Apple to slice iPhone production 10% due to sluggish sales - <AUTHOR> http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Apple-to-slice-iPhone-production-10 <comment><USER2> Usually I have upgraded, but I currently have no intention of buying an iPhone 7 or later, unless they fix something!

For me it's a double whammy. I don't like the lack of headphone jack, and whereas I feel like I could manage grumpily ... for me it kills the excitement of buying the new device, and I think that is important. (My standard listening headphones are Etymotic ER-4Ps; there is no way I am going to downgrade to AirPods).

But the bigger part of the whammy is iOS. iOS is completely terrible at this point. I just can't consistently control the phone. A large percentage of taps or swipes do things I did not intend (how many I'm not sure -- 20%? 33%?) It's just completely crazy. They need to get rid of 3D touch, get rid of double-tap one-hand accessibility mode whatever it's called, get rid of weird swipes from the edge, fix the horrible inconsistencies in the way autocorrect works (or, _please_ , offer a system that just underlines words-thought-to-be-wrong without changing them, and let me tap on them to change them, _or_ use the current autocorrect system but let me tap on a word to un-"correct" it, the fact that the current system just changes what I typed and gives me no recourse to fix it apart from laborious deletions and re-typings, which I often have to do 2 or 3 times, is just haughty and offensive)... and in the meantime, might as well redesign the rest of the UI. Because right now the phone is not a joy to use, it's a constant exercise in frustration. I haven't felt _good_ about using iOS since sometime back around iOS5 or 6.

So it's no mystery to me why sales might be slowing ... I don't want a new one if it's going to continue the downward trend.

<comment><USER3> > They need to get rid of 3D touch, get rid of double-tap one-hand > accessibility mode whatever it's called, get rid of weird swipes from the > edge, fix the horrible inconsistencies in the way autocorrect works...

This is the same bullshit Apple has been doing with Mac OS X. I'm typing away in the terminal, doing something extremely productive, and suddenly my UI locks up for a second and I realize "shit, I must have accidentally timed a modifier key wrong and now I'm entering some crazy Mac mode" and then all of my windows fly around and I have to figure out how to get back to my terminal. I honestly don't understand why anyone wants any of these features, and if I _did_ want them I'd want them to be _super fast_ without the crazy slow animations, as every second I'm staring at them is a second I'm _not working_ :/.

The one thing I can say is: just like on the Mac, you can turn most of this shit off on iOS. Essentially, they pretend that the only reason people would ever want to have an advanced option on iOS is because they are disabled, and so they hide everything under "Accessibility". You can turn off "3D Touch" and "Reachability" there. I'm not sure which edge swipes you hate, but if it is the one from the bottom, "Control Center" can be turned off (it is a top-level settings panel, turn off both "Access on Lock Screen" and "Access Within Apps"). You can also configure a lot about auto-correction under General/Keyboard.

<comment><USER4> It's one of the critical flaws of Apple's modern design philosophy: Having a right mouse button would be too complicated, but hiding layers of complicated functionality through opaque multi-finger gestures, taps, and keyboard modifiers is A-OK.

And it's absolutely true that when Apple adds a new feature, it must have an accompanying slow animation tween to sell it. Frustrating.

<comment><USER5> Since Apple has completely supported right mouse for 20 or so years now, I just think you're confused

<comment><USER4> They support secondary click, but they have never shipped a first party mouse with a standard right button, favoring sleight of hand input schemes to trigger a right-click — schemes that are not immediately discoverable.

<comment><USER6> Apple seem to have a terrible blind spot for mice. Ive-era keyboards have been consistently excellent, but the mice have been consistently awful. Remember the horrendous hockey-puck mouse that shipped with the iMac?

<comment><USER7> The USB mouse ("hockey-puck") was particularly bad, as it wasn't easy to orient. The Might Mouse trackball was pretty bad, too. The others didn't have major deficiencies in my opinion. What in particular do you find fault with the others?

<comment><USER6> The Pro Mouse had one button when five were becoming standard. The Mighty Mouse would only right-click if you lifted your index finger off the mouse entirely. The multitouch on the Magic Mouse is woeful in terms of discoverability and frustratingly erratic. Ergonomics have been consistently poor, owing to Apple's refusal to make a mouse that actually fits the human hand. None of their mice are comfortable in palm grip, because they're needlessly low and flat. The rounded edges and gloss plastic of the Mighty Mouse and Pro mouse are difficult to control in fingertip or claw grip.

By comparison, Microsoft achieved near-perfection in mouse design with the venerable Wheel Mouse Optical 1.1a. After more than a decade, that mouse is still perfectly usable for competitive gaming. Contemporary high-end mice from companies like Steelseries and Zowie imitate the shape of the WMO very closely, because it's exceedingly comfortable for a wide range of grip styles and hand sizes.

<comment><USER7> _The Pro Mouse had one button when five were becoming standard._

Apple has always produced mice that have at most one physical button, while providing in the OS to support third-party mice that have more. This isn't something that started with Ive. There are plenty of people who think Apple should produce mice that have more than one button throughout its history.

Having used all of these mice extensively, primarily in desktop publishing and programming environments, I haven't found any of the issues you mention a problem. That's not to say others haven't. I enjoyed using the Magic Mouse in particular. I never had any ergonomic issues with any of them, other than the Apple USB mouse.

You mention gaming, and I can see how none of Apple's mice would be good for this. And it's great that there are third-party companies producing great mice, and have been for a long time. (Speaking of Microsoft, I've heard great things about their keyboards as well.) Given my (admittedly personal) experience with Apple's mice, I find the phrasing "consistently awful" to be hyperbole and unwarranted. That's not to say they're the best. There's a wide range between "near-perfection" and "consistently awful".

<comment><USER6> Apple are supposed to be the paragon of industrial design, but their mice tend to fall prey to style over substance. Their mice designs look lovely, but there's no ergonomic rationale behind their shape. If you think that the Magic Mouse is satisfactory, I'd suggest trying some genuinely high quality third- party mice - the Logitech Marathon or MX Master, or anything by Mionix or Zowie. I think you'll be shocked at the difference.

Gaming is the extreme case for mouse use, but it's not an edge case. A good gaming mouse is simply a good mouse - not a puck that you push around the desk, but an extension of your hand with a sensor underneath. eSports gamers simply demand an excellent sensor and high-quality switches in an ergonomic package.

[https://mionix.net/mice](https://mionix.net/mice) [http://zowie.benq.com/en/product/mouse.html](http://zowie.benq.com/en/product/mouse.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is an annual story, not super interesting. Nikkei itself actually posted something similar at this time last year:

[http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Trends/Parts-makers-brace- fo...](http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Trends/Parts-makers-brace-for-iPhone- production-cut)

> Apple is expected to reduce output of its latest iPhone models by around 30% > in the January-March quarter compared with its original plans, according to > several parts suppliers. The measure will deal a blow to Japanese and South > Korean parts companies.

