# Apple should re-enter innovation.



## fryke (May 11, 2004)

Yes, I think so. It might seem a bit harsh to say Apple has stopped innovating, but if you look at the facts, I think I'm right in my article called just like this thread. You can find the article at http://macintosh.fryke.com/cgi-bin/macnews.cgi/2004/05/11#20040511_applepda on macnews.net.tc.

I think that Apple, although claiming to 'innovate' through the PC misery, has actually stopped innovating. The new PowerBooks are merely better versions of older ones (the TiBook being the last really innovative one, if at all), the PowerMac G5s are merely a MUCH needed catch-up in speed with the PC world (and Apple is again slowly falling behind by not updating their hardware fast enough), the iMac (the original one) was NOT an innovation in the sense I mean it, because a G3 of the time was at least as good, the iMac actually REMOVED a few interfaces and was just (a really, really good!) marketing instrument that told the crowds that Apple was still making the most easy to use computers in the world and that they hadn't forgotten completely about their design department.

I don't want to cause a flame-war. I urge you to - if you want to - send flame-messages my way via E-Mail (see link for commenting options) and discuss constructively in this thread instead.

Btw.: GOOD flame-mails are VERY welcome in my mailbox. I might even publish one or the other argument (the good ones) on macnews.net.tc. (So please state whether you want your name to be published or not.)


----------



## dlloyd (May 11, 2004)

Read the piece, yes, I'd buy one of those!  Probably for my Mom, but I'd still be able to say I had one then, wouldn't I?


----------



## jobsen_ski (May 11, 2004)

ye you could say that they have... but theres only soooo much you can do,, i mean PC makers a re finaly geting the idea with the look - they dont look as bad as they did so macs no longer look so hip and trendy! I mean they do a bit I supose exposé for exaple but other than that I think it must be pretty hard for them to inovate all the time.


----------



## jhawk28 (May 11, 2004)

I would have to say that I agree with you in terms of the lack of innovation on the hardware level. They really haven't released anything "new". I would say that the implementation of the hardware/software is where Apple is still being innovative. They are also being innovative in the design of their products, such as size and shape. Other than that, Apple does not have much else. 

The lan-powered Airport is not new. Granted, there was no consumer lan-powered access points on the market until then, but it still is not a "new" idea. 

The G5 is probably one of the bigger dissapointments. Yeah, it is supposed to be fast, but the PC world is still rocking its boat. Instead, we seem to be getting faster G4's, but we don't want G4's, we want G5's. 

Joshua


----------



## fryke (May 11, 2004)

I've got (by now) one E-Mail that also mentioned that Apple _did_ indeed innovate in software/hardware integration and in software per se (Exposé is a good example). And I'm willing to agree there.

jhawk: Even if Apple had by now already released faster PowerMac G5s, PowerBook G5, iMac G5 and eMac G5 (the iBook always lagging a bit behind is okay), that still wouldn't solve _my_ problem with Apple's lack of innovation. It'd be faster machines, and that would be great. But just that.

I guess Apple, for example, has not made a videoPod so far, not because they couldn't do it, but because they didn't WANT to. And the reason for them not WANTING to do it is money.

The same goes for the 'iTablet'. I agree with Apple here. There's no real market need. But what Apple has done in the past is CREATE a market need by innovating. And in the killer communications product I envision, there even is an existing need, I think. Not one people didn't even know about before...


----------



## chevy (May 11, 2004)

No innovation since iMac ?

no Exposé
no iPod
no smooth Aqua interface
no integrated Firewall
no suite of "domestic" software (iLife, iCal, Address Book, Spell checker... with sweet integration)
no iTMS
no iSync
no iDisk

no innovation ? really ? innovation maybe more subtle than just extra MHz or GHz... it can also be a better human interface, service integration...


----------



## fryke (May 11, 2004)

Then you've got me completely wrong. As I've mentioned, I admit that Exposé is real innovation (albeit small).

But 'smooth' Aqua interface is not an innovation. It's a bug fix.
'Integrated firewall' is a nice word for adopting open source technology. No innovation.
iDisk is nothing fancy either and _did_ work on Windows and Linux long before Apple made it sexy.

