Comment by mns
11 hours ago
I don't know, their whole product announcements since they went the way of the pre-recorded ones seem like exactly the type of company they would smash in their 1984 commercial. Feels over-produced-airburshed-perfectly-rendered-ai-generated souless evil corporation trying to pretend to be good, completely disconnected from the real world, but that's just me, and I am deeply into their ecosystem.
It's really interesting to go back to some of the old Stevenotes and compare. They have a soul to them that's just not there with these newer pre-recorded ones. They were still polished like crazy, but there's this feeling of spontaneity and risk. At the very least, he had to stop and wait for applause and laughter. And there was this sense that they had something to prove. Now, of course the new thing is slick, easy to use, integrates with all your other Apple stuff. It's a sales pitch. Look at the original iPhone announcement and it feels like half of it is convincing the audience that, yes, this thing is actually real, we actually built this, it really does work.
But apple have always been like that
Its the reality distortion field. (this term comes from the register)
The original iphone was full of tradeoffs that made it not a great phone at launch. It had no apps, it had no copy paste, it had no 3g, it had no flash.
The browser was good (apart from the lack of flash) and the touch screen was good. The big reason why it became a behemoth is that it had great music support, and it was fashionable.
The apps, and the thing that actually drove it to monster success only really happened because the public gave them the benefit of the doubt (and developers changed their products to fit)
> Its the reality distortion field. (this term comes from the register)
It actually comes right from Apple. Andy Hertzfeld, an early Apple employee, has claimed it was originally said in 1981 by another employee, Bud Tribble, to describe Steve Jobs. It was supposedly a reference to Star Trek.
The capacitive multitouch screen and the software/gestures to go with it was what made the iPhone a success. All the other feature phones of the time were so much less pleasant to use - I had one, the Nokia N95. On paper it destroyed an iPhone. In practice, it was clunky and annoying to use.
If what you said was true then all the other companies in existence at that time Microsoft, Blackberry, Palm and Nokia should’ve been able to easily answer the challenge and kick Apple to the curb but they could not because they were so far behind…
The area where all the other existing foldable phones are dead in the water is the OS software integration with the hardware and unlike the first time around, they are competing with Apple that has four other ecosystems that can interface with the new phone seamlessly.
And more importantly, all the developers who bothered to follow most of the rules will have most of their stuff running on that new phone on day one.
> Microsoft, Blackberry, Palm and Nokia should’ve
They were not cool.
Their phones were not cool. The music services bundled were shit.
What made the iphone cool? no buttons, screen running at 60hz. nice animations.
> The big reason why it became a behemoth is that it had great music support, and it was fashionable.
No, it was the touchscreen and new UI paradigms.
The original iPhone was amazing to use. Yes on paper the Nokia destroyed it, as my roommate thoroughly tried to convince me, but browsing the web with multitouch was a revelation and just made the Nokia feel like an archaic tool.
The new phone OS destroyed them along with a few features integrated into the original iPhone all the existing companies were caught completelyflat footed and they spent the next three years debating on what they should do and by then it was too late.
The only reason Google and Android took off? Well it didn’t hurt to have a mole/spy Eric Schmidt on the Apple board.