That should probably be "führer"
Though I really prefer the u with the angry eyes: ǚ
Apple CEO Tim Cook has written to his employees to tell them that the past few quarters have been the most successful in the company's history. To the faithful, only the golden age of Steve Jobs can be described in such terms. But even though he's failed to release an exciting new product range since the first fruity fuhrer …
Darryl: "'gay Nazi'? It's German for 'Leader' or 'Guide'"
Note: I am not agreeing with Frankee. But I will point out that words do take on a different connotation across time and translation.
For example, 'douche' simply means 'shower' in French, but it has taken on a rather different connotation now in English.
Thus, 'fuhrer' does make people think of a certain time in German history, regardless of the literal meaning in German.
And when we hear the word, our first thought is of a cheery troop of cub scouts...
Fruit is jock-ular US homophobic slang, as I'm sure I don't need to point out.
I think the Reg writers know exactly what they are doing with this needlessly provocative epithet.
Godwin's law is an indicator that a debate has reached rock-bottom. If the Reg's articles are already there, what chance for enlightened debate in the comments?
All this might be true, but once upon a time Apple was famous for designing and building innovative stuff which created whole new industries and redefined and reinvigorated old ones.
This is no dig at Apple*, but they have never designed and built entirely new and innovative stuff. They have made a success out of better versions of things which already exist, making them easier to use and/or marketing them better. They did so incredibly well, and used this talent to bring new technology to the masses, but it has always existed before they got in on the act. A non-tech person probably sees them as innovative, because they never saw the tech before Apple released it, but it still existed, in a form not too dissimilar from what Apple released.
* I don't like Apple or Apple's products, but I cannot deny their skills in making things easier to use and "cooler". As a tech junkie I have been using "smartphones" since long before Apple came on the scene, but I was always ridiculed for the choice before the iPhone came along. Their impact has been to package and market new technology in such a way that everyone wants it, even if they don't want Apple's version.
"This is no dig at Apple*, but they have never designed and built entirely new and innovative stuff"
... I guess you weren't around in the '70s when the fledgling Apple company (3 guys) were literally building new stuff, hardware and software, in their garage (http://cicorp.com/apple/garage/)
In the post-Microsoft era, its easy to forget this stuff.
I guess you weren't around in the '70s when the fledgling Apple company (3 guys) were literally building new stuff, hardware and software, in their garage
Well I was and I remember seeing commercially built microcomputers (home computers if you prefer) on sale in the Computer Store on Broadway in NYC in the summer of 1976. These were machines made by IMSAI, MITS and SWTPc. All used add-on cards to extend the basic machine, all could be programmed in assembler or BASIC and some were fitted with 8" or 5 1/4" floppy drives, though they mostly used green-screen serial terminals or ASR-33 teletypes for their user interface and were based on MC6800 or Intel 8080 chips rather than the Mostek 6502 that the Apple 1 used.
All of them were on sale in 1975, so they all preceeded the Apple 1 (April 1976) by at least 4 months. All were on sale a good two years before the Apple ][ was announced.
The microcomputer an Apple invention? I don't think so!
Actually, while there were PDAs around then, that did seem innovative to me (at the time). I don't have the time (or inclinations) to check if there was anything similar around then, but I had never seen anything like it: Touch screen, with "handwriting recognition". It looked awesome!
So I will change my opinion, they have produced one innovation.
I was around in the '70s, and you've been drinking Kool Ade.
The Apple 1, while a fine machine for its day, was not spectacularly innovative - there were several other similar microcomputers around before it. There wasn't anything special about its software, either. Nor was there anything specially interesting about Apple II. Lisa, and Macintosh after it, popularised concepts developed by Xerox PARC.
Here's a representative example from Apple history: the un-upgradable Mac 128. Insufficient RAM out of the box and locked you in to an Apple Lisa for serious software development, one of the slowest, most expensive dev systems ever and entirely a Jobs job (the Mac being employees work he elbowed his way into).
It was Microsoft separating hardware from software that got us a 'machine on every desk', there would never have been an 'era' if we'd waited on Apple and their pricing.
Now Mac is a side note in history: sales have been flat for years. Apple are company who made their money from phones, who still can't believe their luck and have no idea how to replicate it.
Frankly, with some definitions you can argue that there never was any innovative stuff right through to the discovery of fire - others have burned themselves with friction, so this was derivative and no real innovation, yet alone breakthrough :)
For consumer device, the whole mix of packaging, usability, capability and content is achievement in itself. Whether it is innovation by your definition, I don't know, but in my book, it really was.
"Steve would have picked a name non-Americans would know how to pronounce."
Really? I thought most non-Americans would be familiar with it via Warner Brothers' Yosemite Sam, and probably wondering why Apple named their OS after a cantankerous, dimwitted cowboy.
"I thought most non-Americans would be familiar with it via Warner Brothers' Yosemite Sam"
There are many people in the world who do not speak English as first language. And at least in mine the cartoon/movie characters usually do not have their original names, or even close. For example, if you do a literal translation of Bugs Bunny's name from my country's version of the cartoon back to English, you'd have "Long leg".
Before living in the US, I used to think that Yosemite rimed with mite...
- but not neccessarily in *real terms*
"Today we reported Apple’s highest September quarter revenue ever and our strongest revenue growth rate in seven quarters. These very strong results were made possible by your hard work and dedication."Strange he forgot to say "And inflation." I would expect that even a company treading water would make their highest September revenue ever every year in cash terms, it would be more impressive if it was the highest ever after taking into account inflation.
For those not getting the subject line, this refers to the claims made by many UK politicians that they are going to break the record on investment into the NHS, when in fact in most years they are simply putting in more cash to cover inflation (i.e. the same value). Because inflation almost always goes up, they can claim every year that they are breaking the record, anything else would be a massive cut.
I haven't seen much anything new "gadgets" by anybody else either, perhaps there is a limit to it. Or just tell us what new you where thinking about. Perhaps Apple should do a Google and expand beyond hand held gadgets, cars and stuff like that. All I can think of right now for Apple to "improve" would be glasses and binoculars.
I think the key point isn't about whether Apple is still making exciting products, but how much longer it can keep treading water.
What was new in the £539 iPhone 6? Barometer, bit thinner, slo-mo recording. Meanwhile, a sub-£150 Android phone covers what most people want a smartphone to do, or isn't very far away from it. OK, an iPhone has eleventy million cores or twenty gazillion megapixel screens, but when you're using it for Angry Birds and posting drunken low-light photos on Facebook, who cares?
Nerds are nerds The 80's were a good time to be a geek, and Apple played a good part in that.
Linux leads gui features (if not innovation) now. Macs are just PCs and osx is NotWindows which still runs Word with a nice strong laptop case.
There is too much benefit in being compatible to allow too much innovation. I'm hoping ARM might pull something out of the hat, but I suspect the high cost of battery, screen and marketing will dwarf savings on a CPU.
Of course like always Jesper puts his own negative spin on it, as if Cook is attributing the successes to himself or his own leadership. He isn't, of course, he specifically says "These very strong results were made possible by your hard work and dedication."
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your Apple bashing, Jesper!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019