Are they creatively bankrupt?

>speaker = computer
whoa...
and t1000 doesn't look like mac pro g5 at all

Jony Ive, this guy, not Ive as "I've"

Attached: serveimage.jpg (667x1000, 171K)

You'd be hard pressed to find a designer of high end products that isn't inspired by Dieter Rams.

Doesn't mean they're all copying Braun.

>make portable player with good control, hardware, at reasonable price, revolutionary for its time
>spergs on Jow Forums insist everything about it is bad because it's from Apple
>if it was called ThinkPad Music, they'd dickstroke it as "smart man's player" and their middle finger to corporations, creaming their pants when they rice GNU/Player on it (it almost works except there's no filepicker)

anyways this thread wasn't about design but current apple and their general lack of ideas in products and solutions.

>revolutionary for its time
fucking kek

It's no secret that Apple works by taking obscure technologies and implementing them in a user-friendly way, thus propelling them into the mainstream and changing the technological industry significantly.
Do you really think the mp3 player would've caught on without the iPod's interference?
Do you really think companies wouldn't have just tried to make smaller CDs instead if the iPod hadn't existed?

>anyways this thread wasn't about design
It is about design, mental and physical design.
No Steve Jobs = No Apple. That bitch going stale and going down under, but very slowly like Blackberry did which was once the Apple of the industry.

When Apple copies something it's stealing
When FOSS copy something then it's for the good cause because intellectual property is evil

Attached: perspective thinking pensive emoji.jpg (600x600, 51K)

>Do you really think the mp3 player would've caught on without the iPod's interference?
underage detetcted, yes child, mp3 players were very popular long before apple gimped the idea with itunes. They were also a lot cheaper, more useful and had better battery life.

The thing is that Blackberry went under because Apple released the iPhone. That's the problem, there aren't any companies like Jobs' Apple out there, so who's gonna bury actual Apple? they're boring and stale now but they're gonna be consolidated for a long time due to a lack of good competition. I don't think they fear Samsung or the chinks at all

>When Apple copies something it results in an inferior product
>When FOSS copy something then it's for the good cause because intellectual property is evil
ftfy

>had better battery life.

I was with you up until this point. iPods destroyed the competition for battery life.

t. alternative historian
but of course it should be true, or how would you shit on Apple?

>I don't think they fear Samsung or the chinks at all

Android and iOS exist in harmony. The crazed fanboys of each angrily fighting for which OS is better and shilling their friends to purchase the latest devices instead of competing ones. Samsung phones have never been as popular as when they were positioned against iPhones. Apple does the same thing. When your users get attacked by users of your competing product they just get more zealous.

You're wrong, ipods, especially in the beginning were a fucking disaster when it came to battery life. On top of that you couldn't even put in normal aa/aaa batteries. Pic related, it's you.

Attached: 1490282471176.jpg (2048x1536, 725K)

>When Apple does something FOSS spergs can't contain the autistic rage
>When FOSS copies something it's a half-assed half-working clone that won't run without hours of ricing, but it's ok because it proves how genius you are for using it
ftfy

>I REFUSE to use good products simply because they existed in some obscure form before someone came along and did it right this time
Jow Forums can be really ridiculous sometimes.

>apple says it so it must be true!

Attached: 1509045082507.jpg (1000x992, 286K)

I don't even own any Apple products you fucking retard, also I agreed with 90% of your post. Brainlet.

>REEEEEE
It's ok brainlet, keep using your super revolutionary apple products

Attached: 1496962371721.jpg (480x480, 28K)

>reasonable price
When has apple ever been reasonably priced? I remember I pods going for hundreds of dollars compared to thirty dollar mp3 players I could use.

>some contrarian on an imageboard says it
>it's against Apple so it must be true
stay mad. Apple rightfully won players and I'm happy they did because it's fun to see you losers butthurt.

maybe they are but everyone seems to copy them anyway

>thirty dollar mp3 players
>being this poor
keep convincing yourself garbage is as delicious as caviar user

>user-friendly
>itunes
kek, yes restrictions are very user friendly indeed

Attached: indivualism.jpg (1557x863, 188K)

Of course digital storage music players would have caught on without apple, because it was a better technology than physical medium players. Are you legitimately retarded?

>contrarian
>gotta stay with the flock
good goy

Attached: thinkdifferent.jpg (996x954, 299K)

>would have
>everyone wasn't already using pic related
underage faggots leave my Jow Forums

Attached: mp3player.jpg (320x320, 15K)

Ecosystem they created and they are best
When you can accept calls from laptop without any 3rd party apps like android
Android tablet = dead
Windows PC = powershell lolz
Linux = best os but have some issue

When weren't they?