So maybe a 10% cut is actually bullish?

<comment><USER9> Supply chain stories about Apple get posted all the time, and there is no discernible relationship between what they say and the actual sales volumes the Apple reports in the next 10-Q.

<comment><USER10> Effects don't necessarily show up in the following quarter. Moreover, it's an overstatement to say there is _no_ relationship. iPhone sales growth slowed dramatically following previous periods where supply chain order cuts were reported (eg in Jan'13 it was reported that Apple cut orders for iPhone 5 screens and subsequently actual growth did indeed slow dramatically). There seems to be a clear relationship between some such reports and the subsequent sales growth trend.

<comment><USER11> No, it's not an overstatement. If half the time the prediction turns out not to be true, then there is no relationship - you may as well flip a coin.

<comment><USER10> The parent claim was that there is no relationship, but they haven't backed that claim up. Unless someone does, it's an overstatement, especially in light of evidence that these reports (from well-reputed financial news institutions, not random internet rumors) do regularly turn out to be indicative of future performance (and no presently provided evidence to the contrary).

This new supply chain story also appears to be indicative of a true underlying trend in actuals as well, just as the previously cited one was. From the USA Today article on this same news: "Apple has hinted throughout the year sales of its iPhone would decline. Fiscal year revenue for 2016 dropped for the first time in fifteen years. _Meanwhile, fourth quarter iPhone shipments were down 5% from the same time last year._ "

So, that's likey 2 for 2...

If you have a more rigorous analysis to back up the claim that there is _no_ relationship historically between well-sourced reports by well-reputed and widely read financial news operations about iPhone supply chain dynamics to subsequent sales trends, then please provide it. If instead it was just an assertion from air, then it is an overstatement. One could reasonably say that the relationship is unclear. Or that it's hard to say how these reports relate to subsequent actuals. Or even that there are instances (if you can provide them) where these sorts of reports turn out to belie the trend in actuals. But saying flat out that there is _no_ relationship meets the exact definition of _overstatement_ unless it's backed-up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> That Apple might expect to sell fewer phones in the post-holiday quarter than the holiday quarter, that I buy. That sales are more sluggish than expected, I don't. At least not based on unsourced claims.

I've seen reports like this so often that I don't think I'd know what to do if one didn't appear. And so far, they mostly happen on years that are later demonstrated to include record sales of the product we're told is selling poorly.

I've begun to suspect that analysts literally make these up trying to provoke a response from Apple, since Apple normally only shares numbers during quarterly earnings, and they don't want to wait that long.

<comment><USER10> It isn't unsourced. They tell you the source in the article. This is from The Nikkei newspaper, as in The Nikkei Index. This is Japan's largest financial newspaper. It is original research performed by seasoned financial journalists. The Nikkei is actually the largest financial newspaper in the world, with a subscriber base of over 3M. Nikkei also owns the Financial Times among other assets. You've provided no reasonable basis whatsoever to doubt their journalism.

> I've begun to suspect that analysts literally make these up

In an era where patently false "news" pervades society, it does not help to blithely claim that real, reputable journalism is simply "made up". Also, this wasn't even an analyst firm, it is investigative journalism based on several primary sources with direct knowledge of the matters at hand.

Also, a quick Google search will provide more detail: [http://www.usatoday.com/story/96001250/](http://www.usatoday.com/story/96001250/) ... Note how this journalist mentions that Apple has been hinting about this on recent quarterly calls.

<comment><USER13> This is not the first time reputable organisations have wrongly inferred sluggish iPhone sales numbers. In Apple's 2013 Q1, Tim Cook, Apple's CEO, warned against reading too much into any rumors about order cuts gleaned from supply chain data after an incorrect story in the Wall Street Journal [1]. I've seen more of these stories that later proved wrong than that were correct.

[1] [http://www.imore.com/tim-cook-addresses-rumors-about- apple-c...](http://www.imore.com/tim-cook-addresses-rumors-about-apple- cutting-orders-tells-wall-street-smarten-hell)

<comment><USER10> It's well and good to point out that analysis based on supply chain sources may draw inaccurate conclusions and definitely to demonstrate that such analysis has been wrong in the past (it certainly has, for Apple and others). I do not claim to know whether this analysis will bear out in reality or not.

I'm merely pointing out that it is nonsensical to blithely dismiss it or claim it may simply be "made up" when it is at least based on primary sources and real journalism.

With respect to your specific example, I'd say the WSJ article which the article you linked is referring to appears to have actually borne out with the benefit of hindsight. Q1'13 production supply orders affect supply in subsequent quarters, and a reduction in orders means there is less expected growth. The article you linked expresses skepticism that this is the case, but it appears that it was. iPhone sales growth YoY slowed dramatically subsequent to Q1'13... For example Q1'14 saw ~10% sales growth over Q1'13 versus ~30% YoY growth the year prior and ~100% the year preceding that. To the extent the article indicates that demand and production are falling off from previous growth rates, it appears to have been accurate.

The above doesn't mean that this new report will be proven out. Nor even necessarily that the previous reporting you cited was actually correct. But it doesn't appear to be a clear whiff either.

<comment><USER13> You are being very charitable to the WSJ. The WSJ article in question said in the second paragraph [1]: _Apple 's orders for iPhone 5 screens for the first quarter, for example, have dropped to roughly half of what the company had planned to order, the people said_.

In the three first months of 2014 Apple sold 37.4 million iPhones, compared to 35.1 million in the three first months of 2013 [2]. Unless you believe that they internally projected to sell anywhere near 75 million phones (more than the 47.8 million iPhones sold in the last three months of 2013, traditionally their strongest quarter by far), that rumor reported by the WSJ was flat out wrong.

[1] [http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873242351045782410...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324235104578241051730364998)

[2] [http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/04/23Apple-Reports- Seco...](http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/04/23Apple-Reports-Second- Quarter-Results.html)

<comment><USER10> I hear what you're saying, but I am not sure you're interpreting the supply chain order implications correctly. You are assuming a 1 to 1 ratio of expected vs actual component supply order volumes and subsequent net sales. That is not at all how it typically works, and while I agree the WSJ could have and should have been more clear on this: the point of the article wasn't that the iPhone would _sell_ __half __as much as Apple had forecast. I can see why you and other reasonable people would draw this conclusion from the article (hence my criticism that they could and should have been more clear), but it isn 't implied.