The iPod I already mentioned in the article. Did it make music portable? No. The Walkman did that in the last century. Did it make music digital? Nope. Did it make digital music portable? Nope, even THAT did work before the iPod. As I've said in the article, this doesn't mean it's a bad product - I LOVE the iPod.

But compared to things like the Human Interface on computers (and even that was stolen in parts), Desktop Publishing, Desktop Video (along with FireWire) and a REAL Personal Digital Assistant (Newton), the stuff you mention is very, very, very low-key.


----------



## RacerX (May 11, 2004)

I think it is disingenuous to say Apple stopped innovating. They have thrown a lot of stuff out there that now needs to be made workable. Innovation without follow up is pointless. Apple needs to follow up. You may want a new gadget every week, but I think Apple needs to perfect what they already have.

Apple played a community role (larger than most any other computer maker) in the items you listed as other people's innovation. At least give credit where credit is do. I'm sure you are dismissing Firewire and MPEG4 as other people's work also as Apple has taken their parts of those into the same type of community system to help the industry as a whole.

As for your complains about speed, Apple has no more control over the speed of their systems than Dell or Gateway. Apple has to wait for IBM/Motorola to make faster processors just like PC makers have to wait for Intel/AMD to do the same.

To my mind, I am still waiting for long time Apple developers to start using the innovations Mac OS X has. What is the point of Apple adding to there software/hardware if people aren't even using it? To date many of the old time Mac developers have done little to take advantage of Mac OS X's new abilities. In fact most of the _new_ Mac OS X apps look (unremarkably) like their Mac OS versions. Granted stability is nice, but that is not the only thing Mac OS X has to offer.

You may not see it, but there are a ton of things in Mac OS X that are so far ahead of any other platform that it'll take years for the competition to catch up. Apple needs to perfect those innovations and get developers to write to them.

As it stands right now, the three developers that write to Apple's innovations in the software area that I can think of are the Omni Group, Stone Design and Karelia Software. It is odd that these small developers are doing what Adobe, Macromedia and Microsoft are not.

A number of weeks ago the press went nuts over the fact that Opera was going to include voice command abilities in some future version of their browser. That would have been amazing... if it wasn't already a part of OmniWeb via Apple's Mac OS X APIs. You of all people should have seen that! Did you write about it? I don't see any thing on your site.

AbiWord came to Mac OS X, does it use any of Mac OS X's features? No. It just runs as a stand alone carbon app ignoring all that the Mac OS X environment has to offer (pretty much the same way Office does).

It is even more odd that you have missed this type of stuff. I generally think of you as being on top of these types of things. I'm sad to say I'm a little disappointed.

We are a long way from major any leaps forward in the computing world, but the best way to make sure Apple stops innovation is to ignore the steps they are taking now.... and that is exactly what you have done.


----------



## fryke (May 11, 2004)

I must admit that I've intentionally (yep!) overlooked a lot of things - and you have found most of them. Yet, I did so to make a point, and I think that this point is still a valid one: Namely that Apple is - nowadays - more about 'words' than about 'deeds' when it comes to hardware (hardware!).

Don't get me wrong: I _do_ agree that Mac OS X (and also OpenStep, NeXT-Step before that) has a lot of unused (or rarely used) potential that must be developed before pushing even more of those innovations in developers' ways. But I wasn't looking at these things from a developer's view but rather a user's and also the market's.

Apple called the year 2003 the year of the notebook. Introduced the 12" and 17". And then took nine months to post a follow-up. And the follow-up was for one the 15", which actually took a year since the last TiBook's introduction and a little speed-bump. I don't know about you, but it seems to me that 2003 was as much a 'year of the notebook' as 2002 or 2001 was. Ah, no: 2001 was a much BIGGER year for notebooks, as the original TiBook was introduced and had a sooner and bigger follow-up!

And OmniGroup's achievements with Apple's APIs: They're GREAT. But I was talking about Apple, and mainly Apple's hardware.

And: It's simply not true that Apple is only waiting for IBM/Motorola. We all know that the IBM PPC 970FX was introduced quite some time ago. Apple could've used it. And Apple could have _also_ urged IBM to first introduce something like a 2.2 or 2.4 GHz PPC 970 half a year after the 2.0 GHz part. But anyway, that's a wholly different thread's worth, as it's not about innovation at all. My argument was that the newer PowerBooks are merely faster and better PowerBooks but still PowerBooks. If I compare my brandnew PowerBook to the one I've bought more than three years ago, I have to say that I don't see much innovative about it (hardware, I'm talking hardware...).