Their only department that was ever creative was their marketing department, they figured out how to convince brainlets to buy their overpriced trash.

They're arguing that Apple doesn't make good products you moron. They release average, overpriced products with one or two major design errors.

I was actually. It was the reason I know apple didn't invent digital storage mp3 players.

The point is that everyone who used portable audio at the time was using these. They were extremely commonplace, and superior in every way to the goypods.

>They were extremely commonplace, and superior in every way to the goypods.
if this cheap marvel of technology was supposedly superior why did the ipod win?

this

That image makes me laugh a little. Why do people think they can make such deep statements by comparing two images that look somewhat similar?
>reporters doing their job is LICHURALLY the end of civilization as we know it lmao
>like if you agree

>what is marketing and why am I so easily susceptible to it?
Food for thought right there kiddo.

>reporters gathering around to take pictures of literally just another laptop instead of simply using the stock photos is completely normal because when apple """"invents"""" something it's news!
JUST

The most important thing Apple used to do pre-Jobs' death was make products that looked inviting to use.

Macbooks used to look friendly. The iPhone 3GS had gorgeous curves and the 4 looked like a camera. The iPod screamed "touch me"

Simple design is hard to do well, and Apple used to nail it when Ives was reigned in by Jobs.

Attached: 2011.png (452x300, 141K)

>look friendly
>gorgeous curves
spotted the virgin

>The thing is that Blackberry went under because Apple released the iPhone.
So?
>That's the problem, there aren't any companies like Jobs' Apple out there
So Apple is allowed to sprout out of nowhere but nobody else isn't?
The 2000 years of history of industry sectors being completely overturned by suddenly appearing companies or products can be wiped out so Apple can be "unique"?
Get your head out of your ass, you sniffed enough of those fumes.
The point of the Blackberry argument was they they took long to die because of so much money, yet so much money didn't stop it.
Just like Apple's money won't stop the Blackberry effect.

Attached: Looking-for-par-Mach-in-all-the-Wrong-Places-ferengi-19182200-692-530.jpg (692x530, 81K)

>not understanding that people will be looking for articles about the product within moments of the announcement and your website needs its own images in order to drive one of the biggest spikes in ad revenue of the year

Not creatively bankrupt, but technology as a whole is experiencing a pretty big point of diminishing returns. We need some real breakthroughs with things like batteries to allow more room for expansion, not just refinement.

>looking for articles
>does it have pictures mom?
>can I look? can I look?
children these days

>You see, everyone except me is a sheeple! And I am sooo much better than them! I am glad you finally see how much of special individual I am! And that's why Apple sucks—because they dared to think THEY are special!
high school is rough user

>Everything available is more than capable of doing what it needs to do
>"LOL DUDE JUST KEEP MAKING THINGS BUT LIKE DO THEM EVEN BETTER! I HAVE MONEY WAITING LMAO!"

I guess there really is a goy born every minute.

>are they creatively bankrupt?
No, just morally corrupt.

I'm not him, but you didn't really even so much as touch on the fact that (((marketing))) is such an influential tool. Instead you just go butthurt because you're clearly one of the people he's talking about.

>REEEE LEAVE APPLE ALONE!!!
kekt

Again, it's refinements.

It's not that ground breaking technology is going to continue to flood, it's that there will be continual improvements which expand the capabilities of the devices.

Obviously, power users and fanboys subsidize the new technology initially, and it later gets trickled down to everyone else who doesn't experience the need to adopt early.

pic related, it's you

Attached: shut up freetard.jpg (640x929, 90K)

Attached: 1510470117919.jpg (1000x615, 171K)

>The iPod screamed "touch me"
Just like your mom

Attached: 1oy4gf.jpg (640x400, 37K)

iTODDLERS BTFO

>Do you really think companies wouldn't have just tried to make smaller CDs instead if the iPod hadn't existed?

yes, it's called minidisc(only popular in japan) and exists after ipod
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiniDisc

slander him all you like but their creative spark rested in a single man who commanded his employees to fulfill his vision with an iron fist, some random queer simply will never match up

Yep, their Mac OS X is an OS from 90's, just a NextSTEP with nice gooey.

GNU/Linux is just a kernel from the 90s with a user space from the late 70s and early 80s.

