{"id":4222,"date":"2014-09-12T15:50:27","date_gmt":"2014-09-12T14:50:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thetawelle.de\/?p=4222"},"modified":"2015-06-10T14:25:28","modified_gmt":"2015-06-10T13:25:28","slug":"das-neue-apple","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetawelle.de\/?p=4222","title":{"rendered":"Das Neue Apple."},"content":{"rendered":"

Ich bin seit ca. 1992 Apple Kunde. Das Powerbook Duo 250 war mein erstes Ger\u00e4t. Im Vergleich zu heutigen Ger\u00e4ten stellt das Ger\u00e4t s\u00e4mtliche aktuellen Apple Produkte hinsichtlich Reparierbarkeit und Geschwindigkeit in den Schatten. Ja, auch bei der Geschwindigkeit! (Update: Und da bin ich nicht allein.<\/a>) Denn die „Apps“ damals hie\u00dfen die noch „Programme“ laufen auf einem Mac OS 7.1 verdammt schnell und sind viel einfacher zu bedienen. Sogar die Suche nach einer Datei ist unter Mac OS 7.1 einfacher per Apfel-F-Taste zu realisieren als mit Spotlight unter OS X 10.9.4 wo ich im Finderfenster „name:Suchwort“ eingeben muss, um zu finden was ich suche. Aber das soll nicht mein Thema hier sein.<\/p>\n

Von „Less is More“ zu „Bigger is bigger“<\/h3>\n

\"big_bigger_biggest\"<\/a>Apple hat mit der letzten Vorstellung seiner neuen Produkte einen Weg eingeschlagen, der eine \u00c4ra beendet. Kurz vorweg ich respektiere die grandiose Leistung und „Execution“ von Tim Cook und seinem Team. Es erscheint mir sogar so, dass die Firma nach Steve agiert wie als sei eine Handbremse gel\u00f6st worden. Es geht ein wenig Richtung \u00fcbereifrig, streberisch und \u00fcberambitioniert. Vermutlich ist das besser, als sehr bed\u00e4chtig vorzugehen, daher mein voller und ernsthafter Respekt f\u00fcr die gezeigte Leistung. Die Firma sieht sich jetzt jedoch auf dem Pfad eines „More is More“-Apologeten. Sie unterscheidet sich damit f\u00fcr mich nur noch schwer von anderen IT-Firmen.<\/p>\n

Das schreibt auch Felix Salmon<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

Apple is buying into the More Is More mindset<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Quelle: Apple hasn\u2019t solved the smart watch dilemma <\/a><\/p>\n

R\u00fcckblick: How Apple rolls<\/h3>\n

Update 10.Juni 2014<\/strong> Dieser Abschnitt wurde nachtr\u00e4glich eingef\u00fcgt.<\/p>\n

This is how the designers and engineers at Apple roll: They roll.
\nThey take something small, simple, and painstakingly well considered. They ruthlessly cut features to derive the absolute minimum core product they can start with. They polish those features to a shiny intensity. At an anticipated media event, Apple reveals this core product as its Next Big Thing, and explains\u2014no, wait, it simply shows\u2014how painstakingly thoughtful and well designed this core product is. The company releases the product for sale.<\/p>\n

Then everyone goes back to Cupertino and rolls. As in, they start with a few tightly packed snowballs and then roll them in more snow to pick up mass until they\u2019ve got a snowman. That\u2019s how Apple builds its platforms. It\u2019s a slow and steady process of continuous iterative improvement\u2014so slow, in fact, that the process is easy to overlook if you\u2019re observing it in real time. Only in hindsight is it obvious just how remarkable Apple\u2019s platform development process is.<\/p>\n

One example is Apple\u2019s oldest core product: Mac OS X. It took four difficult years from Apple\u2019s acquisition of NeXT in 1997 until Mac OS X 10.0 was released in March 2001. Needless to say, those four years were\u2026 well, let\u2019s just say it was a difficult birth. But from that point forward, Mac OS X\u2019s major releases have appeared regularly (especially by the standards of major commercial PC operating systems), each better than the previous version, but none spectacularly so. Snow Leopard is vastly superior to 10.0 in every conceivable way. It\u2019s faster, better-designed, does more, and looks better. (And it runs exclusively on an entirely different CPU architecture than did 10.0.) But at no point between the two was there a release that was markedly superior to the one that preceded it.<\/p>\n

Next, consider the iPod. It debuted in the fall of 2001 as a Mac-only, FireWire-only $399 digital audio player with a tiny black-and-white display and 5 GB hard disk. The iTunes Store didn\u2019t exist until April 2003. The Windows version of iTunes didn\u2019t appear until October 2003\u2014two years after the iPod debuted! Two years before it truly supported Windows! Think about that. If Apple released an iPod today that sold only as many units as the iPod sold in 2002, that product would be considered an enormous flop.<\/p>\n

