I think this is a sign that they're running scared a lot more than they're letting on.
It's only a matter of time before the iPad style tablet becomes commoditized. Quite a few years ago, Apple was one of the design leaders in the laptop space, then others caught up, more or less. The same thing happened in the smartphone space. The same thing will happen to tablets. In a way, they are subject to the same forces that Nokia is desperately trying to escape, except Apple has been smart and positioned themselves on the forefront of each wave, where it will lift them up. Nokia rode their wave too long.
Will Apple become a victim of their own success? Yes.
For the record, though, I think Steve Job's "reality distortion field" is sometimes actually an anti-distortion field. I think the consensus reality has some significant distortions, which he's good at seeing through. Then again, everyone who isn't Steve might have a hard time knowing which polarity the field is set to at any given moment.
> Quite a few years ago, Apple was one of the design leaders in the laptop space, then others caught up, more or less. The same thing happened in the smartphone space.
Who are these companies? Seriously. Have you used an Apple product side by side with a non Apple equivalent? Does any company come close to the build quality or original design of Apple?
If other companies are almost catching up, it still means they are behind, and, worse, just riding on Apple's success without much idea of why they are successful.
I can't speak for design, I know most people think that Thinkpads look ugly, however regarding build quality I own a Thinkpad T500 I bought 2 years ago and I have:
+Dropped it way more times than I can count, usually while closed and turned off but also while it was running, and while it was open (both running and not).
+Totally stood on it, putting my full weight on the closed lid many times.
+Left it running in my closed backpack for almost an hour (twice).
+Used it indoors and out during drizzle, snow, the height of summer and the low of winter, I even used it on a beach once.
And through all of the above I never had any problems. The only issue I have ever had was when I was carrying it about 6 ft. off the ground while open and running (brilliant I know) and I dropped it onto a tile-on-concrete floor. That time the hard drive crashed but everything was perfectly fine.
I don't know what kind of build quality Apple computers have but I'm going to guess that it can't be that much better.
I don't think so. Most people I know love the look of Thinkpads. It's still my favorite looking laptop. It has a classic styling too. It's a design that looked good 10 years ago, and still looks good now. I'm not sure any other laptop exists that can make that claim.
The styling of UPS delivery vans shares this longevity. I think it's because we all know Thinkpads just keep looking the same, so they never look out of date. Whereas, we can tell a Dell from 5 years ago is going to be a lot slower.
Everything you mentioned, I've also done (with the exception of using it out in drizzle and snow - that just seems crazy!)
Once, during my commute home, I decided to play music via iTunes (my iPod had died). I arrived home, walking to the door, when I decided to unzip the bag I was carrying (a sling type) to turn off iTunes, when my Mac Book Pro came sliding out. It landed smack on the front right corner, a good 5-5.5 ft drop. I feared the worst! It took me a good 10 seconds to finally get the nerve to check and was shocked to find, not only was the screen not cracked, but the machine was still running like a champ! (I did end up with a serious dent and some major scratches on the bottom, but I considered them battle scars and showed them off with pride!)
I've looked at ThinkPads for work (web development) and I'm glad to hear the quality is on par with the MBPs I'm use to.
I second this. My MBP has been dropped more times than I can ever admit to the Genius Bar and it has kept on ticking. Every computer I've ever owned has been a mac and they all still work. Compare that to my fiance's 4 PCs that have all broken beyond use. He's currently using my Power Book that's almost 8 years old. It's slow but it works! It also still looks nice.
It's not just build quality, it's also aesthetics. You say you can't speak for design, but that's what most people care about more than the ability to bounce their laptop off of concrete. That's why the average consumer isn't in the market for a Toughbook.
Does it matter? Are you disputing the claim? Do you think that people care more about the ability to bounce their laptop off of concrete than aesthetics?
I disagree. I think that the average person looks almost exclusively at price, and not much else.
However, in my experience the few people that pay much attention to the specific type of laptop they are buying pay at least as much attention to quality as they do to aesthetics. (Note that I don't have any numbers to back this up, this is just my experience from the people who I help buy computers)
My original Aluminum Unibody 13" macbook has been dropped 6ft onto a hardwood floor, and banged multiple times against aluminum braces. Has a few dings, but still going strong.
I do like apple hardware (until mac os x became good enough for me, around 10.4/10.5 I used linux on a intel macbook), and it is well designed, but IBM thinkpad are much more solid.
Actually, the Intel plastic macbook were pretty crappy quality-wise: the magnet stuff which kept breaking for many people, etc... I bought the alu one for that reason alone. Also, ipods are not super strong, and the recent ones rarely last more than 2 years for me.