But you're right. I _did_ ignore many of the 'smaller' (I say smaller because they're not very in-the-eye for the user or the market, mostly because of the other developers not using them, like you stated) innovations in Mac OS X.

I did so to make a point. And I hope that you can see that I didn't ignore the things you've said to badmouth Apple (or OmniGroup, Stone Design etc.) but to take a look at what Apple once was and what it has become.


----------



## chevy (May 11, 2004)

I like the small innovations that makes my Mac behave so much better than a Dell under XP.

I agree, iPod is probably not technically a breakthrough. But if it's not a breakthrough, why is it so much better than any other player ? Because it is well finished ! May little things may create a big difference. It's just quality. BTW there were portable recodrers long before the Walkman, do you remember the Nagra ?

Same thing applies for all the iApps (and not only iLife).

Same thing applies for the smooth scroll of Aqua (try to select cells while scrolling a long Excel document on XP... it's either too slow or so fast you cannot stop your selection where you want to stop it).

iTMS (even if not available here in Europe) is so "normal" that it took most of the market.

Same for iDisk. The background thechnology is not new, but it's integration in the system (indeed in the Finder) is sooo well done. (Mail could be as good if it would have a better editor and a better GUI for settings - yes one part of Apple's HI is bad: the "preferences": too complicated, too slow to browse, too bulky).


----------



## fryke (May 11, 2004)

You're getting too off-topic for me, personally.


----------



## macgeek (May 11, 2004)

The problem I'm having with this whole argument is that it seems like Fryke is expecting an innovation like the Notebook computer (which by the way came around a long time before any of the TiBooks).  The problem is that "innovations" like that only come 2 or 3 per decade and then take a decade to hit mass market.  Cell phones, notebook computers, personal audio devices (walkmen).

The _true_ innovation comes at the point that these inventions are ready to hit mass market.  Something has to happen at that point.  The public is ready for the product, and some innovation has to occur to make the product ready for (and accessible to) the public.  The iPod is a perfect example of this.

The iPod is merely a super duper walkman.  When the iPod hit, there were people listening to all forms of personal audio devices, but the ones that were full-featured weren't easy to use, and the ones that were easy to use weren't full-featured.  Then the iPod and iTunes came in.  iTunes is damn easy to use and the iPod is just about as simple.  Suddenly, you don't have to be stuck to burning cds from your mp3 playlists.  You don't have to be stuck to a selection of 20 songs per sync.  You can have your entire music library in the palm of your hand and it's as easy as playing a cd.  Now, this is something the average music listener can handle.  Follow that up with a seamless integration into the largest for-purchase music library in the world and all of a sudden, people are starting to pay for the mp3s they listen to.  It's one seamless process: download, sync, play - one click on the mouse, hook up the iPod, take it off and play music.  THAT is the innovation.


----------



## fryke (May 11, 2004)

Okay, macgeek.

But if you've read my original article, you'd see that what I'm leading to is that this very CHANCE that you're describing so incredibly well is actually HERE. And that it's the right time NOW for Apple to re-enter this innovation thing.


----------



## macgeek (May 11, 2004)

We're in complete agreement there.  I can't wait to see what Apple has in mind for consolidating the various forms of media into one place for sale, storage, and transport!


----------



## chevy (May 11, 2004)

I'm not sure we shall recognize the innovation when it comes... we'll recognize it when it will have won the crowd.

What is an innovation ?

Isn't an innovation per definition unpredictable ?

I think that Apple (and other companies) have a culture that makes innovation possible. Therefore it will come again.

(I have a few patents under my name... so I have some ideas about innovation, others have other ideas that are probably at least as legitimate as mines).


----------



## Alex x (May 11, 2004)

We were discussing the very same topic today at uni, not specifically Apple, but the industry in general. The conclusion was that rather than inventing new ideas current ones were just being refined.

