Why is it okay for Jobs, but not for Bezos?

[theducks]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

My 20GB MP3 player, by iRiver, still has better sound quality than Apple's MP3 players - and came out long before.

My first laptop - surprisingly - came out before Apple's PowerBook's, trackpad and all.

Smartphones existed prior to the iPhone.

And I had PC's (dos based) prior to Mac's existence.

They have affected design - but don't make the assumption that they led the market in creation. They do tend to refine the designs of others rather well, however.

They invented the Proprietary everything model

IMHO the 1 big thing that made the IBM PC (4.7 MHz 8086) great, was it's open architecture . They tried to fix that sales problem with the PS-2 micro-channel Thankfully, the buyers resisted

[kilron]

Originally Posted by theducks

They invented the Proprietary everything model

IMHO the 1 big thing that made the IBM PC (4.7 MHz 8086) great, was it's open architecture . They tried to fix that sales problem with the PS-2 micro-channel Thankfully, the buyers resisted

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

Oh - and they also killed hardware choice (though this provides greater stability for an OS that only has to deal with 15 hardware configs instead of 20000) and refined vendor lock-in better than any computer company before them!

apple is truly both a hardware and software company and for very good reason. if you don't think this has a direct impact on why their computers have the highest user satisfaction of any PC manufacturer, you should definitely take another look.

two quotes come to mind:

first from the computer pioneer Alan Kay that Steve Jobs likes to bring up every once and a while: "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware. "

secondly, this comes to mind with apple's take on hardware. this is from steve jobs in 1994: "The problem is, in hardware you can't build a computer that's twice as good as anyone else's anymore. Too many people know how to do it. You're lucky if you can do one that's one and a third times better or one and a half times better. And then it's only six months before everybody else catches up. But you can do it in software."

[Kolenka]

Originally Posted by kilron

apple is truly both a hardware and software company and for very good reason. if you don't think this has a direct impact on why their computers have the highest user satisfaction of any PC manufacturer, you should definitely take another look.

two quotes come to mind:

first from the computer pioneer Alan Kay that Steve Jobs likes to bring up every once and a while: "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware. "

secondly, this comes to mind with apple's take on hardware. this is from steve jobs in 1994: "The problem is, in hardware you can't build a computer that's twice as good as anyone else's anymore. Too many people know how to do it. You're lucky if you can do one that's one and a third times better or one and a half times better. And then it's only six months before everybody else catches up. But you can do it in software."

I think the ultimate irony is that in some ways, they also seem to shun the idea of being too proprietary. They've used OSS projects to build up OS X, WebKit, and have been getting better about giving back as well (their new threadpool libraries called "Grand Central Dispatch" going OSS, working with Kronos on OpenCL, working out their issues with KHTML and eventually merging the two projects). They favor formats like MPEG-4 and HTML5 because if adopted, they reduce vendor lock-in.

There are exceptions of course, but it is interesting that they are proprietary in one way, and then act as an example of how a company can be profitable, produce good products and still built on a non-proprietary base. Sony is starting to learn this lesson as well.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by kilron

this is from steve jobs in 1994: "The problem is, in hardware you can't build a computer that's twice as good as anyone else's anymore. Too many people know how to do it. You're lucky if you can do one that's one and a third times better or one and a half times better. And then it's only six months before everybody else catches up. But you can do it in software."

That is great. The software (book) is the same on both the kindle and the ipad. Apple couldn't improve the software, so they had to compete with Amazon on price. But this time, they are RAISING prices to try and corner the market. I come back to why Jobs but not Bezos - if the tables had been turned, Apple would have screamed bloody murder and NEVER agreed to raise the price of their product.

[kilron]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

That is great. The software (book) is the same on both the kindle and the ipad. Apple couldn't improve the software, so they had to compete with Amazon on price. But this time, they are RAISING prices to try and corner the market. I come back to why Jobs but not Bezos - if the tables had been turned, Apple would have screamed bloody murder and NEVER agreed to raise the price of their product.

of course apple improved the software. have you seen the iBooks interface? its beautiful. but apple's not the one raising the price either. they're simply helping to level one of the playing fields and give some control back to the publishers.