Let's say that for Q4'12 Apple ordered 41M screens (vs say 30M in Q4'11), tracking toward a roughly ~35% YoY growth rate at the time. And, as per usual practice, so as to ensure their component partners in the supply chain are adequately tooled and ramped up for the future, they set expectations for Q1'13 and beyond, but at slightly lower growth levels than Q4'12's order because they are savvy and realize this is a maturing market where growth naturally slows over time. Without obligating themselves to actually order these future quantities in Q1'13 and beyond, they place contingent forecast orders representing say a ~28% YoY growth rate estimate for Q1'13 and beyond. Say that means they communicate a forecast order of 44M screens for Q1'13.

Now, as Q4'12 rolls along and Q1'13 component orders must be finalized and committed, Apple sees actual sales growth might be on pace for ~18% YoY. It looks like they will sell ~35M iPhones in Q1'13 vs the ~41M screens they have on hand from Q4'12's order, so they'll be left with a 6M screen inventory overhang from Q4'12's order. (I'm oversimplifying and assuming single quarter component turnaround time here for sake of illustration). They see that growth is tapering off going forward too (tracking down over time toward the actual ~10% YoY growth you cited by Q1'14). Q4'12's sales landed slightly slower than anticipated when they placed their order for it in Q3'12 as well, in line with this slower growth trend, and so they also have an overhang of, say, 4M screens from Q3'12's order for a total inventory overhang of 8M+4M = 12M screens by the end of Q4'12\. They deduct this overhang from their projected Q1'13 screen order, as well as lowering their estimate from needing 44M screens in Q1'13 to needing, say, 36M screens total for Q2'13 As such, for Q1'13 they order 36M needed screens minus 12M screens in overhung inventory, or 24M new screens. So, Q1'13's order goes from a projected 44M screens to 24M.

In this scenario, a screen component supplier might say Apple "cut their Q1'13 order in half". But Apple's expected sales for Q1'13 and beyond wouldn't have been off by 50%, but more like less than 20% (41M vs 35M). Also bear in mind that Apple's internal forecast may not have even been off by this much. Companies sometimes slightly overprovision in periods of uncertainty if they know they can sell through the overhung supply later and simply dial back subsequent supply orders while the overhang is cleared through. This may be exactly what Apple did at this time around the iPhone 5's sales cycle, so there internal forecast may have been off by only 10%... Or not at all. Yet, it would still be true from a component supplier's perspective that their order for Q1'13 was cut roughly in half.

This is all grossly oversimplified and entirely hypothetical (though based very roughly on the volume figured you cited). Yet it illustrates the point that there certainly needn't be a 1:1 correlation between supply order changes and actual sellthrough vs forecast. This is only more true in the real world where myriad complexities and order terms can dramatically affect supply chain orders without implying a horrible misforecast by the buyer or any dramatic or unexpected sales trend.

This would make what Tim Cook told investors absolutely correct-- don't overextrapolate from (potentially faulty) supply chain sources. But it would also make the WSJ article perfectly accurate... And nowhere did the article state that Apple's estimates were 50% off nor that investors did or should expect a decrease in demand or even a drastic decrease in growth. So, they were both (potentially) right. Point being, it is faulty to assume a simple 1:1 correlation between supply chain order changes and resultant actual sales vs forecasts, as your post does.

<comment><USER13> You are right that you can construct a scenario where e.g. screen components could have been cut by half. Thanks for typing it out. The WSJ article, though, attributes the cuts in component orders to weaker iPhone demand: 'because of weaker-than-expected demand'. That's my beef with their reporting. If they had just stated 'one of Apple's suppliers has got its order reduced by half', I would have no problem with the article. Trying to tie it to iPhone demand is just conjecture.

Just like you said in your conclusion: don't overextrapolate from (potentially faulty) supply chain sources. Which seems to be exactly what the Nikkei article is doing again. There is very little info in it: 'Apple will trim production of its iPhone family around 10% on the year in the first quarter of 2017, according to calculations by The Nikkei based on data from suppliers'. So, they have some information from suppliers (all of them?), and they have some model (how accurate is that model?) that points to an iPhone production cut. To me that seems like overextrapolation again... And I agree with you that this is not 'fake news', but it is also not good reporting either.

<comment><USER10> Thanks for the reply and I agree with you (and Tim Cook!) on not overextrapolating from such stories. A couple points:

> The WSJ article, though, attributes the cuts in component orders to weaker > iPhone demand: 'because of weaker-than-expected demand

In the hypothetical scenario I outlined, the reduction in component orders is literally due to "weaker-than-expected demand". In that scenario, they forecast needing, say, 41M screens but really only ended up selling 35M phones. It's off by less than 20% of forecost demand (and it still represents significant growth!), but it's still weaker than expected and that relatively small miss on expectations could easily result in a component order reduction of 50% or more due to inventory overhang and myriad other potential supply chain factors.

So, it'd be wrong to conclude that Apple's forecast was literally 50% off from this story... But that's not what they said and it is an incorrect assumption to presume a 1:1 relationship between component supply order cuts and subsequent sales actuals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I switched back from Android to iOS because the only decent Android phone (Pixel) is in the same price range as an iPhone. I got a jet black iPhone 7 and I love it, it just feels great in my hand. The only thing I am a little disappointed about is the notifications system, which is still sub par compared to Android (like, 2 touches instead of 1 to clear a notification, and I cannot properly configure Gmail to show only certain messages as notifications; why Apple Mail can pull Gmail only every 15 minutes is beyond me ...) So I feel iPhone 7 will be doing well enough.

<comment><USER15> > why Apple Mail can pull Gmail only every 15 minutes is beyond me ...

It used to work, but Google removed Activesync support for free users a while back. you need to use the Gmail app or upgrade to a paid Google Apps plan if you want push support.

<comment><USER16> To be fair, Gmail _does_ support the IMAP IDLE extension, which is the standard way of doing push email over IMAP. Mac mail supports it, and it works. (I actually get email notifications on my laptop before my Android phone.)

iOS only supports email push with iCloud or with a Microsoft Exchange server. IMO, this is really on Apple for not supporting the IDLE extension on iOS, rather than Google for not supporting a proprietary protocol for their free users.

<comment><USER17> > To be fair, Gmail does support the IMAP IDLE extension, which is the > standard way of doing push email over IMAP.

IDLE would become a major battery hog on the iPhone, which is why it was never implemented. I don't believe Android supports it natively either.

<comment><USER18> Why? It works the exact same way as Apple and Google push notification implementations do.

<comment><USER19> It requires you to have an active connection to the server all the time.

<comment><USER20> That's just an entry in a table maintained by the kernel. "Active connection" doesn't nescisarily mean data is sent over it. Also, the other poster is right, this is exactly how the other push notifications work.

<comment><USER19> Of course, but the point is that you have only one connection open (the one to Apple or GCM), not one for each app, one for each imap account, etc. If you let anybody keep a connection alive continuosly you end up with a mess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Apple's losing its mojo in a slow steady drip and there's going to be more of this if they don't get it together soon.

