Mountain Lion Downloads

Phil Schiller reporting on Mountain Lion’s release:

“Apple has announced that its latest Mac OS X version, Mountain Lion, has had three million downloads in just four days thereby making it the most successful OS in Cupertino’s history.

ModernGeek in a comment on Slashdot:

I have to wonder how many of these are people that received a free upgrade with their new Macintoshes… /didn’t rtfm

And the simple answer is: it doesn’t matter. Companies like Microsoft make money from selling software. They always talk about sales because that is what’s important for their bottom line. Apple, on the other hand, makes all its money from selling the hardware. They are trying to commoditize software by lowering its prices and shortening its release cycle (see the App Stores and iOS). It’s their goal to get more users to (want to) run their latest and greatest release, effectively adding additional value to their hardware products (e.g. iCloud), and potentially getting you to upgrade your hardware when it gets left behind (e.g. Siri).

Apple Doesn’t Innovate

People often say and write that Apple doesn’t innovate. That it is merely taking technologies and products, introduced by other companies, applying some Apple-magic to it, before spinning it as “The Next Best Thing”.

  • “Music players, smartphones, tablets and ultra portable laptops existed well before Apple unveiled their version of these products in 2001, 2007, 2008 and 2010. There is nothing new about what Apple did.”

  • “Clearly, Apple is acquiring all of its components from companies like SAMSUNG, LG, Broadcom, etc., so it is pretty obvious that they aren’t creating anything new; they are just repackaging these parts in a fancy aluminum or glass case and selling it for more than it’s worth. No innovation by Apple here.”

  • “Multitasking, notifications, maps, wireless syncing, copy-and-paste, the app store, cloud services, etc. are all shamelessly copied. No innovation here either.”

  • “The only thing Apple is good at is getting existing products and technologies to work more seamlessly, be more intuitive, and lure in customers through superb marketing.”

These are the kind of arguments I often find online. You would think that these arguments could be easily countered by pointing out how quickly other companies try to mimic Apple’s products (music players, smartphones, tablets, ultrabooks). But, apparently, that particular thing Apple did some time ago is, well, just that, a thing Apple did some time ago, because right now Apple is nothing but a copying bully.

This is all bullshit.

Apart from the fact that some of these arguments just don’t make any sense, this is the kind of FUD that competitors, idiots and uniformed people spread for reasons that are motivated by their own fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Apple is a very opinionated and ruthless company when it comes to the products, services and the software it designs. About the only freedom the company does allow is for customers and developers to take their business elsewhere if they disagree with how things are done.

Clearly, that is a good reason not to like Apple and the products that it creates. And that’s perfectly fine. Nobody is forcing you to. So please, quit trying to educate us on how irrelevant Apple has become, based on these bullshit arguments.

The whole principle of innovation is to look at existing solutions to problems and come up with different solutions that are better in particular ways, that matter to you. Innovation doesn’t happen in a vacuum. So it’s perfectly acceptable to look at what a competitor is doing —you’d be a fool not to— and see if he’s solving problems that you could solve even better.

In January of 2007, on stage at MacWorld, Steve Jobs showed us how he believed Apple would change the (smart)phone industry with the iPhone. He was so excited about every aspect of this product that he demoed the hell out of every feature. There wasn’t a single person in that audience that didn’t hang at his fingertips while he was swiping through lists of songs, contacts and emails, rubber-banding as he went along. I agree, Steve performed masterfully, but I also remember how defining it was to be able to do it myself a few months later. Playing with that large multi-touch display felt like I was holding something from the future.

As it turns out, if there’s one thing that these PC guys (Apple) are a lot better at, it’s building great software to go with the hardware. While Apple wasn’t the only one working on touch displays —no vacuum— they were definitely the first to perfect it and put it into a product that worked incredibly well and shipped in the millions. And it’s this road from the idea of multi-touch to a working product that is filled with new solutions to hard problems, both in software and hardware, as Jony Ive explains:

“There were multiple times when we nearly shelved the phone because there were multiple problems. I hold the phone to my ear and my ear dials a number. The challenge is that you have to develop all sorts of ear shapes, chin shapes, skin colour, hairdo… it seemed insurmountable”.

That is innovation.

Still, today, people are using these same defining features to mock Apple. “Isn’t it obvious to swipe your finger across the screen to move through a list?” — I guess it is not innovation unless it involves something artificial as a stylus.

But you don’t have to take my word for it; here is Google General Counsel Kent Walker in a letter about standards and patents:

The capabilities of an iPhone are categorically different from a conventional phone, and result from Apple’s ability to bring its traditional innovation in computing to the mobile market. Using an iPhone to take photos, manage a home-finance spreadsheet, play video games, or run countless other applications has nothing to do with standardized protocols. Apple spent billions in research and development to create the iPhone, and third party software developers have spent billions more to develop applications that run on it. The price of an iPhone reflects the value of these nonstandardized technologies — as well as the value of the aesthetic design of the iPhone, which also reflects immense study and development by Apple, and which is entirely unrelated to standards.

Although sometimes it’s hard to be sure what Google’s position is on the matter.

But in any case, the pace this industry is moving at requires many of its players to push it forward. I am certainly not implying the other extreme: that this is a one man show.

Mountain Lion Battery Indicator Gets an iOS Facelift

With Moutain Lion, Apple has greatly simplified the battery indicator in the menu bar. Before, you were able to configure it to show the (battery percentage) or the (remaining time) to the right of the indicator graphic, or to have neither. Now, the default representation is to only show the indicator graphic. Clicking the indicator pops up a menu that displays the remaining time, and that presents you with a Show percentage checkbox. If checked, it will display the battery percentage to the left of the indicator icon, without round brackets.


The battery indicator in OS X now works almost exactly the same as in iOS — although its look still differs between both operating systems; iOS even has different representations of the battery indicator depending on the look of the statusbar.

This is another one of those changes meant to unify the OS X and iOS experiences. Those of you that preferred to have the remaining battery time always be visible in the menu bar will likely be disappointed by this particular change.