There is a moral in this, but it's not what you might think.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/12/ten_apple_greatest_device_fails/

Very interesting.

 

not really. it's just more linkbait.

some of what's on that list were not failures (final cut x) or even
problems (antennagate) at all.

where's the list of failures from other companies? oh yea, there is
none because only apple can do wrong.

howe about a microsoft kin, a huge, huge failure, far bigger than
anything apple ever did or will do. that product was doomed from the
start.

vista and particularly windows 8 are failures.

google wave is another.

the facebook phone is another. i bet you never even heard of it.

 

I was about to post more but I was interupted and poxstponed the
effort.

What I found so interesting about this was the way in which Apple has
consistently aimed at being a high achiever and have got there inspite
of the occasional failures which are the subject of this URL. I can
think of other companies which have followed different policies and
achieved differently: MSFT, IBM, Nokia, Kodak, - even Sony. There are
many others.

The moral can be summarised as, if you want to achieve high, you have
to aim high and learn to survive the inevitable failures. And that
includes pricing and profit margins. The path followed by Apple is
almost unique.

What prompted me along this line of thought is general puzzlement
about what Nikon is up to. It has produced some industry leading
technology - high density sensors, sensors sans anti-aliasing filters
etc. Unlike Apple, while there is the new D4s at an eye-wateringly
high price a lot of new cameras have come on to the market at a
remarkably low price e.g. the D5300.

It maybe that Apple has been able to take advantage of design/styling
to hold their prices up, while in the main Nikon has not been able to.
After all one camera tends to look much like another. Unless I get
really close I often find I have to read the name on the front to tell
a Nikon from a Canon. Maybe this is why Nikon has brought out the Df.
Is it signs of an attempt to break out of a rut?

Nikon does not seem to be able to emulate Apple so maybe Apple will
remain unique in it's approach to becoming the market leader.

 

You missed the point (as usual). This article is not about failures.
It's not even about Apple. It's about Apple's failures and the
reason's for them. I found the article extremely interesting and
thought provoking.

 

it's not about apple? then why do they only mention apple? what else is
it about, if not apple? it's not about microsoft.

too bad a lot of it wasn't actaully correct.

it's link bait. it's that simple.

final cut x was not in any way a failure. some users didn't like the
changes, but they weren't the target market. apple sold more of final
cut x than they did of final cut pro. that's not a failure.

antennagate was a non-issue drummed up by competitors. signal strength
dropping when you put your hand on or near the antenna is something
that happens to every phone, and just about every phone says not to do
that. that's just how rf works.

some of the other failures go back many years to when apple was poorly
run. they had a bunch of duds back then. the idiots who screwed up back
then are pretty much all gone, so focusing on that is just silly.

apple, like every company has duds. no surprise there. only the bashers
expect perfection, and then whenever there is the slightest thing
wrong, they jump.

 

Except the 1990's wasn't "pre-internet" it was pre-WWW.

 

And you bit hard

 

nope. i'm not the one who posted the link.

 

What have you been smoking?

As far as I know, the only link that has been posted in this thread is
the one that *I* posted to start the thread.

 

i don't smoke.

yes, and it's link bait.

i'm not the one who provided it. *you* did.

you fell for it.

 

Interesting, in that while I've read innumerable "Apple's Greatest
Failures" articles, I've never seen one malign the popular Apple IIc.
While not a portable computer in the traditional sense, it WAS
"transportable", and a fair number of people used it that way - keeping
a monitor at home and one at the office, and easily moving the computer
back and forth. The IIc was enormously popular (and profitable), worked
well and was reliable.

What they COULD have picked on was the Apple Flat Panel Display, an
accessory for the IIc. It was Apple's first LCD display, and one of the
first anywhere. Intended to eliminate having two monitors as above, it
was expensive, awkward, and the image quality was poor, at best. Only a
few thousand were made.

 

yep. the iic was not a failure at all.

the article was written by an idiot journalist tasked with coming up
with link bait. he succeeded.

another example was final cut, which is not in any way a failure. it's
actually *more* successful than the previous version. it just pissed
off a few vocal loudmouths.

 

??????