nike may in fact buy Hanes t-shirts, put their logo on them and sell them for 3x as much (this kind of scenario is very common in the clothing industry).  So the only thing you're paying more for with Nike is the brand name.  I can keep going and give you more examples if you want but I imagine you get the idea.  Apple's products are not simply a Sony device with the Apple logo.  They may have similar specs, but products are not just specs, they are entirely different devices in the way those specs are implemented.  With Apple, you probably pay a bit more for the branding, but most of the price difference (if/when there is one) is the user experience and the product's engineering.  It costs money to fit all the components into the tiny Macbook Air.  It also costs money to design the Apple UI, in fact the thing that separates Apple from other companies is that the UI team with Apple are the ones who call the shots at the end of the day, not the engineers.  And they are paid a salary. 
 
What was special about Steve is he understood that what makes a piece of technology attractive to users is the user experience.  Specs are important for this, but specs alone don't translate into a good user experience.  If those specs aren't easy and intuitive to use, they are useless to the vast majority of the population.  Before the iphone, phones were designed by engineers like you (no UI team) and using "specs" involved navigating series of confounding menus.  There are countless examples of competing phones loading their phones with stuff that looks nice in a list but doesn't work very well. 
 
You are a computer sci major so clearly you like technology itself.  Which is awesome, but you should realize that not everyone is like that.  I only like technology because of what it allows me to do.  I don't like the tech itself.  Generally, I want to fuss with technology as little as possible and spend as much time as possible making things with technology.  People who hate Apple products don't understand this, which is kind of alarming to me because I understand perfectly well why someone would rather use other brands.  I don't expect that Apple is right for everyone.  But I want to spend my time working on photographs, not working on my computer.  The specs are important for this, but so is the user experience. 
 
A lot of people out there don't care about the computer process like you do.  They just want results.  Apple's branding only adds to the good feeling (and often huge relief) already generated for these kinds of people by using Apple products. 
 
You'll be a lot more successful in computer sci if you better understand how people use the things you are interested in creating. 

 

[LFF]

 
Quote:

 
 
It's a bit unfortunate to see this in a thread about Steve's passing.  You know very little about branding.
 
When someone dies who created things that affected huge numbers of people, we are going to be talking about those things that the person made that had such a big impact.  When an artist dies, people talk about the work they did.  When an inventor dies, we talk about their inventions.  When a poet dies, we talk about their poems.  We talk about what made the person so special.  Yes Steve had admirable qualities, but it was the products he created/ helped create that made him famous.  It has nothing to do with branding.  And people don't really care that someone was "business savvy", that isn't what makes people sad about his death.  Do you think people will be this affected when Warren Buffet dies? 
 
Yes, branding has something to do with Apple's success.  But they are unique in that they create a product that backs up the image they are creating, which makes the advertising that much more powerful.  It's simply false that Apple's success is purely about branding.  Here's is an example of pure brand based success.  There is no substantive difference between a Nike t-shirt and a Hanes t-shirt.  You won't perform differently in a Nike shirt, it doesn't fit differently, it won't last longer, it's color won't fade slower.  In fact, Nike may in fact buy Hanes t-shirts, put their logo on them and sell them for 3x as much (this kind of scenario is very common in the clothing industry).  So the only thing you're paying more for with Nike is the brand name.  I can keep going and give you more examples if you want but I imagine you get the idea.  Apple's products are not simply a Sony device with the Apple logo.  They may have similar specs, but products are not just specs, they are entirely different devices in the way those specs are implemented.  With Apple, you probably pay a bit more for the branding, but most of the price difference (if/when there is one) is the user experience and the product's engineering.  It costs money to fit all the components into the tiny Macbook Air.  It also costs money to design the Apple UI, in fact the thing that separates Apple from other companies is that the UI team with Apple are the ones who call the shots at the end of the day, not the engineers.  And they are paid a salary. 
 
What was special about Steve is he understood that what makes a piece of technology attractive to users is the user experience.  Specs are important for this, but specs alone don't translate into a good user experience.  If those specs aren't easy and intuitive to use, they are useless to the vast majority of the population.  Before the iphone, phones were designed by engineers like you (no UI team) and using "specs" involved navigating series of confounding menus.  There are countless examples of competing phones loading their phones with stuff that looks nice in a list but doesn't work very well. 
 
