Personally, as an Apple user, I always felt that Apple is better at designing hardware than software. Designing software is more of a necessary factor in being able to design the hardware with the freedom they want. (Bespoke chips everywhere, complete control over the entire trust chain, etc.)
iOS is pretty much a pile of trash and the major downside to being able to use an Apple device.
Apple is as much a jewelry store as it is a manufacturer of personal electronics. The Iphone fulfills much the same roll in modern society as the gold watch with diamond accents did 100+ years ago. There were tons of much cheaper watches that told time just as well, often better. For the people that bought the gold watches it wasn't about having accurate or reliable time pieces. Its about other people knowing they had a gold watch. Apple is not that much different. I've known people that lug around older iphones that don't have service, much like some people 100 years ago didn't even bother to wind their watches. The average iphone user uses a tiny fraction of the devices capabilities: text, social media, calls. Features available on phones at 1/8 the price, yet they do not want those cheaper phones at all. Apple will be fine barring some other luxury status symbol electronics maker challenging their spot. Their average customer has no idea what an "operating system" even is.
Same reason that 'cloud' will never replace hardware: the speed of an electron in a conductor.
This on top of apples hardware division doing tome kickass work on big risc; which I thought for sure was gonna trail team red and blue for a couple years at least but dang.
Currently when I get on a boat and sail out of cell range...or take a train/subway riding a rail under a river...or get on an airplane that doesn't have wifi...or hike to the bottom of the Grand Canyon...my phone still pretty much works. I can still play games, read books, listen to music, take notes. Because the apps that do those things still work without connectivity; they aren't "in the cloud".
In your hypothetical "abstracted" future, what happens? Do we just have high-speed connectivity literally everywhere so the situation doesn't come up anymore? Do those kind of places still exist but when you go there your phone turns into a useless brick? (seems suboptimal...)
If your phone DOES retain that sort of functionality in these kind of situations, doesn't that constitute having an OS?
Honestly Apple would see a big fall in revenue if they weren’t allowed to make their text blue. That’s the biggest hook they have on their customer base.
Theoretically I guess if WhatsApp took over the text market it would hurt them more than anything.
The idea of running your OS in the cloud is the same old "thin client" scheme that has been the Next Big Thing for 40 years. Ever since PCs started replacing terminals, some people have been convinced we must RETVRN.
The thin client approach seems appealing for two reasons. First, it centralizes administration. Second, it allows shared use of pooled computing resources. In practice, neither of these quite works.
A platform like iOS or modern macOS actually imposes almost no per-device administrative overhead. System and app updates get installed automatically. Devices can be configured and backed up remotely. The OS lives on a "sealed" system volume where it's extremely unlikely to be compromised or corrupted. There's still some per-user administrative overhead — the configuration of a particular user's environment can be screwy — but a cloud-based OS still has per-user state, so does nothing to address this.
Pooling resources is great for cases where you want access to a lot of resources, but there's no need to go full-cloud for this. Devices that run real operating systems can access remote resources just fine. The benefit of going full-cloud is hypothetically that your end-user devices can be cheaper if they don't need the hardware to run a full OS... but the cost difference between the hardware required by a thin client and the hardware required to run a full OS is now trivial.
Meanwhile, the thin client approach will always be hobbled by connectivity, latency, bandwidth, and privacy concerns. Connectivity is especially critical on mobile, where Apple makes most of its money. Latency is especially critical in emerging categories like VR/AR, where Apple is looking to expand.
The future is more compute in the cloud and more compute at the edge. There's no structural threat to Apple here.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
jkf 1yr ago
Easy.
M1.
Skinsuit leechers don't produce state of the art CPU architectures. Ask Oracle how many they've done since they started wearing Sun.
You may say they're not as good at product design as they used to be, but that's only because they went from best of all time to best in the world.
Not to mention if the glasses catch on, that'll arguably be an equal or greater feat than the iPhone. They'll eat the entire market for monitors if that gamble works out.
