This is one of the more broadly normal HN-reaction threads to large public news event I've seen in a while. A lot of love for Apple, respect for the decision, and respectfully stated nuance. Surprising and good.
I still haven't scroll down to the bottom, I don't want to spoil my impression. But it's great to see a positive reaction. Good way to mark the moment. Tim has been CEO for 15 years roughly, since Steve's passing. This guy seems much younger than Tim was when he ascended. I hope he really takes it to the next level.
Got a feeling that Apple has some Amazing new hardware category-making products coming out of the 'skunkworks' over the next 3 years.
I don't intend to be a contrairian purely to be one, but Apple is the same company that (to paraphrase) wanted to "see Saurik cry".
This being hackernews, I hope to be excused for siding with a white hat code-hacker over a trillion dollar corporate.
(And that's not getting into all the other morally questionable stuff they've done.)
trying to find the context, saurik seemsto be Jay Freeman[0], known for Cydia[1]; i'm guessing apple was 'unhappy' about his work around software for jailbroken iphones, but nothing immediately popped up, what did they do?
oh i guess it's from a court hearing[2] when his company was suing apple over app store monopoly ("... they are talking about an iOS update that, quote, broke Cydia Impactor. Where they said, it feels too good to destroy someone's spirit. We did something else today that will kill him again with a little smiley emoticon.")
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Freeman [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydia
[2] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18730843/75/saurikit-ll...
Yeah thanks, I think that's the right quote.
I think I found the original comment I had read (featuring a reply by saurik himself): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43853055
Forget about saurik; they wanted to countermand their own customers using his code to do things on their own phones they bought from Apple.
The contempt for their customers is palpable these days.
How dare you insult the forty gazillion company! Stand back ma'am I'll protect you from this handsome hacker ruffian!
Jokes aside, I have started to see Microslop as the lesser of two evils (two evils being MSFT and AAPL, Google being its own parallel universe abomination). Their commitment to backward compatibility really paved the way to cheap PCs for the masses. That said, every day Macroslop is working diligently to prove me wrong.
Microsoft doesn't give 2 cents now on desktops and desktop software. They care about selling cloud and cloud products.
Since they can't charge a subscription for Windows (like Adobe does for its products), they don't care about it anymore.
Do they no longer charge annual licenses for Windows Server?
On that topic, it’s always surprised me just how little Apple invest into their enterprise / business backend services. Everything about the way they integrate Macs into businesses is awkward. Apple could make so much money there if they wanted to. It’s a real missed opportunity.
The issue is that nobody (relatively speaking) uses Windows Server.
I don’t even think Microsoft is all that adamant that their customers use it.
It’s just not competitive with Linux and that ship has sailed. Linux is better and costs $0. Microsoft lets you run .NET applications on Linux and they’re better there.
I think the same thing happened with SQL Server. Nobody’s choosing it for new projects, its niche is basically legacy software.
I agree that Apple is missing an opportunity with business and enterprise but I think the issue is that they’re so far behind that catching up would be a massive investment that might never pay off.
This is similar to saying that Microsoft missed an opportunity with smartphone ecosystems. They could spend billions on getting a smartphone back on the market and it would arrive and everyone would ask the question “why am I buying this when my iPhone has X million apps on its store and is a nearly perfect device?”
If Apple Enterprise Cloud was available today who is switching and why? Apple would have to undercut established players to convince businesses to switch via a massive migration effort.
I work with fortune 500 clients, and all of them use Windows server for something. Usually a lot of somethings. For example: Active Directory.
If we look at Microsoft's revenue I think it's pretty clear that they do in fact care an awful lot about Windows Server - or at least should.
In fiscal year 2025, Microsoft Corporation's revenue by segment:
> Linked In Corporation: $17.81 B
Hwat? How does LinkedIn generate revenue (as much as "Windows")?
I don’t think this is clear at all because the segments are lumped together and highly unclear.
What’s the difference between “server products and cloud services” and “server products and tools?”
I assume the former is Azure and the latter is on-premise.
In that case if we lump 365 in with server products and cloud tools then it shows that 2/3 of the enterprise revenue is going to cloud and 1/3 is on-premise (and I assume that 1/3 is declining over time)
> If Apple Enterprise Cloud was available today who is switching and why?
Not sure about others, but I would switch if it meant I no longer needed to rely on Google Workspace.