Braun is german and looks good, Appel is amerifat, looks like chinks clone of german

Except it's impossible to compare the two, Blackberry was on the wrong side of the innovation table, they didn't make an Android phone until 2015. They in fact, never saw Apple as a threat because they assumed everybody was reliant upon BBM, wanted a keyboard and would never buy that iPhone for work!
It turned out they were wrong and ended up dying in the process. However, you might equate the two because they're both big brands but there's something different this time, Apple and Samsung have been at the forefront of change. Not only that, but they also control the patents, technology, and funds required for any new industry disrupting product to arrive, just as the iPhone was. When Apple and Samsung do something, the industry follows, removing the headphone jack, moving to OLED, bezel-less displays and bigger phones are actions that were pioneered by these two. So while you think they've been stagnant, you don't recognize just how much they've really changed the industry.

However, you might say that it's possible for a future company to arise that can compete and you'd be right, but I want you to think about would these possible ventures could be?
Micro-OLED displays in phones? Already being worked on and patented to hell by Samsung/Apple. Even if Patents were to be an issue, you'd be competing with years of expertise from Samsung and the talent Apple could buy to stifle you out, good luck!
Foldable phone? Already patented to hell by Samsung, good luck and if you think they'll sell to anyone but Apple for less than a fortune, you're sadly mistaken.
A phone that can run full X86 applications?
Microsoft is already in the works for this and if you think they'll let you fuck up their only chance at re-entering the mobile market by allowing you to run Windows on your phone, think again.
I've run out of ideas so you're free to throw them around but I can almost guarantee if it's worth-while it's already been patented.

>GNU/Linux is just a kernel from the 90s
Yes, it is from '92. Unlike Mach, that is from 1985.
> with a user space from the late 70s and early 80s.
Not quite true.
Console utilities are as old, but you can't really improve them, since they are perfect. (By the way, a lot of console utilities and even shell from GNU is used on Mac OS X, thus it is not a Mac OS X, but a GNU/Mac OS X)
X11 Window system is from 1984, and it is so perfect, that it is still good even today. Also majority of DEs for GNU/Linux were ahead of its time, ahead of Windows, and ahead of classic Mac OS.

>Except it's impossible to compare the two
Except nobody is comparing them on the points you make, but on the point that possessing immense wealth isn't a barrier towards downfall.
Are you incapable of reading or is your head too stuck up your ass trying to discuss some topic you have your ego stuffed deep into which is not the topic of this discussion?
I know you are passionate, but passion can breed stupidity and blindness sometimes.
>but I want you to think about would these possible ventures could be?
Why would I attempt to think up something that's up to revolutionaries to imagine, which the world is not short of and never will be? That stinks of arrogance, you stink of unwarranted arrogance.
Lay off the fedora and the Jenkem. There's nothing special about Apple that other companies in history didn't hold unless you are ignorant about history or intentionally blind to it, and there will be nothing special in its inevitable future downfall however it comes.

>you can’t really improve them, since they are perfect

>X11 is perfect
Please stop, you’re killing my sides

Deifying some random asshole that popularized white aesthetic is retarded.

They are perfect. UNIX research team created superior OS for its time.
Tell me things, that are better.
>pro tip: you can't

Possessing immense wealth is a huge barrier towards downfall, what you stupid? Apple and Samsung aren't sitting on their asses all day and are heavily invested in any possible future disruptive industries, in which, could arise to compete with them and how do they do this? By having immense wealth. If they deem you to be a threat, they'll either litigate you in court till you die due to legal fee's, buy you out or simply copy your technology and do it better.
People make this comparison, you made this comparison, I was just explaining why the comparison is retarded. Apple didn't just "sprout" out of no-where, they had a history of being on the forefront of change and their willingness to take risks is what led them to the current position they're in and Blackberry's lack thereof, lead to their demise. While Apple was no, Fortune 500, they had money to make the iPhone happen (a lot of money). So while money doesn't guarantee success, it's a god damn good part of it.
>Why would I attempt to think up something that's up to revolutionaries to imagine, which the world is not short of and never will be? That stinks of arrogance, you stink of unwarranted arrogance.
Lay off the fedora and the Jenkem. There's nothing special about Apple that other companies in history didn't hold unless you are ignorant about history or intentionally blind to it, and there will be nothing special in its inevitable future downfall however it comes.
There's something very special about this situation of the technology industry, never has five corporations (Google, Microsoft, Apple, Samsung LG), have had such control over the industry and its future. That question doesn't have an answer, the future IS IN those industries I named and they're all owned by these five corporations. OLED is the future of the industry, period, full stop and the only corporations who have the funds to pay premiums associated with this display.