Consider this; the Lisa was most defiantly innovative, but was $10,000, most of the innovation over recent years has been refining the Lisa in to the iMac and reducing its price to $1,299


----------



## fryke (May 11, 2004)

That'd be an oversimplification then. A bit like saying that a Lisa was merely a refined TV monitor and a typewriter melted into one.


----------



## mindbend (May 11, 2004)

Just for fun, I'll muddy the waters by suggesting that Apple and others need to STOP innovating. Yes, I actually just said that.

I, for one, would like to see a hardware freeze, followed by three to five years of nothing but code optimzations on all software across the board. The best example I can think of for this is the Xbox, which is unchanged since its introduction. Yet Halo 2 (due sometime reasonably soon-ish) will absolutely destroy the original version, which was impressive in its own right.

I'm really tired of my $3,000 computer still taking so long to boot (not that booting is really something happens much these days thanks to OS X), apps take too long to launch, most apps are total bloat (though Apple's apps are actually fairly slim, which is great). Apple's own DVDSP...could there possibly be a more sluggish app?

I want to see more refinement. Uber-refinement. I want every app to launch in under a second. It's doable. Lightwave launches instantly on my machines. That's a pretty intense program. I see no reason other apps can't do the same. 

Look at Final Cut. I've been through three versions of FCP on the same hardware and the latest version of FCP is utterly amazing. It's like a new machine. Kudos to Apple for continued refinement. 

So, I say STOP the innovations and bring on the polishing!


----------



## Randman (May 11, 2004)

Innovation can backfire, just look at the Cube. That said, it seems that the current trend at Apple is to seemlessly integrate a digital lifestyle and, for the most part, the company has been successful in accomplishing this.


----------



## mi5moav (May 12, 2004)

I totally agree I was about to write a post about what has Apple done in the last 2 years. Since the ipod came out nothing just tweaks of certain things. Then of course innovation of products sometimes do stop or slow down. Look at the spoon, fork, toilet paper(though we are seeing a huge technological breakthrough coming soon), even the car still does not fly. Apple probably has some products in storage that may be a bit ahead of its time, like the newton.  They have come out with some great things in the past 5 years nothing that aliens would visit to see but great. Then again even if a company has a one hit wonder they are still successful. Like ford motor company and it's assembly line. Microsoft and it's art of borrowing, Gateway and it's ability to bleed forever. Apple has brought great new twists on ideas. But is innovation something completely new or improvement over yesterday. Slow and steady my friend as long as you know where your foes as well as friends are, and you shall always be a step ahead.  But then Apple would probably prefer a product that everyone would want and dying to have even if it was an old bone dug up in the parking lot to the most innovative idea... timing is everything and great ideas are born precisely at the right moment.


----------



## Randman (May 12, 2004)

well said


----------



## Quicksilver (May 12, 2004)

i Think iTablet (stupid name) is good infact the pocket pc market im sure is now starting to rise i see more and more people everyday use pocket pc's in there work, one in particular is the xphone & xda. I think it is an innovative area and just mearly a blind spot for larger corporations. of course the way i see it, its first in best dressed people want them but the ones they really want are almost as much as some computer systems themselves. I'm sure if there was one that was fun and not 100% business oriented/marketed. mabey set as a home consumer device, people would like that.

I wish newton os was open source I have a friend who already re designed an os x like colour interface that slightly works, It looks really cool. I dont know what code he is using though mabey the graphics were translated or somthing. In fact im surprised how some of the features in newton os 2.1 resemble some os X features but really scaled down, eg: the trash, the way you delete an item, that dock. and animations, etc.

what ever apple does im sure its for their best interests. I havent seen "think different" around for a while though.


----------



## dlloyd (May 12, 2004)

Good point, I haven't seen it either... (and BTW, that was quite hard to read )


----------



## fryke (May 12, 2004)

quicksilver: what do you mean your friend has "redesigned an os x like color interface that slightly works"? On the Newton? It hasn't got a colour screen. Do you mean a theme for... a Pocket PC? Or something else entirely? I don't get it...


----------



## Giaguara (May 12, 2004)

fryke, after the critique, do you have something constructive to suggest to "fix the situation"? 
You know why Steve doesn't like PDAs or the Newton. You can't change that.