Why can't they charge a subscription for windows? It could be only a small yearly fee.
It's primary benefit is that it comes free with the laptop they bought on Amazon.
Once there's friction there, it'll make other friction seem less bad.
Because Windows is a garbage product and they would quickly wipe out its userbase by doing that.
I get the impression they care very much about windows because they can sell ads on it.
Apple basically spearheaded the war on general computation. Before them, phones used to be more or less open, Apple cracked down on that very quickly.
Well, before Apple, most phones were appliances with fixed software; there was no openness to speak of. That said, I wish they hadn't continued this trend and instead took inspiration from Windows Mobile.
Before iphone mobile phones were running Java applets, which were sometimes even compatible across different phone manufacturers and users even could exchange them over infrared. In contrast first iPhone initially had no support for third party software, only web apps.
> Before iphone mobile phones were running Java applets, which were sometimes even compatible across different phone manufacturers and users even could exchange them over infrared.
"Sometimes" doing a lot of heavy lifting.
Nokia had an app store, and before you could see the available apps you have to first choose your phone: because even with-in Nokia's own product range there was so much variation in screens, keyboards, and general capabilities that they had to pre-apply a filter to show you what would actually work.
Before them, phones used to be more or less open
Wow. Just… wow.
Excuse me while I get permission from sixteen levels of managers inside Cingular, U.S. Cellular, Cincinnati Bell, PrimeCo, and the fifty different regional carriers calling themselves "Cellular One" to offer my app on their networks.
I'm not claiming that iPhones are open to the extent that HN griefers want it to be, but you must have been freshly hatched in the years before the iPhone to think the ecosystem was open.
I say this as someone who developed some of the first mobile phone weather apps. (Before "app" was even a word.)
Or, you know, there's more than one country in the world.
I could flash my Nokia 6210 with whatever firmware I wanted, but I guess that doesn't count, because Nokia and Ericsson aren't American companies.
I may be guilty of the same thing you're mentioning (I'm in the USA), but my Nokia 6210 came with a carrier lock and I wasn't even able to visit websites via the WAP browser unless my carrier approved of them because WAP acted like a sort of mandatory vendor operated proxy that allowed them to see and filter everything the phone did. They would, for example, filter out websites about ringtones to try and force you to buy theirs for $0.99/piece.
My experience with a Nokia 6210 was very much the opposite of what you describe.
That's very much a product of the American oligarchy - with Apple, MSFT and Google at the forefront. Yes, these particular restrictions were the gifts from the US Telco industry. But the corporations in the US behave practically all the same - abuse the customers as much as possible, in every conceivable manner. This is partly due to the fact that these incumbents don't allow smaller ethical competitors to survive.
Granted that there are variations of these abusers in every country. But the US companies are on a whole different level. They practically own the ostensibly democratic government. I'm sorry to break the top commenter's bubble of bliss. But these companies have depleted any goodwill and benefits of doubt a long time ago to deserve any kind mention.
PS: I get downvoted every time I express this sentiment here. That's not surprising, given the strong representation that these rogue players have on HN. Fair enough! But the downvoters would do well to realize that no amount of such anonymous disapprovals are going to reverse the course of the global tech community's steadily souring opinions and hostility towards such companies. It won't take very long for this to hit their markets too, if the boycott hasn't already started in several parts of the world. So they might as well take the message and take the steps to repair their damaged reputation and trust, though it's going to be a long road ahead to recovery.
4 kings.
Wipe if you think you can do better :) It can and has been done.
4 horseman, you're welcome.
This reads like a good example of how prestige brands flatten people critical faculties. :-)
"A lot of love for Apple" is not evidence of wisdom or merit. It is evidence that Apple has been extraordinarily successful at converting ordinary consumer electronics into a moral aesthetic identity for its customers... Once that happens, public praise stops being about products and starts being about selfregard.
That is why Apple gets discussed in a register normally reserved for institutions that have actually earned public affection. In reality, it is a company that charges luxury prices for tightly controlled products, then persuades customers that the control is sophistication and the markup is virtue. :-)
This is mostly a case study in prestige bias. People are not just evaluating a company but protecting a status hierarchy in which buying Apple signifies discernment.
And the something amazing must be in the skunkworks line is the usual theology that means when the present is overpriced iteration, redemption is always scheduled for a few years from now.