Apple used to be synonymous with premium equipment an a "It Just Works" experience. It made it really, really easy to just get the Apple version of anything knowing it was going to be good.

My parents need equipment, I get them an iMac, an Airport Extreme, iPhone, iPad, etc...knowing it's all just going to work.

And then somebody in the business unit started getting involved. Airport extreme is basically dead. They started trimming their product line so that they no longer have an option in every category like 17" laptops. They remove features that people don't want removed like the headphone jack and leave you with no other option aside from buying attachments or more expensive battery powered headphones. They started building in batteries in slices on the laptops they do sell, welding parts to boards so you can't open it up and change things out without paying somebody at an Apple store.

They started making design decisions that are almost purposely irritating like the new Magic Mouse. Look, it's got a rechargeable battery built right in! _battery dies_ flip it upside down to plug in the charger and just wait until you can use your computer again. God forbid you put the charger on the front so people could use it as a wired mouse if they wanted/needed.

Let's not forget using $30 USB cords to charge your phone/mouse.

The combination of all these little decisions is what is finally driving me away after being nothing short of a fanboy for about 10 years. I'm just tired of having a company that I tend to disagree with lately trying to make decisions for me so I'm starting the slow exit from Mac life.

Laptop first ( _waves at Dell_ ). Then a new router ( _waves at Asus probably_ ). Then a new phone ( _waves at Samsung /Google_).

And then, because the geeks in your friends lives tend to get asked for recommendations on what they should get for themselves...that stuff is probably going to spill over. I don't seem to be the only person feeling this way lately, so I hope whoever started making bottom line decisions at Apple is happy with the long term side effect.

<comment><USER22> I tried quite a few routers and if you are on a budget (or simply aren't fussed on giving $200+ for a router which is entirely fair) I found that the Asus RT-N18U is a fantastic device for the money. I attached my printer and external HDD to it and had almost no problems. The UI is better than most other vendors (Eero and Ubiquiti are still kings though) and on top of that they have a very decent mobile app as well.

As for Apple, I actually wanted to start investing myself in their ecosystem but as you very eloquently put it -- it seems the businessmen took over and things just go worse and worse with time. :(

<comment><USER23> I wouldn't recommend Asus routers. I used to have one, but got rid of it due to the serious security problems they were having:

[http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/02/dear-asus-router- use...](http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/02/dear-asus-router-user-youve- been-pwned-thanks-to-easily-exploited-flaw/)

[http://thehackernews.com/2016/02/asus-router-security- hack.h...](http://thehackernews.com/2016/02/asus-router-security-hack.html) (some random article I found, giving an overview of some of the other problems)

Now I use a Mikrotik. The only downside is the UI is quite powerful and allows you to hang yourself if you're not careful. It's definitely not for non- engineers. However, it does get regular updates since it's targeted at a more professional market.

<comment><USER22> I've read about that too a while ago, thank you. I believe those should have been fixed by now but being objective, we really can't know for sure, so I am with you here.

Please note that I said "if you're on a budget or you're not fussed giving $200+ on a router" however. I am aware that there are compromises to be made when one doesn't buy professional equipment. Not disagreeing with you. Only adding nuance.

FWIW I won't be looking for other middle-ground solutions after I figure it's time to upgrade again (which is gonna be in the next 1-2 years maximum). I'll just go full in with the 5-pack of Ubiquiti and hope for the best.

Do you know of any exploits in the Ubiquiti firmware?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I personally think the iPhone 7 is just a bad phone (quite literally, the phone audio itself cuts out or muffles when you are on voice calls, and everyone I know with an iPhone 7 reports this problem). Aside from that, the iPhone 6/7 body was/is always very ugly and uninspired, and the iPhone 7 is no better but loses a useful feature (headphone jack) while offering no benefit as a trade-off. I personally have an iPhone 7 Plus but I would not recommend it to anyone, it's the first Apple product I've bought and had buyers remorse about. If you want a new phone I would recommend to save money and get a 6S, or wait two more years for the next major redesign.

Oh, and let's not forget iOS, which has seemingly degraded considerably in quality to the point of being at the same level of disdain as Windows ME or Windows Vista was. Maybe it's entirely perception, but the bugginess of iOS was actually a group conversation topic during Christmas despite having a largely nontechnical crowd of guests, all of who were complaining about various difficulties and issues with their iPhones.

I wish I was optimistic about Apple, but instead I am concerned.

</comment><comment><USER25> The numbers coming out of Apple next quarter will be interesting. iPhone 7 has been underwhelming and reception to the latest MacBooks Pros has been mostly negative. And if sales are on a downhill trajectory, I wonder what the response inside of Apple will be.

<comment><USER26> I hope the market punishes them for removing the ports we regularly use from the MacBook Pro so when I'm ready to buy a new one in a few years they have brought them back.

In particular the removal of the magsafe power connector is maddening. By far my favorite feature of Macbooks and they removed it because??

<comment><USER27> No, in a few years everything will be USB-C. The ports are gone for good.

<comment><USER28> Yeah the devices are coming soon. I find it ironic that the new macbook pro works seemlessly with new google pixel devices, you can just plug in a usb-c cable between them, no dongles needed. If Apple wanted to be really bold they would have swapped lightening for usb-c so the new iphone and macbook pro could be connected with one simple cable.

<comment><USER27> Totally agree. I made a comment on the original MBP thread that Apple dropped the ball here by not releasing the iPhone 7 also as usb-c. I'll be shocked, and really wonder WTF, if the next iPhone is not usb-c.

<comment><USER29> They're kind of in a tough spot there, having licensed so many lightning port accessories and headphones, that many of their customers have since spent so much money on.

And to their credit, they created the lightning port before USB type-C even existed.

<comment><USER30> Then why not a dongle? After all, that seems to be the solution for everything else...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> My buddy has purchased every new iPhone on release day since the first version. Every new iPhone except the 7. He said "The one I have now is the last one I'll buy". He's not willing to give up the headphone jack. I expect there are many more like him so a 10% reduction in production is to be expected. To be fair the 7 is slick and nice in a lot of ways.

<comment><USER32> 10% or more reduction in the quarter after the holidays is always to be expected. This is just more of the usual "we need to write about _something_" journalism. Sigh.

(PS: anecdotally, 3 family members upgraded to 7s/7s+ in the last month. No complaints about headphone jack, it's really only a huge issue in the internet echo chamber while ordinary people in their vast majority don't care and just use whatever buds come with the device).

<comment><USER10> The article isn't talking about quarter over quarter growth, but year over year. Quarterly sales will likely decline, as they do most every year in the period and as is perfectly natural for this market. The story is that _year- over-year_ growth may be lower than expected and that iPhone 7 component orders are being trimmed down.

