Steve Jobs has died. What effect, if any, will it have on Apple and the tech industry?

Yeah it'll only really lead to a reduction in quality.

I'm happy paying the current prices for high quality goods.


**Stand by for a tsunami of 'my mate had an iphone which broke......***
(not interested, ALL of my apple tech has lasted years).

So it's OK for you to use your own experience to back up claims of reliability, but when you recive a disproportional number of counter claims to the contrary, you brush them aside with a "not interested?"
 
Er, the iMac, mouse, graphical user interface, etc, etc, etc. No you're right, no argument at all...

He means in the phone and tablet fields, not from Apple. :p

So it's OK for you to use your own experience to back up claims of reliability, but when you recive a disproportional number of counter claims to the contrary, you brush them aside with a "not interested?"

And this brings us to the outstanding customer service (overall)...
 
Apple were part of the frenzy, they didn't create it. Perhaps they were the biggest player, that is just semantics.

I am not at all focused on hardware. Apple's software actually mirrors their hardware approach, which is a very good thing (doing something properly in a well designed way and emphasizing the user and ease of use, ergonomics etc)
No they did create the frenzy - I was there with smartphones before the frenzy and amazed myself how they released a smartphone that was so easily adopted.

Hell it annoyed me as I was before the curve with smartphones as I was with mp3 players before the iPod. They werent new products or to my mind anything particularly special...

But to suggest in either instances that Apple didnt bring out a product that lead to worldwide adoption and an audience that became a viable market is to considered quite short-sighted...

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
Apple were part of the frenzy, they didn't create it. Perhaps they were the biggest player, that is just semantics.

I am not at all focused on hardware. Apple's software actually mirrors their hardware approach, which is a very good thing (doing something properly in a well designed way and emphasizing the user and ease of use, ergonomics etc)

Who did start the whole craze then?

I'd be more than happy to admit that Apple did, and I'm not a fanboi in the slightest
 
If you want to see what happens when a respected leader at the head of a powerful empire dies and leaves a huge empire behind, just look up "Alexander the Great". The same will happen with Apple (to one degree or another).
 
RIP :(

Whether you like him/apple or not, they did have a profound effect on the technology industry as a whole, mainly in the user interface, design and general polish of products.
 
Not really true at all, the Android project started years before there was ever an iPhone and mobile personal computing and communication has been a core interest of Google almost since it was founded, and moreover, has been of great interest to numerous companies and predicted in academia for decades.

Apple didn't create the smartphone frenzy, they just produced a good product and marketed it very well and let their large fanbase make lots of sales. There was a smartphone frenzy way before the iPhone was released.

The same with things like the iPod. Portable music players have existed since the technology ever became available. Sony is a far bigger contributor to this, Walkman anyone? Pocket MP3 players had existed long before the iPod. Apply simply released a good product that looked nice and had reasonable ergonomics. There was no technological innovation their, good product engineering, design and marketing coming together.

Apple innovates on aesthetics, design, marketing, perhaps even quality. They don't innovate technology, they follow in the footsteps of others and release high quality products, which is great for them .

Apple does create lots of good competition, but don't forget that the competition would still be there even without Apple. There are many multi-billion dollar companies competing in all the markets Apple does.

Well put, just because Apple make something does not make it better than every other product on the market.

Nintendo remind me of Apple, inventive and creative but you have Playstation/Xbox brand that is just as good as Nintendo and offers something different.
 
i see apple as the lady gagga of tech i.e. does next to no innovative stuff for the industry but because of the execution and marketing, people flock like lady gagga/Apple are the second coming of christ

Don't bring Lady Gaga into this. She is awesome :cool: so pipe down.
 
And this brings us to the outstanding customer service (overall)...

Im not sure I see the link, but Im not particularly impressed by that either. When my girlfriends iPhone was playing up again, she was told in an Apple store that the only option was to replace the whole phone at a cost of £130 because the battery had sustained water damage. Which it hasn't, past existing in an atmosphere which at times contains water vapour. No option to replace the battery (surprising, I thought these things were hallmarks of design? Yet you cant swap out the bttery pack in an instant like other phones?), no option to repair it. Just "buy a new one".
 
Im not sure I see the link, but Im not particularly impressed by that either. When my girlfriends iPhone was playing up again, she was told in an Apple store that the only option was to replace the whole phone at a cost of £130 because the battery had sustained water damage. Which it hasn't, past existing in an atmosphere which at times contains water vapour. No option to replace the battery (surprising, I thought these things were hallmarks of design? Yet you cant swap out the bttery pack in an instant like other phones?), no option to repair it. Just "buy a new one".