Maybe I am just careless, but the IBM thinkpad I got lasted for years and were built like tanks (and unfortunately looked like as well...).
These stories of people running across streets frantically computing with their open laptop during the dead of winter invite so many more questions than just the survival of the device.
I will tell you the build that Apple has:
> +Dropped it way more times than I can count, usually while closed and turned off but also while it was running, and while it was open (both running and not).
Yes
>+Totally stood on it, putting my full weight on the closed lid many times.
Why on earth would I do that?
>+Left it running in my closed backpack for almost an hour (twice).
More times than I can count. My MBP has been "shut down" for a maximum of 20 times in the past 2 years.
>+Used it indoors and out during drizzle, snow, the height of summer and the low of winter, I even used it on a beach once.
Everything except the snow
>The only issue I have ever had was when I was carrying it about 6 ft. off the ground while open and running (brilliant I know) and I dropped it onto a tile-on-concrete floor. That time the hard drive crashed but everything was perfectly fine.
Done that as well. The MBP hard disk stops motion when the acceleration exceeds a certain value suddenly
-It is not just the build quality.
-It is also about merging design and technology
-Building a durable laptop can be as non innovative as carbon fibre layering.
-It is about removing point of failures/fall/mishaps by innovation like the MagSafe adapters. God they prevent the laptop from falling everyday.
-Also it is not just how it is built but also how it works. I work on Windows in my office and on my MBP by the night. The OS is exceedingly more polished and refined on the Mac.
<br />
Does that give a fair perspective?
I didn't downvote, so I'm not sure, but I'd guess it's mostly because of the odd formatting. It's difficult to tell what you are quoting, and what you are adding. I wouldn't take offense. Checking http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc might help for the future.
Asus has superior build quality to Apple (measured in failures within 3 years; Apple is around 17% and Asus is 15%, as I recall), lots of original designs (they started the netbook craze, and have a line of laptops made with bamboo), and they don't look half bad either. The U36Jc is completely comparable spec-wise to the 13-inch macbook pro, except for lacking an optical drive, while costing $200 less. It also has better graphics, a larger hard drive, better battery life, is thinner, and weighs about a pound less.
So yes, there are companies that produce hardware comparable to Apple. They're just not as well known.
"The company has an extremely great handle on what components are needed to make a really awesome thin and light machine – standard voltage processors, a dedicated GPU, a good sized battery, lots of ports – but it consistently forgets to pay attention to the small details. And in the case of the U36Jc, those details include a wonky mouse button, glossy bezel, and some heat issues. It's those things that hold systems like this one from being the best of the best."
Spec-wise, there are tons of laptops that can match or exceed the MacbookPros. It's the little details where almost all of them fall short.
I suspect this is more of a branding issue. Macbook Pro is a relatively memorable name; U36Jc took me longer to type than the rest of this sentence, let alone remember (I won't).
Apple is better at being the original-design-brand, even if they're not the only brand doing awesome original design.
It's a choice issue, too. If my next laptop is a MacBook, I know that I have basically one choice to make: how big I want the screen. If I'm a penny-pincher, I can check out the refurb section of the Apple Store, but in general, I really only have one choice.
If I want to get an Asus, where do I even start? Screen size, resolution, weight, price, processor, presence or not of optical drive? How do today's models stack up against yesterday's? How much would I gain in price and trade off in performance by seeking out a store model or overstock one from six months ago?
You're entirely right. Oddly enough, though, this never occurred to me before, even though in retrospect it's ridiculously obvious. Always interesting when that happens.
Asus has superior build quality to Apple (measured in failures within 3 years; Apple is around 17% and Asus is 15%, as I recall)
Where did you get these numbers? It certainly doesn't square with my own, pure anecdotal, experience with Asus and Apple. Is anyone actually publishing these numbers? Are laptop makers required to?
Who are these companies? Seriously. Have you used an Apple product side by side with a non Apple equivalent? Does any company come close to the build quality or original design of Apple?
"Close" is a very subjective term. I like the looks of my coworker's phones sometimes. I haven't played with one for very long. I really love the design of my iPhone 4. Nothing else is as good from a tactile perspective, I'll grant you that.
If other companies are almost catching up, it still means they are behind, and, worse, just riding on Apple's success without much idea of why they are successful.
Or they have something of an idea, but they can't execute.