----------



## fryke (May 13, 2004)

I disagree. He may have disliked the Newton in the past (when it just cost Apple money!), but he quite certainly likes the concept and technology. Some of the ideas were brought to Mac OS X (even Ink). Thus what I've said: A PIM-device that inspires people to communicate.


----------



## MacMuppet (May 13, 2004)

Interesting article, Fryke. I see the point you are making but I personally disagree about Apple not innovating (recently) in the hardware arena.
Granted, a major seeling point of the first iMac was its 'cuteness', guaranteeing its installation in Ad Agencies and female staffed industries the world over - but I think there's more to it than that.
Yes the early Macintoshes were all-in-one, and I daresay there were a few PCs out there the same, but I believe they revolutionised the computer market with the iMac.
I'm talking about its overall effect - you'll notice a lack of all-in-one PCs and out there, so one could hardly argue it had a direct affect of form factor throughout the industry - but its the attitude change it affected.
They showed that functional equipment doesnt have to be ugly, and that it can be aeshetically pleasing (at least compared to a dusty cable-tastic beige box) while still being efficient. The ports and plugs on the side, the one-hand carrying handle.
I believe that the iMac got a lot of people on the right side of the digital divide by making the physical object more desirable, or at least less repellant.
The keyboard and mouse! Yes they were crap, but they got everyone thinking, didnt they?
I have some further points about the iPod but I have to go and work for a living....


----------



## Quicksilver (May 13, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> quicksilver: what do you mean your friend has "redesigned an os x like color interface that slightly works"? On the Newton? It hasn't got a colour screen. Do you mean a theme for... a Pocket PC? Or something else entirely? I don't get it...



Yes i saw it on a pocket pc, it was back at uni just before os X.2 was released 

Out of interest. Ever since then ive been trying to find somone who could or if it is possible to translate the os handlers through means of custom written software or somthing, so that we can change the apperance of the screen and possibly use colour. i dont know if its possible but ive put alot of authentic thought into it, theoreticly it works.

This is somthing ive been interested in since, and only been really having ago at PDA, XDA or what ever *DA development over the last 6 months i have all newton os's as well as HP pocket Pc and O2 XDA.

From my opinion apple is too right about not entering the PDA market, but like i believe, i think what ever the iPod may evolve into its definatley got what everyone wants. 

The potential future of the iPod is Huge.


----------



## Lycander (May 14, 2004)

Quicksilver said:
			
		

> Yes i saw it on a pocket pc, it was back at uni just before os X.2 was released
> 
> Out of interest. Ever since then ive been trying to find somone who could or if it is possible to translate the os handlers through means of custom written software or somthing, so that we can change the apperance of the screen and possibly use colour. i dont know if its possible but ive put alot of authentic thought into it, theoreticly it works.


As far as PocketPCs (some form of embedded Windows OS) is concerned, the newer versions like 2002 and up support themeing but not very much can be changed. Most of the OS is stored on ROM or flash ROM so it isn't so easy to change system files.

Another alternative is to write a full screen app, and over ride the custom drawing of widges to use your own drawing routines. I'm working on a project right now for a client who wanted the PockPC app to be colored in their theme colors. I basically rewrote the basic widgets like buttons, checkboxes, radio buttons, etc. You can do that now with a normal app, but you're still limited to just the client area of the main window, child windows can be repainted all throughout. Hence the suggestion to go full screen app. Then you can draw your own menus, title bars, and such.

I've seen people write a GUI for GameBoy, GameBoy Advanced. Same idea, except in this case we're just hiding the native interface.


----------



## Quicksilver (May 15, 2004)

Thanks for that Lycander. Do you know of any good sites i can look at? its a jungle out there.


----------



## fryke (May 15, 2004)

Getting majorly off-topic. Please discuss the theming of Microsoft (!!!) PocketPC devices on a, say, PocketPC forum... I'm sure there are enough sites about those out there...


----------



## TommyWillB (May 16, 2004)

I'm having a hard time deciding how I feel about this topic.

I do look to Apple to WOW! me with great new things. But that does not automatically mean new features and gadgets.

As RacerX suggested, we look to Apple to make things that work. Apple's iTunes certainly was not the first MP3 player, and where iTunes excels over the others (ignoring the ITMS part) is its "it just WORKS" brand of Apple usability.