<comment><USER32> I don't see anything in the article that says it's a 10% cut compared to last year, but maybe I missed it, can you clarify?

<comment><USER10> "Apple will trim production of its iPhone family around 10% _on the year_ in the first quarter of 2017... This comes after the company slashed output in January-March 2016."

Along with the context that there is absolutely no news here if this is merely a dip in production from Oct-Dec to Jan-March as holiday sales are always high and then dip down significantly after January. The year-over-year trend is what matters.

Further context to back this up, from the USA Today article on this same story: "Apple has hinted throughout the year sales of its iPhone would decline. Fiscal year revenue for 2016 dropped for the first time in fifteen years. Meanwhile, _fourth quarter iPhone shipments were down 5% from the same time last year._ "

It's a year-over-year trend, which is relatively unexpected, not quarter-over- quarter which is absolutely expected in this period.

<comment><USER32> Ah, okay, I didn't know the _on the year_ term.

      there is absolutely no news here if this is merely a dip in production from Oct-Dec to Jan-March as holiday sales are always high and then dip down significantly after January.

Right, which is why I thought this was a non-article written in times of slow news. Thanks for explaining!

<comment><USER10> No worries and thanks for the reasonable reply! :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Like many of you here, I've also had buyers remorse with the iPhone 7 (Plus). I see everyone talking about putting the dongle on their headphones and leaving it there. Maybe my car is old fashioned, but I use my phone to stream spotify when I drive, which means the dongle stays in the car connected to AUX. I dont want to spend $10 on an extra dongle because that is fucking stupid. Not just this - but, like a fan boy, i purchased their new Macbook Pro with nothing but USB-C ports. The keyboard sucks, the touchbar is worthless to me (a sysadmin) and the trackpad is overkill. They removed the glowing apple, which doesnt affect my work but everything that was signature about the laptop has been stripped out. Do you know how stupid I look plugging my yubikey into a dongle into a USB-C port? I am a creature of habit so I just assumed that I'd get over all these changes but they are seriously impacting my use of the devices. It is not as easy to switch back to my iPhone 6 Plus but it is very easy for me to use my work macbook that doesnt have the gimmicky piece of crap they call the touch bar. The only positive on both the iPhone and MacBook is the battery life. Once they come out with something comparable that truly lasts as long, I'll switch away from Crapple.

<comment><USER34> If sticking yubikey into dongle to connect to your laptop is such a big deal for you, for the love of thigs why did you go full usb-c? Why did you get the touchbar model?

Seems like bad research on your end than poor execution.

As for keyboard, I really do enjoy it more then the sponginess of lterally any other laptop (including pre2016 mbp)

I do agree on the trackpad, seems overkill. But I didn't use it long enough to make judgement yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> This is so overdue, to a company that has become so safe in mentality and lack of innovation.

Edit: look at the latest Macbook Pro, how out of touch this company has become, to put their philosophy/belief(thinner! lighter! no ports!) before true usability, to the point I feel sad because MBP was my favorite product from Apple.

</comment><comment><USER36> Eh, I'll wait to hear the numbers. They reduce production every year at strategic times, I don't think it means doom.

</comment><comment><USER37> I haven't bought a new phone since they stopped the practice of subsidizing a new phone purchase every 2 years. I can't understand how they wouldn't expect that to have killed sales. I had been buying a new phone every 2 years but now I have no plans to buy one until I absolutely need to.

</comment><comment><USER38> Are we at the end of an era computing wise or is it just Apple? I wonder if computing technologies great transformation of our society is coming to an end. I also thought this in about 1993 and then again in the mid 2000s, so I'm probably wrong again. Maybe AI will be the new killer app that drives the next wave of upgrades.

<comment><USER39> No, there is simply more competition today, and market balances things out. Also, Apple grew too comfortable and stopped pushing forward. It was only a matter of time for this to happen.

<comment><USER40> Also, more in general, all the obvious improvements to the current smartphone form factor/concept have been made now: capacitive touch screen (iPhone), retina display (iPhone 4), fingerprint unlock/secure element (iPhone 5s), always listening Siri + Force Touch (iPhone 6s), plus huge improvements in CPU/GPU speed with all models. Where force touch was already quite a marginal improvement.

I have an iPhone 5S and my _primary_ motivation to upgrade would be to get a 64GB model. I just don't see any revolutionary changes in newer iterations (neither in Android).

The same applies to the iPad. My wife has an iPad Air, but I have no clue telling how many generations it is behind, without checking Wikipedia. It works fine and there is no real reason to upgrade in newer iterations (except perhaps in specific niches).

<comment><USER41> My thoughts exactly. Push forward in to where? And I think this is great for users. In the same way that my Core 2 Duo ThinkPad running Windows 7 (with SSD) does everything I need, I don't want to have to upgrade my phone every 12 months due to planned obsolescence.

I think one of the glaring areas for improvement is battery life. Won't someone give us the option of a 10+mm thick phone with a huge battery in it. Please.

<comment><USER22> Apple has a real opportunity to modernize iOS a lot and kick Google in the nuts since they are very content sitting on their ass doing practically nothing for Android.

\- Dark theme. Customization = good. Sends a good message.

\- More separate volume controls. For me one volume level for notifications and phone ringer is absurd in 2016.

\- LCD displays, really? The iPhone 7/Plus and the iPad Pro 9.7" are first of Apple's devices with an almost 100% correct color reproduction on the professional scales. About time for [s]AMOLED displays.

\- More privacy settings and abilities to break the sandbox if the user so desires. If I want 3 apps to have access to the same vault of files, then I should be able to!

Since I sold my 6S Plus back in July I forgot the rest of my complaints but I remember them being between 10-13 in total.

        > I think one of the glaring areas for improvement is battery life.
        > Won't someone give us the option of a 10+mm thick phone with a huge battery in it. Please.

That I absolutely agree with. The obsessiveness with thin phones is something many of us hate with passion. I am a 115kg man at 184cm and pretty strong -- and a bit overweight :D -- and I honestly can't tell the difference between 140 and 200 grams in my hand. I'm sure a 300 or so grams of a phone would be perfect for many people.

<comment><USER42> > \- Dark theme. Customization = good. Sends a good message.

I'm not sure if the customization option would come anytime soon, but a dark theme would very likely come out in 2017 when Apple releases an iPhone with an OLED display. It most likely wouldn't come if the lineup is all LCD (as it has been so far). This is all about battery life, which Apple obsesses about a lot. Assuming there's just text on the screen, with LCD, black text on white background would be better for battery life, whereas on an OLED screen, having white text on a black background would be better for battery life.

Edit: While Apple has shipped (LCD) iPhone models with new versions of iOS and sometimes darker wallpapers, my point above is more about many of the Apple apps, including Settings, Mail, Reminder, and so on.