I'm talking less about the physical design and more about the functional design. Apple products are extremely minimalist as a design decision: only include what is necessary, allow the form of the device to reflect what is necessary and the material chosen that expose that functionality. I mean design from a "how things work" perspective, something more objective than just how the thing works.
The designs of other companies appear to be aesthetic or functional primarily without regard for the other: design the look of the object and then fit as much functionality in as possible, or the opposite, get as much functionality as possible, and wrap it in some plastic. In either case there is little interaction between form and function, and often complete neglect between one or the other.
And even in the great case where both are considered, say Sony's line of VAIOs (I formerly owned a VAIO desktop), the build quality is low, or semifunctional (opening the case on my VAIO was a pain).
As others have noted, ThinkPad's may be the best counter example. They are extremely utilitarian. Their good looks, in my opinion, comes from their purely functional approach.
Sony's high end VAIO laptops have always surpassed Apple in build quality, and matched them in design, from the 505 to the R505, TZ and current Z series. I have a VAIO from 2002 that still runs well and the Z series is better than a macbook pro in pretty much every way except price (costing twice as much thanks to carbon fiber), while weighing as much as the macbook air 13".
Now don't get me wrong, Apple makes some fantastic product, and Sony makes a ton of crap to go along with its gems, but Sony can still go toe to toe with the company its aesthetic sense inspired.
It's only a matter of time before the iPad style tablet becomes commoditized. Quite a few years ago, Apple was one of the design leaders in the laptop space, then others caught up, more or less. The same thing happened in the smartphone space. The same thing will happen to tablets.
For sure! Oh, wait, I meant PlaysForSure.
I wish I thought you were right, because I think it would be much better for Apple in the long term to have credible competition. I see none, and pretty clearly Apple sees none, or their subscription-revenue plan wouldn't have seen the light of day.
Totally agree. Let's not forget the PC - invented by Apple, now it means non-Apple.
No one caught up with the iPod; Apple rode that wave fully, by mercilessly improving and price-cutting it; then subsuming/cannibalizing it with the iPhone/Touch. They will ruthlessly brutalize their current babies too.
When the iPad was launched, there was no talk of competitors. Today, most of the news is about competitors. It's necessary for Steve to trash them. And to be clear: the iPad 2 specs actually do trash them.
Big question: what's the next wave for Apple? I think it will be smart phones as a desktop/laptop replacement (you dock at home/work). Maybe a nano-sized smartphone replacement (or even smaller), for the next form-factor.
PS: The Kindle will disrupt the iPad: it has a far cheaper yet more profitable business model; when the iPad becomes more powerful than it needs to be, the Kindle will be powerful enough.
It's not the devices. The iPod didn't succeed because of the iPod. The iPhone was woefully inadequate when it was launched. The iPad succeeded because of everything that had come before it.
* iTunes
* The Apple Retail Store
* iOS App Store
* Now the Mac App Store
* Apple TV
Don't get me wrong, the devices are great. They look nice, the work well. I love my iPhone, my iMac, MBP, iPad, Apple TV. The Airport Extreme is a wonderful wireless router.
But alone, any of these products are okay (except the AE, it's worth it). It's everything around them that matters.
That's why I agree with you on the Kindle, though it won't disrupt the iPad. I love my Kindle, but it's used for a different reason than the iPad. But the Kindle does what it does well, and everything it connects to is top notch.
I'm not really disagreeing with you. However, it's not the product, it's everything beyond the product that really made Apple successful.
As for what's next: Removing the computer from the screen. I've been saying it for a LONG time here. I really think Apple is moving toward a server -> client model. You'll buy a computer for the house, a really powerful beast, something you put in the corner. Everyone connects to it using their iPads, monitors, Airs, iPhones. Your session remains the same regardless of the device.
That's how it was reported but if you listen to the actual call it was about 1-2 minutes squarely aimed at the Samsung Galaxy Tab which had just been released.
It's only a matter of time before the iPad style tablet becomes commoditized. Quite a few years ago, Apple was one of the design leaders in the laptop space, then others caught up, more or less. The same thing happened in the smartphone space. The same thing will happen to tablets. In a way, they are subject to the same forces that Nokia is desperately trying to escape, except Apple has been smart and positioned themselves on the forefront of each wave, where it will lift them up. Nokia rode their wave too long.
Will Apple become a victim of their own success? Yes.
For the record, though, I think Steve Job's "reality distortion field" is sometimes actually an anti-distortion field. I think the consensus reality has some significant distortions, which he's good at seeing through. Then again, everyone who isn't Steve might have a hard time knowing which polarity the field is set to at any given moment.