Apple like logitech have amazing CS, however look at both and you will still get bad reviews. You can never be brilliant 100% of the time. But they are fantastic which ever way you look at it. £130 is a substantial discount. Take water damaged good to another company and you would have to pay full price.
 
No they did create the frenzy - I was there with smartphones before the frenzy and amazed myself how they released a smartphone that was so easily adopted.

Hell it annoyed me as I was before the curve with smartphones as I was with mp3 players before the iPod. They werent new products or to my mind anything particularly special...

But to suggest in either instances that Apple didnt bring out a product that lead to worldwide adoption and an audience that became a viable market is to considered quite short-sighted...

ps3ud0 :cool:

I absolutely said nothing of this. I 100% that Apple had an integral part of all this. Just don't forget That Nokia, Sony, Google, Microsoft, Palm, RIM/Blackberry, HP, Samsung, IBM, HTC, etc. were all there, all setting the stones and all contributing to a massive rise in population of smartphones and a huge push in technology as everyone wanted a slice of the pie. To suggest that this wouldn't have happened without Apple is foolish. Apple helped the push in many ways, and was early in the game with an excellent product that solved many of the issues that the competitors had. This definitely made these other companies think twice, which is a very good thing.
 
Not really true at all, the Android project started years before there was ever an iPhone and mobile personal computing and communication has been a core interest of Google almost since it was founded, and moreover, has been of great interest to numerous companies and predicted in academia for decades.

Apple didn't create the smartphone frenzy, they just produced a good product and marketed it very well and let their large fanbase make lots of sales. There was a smartphone frenzy way before the iPhone was released.

The same with things like the iPod. Portable music players have existed since the technology ever became available. Sony is a far bigger contributor to this, Walkman anyone? Pocket MP3 players had existed long before the iPod. Apply simply released a good product that looked nice and had reasonable ergonomics. There was no technological innovation their, good product engineering, design and marketing coming together.

Apple innovates on aesthetics, design, marketing, perhaps even quality. They don't innovate technology, they follow in the footsteps of others and release high quality products, which is great for them .

Apple does create lots of good competition, but don't forget that the competition would still be there even without Apple. There are many multi-billion dollar companies competing in all the markets Apple does.


Well according to wikipedia, "Android, Inc. was founded in Palo Alto, California, United States in October, 2003" and then "Google purchased the initial developer of the software, Android Inc., in 2005".

Given the iPhone was released Jan 2007, you can't really say that the Android project started years before the iPhone because Apple would have been working on the project long before release.

Given that it's initial release was "23 September 2008" that is more than 18 months after Apple announced the 2G and 3 months after they released 3G!

Apple got there first and kicked everyone else up the backside to get them in gear as far as I'm aware.

Correct me if I am wrong tho.
 
Apple's innovation was unshackling Joe User from the Business Machine mentality.

It often seems like they thought "what does Joe User actually want from their computer?" which is why most of their products in the Apple resurgence became popular.

Sure, Windows is more intuitive, Android is smarter, the Samsung Galaxy S2 is arguably better, and mice with two buttons are more sensible. But nobody really sat back and thought that Aunt Marjorie doesn't know/care/worry about network setups, device management, etc... she just wants it to 'work'.

In my opinion, Apple did nothign to 'innovate' with hardware, but they made the user experience more personal, enjoyable and relevant for the vast majority of people who use their devices to consume media, rather than produce it.

Whilst I don't really like Apple's approach to marketing and support, I admire what they've done for the average user: my wife doesn't understand our laptop running either Windows Vista or 7, but the iPad is a doddle. Just the same as for my 3 year-old daughter (who learnt how to use the iPad in a day, when she was 2).

That's what I will remember Steve Jobs for... RIP.
 
Apple like logitech have amazing CS, however look at both and you will still get bad reviews. You can never be brilliant 100% of the time. But they are fantastic which ever way you look at it. £130 is a substantial discount. Take water damaged good to another company and you would have to pay full price.

My gripe is more that they claim the phone had sustained water damage, despite never being near water. How fragile are these phones that they can sustain such damage (alledgedly) whilst being kept dry?

Also, the point was more about the design. Another company would indeed write off a water damaged phone. But it wasn't the phone that was at fault, but the battery. In another phone, that's £30 quid and 5 seconds to swap. With Apple it requires repalcement of the whole phone. Which doesnt strike me as a great design (from a sustainability point of view).

Also, this was fairly recently, and an iPhone 3, so Im not sure that £130 was a discounted figure.
 
You can change iPhone battery.
So nothing adds up. Either bad experience or it did in deed get wet and damaged stuff.

I bet it did go near water all phones do. Be it rain, sink or something else.
 
Back
Top Bottom