<comment><USER22> I love it that they are obsessed with battery life. It seems very few OEMs remember what a _mobile device_ is these days. I like Apple for it very much.

That being said, I would buy the OLED iPhone in a heartbeat but only if it has bezels and has no curved screen. These fads are making normal human usage of the phones a huge annoyance and really need to die.

I'm very sad that I am seeing exactly the opposite: many people FINALLY got their brains warmed up and figured "Hey! Samsung did it, look how well their S7 Edge sold! Let's do the same!"... that's awful, sigh. They absolutely don't get it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I've had the 7 for a few months and I am considering returning it. The phone is overall solid build quality but uninspired/boring. There are flaws that make this model a definite downgrade from previous models. I buy Apple products because of the thoughtful little details they pay attention to that you didn't know you wanted till you noticed it. Its a super high bar to be sure but its one that is part of their brand and the justification for the insane markup they charge. I would compare it to buying a bespoke suit or a quality time piece. You pay this kind of money because you are serious about having the best and want every little thing just right. The 7 is just kinda "meh" and thats not how I want to feel when I spend this kind of scratch.

The headphone jack is of course super annoying and I run into so many case where I wish I had it (for instance when trying to play a song back through some monitors for my friends). Just such a stupid and unnecessary move.

The deal breaker for me (and can anyone confirm if they are experiencing this??) is that the lightning connector just refuses to stay plugged in if I jostle the phone even slightly. Tried different cables, case on and off. Always the same. Its possible that I have a defective unit I guess.

At this point the only things keeping me are a) I need an iOS device for some work projects. b) I am concerned that I wont be able to move all my data over to another platform without massive pain.

<comment><USER44> > There are flaws that make this model a definite downgrade from previous > models

Only if you go back to the 5, in form factor/design it's an upgrade in absolutely every way over the abysmal 6-series apart from the headphone jack.

Back of the 6 is full of dirty antenna lines, the materials it was made out of look and feel cheap and slippy, the camera wart is just another component stuck to the back.

7 has a premium black option again finally that provides much needed grippyness, camera thought still warty is an equal distance from the edge not lopsided and actually machined out the case, antenna lines are finally almost invisible again.

<comment><USER43> > Only if you go back to the 5, in form factor/design it's an upgrade in > absolutely every way over the abysmal 6-series apart from the headphone > jack.

I'm in agreement with you that the 5 series form factor is way better. I was in fact referring to the headphone jack and the problems with the thunderbolt connector as being a downgrade from the previous generation.

> 7 has a premium black option again finally that provides much needed > grippyness, camera thought still warty is an equal distance from the edge > not lopsided and actually machined out the case, antenna lines are finally > almost invisible again

TBH I think that most users (myself included) slap a case on these devices straight away so all of that stuff is kind of pointless. That attention to detail should be expected at this price point that said.

The 7 doesn't suck by any stretch. IMHO there are some flaws and design stupidity that just shouldn't have been allowed to make it out into the world so I'm considering alternatives. The S7 Edge maybe? Dunno.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm not surprised sales are weak: the regular iPhone 7 seems to offer few improvements over the 6s or 6, with only the 7+'s camera being a really notable differentiator.

<comment><USER45> Better camera, better screen, faster, waterproof, more ram, Taptic Engine, nicer finish options, more durable home button, and on and on. It's a better phone in almost every measurable way.

<comment><USER40> And still, for many daily users the differences are not going to be spectacular. At least not 'drop 700 Euro on it' spectacular. So I guess many people went from a 2 year to a 3-4 year upgrade cycle.

<comment><USER46> The camera upgrade _is_ spectacular. But yes, it's not a reason normal people would pay 700 € to upgrade, unless they're semi-professional bloggers/Instagram users/whatever.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Do we know if the lack of headphone jack has any effect on sales?

<comment><USER48> AFAIK all we have are anecdotes, but I know a half dozen friends that decided to "try Android" to keep their headphone jacks.

It's very possible they'll go back for the next iPhone iteration, but they didn't buy the 7 because of it.

<comment><USER49> What Android did they buy?

<comment><USER48> Some Galaxies (not sure which ones), one Nexus 6P, but mostly Pixels.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> For someone who waited nearly a month to get my iphone7 (as an upgrade from a galaxy s3) due to inventory being unavailable I'm going WTF - sluggish sales? then why did i have to wait so long? But then at the same time I compare my iphone 7 to friends iphone 6S models and realize...oh the only difference is the headphone jack if you dont do x,y,z...no wonder they aren't selling too many

<comment><USER27> Better screen, better camera, better external speakers, added waterproofing, and faster. I'm not sure what people were expecting when they say nothing has changed.

<comment><USER51> Out of that list, the waterproofing is the only one that really stands out. The rest are minor, iterative improvements. We're used to Apple making larger leaps on even years (4,5,6) then iterative improvements in odd years (4S, 5S, 6S). But this year they broke that - the 7 feels more like an iPhone 6SS than a 7. Yes, it's better, but it's not "full price for a new phone" better.

<comment><USER15> Aside from better battery life (better as in 3+ days of use) I can't think of much I'd want in a phone that isn't already there. Camera, display, speed etc are all fine for my needs.

<comment><USER51> I agree - which is why I, and many others, don't see the need to upgrade. That's the problem Apple is facing.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, still rocking the iPhone 6 here. I'd quite like the 3D touch that's on newer models, but not enough to pay for a new phone. Will likely stay with this until the battery drops off or it otherwise stops working.

Previously had 3G,3GS,4,5 so this is the longest I've a particular model.

Is the same stagnation in Android land too? I wonder how manufacturers will handle it in the long run?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Not one person has thought that this may be due to production of the next iPhone beginning. Cook is a logistics guy and under him, Apple keep inventory to a minimum. Add to the the fact that the quarter immediately following Christmas is always sluggish. This looks like a normal shift in production priorities.

<comment><USER53> If this were true, the supply chain would know about it.

<comment><USER52> I missing the part in the article where it says this was a surprise to the supply chain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Sluggish sales? Well, they're sold out (and with a sizable backlog) here in Portugal. A family member needed a new phone and we were put on a waiting list for "at least two weeks".

No 7, 6s or SE have been available (unless you really like rose gold) for a week or so now, at least in the couple of retailers and telcos I checked.

</comment><comment><USER55> Oh, HN audience: how transparent you are.

</comment><comment><USER56> Ironic that people continued upgrading for years when relatively few changes were made, and Android continued to improve.

Then, shortly after they finally made significant changes (e.g. expanded form factor choices), upgrades begin to slow.

</comment><comment><USER57> I'm definitely not buying an iPhone 7. Not only did they remove the headphone jack, they used their proprietary Lightning port. If they instead provided a USB C port, I'd consider it. That's at least universally available and I can see headphone manufacturers developing headphones which connect via USB C in the near future. Carrying around a headphone adapter is just too much of a compromise for me.