Today you can get an iPod nano for $179 that\u2019s a fraction of the original iPod\u2019s size and weight, with double the storage, a color display, video playback, and a built-in video camera. Apple took the iPod from there to here one step at a time. Every year Apple has announced updated iPods in the fall, and every year the media has weighed in with a collective yawn.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s never been one iteration of the click-wheel iPod platform that has completely blown away the previous one, and even the original model was derided by many critics as unimpressive. The iPod shows, too, how Apple\u2019s iterative development process doesn\u2019t just add, it adapts. Remember those third-generation iPods from 2003, with four separate buttons above the click wheel? Turns out that wasn\u2019t a good idea. They were gone a year later. Remember the iPod Mini? It had no new features, and wasn\u2019t even much cheaper\u2014 but it was way smaller.<\/p>\n

The iPhone is following the same pattern. In 2007 it debuted with no third-party apps, no 3G networking, and a maximum storage capacity of 8GB. One year later, Apple had doubled storage, added 3G and GPS, and opened the App Store. The year after that, Apple swapped in a faster processor, added a compass and an improved camera, and doubled storage again. The pattern repeats. We may never see an iPhone that utterly blows away the prior year\u2019s, but we\u2019ll soon have one that utterly blows away the original iPhone.<\/p>\n

That brings us to the iPad. Initial reaction to it has been polarized, as is so often the case with Apple products. Some say it\u2019s a big iPod touch. Others say it\u2019s the beginning of a revolution in personal computing. As a pundit, I\u2019m supposed to explain how the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. But I can\u2019t. The iPad really is The Big One: Apple\u2019s reconception of personal computing.<\/p>\n

Apple has released many new products over the last decade. Only a handful have been the start of a new platform. The rest were iterations. The designers and engineers at Apple aren\u2019t magicians; they\u2019re artisans. They achieve spectacular results one year at a time. Rather than expanding the scope of a new product, hoping to impress, they pare it back, leaving a solid foundation upon which to build. In 2001, you couldn\u2019t look at Mac OS X or the original iPod and foresee what they\u2019d become in 2010. But you can look at Snow Leopard and the iPod nanos of today and see what they once were. Apple got the fundamentals right.<\/p>\n

So of course this iPad\u2014the one which, a few years from now, we\u2019ll refer to off-handedly as the \u201coriginal iPad\u201d\u2014does less than we\u2019d hoped. That\u2019s how the people at Apple work. While we\u2019re out here poking and prodding at the iPad, they\u2019re back at work in Cupertino. They\u2019ve got a little gem of a starting point in hand. And they\u2019re beginning to roll.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Quelle:<\/strong> This is how Apple rolls<\/a> by John Gruber in May 13, 2010 10:35 AM for Macworld.<\/p>\n

Welche Uhr eigentlich?<\/h3>\n

Die vorgestellte „Uhr“ ist nichts als ein Mini-iPod der nur mit einem iPhone gekoppelt \u00fcberhaupt nutzbar ist. Der Mann der dieses Produkt vorf\u00fchrte sagte das als ersten Satz: „iPhone required.“<\/strong><\/p>\n

Was soll das f\u00fcr eine Uhr sein, die ein iPhone ben\u00f6tigt um zu funktionieren? Das iPhone ist also der Hardware-Dongle<\/a>, damit das andere Produkt \u00fcberhaupt einsetzbar ist. Jemand anderem kann ich die Uhr vermutlich auch nicht mal eben ausleihen.<\/p>\n

Apple hat einfach den ganzen iOS Stack in ein Geh\u00e4use gestopft. Macht das Sinn? F\u00fcr eine Uhr? Nein! Ich will keine Uhr, die den geplanten Obsoleszenz<\/a>-Zeitr\u00e4umen unterliegt f\u00fcr Smartphones. Diese Uhr k\u00f6nnt ihr behalten Apple. Viel schlimmer aber als der Versuch ein neues Produkt mit Dongle zu vertreiben finde ich die Abkehr von der Einstellung „Less is More“. Hier findet eine Zeitenwende in Apple’s Philosophie statt.<\/p>\n

Wie h\u00e4tte die Uhr aussehen m\u00fcssen?<\/h3>\n

Wer eine Smarte Uhr entworfen h\u00e4tte, der h\u00e4tte diese unter den Rahmenbedingungen die derzeit herrschen designed und nicht diese schamlos ignoriert.<\/p>\n

Die Uhr h\u00e4tte 100% auf ein e-Ink-Display setzen m\u00fcssen um \u00fcberhaupt in die Reichweite einer vern\u00fcftigen Batterielaufzeit zu gelangen. Sie h\u00e4tte auch autonom OHNE iPhone einen sinnvollen Wert haben m\u00fcssen, z.B. eben f\u00fcr den Einsatzzweck Sport (Zeitmessung, Streckenmessung, Pulsmessung, H\u00f6henmessung). Ich h\u00e4tte mir einmal die kleinsten GPS-Ger\u00e4te<\/a> angeschaut, und das Fazit gezogen, dass es eventuell Sinn macht, die Uhr per Bluetooth an ein Bluetooth GPS (ebenfalls von Apple) nur f\u00fcr das Laufen\/Sport zu koppeln, denn der Strom- und Platzbedarf dieser Funktion ist einfach noch zu gro\u00df f\u00fcr eine Uhr.<\/p>\n

Funktionen:<\/strong><\/p>\n