[Kolenka]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

That is great. The software (book) is the same on both the kindle and the ipad. Apple couldn't improve the software, so they had to compete with Amazon on price. But this time, they are RAISING prices to try and corner the market. I come back to why Jobs but not Bezos - if the tables had been turned, Apple would have screamed bloody murder and NEVER agreed to raise the price of their product.

There is a difference between the software (the reader) and the content (the book). Although Apple isn't really doing much to improve the reader above the Kindle or other devices either.

I'm not sure we can blame Apple for being the one raising prices. Apple seems to be a fan of the agency model though, which probably lead to the increase in prices. The wholesale model is what let Amazon sell so cheap in the first place, without it, Amazon can't sell for 10$ either. If Amazon was using the 10$ books as loss leaders as some people hint, then odds are the 15$ pricing isn't actually helping or hurting the publishers in terms of revenue per book for them. It does give more pricing control to the publishers though, which can be both good and bad for exactly the same reason: the price is more fluid with regards to publisher input. Price increases *and* drops become easier from the perspective of the publisher.

How it will turn out is a big, big question mark.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

My 20GB MP3 player, by iRiver, still has better sound quality than Apple's MP3 players - and came out long before.

My first laptop - surprisingly - came out before Apple's PowerBook's, trackpad and all.

Smartphones existed prior to the iPhone.

And I had PC's (dos based) prior to Mac's existence.

They have affected design - but don't make the assumption that they led the market in creation. They do tend to refine the designs of others rather well, however.

There were indeed MP3 players before Apple's line. Ditto for SmartPhones, and arguably laptops. (But was your 1st laptop also before the Mac Portable? That's the one that demonstrated the now-common design.)

For PCs, you write "And I had PC's (dos based) prior to Mac's existence." Indeed you did. That's because the IBM PC was a response to the Apple II. Which predates the Mac by 5 years. Or was it 6?

The prior poster's point was not that Apple necessarily produces the first devices in a category. Nor even the first good devices in a category. Rather, they have a fine track record of entering markets just as the market really takes off, with devices that successfully appeal to an awful lot of the people who buy as that take-off happens.

And that's why the iPad is a good sign for eBooks.

Xenophon

[mdb139]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

I don't understand why someone would want an ipod before an ereader...

I've perhaps taken the above quote out of context, but for me, I've always demanded a multi-purpose device and didn't want a dedicated eBook reader, mostly because I travel a lot and don't want to have to lug yet another device with me. I've been reading on my mobile devices for 7-8 years and while I don't read as much as some, I read a fair amount -- 2-3 books a month, occassionally more. To me, the convenience of being able to take a small device out of my pocket and read for five minutes if the opportunity arose was more important than having the ultimate reading experience. So as others have suggested, eBooks offered a level of convenience for me that I couldn't get from pBooks or dedicated eBook devices. Not to mention the convenience of being able to be able to get a book instantly no matter where I was, and of a built-in dictionary.

Originally Posted by GA Russell

In the fall there was a thread about a survey that said that most Americans would wait to buy until eBook readers cost $50. I have to think that those were people who don't read very much. Typical Americans! And I suspect that they were thinking to themselves how low the price would have to be before the device paid for itself, given the amount of reading they do.

In my case it's not a break-even cost analysis, but rather at $50 I might buy a dedicated device since it may offer a superior reading experience in some situations. Considering that I wouldn't change my reading habits (while on the go or travelling, and while in bed) I still want a multi-purpose device for the former and something with a backlight for the latter. But spending $300 on a device that I would use for as little as 20% of my reading doesn't make sense to me, no matter how clear the print is. Not to mention the implications of such a move (locking me to Kindle format for synchronization purposes, as I dislike the Kindle iPhone app).