</comment><comment><USER58> I'm guessing iPhone 8 will be a enough significant design change to maintain sales.

However we are getting to the point with smartphones like we did with PC's ten years ago where they just became "good enough" for everyday use so the constant upgrades were less necessary for normal use.

</comment><comment><USER59> Does anyone know if this cut is:

\- sequential (fewer phones than christmas season)

\- YoY (year-over-year -- vs Q1 2016)

\- or vs financial guidance (an apparent difference between what they told their investors they would do during the last shareholder call and their now- current plan)?

Or is it something else?

</comment><comment><USER60> This happens every year after the Christmas quarter and the tech idiots always proclaim that it's the last nail in the coffin for Apple.

</comment><comment><USER61> "Breaking: iPhones sold well around Christmas, sales declined after everyone bought a new one, just like last year. News at 10."

<comment><USER10> This is not what the article says. It isn't discussing _quarter-over-quarter_ sales. It references year-over-year sales.

It is also discussing supply chain order volumes, which can indicate _future_ expectations of sales by the company (Apple).

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I just updated my ancient iPhone 4 for a Huawei P9 Lite. The main reason I chose Android was I hated iTunes. It deleted my music library and was impossible to manage. I really like the Huawei. It's fast, reasonably priced, has a decent camera, and a good screen, and I upgraded the memory with an extra 32MB for less than $20.

I had been led to believe that Android OS would be worse than iOS, but there's no significant difference that would make me want to go back to iOS.

</comment><comment><USER63> Isn't this just a way of trying to boost iPhone 7s/8 sales by cutting supply of previous gen?

</comment><comment><USER64> If they want to boost sales, bring back the headphone jack and get rid of 3d touch. Simple as that!

<comment><USER65> What's wrong with 3d touch? I'm a fan of it, especially its use on the keyboard to move the text cursor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> And yet Apple market cap (618b) is almost as high as MSFT and IBM combined (641b)

</comment><comment><USER67> My Christmas wish is that sales tank to the point of triggering serious introspection.

This would obviously bring back the headphone jack, and hdmi/magsafe to the mbp. ;)

<comment><USER68> Do you know any company which recovered from introspection? It feels to me like they all tank, whether it be Yahoo! or Nokia. My Christmas wish would be to have enough competition that we'd have a real choice for privacy, performance, jack/hdmi/magsafe/Fn keys, and open-source. "Be the change you seek", they say.

<comment><USER67> No, you're right. Alas, my wish is fanciful. :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> I hate not having a jack it really pisses me off

</comment><comment><USER70> Normally I'm not a fan of clickbait headlines, but the authors totally whiffed on "Apple to decimate iPhone production in the new year"

<comment><USER71> Finally the historical use of the word Decimate. To remove 1 in 10.

> The word decimation is derived from Latin meaning "removal of a tenth" \- > [http://www.dictionary.com/browse/decimate](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/decimate)

In Ancient Rome if a Roman Army was to be disciplined for desertion or mutiny they would be decimated and 1 in 10 soldiers would be killed by the commanding officer. They would use lottery system to choice the ones to be whipped to the point of death and then beheaded. - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army)#cite_n...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_\(Roman_army\)#cite_note-1)

<comment><USER72> True! I just read about the "decimation of Aethelwulf" \- the ninth century king of Wessex (current Great Britain) gave away a tenth of his empire in order to secure the kingdom during his pilgrimage to Rome.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Æthelwulf#Decimation_Charter...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Æthelwulf#Decimation_Charters)

<comment><USER73> Cool! I like reading about that stuff, especially so since I've also been watching the semi-historical fiction of "Vikings". The show is enjoyable even when not historically accurate but it then gets me to read about the similar things that actually happened.

<comment><USER72> I watched "The Last Kingdom" from BBC (which I recommend) and it made me want to know more about 9th century England. So far the book "Alfred the Great: the man who made England" by Justin Pollard has been fantastic if you're into that kind of thing. It's very well researched and historically accurate but not overly dry, Pollard makes a point of not including too many footnotes in the book as many of the more academically targeted books do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> WOW genius sneaky news release the day before NYE when all the traders are away from the desks and will be shitfaced drunk tomorrow and forget by monday.

</comment><comment><USER75> It would be good if it was true, though. Just to wake them up.

</comment><comment><USER76> The 7 is really extremely boring, and the haptic button feels terrible.

</comment><comment><USER77> I wonder how the pro Apple blog sites, where no news is bad news, will spin this.

"Apple to focus on quality not quantity"

"Apple to give its workers extra time off for the holidays"

</comment><comment><USER78> "Why Apple Was R̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ Wrong To Remove The iPhone 7 Headphone Jack"

</comment><comment><USER79> There's some real accountant-level decision making at Apple at the moment.

For instance, the MacBook Pro is exactly 3 lbs and the MacBook is 2 lbs. They were designed with weight contraints in mind rather than the user. You have to buy a DongleBook because of that.

Rather than a delightful experience, there is the feeling of having being conned and someone making your wallet lighter.

Not surprising considering who is in charge.

</comment><comment><USER80> I have an iPhone 6S since its first month. Just thought, you know, test it once. But I always look jealously at my friends who run Android phones for half the price. You can just do more with Androids, it's more efficient, the keyboard is more efficient, apps can run concurrently, and to my surprise even the cameras seem to be way better. Besides the brand I really don't know what reason there is to buy iPhones. So to me it is no surprise that the sales drops. Just means people still vote quality over empty brand value. (The same doesn't apply to Macbooks afaik)

<comment><USER81> As a counter to just one of your points, you can also run apps concurrently on iOS, in fact you can have them side-by-side, and for audio apps, multiple separate apps can generate synthesizers and other music simultaneously while another app mixes and records them. It's pretty neat stuff.

<comment><USER80> Can you link to a guide, YT video or something? I've never seen it in action. I just see a lot of my apps only get active when they are the front app. Side by side mixing and and generating sounds like the same direction I want to go when using a modern smart phone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> Bad news for smaller app developers: when Android becomes monopoly, apps will be pulled left and right from Google Play.

<comment><USER83> For what reason? I would wager that 3rd party stores would gain popularity should that happen.

<comment><USER84> If that happened, Google would stop letting you install those.

<comment><USER85> And you'd likely see a fork with support of the major handset makers and companies like Amazon. Google has a lot of control thru Play Services, but something that hostile would be a recipe for a split.