Hopefully the Neo is the beginning of Apple making useful and affordable products for all users, instead of walling their garden to squeeze out every last penny via Cook's 'premium'-upwards-screwdriver tactics ... the history of market-dynamics suggests otherwise, but let's hope and wait there's a mindset change as well.
I think it might be the opposite. You make cheap products for everybody because you are going to make money off subscriptions. Personally, I think it's a reasonable strategy, but it might mean they lose their focus on high-end craftsmanship.
> craftsmanship
What marketing does to people
I've never bought a Mac, I have used them for work. They are the best built laptops on the market, bar none. Too bad their OS is awful. Its not just marketing.
>> craftsmanship
> What marketing does to people
I'm sorry, are my MacBooks Pro, Air, and (my spouse's) Neo not some of the best built laptops you can buy? Maybe there's something better, but these are inarguably some of the best. Absolute top of the line.
See the Verge (I think) reviewing similarly priced laptops priced around the Neo. They were plastic crap, even if they had better specs elsewhere.
the M line of macbook pro's are beautiful, well crafted, long lasting machines.
MacOS might not be your preferred way of working, and you might prefer cheaper options or USB-A ports, but there is really nothing you could arguably call bad craftmanship in those machines.
>> nothing you could arguably call bad craftmanship in those machines
my 2 bad craftsmanship cents:
laptop keyboard leaves marks on screen. laptop's sharp edges leaves marks on wrists.
> laptop keyboard leaves marks on screen.
I don't think this has been a thing in years.
Sharp edges on wrists is true.
It definitely is a thing on my M2. Unsure if it is something that was fixed in the later models.
My wrists, conversely, are fine, but I suppose I rarely use it in a 'classic' desk position that would cause that.
..from the company that brought you "You're holding it wrong", not just bad but dumb
In addition to the sibling comment, I would point out the touch bar was poor craftsmanship and the butterfly keyboard was also poor craftsmanship. They both are addressed now, but there were several years where we had to live with them.
Their software craftsmanship has really suffered in the last 10 years.
I mean, they're not bad, but they have spicy chargers, the corners are uncomfortably sharp, the keyboard often doesn't register, the LCD is prone to vertical bars and other issues even without physical damage and is extremely sensitive to bumps and other minor damage elsewhere on the laptop (not even the display itself), and so on.
Some of these are consequences of what makes them feel "premium" or even "solid". Aluminum is a terrible material for bumps and drops because it dents, and that often damages the internal components.
they're very well designed and built products, craftmanship is something else.
What is it?
They are mass produced in factories, not made by craftsmen.
I mean not to pile on here. What are you implying that there isn't a high level of craftmanship imbued in the development of mac harware? You'd have much more luck arguing it may be lacking in software but not on the hardware side.
Or are you trying taking issue with the word that craftmanship is only reserved for something akin to Japanese wood joinery or micro batch coffee roasting?
Have you used Windows?
what does Windows have to do with this? It sucks as much as MacOS
Have you actually looked at apple products and compared them to the competition? The different in quality of finish is really stark in my experience. Some other manufacturers have some products which have some nice features. Whatever you think of the software or ecosystem, almost Apple hardware is just nicely made.
Neo is a good product, but they're making their better products (Macs) more out of reach for a whole class of customers.
Is that really true? The price of Macs today is far lower than it used to be when adjusted for inflation. I know this is true of all computers, but you can get a really good Mac computer without spending a lot of money, historically speaking.
The Macbook Air, the best computer for most people, starts at $1099. I paid something like $2,700 for my computer, which I brought to college in 2002. That's about $5,000 in today's money.
Mac Mini is a stellar product...
> making useful and affordable products for all users,
Affordable, ethical. You can only choose one.
> This guy seems much younger than Tim was when he ascended.
Ternus just looks a bit younger. He’ll be 51, and half a year older than Cook was when he became CEO in 2011.
All the C-suits in Apple that normally does the presentations look completely LA style artificial. Nothing looks human about them, they always give off the same feel of un-personal, robotic, snake oil sales people; not someone that you actually would like to lead a company, as in someone who actually understands what it means to be human.
> This is one of the more broadly normal HN-reaction threads to large public news event I've seen in a while. A lot of love for Apple, respect for the decision, and respectfully stated nuance. Surprising and good.
In other words, nothing insightful or worth talking about. I don't want to read news for feelgood vibes.
But there is interesting information in lots of the comments. Like the quote from Ternus about Apple Maps in one of the comments. This gives relevant insight of how he thinks and how he might handle problems when he takes over.