And I say all this as someone who deeply hates Apple's business model and refuses to buy their products on principle. People who expected they would get stuck after Jobs death, including myself, were just wrong.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
1yr ago
Nonsense. Netflix will die sooner than Apple ever does. Google is probably more likely too.
Apple has a gigantic war chest, state of the art in house CPU design, insane brand recognition and loyalty, not to mention the best product designers in the world.
Cloud OSes are never going to work because of the speed of light. Stadia was a total failure that anybody familiar with the history of cloud gaming, or indeed the physics of computer networks, saw coming.
You're not the first person to think of this scenario, but it's not possible. We're not going back to IBM, not without losing insane amount of functionality.
I don't see it happening any time soon, apple is a lifestyle brand moreso than a software or hardware company at this point. people buy iphones to fit in with other people who have iphones, this is why their USA market share has gone up in the past few years. They have a stranglehold on all the trendsetting populations, and they're a tool for teenagers to socially exclude other teenagers.
Yes, apple could go out of business far in the future when technology changes in unforseen and unrecognizable ways. That doesn't make this a useful prediction.
I have no idea why Apple would cripple their main selling point to follow trend.
There were some remarkably stupid business decisions, but that would be one of the worst in history. It sometimes happens but is not very likely. And entirely about leadership being terminally stupid, not about tech trends.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Personally, as an Apple user, I always felt that Apple is better at designing hardware than software. Designing software is more of a necessary factor in being able to design the hardware with the freedom they want. (Bespoke chips everywhere, complete control over the entire trust chain, etc.)
iOS is pretty much a pile of trash and the major downside to being able to use an Apple device.
More options
Context Copy link
Apple is as much a jewelry store as it is a manufacturer of personal electronics. The Iphone fulfills much the same roll in modern society as the gold watch with diamond accents did 100+ years ago. There were tons of much cheaper watches that told time just as well, often better. For the people that bought the gold watches it wasn't about having accurate or reliable time pieces. Its about other people knowing they had a gold watch. Apple is not that much different. I've known people that lug around older iphones that don't have service, much like some people 100 years ago didn't even bother to wind their watches. The average iphone user uses a tiny fraction of the devices capabilities: text, social media, calls. Features available on phones at 1/8 the price, yet they do not want those cheaper phones at all. Apple will be fine barring some other luxury status symbol electronics maker challenging their spot. Their average customer has no idea what an "operating system" even is.
More options
Context Copy link
Never happen (for the listed reasons).
Same reason that 'cloud' will never replace hardware: the speed of an electron in a conductor.
This on top of apples hardware division doing tome kickass work on big risc; which I thought for sure was gonna trail team red and blue for a couple years at least but dang.
More options
Context Copy link
Currently when I get on a boat and sail out of cell range...or take a train/subway riding a rail under a river...or get on an airplane that doesn't have wifi...or hike to the bottom of the Grand Canyon...my phone still pretty much works. I can still play games, read books, listen to music, take notes. Because the apps that do those things still work without connectivity; they aren't "in the cloud".
In your hypothetical "abstracted" future, what happens? Do we just have high-speed connectivity literally everywhere so the situation doesn't come up anymore? Do those kind of places still exist but when you go there your phone turns into a useless brick? (seems suboptimal...)
If your phone DOES retain that sort of functionality in these kind of situations, doesn't that constitute having an OS?
More options
Context Copy link
Like everyone here, my feels also say you're wrong. But let's take a look at some reals.
Here's the top 20 from the Fortune 500 in 1955.
GM - still around
Exxon - still around
US Steel - still around
GE - still around
Esmark - conglomerate (purchased by other owners - its brands such as Peter Pan and Butterball turkey are still around)
Chrysler - still around (went bankrupt once)
Armour - sold to ConAgra in 1983
Gulf Oil - merged and rebranded as Chevron
Mobile - bought by Exxon
Dupont - still around
Amoco - bought by BP
Bethlehem Steel - defunct in 2003
CBS - division of Paramount global
Texaco - part of Chevron
AT&T - still around
Shell Oil - still around
Kraft - Merged with Heinz
ChevronTexaco - Not sure why this is here
Goodyear Tire - still around
Boeing still around
Of the top 20 companies from 68 years ago, 19 are still around in some way shape or form.