You are a computer sci major so clearly you like technology itself.  Which is awesome, but you should realize that not everyone is like that.  I only like technology because of what it allows me to do.  I don't like the tech itself.  Generally, I want to fuss with technology as little as possible and spend as much time as possible making things with technology.  People who hate Apple products don't understand this, which is kind of alarming to me because I understand perfectly well why someone would rather use other brands.  I don't expect that Apple is right for everyone.  But I want to spend my time working on photographs, not working on my computer.  The specs are important for this, but so is the user experience. 
 
A lot of people out there don't care about the computer process like you do.  They just want results.  Apple's branding only adds to the good feeling (and often huge relief) already generated for these kinds of people by using Apple products. 
 
You'll be a lot more successful in computer sci if you better understand how people use the things you are interested in creating. 

 
Not much of an apple user but this is a fantastic post and one I agree with.
 
 

 

[colmustard]

Quote:

 
 
It's a bit unfortunate to see this in a thread about Steve's passing.  You know very little about branding.
 
When someone dies who created things that affected huge numbers of people, we are going to be talking about those things that the person made that had such a big impact.  When an artist dies, people talk about the work they did.  When an inventor dies, we talk about their inventions.  When a poet dies, we talk about their poems.  We talk about what made the person so special.  Yes Steve had admirable qualities, but it was the products he created/ helped create that made him famous.  It has nothing to do with branding.  And people don't really care that someone was "business savvy", that isn't what makes people sad about his death.  Do you think people will be this affected when Warren Buffet dies? 
 
Yes, branding has something to do with Apple's success.  But they are unique in that they create a product that backs up the image they are creating, which makes the advertising that much more powerful.  It's simply false that Apple's success is purely about branding.  Here's is an example of pure brand based success.  There is no substantive difference between a Nike t-shirt and a Hanes t-shirt.  You won't perform differently in a Nike shirt, it doesn't fit differently, it won't last longer, it's color won't fade slower.  In fact, Nike may in fact buy Hanes t-shirts, put their logo on them and sell them for 3x as much (this kind of scenario is very common in the clothing industry).  So the only thing you're paying more for with Nike is the brand name.  I can keep going and give you more examples if you want but I imagine you get the idea.  Apple's products are not simply a Sony device with the Apple logo.  They may have similar specs, but products are not just specs, they are entirely different devices in the way those specs are implemented.  With Apple, you probably pay a bit more for the branding, but most of the price difference (if/when there is one) is the user experience and the product's engineering.  It costs money to fit all the components into the tiny Macbook Air.  It also costs money to design the Apple UI, in fact the thing that separates Apple from other companies is that the UI team with Apple are the ones who call the shots at the end of the day, not the engineers.  And they are paid a salary. 
 
What was special about Steve is he understood that what makes a piece of technology attractive to users is the user experience.  Specs are important for this, but specs alone don't translate into a good user experience.  If those specs aren't easy and intuitive to use, they are useless to the vast majority of the population.  Before the iphone, phones were designed by engineers like you (no UI team) and using "specs" involved navigating series of confounding menus.  There are countless examples of competing phones loading their phones with stuff that looks nice in a list but doesn't work very well. 
 
You are a computer sci major so clearly you like technology itself.  Which is awesome, but you should realize that not everyone is like that.  I only like technology because of what it allows me to do.  I don't like the tech itself.  Generally, I want to fuss with technology as little as possible and spend as much time as possible making things with technology.  People who hate Apple products don't understand this, which is kind of alarming to me because I understand perfectly well why someone would rather use other brands.  I don't expect that Apple is right for everyone.  But I want to spend my time working on photographs, not working on my computer.  The specs are important for this, but so is the user experience. 
 
A lot of people out there don't care about the computer process like you do.  They just want results.  Apple's branding only adds to the good feeling (and often huge relief) already generated for these kinds of people by using Apple products. 
 
You'll be a lot more successful in computer sci if you better understand how people use the things you are interested in creating. 