With that said, I'm not sure if making something "workable" qualifiies as "innovation" or mere "evolution". Do a number of small improvements = innovation, or does the term innovation only apply to big "disruptive" things? (Many, like this month's Wired magazine, ask if innovation can be measured  by the # of patents a company holds... but I don't agree with that.) Maybe is is, as mi5moav's suggested, "(things) that aliens would visit to see".

To me there have only been a handfull of Apple creations that everyone (not just Mac loyalists) agree were truely innovative.
Mac OS GUI (as released with the 512k "Macintosh" Classic)
The tight Hardware/OS integration that enabled "Plug-and'Play" before that term even existed
The native multimedia capabilites that enabled Desktop Publishing, and Music/Video creation
The iMac
iTunes Music Store (and IMHO it's prececessor Kodak picture printing in iPhoto)

I don't mean that list to be exhaustive... But I am trying to make the point that we should not expect world-changing innovation on a daily/weekly/annual basis. True innovations come when the orginization and spirit of a company are in perfect alignment.

I don't see any particular need to say at any moment in time if Apple IS or IS NO innovative... Over it's lifetime it IS, so just sit back and wait to see what comes next, even if it's 5 years into the future... or, as chevy suggested, it takes us 5 years into the futrue to recognize the innovations we already have. (personally, I'm still if the iPod qualifies?)


----------



## TommyWillB (May 16, 2004)

Randman said:
			
		

> Innovation can backfire, just look at the Cube. That said, it seems that the current trend at Apple is to seemlessly integrate a digital lifestyle and, for the most part, the company has been successful in accomplishing this.


So I have a soft spot for Apple when they fail simply because they are a few years too early. 

I this this was the problem with the Newton (Message Pad). It WAS innovative, but the technology was not good enough to make it Palm Pilot sized, so it failed. I truely beleive we'll see another fanless computer like the cube, but most people will fail to rember that Apple did it first.

Probably we can have the same discussion about the Pippin vs. the X Box.

I want Apple to innovate, but I don't want their R&D expenditures to turn out to be fi$cal failures for Apple and free R&D for the rest of the industry.


----------



## fryke (May 16, 2004)

I agree to that. I also think that, while we're speaking, there _are_ people at Apple spending R&D expenditures that turn out to be fiscal failures. ;-) We might just not have seen them in the recent past, because they haven't found their way to the market. iPod II is such a subject I happen to know about. The 'videoPod' has been developed and put on hold. Apple has all the jigsaw-piezes to put together 'new' stuff. But, of course, new doesn't always mean success.

Mac OS X is on a good way (as Racer X has emphasized), however, that too doesn't yet mean success.

The innovations _I_ meant filled a gap that no-one else had seen before the release of a product (or a concept, even). Maybe not even the guys that invented them, sometimes.

The more we discuss this, the more my original thought becomes clear to me, which is a good thing (and why I started this discussion). I guess what really annoyed me was Steve Jobs saying something like: "We're innovating through this dark period." I expected more from that. Whether that's Steve's or my own fault... Steve also called the year 2003 the year of the notebook. But I guess he very well _knew_ that it was the going to be the year of 64bit computing. I guess the lack of 64bit computers by Apple at the beginning of 2003 made him switch the speech. But: I expected more from Apple's notebooks than what they brought us in 2003 (_after_ the 12" and 17" introduction, I mean).

Maybe I'm just growing older... But I kind of liked those days. Remember? Steve Jobs was back at Apple, and we didn't hear much. Then Apple's homepage only showed a cookie, a book and some third item I can't remember exactly. And out of _NOwhere_ came the iMac. While the iMac for me wasn't the kind of innovation I was talking about initially, that _event_ back then gave the platform - and my evangelism - a good old spin. And it gave the fellowship of the Mac momentum.

I just hope. I hope for more. Maybe we'll see some at WWDC 2004...


----------



## Randman (May 17, 2004)

Fryke, I think you're jaded and looking for more PUNCH from Apple. If you look at the upgrades to the laptop line especially the iBooks, that's pretty impressive [but people want G5 PowerBooks yesterday]. The G5s are a wonder to behold [but people want 3 GhZ and up]. iPods are great and the iTMS is a hit [but people want video/cellphone/pda iPods]. Panther's a great OS, the best so far [but people are already tired of it and are calling for Tiger].
   It truly sounds like many people aren't so much asking for innovation as they are instant gratification.