If it's interesting to note that there are mostly nuanced takes and positive vibes in the thread, and an otherwise low-value meta comment is deemed to be a worthy top comment for saying so, then I suggest an auto-generated AI summarization comment pinned to every long HN thread. This will surely save everyone the trouble of doing so...
(I am not claiming the top comment is AI generated, only that an AI generated summarization of the thread can function just as well in its stead, despite the occasional inaccuracies)
This is relevant information for this forum, for good or bad Apple has a lot of impact.
I find your reaction strange, do you read news to be angry and/or afraid? :)
For critical thought. This overlaps with negativity, because criticism is disagreeable.
> I don't want to read news for feelgood vibes.
Yes, as algorithmic engagement has proven, most people want to read the news to get angry about stuff.
But I don't like hanging around that. I'd rather talk about tech news with nerds (old HN) and not just talk about coastal filter-bubble US politics with big tech worker bees (new HN).
US politics has definitely captured the crowd here lately. Half of the comment threads somehow devolve from discussions of Javascript frameworks into hysterical left-populist struggle sessions over the perceived political injustice of the day.
Maybe some feel good vibes and some apolitical news for the day aren't a bad thing.
A lot of love for a company which doesn't even let you chose the apps you want to use.
A wonderfully out-of-date sentiment.
What do you mean? Something like "freedom is so last year, it's all about obedience now"?
oh I just love the replies
This is not a bad thing.
Please explain?
Your statement implies that positivity equals to normality. This is the same kind of statement that would imply that negativity or evil is normal.
All those statements are psychological manipulation. Being too positive or too negative makes people blind and mendable by silently suppressing their will to be themselves.
There's a BBC article on this, with a quote:
> With a new boss, Apple may be showing its strategic interest in deeper integration of AI into its hardware, said Hubbard. "The very strengths that made Apple dominant - their discipline, polish, and control - could become constraints if the next era rewards openness and faster iteration," he said.
The opposite of the basic human interface quality and consistency improvements that several commenters here hope for.
(Admittedly "Hubbard" here is just the first pundit they could grab, an Assistant Professor of Management and Organization, so this isn't the best informed prognostication.)
To me Apple is the company that had started the war against personal computing.
I think they're the exact same age at time of appointment?
But Tim Apple had gray hair
Love for hackernews community
That's some really gross toxic-positivity begging.
[dead]
> A lot of love for Apple
That makes me wonder why people love Apple but hate all other big companies.
To a large extent: the product, the gloss, the luxury-item impression. People generally aren't looking beyond that deeper into the company behind.
You can see a similar thing in the 3D printing world with Bambu Lab - people love the product (my A1 has been excellent value, very reliable, and I despite preferring my fancy more expensive toy for most tasks I would still recommend it to those starting out without specific needs that such a design can't provide), and any concern about the company behind it (slowly closing off the ecosystem, initially trying to make out that their obviously-inspired-by-the-fullspectrum-scorca-fork colour mixing option was their own original stroke of genius) doesn't matter to them.
With both Bambu and Apple part of why they get this attention is the end-to-end polish that people feel in the product experience (to be fair is a valid reason to choose those products) and a certain amount of luck in them bringing their show to market at the right time, where other companies are seen as producing more interchangeable commodity items. Without that distinction giving people a higher view of the product range, the other companies struggle to get away from the fact that we don't naturally, for good reason, trust nor love commercial entities.
The other thing working in favour of some companies is momentum: some were worthy of some adoration for higher quality products and/or greater customer care than the competition, but are no longer and it takes a while for everyone to realise how much things have changed. Disney is definitely a company that I would add to this pile, and there are others.
Another big company that seems to get a lot more adoration than any of their competition is Nintendo, though I'm not in the gaming market any more so I don't know how much of that they still earn and how much of it is just that at least they aren't Sony or Microsoft!
There are plenty of other big companies that people love too. Off the top of my head: Nintendo, AMD, Disney.
In the case of all of them, they may make some questionably ethical business decisions but at the same time do genuinely care about the craft they're in, pushing boundaries and making quality products.
For a long time apple did a lot better for both "hackers" and normal customers compared to the other big operating system company.
They also made a good unix based OS that was easy to purchase on decent hardware (esp laptops).
Have you used Oracle, Salesforce, Windows? That’s why.