 
 
Point Taken. But for the most part Steve Jobs was the face of apple, he was the salesman for the majority of those products, not the inventor. There was an article on yahoo last night that went through all of the specs of the current lineup of apple products, many of which he had little or no part in creating. I do understand that less "tech savy" people will want to use what is easiest for them to use. I noted in the article that I accept subjectivity as a very compelling reason for liking mac, pc, linux, or whatever.

 

[rroseperry]

 
 
Point Taken. But for the most part Steve Jobs was the face of apple, he was the salesman for the majority of those products, not the inventor. There was an article on yahoo last night that went through all of the specs of the current lineup of apple products, many of which he had little or no part in creating. I do understand that less "tech savy" people will want to use what is easiest for them to use. I noted in the article that I accept subjectivity as a very compelling reason for liking mac, pc, linux, or whatever.

Although Jobs had little to do with the underlying technology, he had a lot to do with the look and the UI of the products. I'm not a huge Apple user, I've got a Touch and a nano that gathers dust because I prefer other daps. But even I recognize that Jobs pioneered some genius industrial design. And if he didn't do the design himself, he clearly set out the vision for the people he hired.

 

[ZarakiSan]

I'd like to again say that while colmustard's opinion might not be the one I or rhythmdevils share, he is capable of accepting this fact and is not disregarding others' opinions. I wrote a (rather all-over-the-place) comment that was similar in nature on his blog and he, at first, disliked my tone, and then said that he understood it better with clarification. That's something that most people struggle with immensely - it takes a lot of courage to come back on something and change your opinion.
 
And a few facts being off does not a bad comment make. I've a large amount of respect for the guy - for someone on the Internet, at least .
 
Rhythmdevils, I'd say you're spot-on. I'd like to add that Apple's systems have also allowed for more advanced users to go nuts. I can do some very, uhm, let's say stupid things to my Mac if I really want to. That's a hard thing to do for these products and it shows how Jobs had the vision to choose for solutions that worked for many people, not just one target group - his creations often walked that fine line between accessibility and ability.
 
In the end, Jobs was a man that gave the world emotion - with Disney, and with the tools to create things. That, I think, is his biggest achievement.

 

[WarriorAnt]

 
Quote:

I won't engage in an anti-apple rant here because it would be in poor taste. 

Very poor taste indeed and yet you continue on and on.

 

[colmustard]

Quote:

 
Very poor taste indeed and yet you continue on and on.

 
Poor taste is not providing a constructive and opinionated argument as to why I dislike apple. Poor taste is using a man's death to sell products.

 

[grokit]

 
Quote:

Very poor taste indeed and yet you continue on and on.

 
Totally agreed. But there are so many threads that have debated the Apple pro/con "issue" ad nauseam, it would be great if just this one could be turned back into just a eulogy thread. If I was a mod I would delete all of the posts on both sides of this tired "debate" that have failed to conform to that simple ideal, including this one.

 

[DJGeorgeT]

I would not say that Steve was a master innovator. He was a master integrator. He was clever in taking existing technology and integrating them seamlessly, making them accessible to the user in a very functional way. He understood the importance of coordinating technologies with human interaction. He was a genious in that respect.

 

[Spareribs]

Steve Jobs was a great man. People who may be "anti Apple" really are not anti Apple IMO. They just enjoy expressing themselves in challenging ways for internet forum fun. They know that deep down inside, Apple makes fine products but it's the Apple users they like to riddle a bit. Understandable in some ways. Social groups do exist within brands too. Yes, it's shamefully high school thinking but so are sports fans as well.

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

Steve Jobs was a great man. People who may be "anti Apple" really are not anti Apple IMO. They just enjoy expressing themselves in challenging ways for internet forum fun. They know that deep down inside, Apple makes fine products but it's the Apple users they like to riddle a bit. Understandable in some ways. Social groups do exist within brands too. Yes, it's shamefully high school thinking but so are sports fans as well.

So true.
 
I've always had this saying that I tell people about myself  "The Beatles are my religion, Steve Jobs is my Savior, John Coltrane is my God".    
 
There isn't a day that has gone by since I purchased the Mac Plus that my life hasn't been enhanced in some form or another by Steve Jobs, and that includes his influence at Pixar as well as Apple.