  A few years ago, I spent more than a grand on a clamshell iBook. 366 mhz, 6 GB hard drive, no firewire, OS 9, etc, etc. And I was so happy with it. It was a great alternative to PowerBooks, which were more expensive, I used PowerMacs at work so I had access to greater power and the Airport-enabled clamshell served my surfing/e-mail purposes just fine. That was in 2000.

  Less than 4 years later, I paid slightly less for a brand-new 1 Ghz, G4 iBook with 60 Gb hard drive, FireWire and 10.3. And there's more to do with it these days as far as applications go. And it's even more powerful than the old towers I used for so long at work.
   Maybe that's not innovation, but that is surely progress. And progress is more than good enough, in my humble opinion.


ps, welcome back Tommy. Thought aliens abducted you along with the other MIAs.


----------



## rubicon (May 17, 2004)

Fryke seems to have read the same eWeek article I commented on last week.  See thread http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43561.

A mostly Windows user, I summarized the reasons why I feel that Apple continues to innovate.  OK, they slipped behind on USB 2.0 but do you see a single PC with Firewire 800?

I noticed the article in MacRumors about Apple's patent on unused windows that turn transparent (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/05/20040517100757.shtml).  I thought of that idea years ago - who hasn't?  The fact that it hasn't shown up yet in Windows or Mac makes you wonder...  But, like Expose, it's one more way to make the machine easier to use.

Innovation isn't necessarily about ground-breaking new technology.  It's about making things better, no matter how minor the improvement.


----------



## fryke (May 17, 2004)

Actually, I hadn't read that eweek article... That patent, btw., is already implemented in the OS, I guess. It's just not used that much. But actually, Office 2004 on the Mac makes kindof use of it with its palette.


----------



## Ripcord (May 18, 2004)

Without continual innovation in the current environment, Apple becomes more and more irrelevant, which is a shame since it should really be the market leader.


----------



## Randman (May 19, 2004)

> Apple becomes more and more irrelevant


 Hardly. One could argue that that statement is less true today than just at about any other time.


----------



## fryke (May 19, 2004)

If you don't leave out the first part of Ripcord's sentence, it's true, though. "Without continual (continuing?) innovation ..." -> Apple becomes more and more irrelevant.

He's exactly right. But they, of course, _are_ innovating. Just not in a big way right now. But I see them leading in hardware design, I see them leading in operating system and UI design...

But you can't just take _half_ of someone's text and say she/he's wrong.


----------



## Randman (May 19, 2004)

Well that's a bit of nitpicking.


----------



## rubicon (May 21, 2004)

Ripcord said:
			
		

> Without continual innovation in the current environment, Apple becomes more and more irrelevant, which is a shame since it should really be the market leader.



Let's not forget that Microsoft's Longhorn is leading the way in putting LOTS of whitespace into the GUI.  We'll need 60 inch monitors to get everything on-screen.

The GUI that appears to be going into Longhorn looks like a toy (overly attractive interface elemtns).  Apple seems to have found a blend of attractive interface elements and usability.  I find the default toy-ish interface of XP quite non-productive.  Thankfully it can be changed to the same old boring and tedious interface we love about Windows.

So if Apple isn't as innovating as much, who is?  Novell?  MS?  Amiga?  Atari?  Commodore?    Someone else?


----------



## MacMuppet (May 21, 2004)

Randman said:
			
		

> Well that's a bit of nitpicking.



As opposed to picking which part of a sentence you are going to reply to, rather than all of it?

For example:

"Compared to Katie Melua, Britney Spears is the single most talented performing artist to walk this planet." Discuss.

"...Britney Spears is the single most talented perfroming artist to walk this planet" Not so much discuss, as hunt me down for the sake of the gene pool.

See?


----------



## TommyWillB (May 21, 2004)

Randman said:
			
		

> ps, welcome back Tommy. Thought aliens abducted you along with the other MIAs.


Oh! Wow! Thanks for noticing...   

My work is very centered around April 15th Tax day and now that it is behind us I've finally had some time to spend on MacOSX.com... (IRS Aliens?)

Lots of new faces here...


----------