Barring a singularity or global catastrophe, Apple isn't going anywhere anytime soon. High confidence.
More options
Context Copy link
Honestly Apple would see a big fall in revenue if they weren’t allowed to make their text blue. That’s the biggest hook they have on their customer base.
Theoretically I guess if WhatsApp took over the text market it would hurt them more than anything.
That people care about this is incredibly pathetic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The idea of running your OS in the cloud is the same old "thin client" scheme that has been the Next Big Thing for 40 years. Ever since PCs started replacing terminals, some people have been convinced we must RETVRN.
The thin client approach seems appealing for two reasons. First, it centralizes administration. Second, it allows shared use of pooled computing resources. In practice, neither of these quite works.
A platform like iOS or modern macOS actually imposes almost no per-device administrative overhead. System and app updates get installed automatically. Devices can be configured and backed up remotely. The OS lives on a "sealed" system volume where it's extremely unlikely to be compromised or corrupted. There's still some per-user administrative overhead — the configuration of a particular user's environment can be screwy — but a cloud-based OS still has per-user state, so does nothing to address this.
Pooling resources is great for cases where you want access to a lot of resources, but there's no need to go full-cloud for this. Devices that run real operating systems can access remote resources just fine. The benefit of going full-cloud is hypothetically that your end-user devices can be cheaper if they don't need the hardware to run a full OS... but the cost difference between the hardware required by a thin client and the hardware required to run a full OS is now trivial.
Meanwhile, the thin client approach will always be hobbled by connectivity, latency, bandwidth, and privacy concerns. Connectivity is especially critical on mobile, where Apple makes most of its money. Latency is especially critical in emerging categories like VR/AR, where Apple is looking to expand.
The future is more compute in the cloud and more compute at the edge. There's no structural threat to Apple here.
More options
Context Copy link
Apple died on March 24, 2001 -- the current company is a skinsuit optimized for extracting money from stupid people; fite me.
Easy.
M1.
Skinsuit leechers don't produce state of the art CPU architectures. Ask Oracle how many they've done since they started wearing Sun.
You may say they're not as good at product design as they used to be, but that's only because they went from best of all time to best in the world.
Not to mention if the glasses catch on, that'll arguably be an equal or greater feat than the iPhone. They'll eat the entire market for monitors if that gamble works out.
And I say all this as someone who deeply hates Apple's business model and refuses to buy their products on principle. People who expected they would get stuck after Jobs death, including myself, were just wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Nonsense. Netflix will die sooner than Apple ever does. Google is probably more likely too.
Apple has a gigantic war chest, state of the art in house CPU design, insane brand recognition and loyalty, not to mention the best product designers in the world.
Cloud OSes are never going to work because of the speed of light. Stadia was a total failure that anybody familiar with the history of cloud gaming, or indeed the physics of computer networks, saw coming.
You're not the first person to think of this scenario, but it's not possible. We're not going back to IBM, not without losing insane amount of functionality.
Even if OS' live in the Cloud, I think Apple would be the top seller of the screen or headset you use the cloud with.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't see it happening any time soon, apple is a lifestyle brand moreso than a software or hardware company at this point. people buy iphones to fit in with other people who have iphones, this is why their USA market share has gone up in the past few years. They have a stranglehold on all the trendsetting populations, and they're a tool for teenagers to socially exclude other teenagers.
Yes, apple could go out of business far in the future when technology changes in unforseen and unrecognizable ways. That doesn't make this a useful prediction.
More options
Context Copy link
Why would Apple cooperate with that? And agree to substitute their OS with some standard abstract OS?
I have no idea why Apple would cripple their main selling point to follow trend.
There were some remarkably stupid business decisions, but that would be one of the worst in history. It sometimes happens but is not very likely. And entirely about leadership being terminally stupid, not about tech trends.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Apple has soooo much money. They might get unseated as the top dog, but I think they'll be around forever, even if they're in a zombified state.
More options
Context Copy link