Comment by bborud

Comment by bborud a day ago

I don't understand why Apple change things needlessly. What other purpose does it serve? How does this positively affect the bottom line? How does it improve life for Apple's users? Breaking basic interaction with windows purely because someone feels we should waste more screen real-estate on ornamentation by having bigger radius rounded corners is, for lack of a better word, stupid.

I'd like Apple to focus more on the things that actually matter to users. To fix bugs, to work on performance, to simplify things rather than complicate them. Focus on making it a better platform for doing work and less a playground for pointless fiddling with design and sloppiness.

gwbas1c a day ago

Because if you don't make periodic cosmetic changes, people will think you're going out of business.

It's why your favorite shoe company, that you buy from every 2-3 years when you wear out your favorite shoes, always has new styles and discontinues other styles. Converse is a great example.

Reply View 3 replies

72deluxe 5 hours ago

But when Apple released macOS Snow Leopard (widely held to be great), it announced 0 new features over Leopard, to much applause. It focused exclusively on fixing issues, and was better for it.
Journalists will report whatever they get fed anyway (notice how they all talk gleefully over the wobbly new iPhone with a jutting-out camera bump when only a few years ago they talked gleefully about how flat the iPhone was, and then gleefully wrote about how their screen estate was invaded by a notch etc), so if Apple focused on fixing issues instead of short-attention-span apps (when was the last time you used "Image Playground"?) the media could report how committed to reliability and quality Apple is, gleefully.

Reply View | 0 replies
autoexec 15 hours ago

Generally I agree with you. My advice is that when you find a pair or shoes you like pick up at least 3 pair because by the time you need to replace them they'll be gone, but Converse isn't a great example of that because I can get a pair of Chucks which look/fit basically exactly like any pair I've ever had. It's actually kind of nice that Converse doesn't seem to play the same game as the tennis/running shoes I wear out.

Reply View | 1 reply
- gwbas1c an hour ago
  
  FYI: You can't get the cons that they sold about a decade ago. They changed the sole a bit so they are now "slippers" in order to avoid tariffs. (I also suspect there's a reason why they also sell "boots" too.)
  I do wish I heeded your advice. I bought some awesome Doc Marten boots/sneaker hybrids called "Boury" a few years ago, and they stopped making them. I can't find any in my size anywhere, like EBay. I walked all around Disney World with them in shorts, and they looked / felt awesome.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

renegade-otter a day ago

There has to be work done. Each sprint, new FEATURES must be completed.

Features, people, FEATURES.

Reply View 2 replies

dillydogg a day ago

We finally have processors in our pockets that can calculate the pretty lights and colors, so make them calculate, people!

Reply View | 1 reply
- bborud 8 hours ago
  
  I’d like to use that extra processing and efficiency to get longer battery life when the phone isn’t doing anything special, and to have better performing apps.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

AnthonBerg 8 hours ago

Managers are incentivized to do things to the real world that show up as "• Led implementation of [bla]" on their resume.

It's more effort to do things that also make sense than only to produce the bullet point.

Reply View 0 replies

enaaem a day ago

Good design should be timeless. For example, I like wat Leica did for their M serie cameras. At a certain point they decided that the design was done, and stopped messing around. For that you need leadership with good taste, because designers will always design.

Reply View 1 reply

bborud 8 hours ago

Mostly, but they made mistakes too. Just look at the M5 vs the M6 vs the M7. The original M6 came out in 1984 and it is still the preferred model to this day in terms of film cameras. The M5 was too large and the M7 was too «electronic». People preferred the cameras that stuck closer to the original DNA. M6 cameras still fetch a pretty penny today. (So much so that Leica made a reissue a few years ago).

Reply View | 0 replies