(continued)
If a company like you posed a threat to the duopoly of Samsung or Apple, they'd simply deny you the ability to buy OLED displays capable of bringing your brand new idea to the forefront of the market or they'd let you take the risk and jump head first in, then copy you and let you die out afterwards. Being first in the tech industry often means you'll finish last. Take a look at Vivo and they're inbuilt display fingerprint sensor. It likely cost so much for the OLED display from Samsung and the inbuilt fingerprint sensor from Synaptics, that they'll never be able to sell the device on a mass, yet they were first to bring a disruptive device to the market. You can bet your bottom dollar that when this same future is included in an iPhone and Samsung Galaxy S8, they'll be getting all the praise for it and Vivo will be an afterthought. This is just one example, of the plethora of industries that can arise out of OLED displays, yet there's seemingly only 3 who are able to afford to be invested in it. What makes this different from Blackberry? Blackberry wasn't invested in the future, they were invested in the past and now they're stuck there. There's such a high barrier to enter the tech industry because of the death grip held by these companies, that it is almost seemingly impossible for you company to "sprout out of nowhere" and being successful. So while it's possible, it's highly unlikely. Who knows, maybe one day we'll be able to make displays out of wood or something?

>Possessing immense wealth is a huge barrier towards downfall
It isn't and history proves it countless times, on and on again, with wealthy nations falling and not a single company surviving without downfall and most once prosperous banks falling.
That's such a stupid ignorant statement in glaring opposition of historical reality i'd have to call you an illiterate ignorant of bot the present and the past.
Your wall of text is meaningless jibber jabber that doesn't change the flow of history and the cycle of old rules that companies and businesses always change and go into downfall.

>So while it's possible, it's highly unlikely.
>t. authority on nothing, fedora on head
Stop speaking junior, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

>waah, i don't know how to use the terminal! stop making fun of me for not learning basic shit!
(You)

That's a real nice non-argument.
Developing industries don't follow historical trends, there's something inherently different about it.

>Developing industries don't follow historical trends
You never picked up a business history book otherwise you'd know how wrong you are.
They do, because they are organization, and organization intrinsically follows historical trends. You can only make your statement if you have a full education on that history, but you obviously don't.
I can find about 100 000 graves annually going 1500 years back at least of people like yourself developing this giant philosophical pseudo-intellectual latch in some special organization during their time, honking on and on about how that instance is special or that idea is their "i figured something out" moment that they can't disperse because it grew into their ego,
and i can write on each and every grave "you were wrong" in the end.
I will leave your grave to be scribbled by my children or grandchildren.

You're like the people who say that because historically improvements in technology created jobs, it's impossible to technology to take away the majority of them, there's something inherently different about this industry, something, in which, varies against the historical trend. Whatever, keep believing that Apple and Samsung will magically fall, eventually, they will but it probably means the rest of humanity did before that occurred.

>You're like the people who say that because historically improvements in technology created jobs, it's impossible to technology to take away the majority of them
No, that's your Strawman based on a fallacious mentality.
>there's something inherently different about this industry, something, in which, varies against the historical trend.
There isn't, every industry in history is inherently different than the preceding one, and every single one falls, because human organization is volatile and doesn't operate based on the traits but based on the ever-changing leadership and the volatile human element.
>Whatever, keep believing that Apple and Samsung will magically fall, eventually, they will but it probably means the rest of humanity did before that occurred.
That's also what plenty of dumbasses in history thought.

I can see from you walls of text that you are too impassioned about feeling smart about some conclusion you came to which is a jumble of truths and completely uneducated and misinformed fallacy make it thus very attractive to yourself, the fact that you can't even name this "special quality" already undermines your ego-driven unwarranted self-confidence. Be confident about what you know, not about what you yourself admit you don't know. I can see you are in a fedora phase. You'll grow out of it. Even Facebook had its moment where it lost $70 billion overnight. The vultures are always waiting to destroy a company, and it's those vultures who are always present in history. That's how easy it is to lose so much money, a few news stories, even some manufactured shit which sounds good, a whistleblower, and down goes the spiral.

Attached: Screen_Shot_2012-09-20_at_12.38.57_PM.png (536x336, 149K)

Attached: 18s0fy1fhk8wljpg.jpg (500x400, 161K)

How do you have this much brand loyalty? Is is something mental?

>I can see from your walls of text
>two sentences
Dude.

You do comprehend that people have this amazing ability to scroll up on webpages, right?

>are they creatively bankrupt?
You bet. They even have to ask "what's a computer?" Wake me up when they have the initiative to make their own processors again. As if.

all the times i've seen this pic and i never noticed the anonymous mask on his shelf