<comment><USER86> Oh right, something like Cyanogenmod, right? _ducks_</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Developer phones and other hardware - <AUTHOR> Google Pixel is out:
their new flagship phone which is aiming to compete with iPhone, particularly at the high-end - high quality video, sound, etc.
They seem to have discontinued the Nexus line.
What if I don't care about high quality video and sound.
I want to run a python repl on a train or address a server issue from a terminal on my phone from the back of a cab.
I don't want to send anonymous usage data, I don't want games and automatic updates, I want wifi and cell to switch transparently, I want it to be relatively rugged...etc
It also seems MBP is moving away from regular developers.
What products are for us? <comment><USER2> Yeah, this pissed me off, I'm not sure of good alternatives at the moment. To be fair, the Pixel probably isn't a bad developer device, but being tied to a single provider sucks.</comment>


Lego-Like Architecture: $5,000 Homes from Recycled Plastic Blocks - <AUTHOR> http://weburbanist.com/2016/08/18/lego-like-architecture-5000-homes-from-recycled-plastic-blocks/ <comment><USER2> The irony is that virtually anywhere in the world "locally sourced materials" now includes a staggering amount of plastic.

Considering the ocean is on the verge of containing more plastic than fish, it'd be refreshing if people started harvesting the plastic as a resource.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have built 3 houses. Walls are among the cheapest components of a house. Stackable modules (of which there are many kinds) like these do eliminate some of the need for skilled labor and offer some advantages. My personal favorite is site-made concrete blocks. In Mexico I have seen blockerias consisting of a four block mold, a pile of sand, sacks of cement, and a hose. They are not ideologically glamorous, but they are very practical and cheap.

</comment><comment><USER4> Seems great, though I would say the lack of insulation means they will be most useful in tropical climates. But I don't see why they couldn't make doubled-up horizontal beams that could hold two courses of 'lego' bricks with space in between (which could be stuffed with plastic bags, at that).</comment>


Why Twitter Should Not Algorithmically Curate the Timeline - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/message/the-algorithm-giveth-but-it-also-taketh-b7efad92bc1f

<comment><USER2> I agree with the author. Just look at Netflix. smh</comment>


How DuckDuckGo is fighting an 800 lb gorilla (Video interview with Founder) - <AUTHOR> http://thestartupfoundry.com/2011/03/02/how-duckduckgo-is-fighting-an-800-lb-gorilla-video-interview-with-founder/

<comment><USER2> Am I the only one that fails to see a problem with Google search? I'm all for fighting the 800 lb gorilla. I love to support the little guys with big ideas, and I'm usually quick to realize and point out flaws with the incumbents.

But with Google, I have never had any issues. It does exactly what I need it to do, and it does it instantly. It gives me the results for what I meant to search for even if I typed my search completely wrong. In the matter of seconds I can learn about any topic that pops into my mind, no matter how ridiculous it may be. I can't even remember the last time I had to click that itty-bitty "2" at the bottom of Google's search results.

"The relevance of the articles have been declining"? Bullshit.

"Content farms"? Who cares. If they give me the answers I'm looking for, I'll gladly wander over to those content farms.

"Privacy" What?

Don't get me wrong. I live for the David and Goliath type stories, but I think these guys are going about it all wrong.

<comment><USER3> >Am I the only one that fails to see a problem with Google search?

I agree with you about google's spell check, relevance, and speed.

DDG's !bang search is a killer feature for me, though. I can type "!wikipedia topic" in the omnibar and it gets me to the exact page I'm looking for, without stopping at a middleman. The same feature makes google maps, images, videos, and youtube easier to use to with ddg as my default search than with google as my default search. I have been surprised by the amount of search traffic that I redirect to something other than a general web search now that it is convenient for me to do so.

<comment><USER4> Chrome:

Ctr+T | "wi" | <TAB> | Topic

Ctr+T | "the" | <TAB> | Torrent

Etc..

<comment><USER3> Thank you for that, I hadn't found that feature. It specifically isn't working for me with wikipedia or google maps, although it works beautifully for a couple other test cases.

<comment><USER5> Search once, and it'll be added for future use. Search more frequently and number of characters required to type preceding <tab> will reduce

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have a probably dumb question about search privacy, but what are the chances of Google actually screwing up/getting hacked, and spilling our search histories into the public (like AOL from a few years ago)?

DDG's search results are fine, but I like Google just a little bit more. Assuming I don't care about the government or Google's advertising algorithms, and I just don't want my private thoughts/questions spilling out into the public, does the risk make it worth using DDG?

<comment><USER7> Well, it's sort of a hard question to answer. But Google has been hacked in the past. <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/operation-aurora/>

I think the creepier (and more likely) problem is an Evil Googler. <http://gawker.com/#!5637234>

Not that that is a problem that just Google has, but given that Gabriel really has no way at all to link two searches together, let alone build a profile, makes it attractive to me.

I also seem to be one of the few people who actually finds that DDG returns much better results. All the people I've talked to irl seem to think the opposite. Wonder if that is a placebo effect of sorts on my part ("DDG is one, pretty cool guy so of course it's better than giant corperation!") or what.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Gabriel is such an excellent speaker, I'm not sure why - something about him just makes you want to listen.</comment>


Homesteading on the indie web - <AUTHOR> http://markmhendrickson.com/homesteading-on-the-indie-web

<comment><USER2> It is always a good idea to have your own domain name and web site. I have used one domain for about 15 years to collect "stuff I am interested in" and as a home for open source and writing projects. My site has helped me get connected with a lot of interesting people over the years.

Participating in sites like Twitter, HN, G++, and perhaps Facebook has always, at least for me, been about getting pointed towards interesting information - basically to help find an hours worth of interesting and useful technical reading each day. It is not about creating a personal brand or identity. I think this is the right approach so I agree with the article.

So, have your own domain, make your blog a subdomain, communicate about what most interests you, etc.

</comment><comment><USER3> I like the idea of a certificate. One of the problems with the autodidactic movement is a lack of 'proof'. You can be a self-made guru but but there's no formal way to prove that to an employer.</comment>


Binance accidentally took 12061,48 and won't give it back - <AUTHOR> https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/ga027j/binance_accidentally_took_1206148_and_wont_give/ <comment><USER2> Crypto is so last decade, I think they still talk about it on Telegram

</comment><comment><USER3> if this is true, then it's terrible and it's instances like this that make crypto look like an absolute shitshow...</comment>


Show HN: Impressionist with Filepicker.io, a presentation tool - <AUTHOR> http://mit.edu/~georgiou/www/Impressionist/app.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I forked Impressionist (posted yesterday <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4364778>) and integrated filepicker.io to make it more awesome

Source at <https://github.com/tageorgiou/Impressionist>

<comment><USER2> You also might want to check out <https://github.com/tantaman/Strut>, it's more modular and active in development than Impressionist.

<comment><USER3> And it actually works in non-webkit browsers! Thanks for the link.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nice. I like how web applications get so much better once you can import your own content.</comment>


We already have enough libraries, let's just retool and staff the ones we have - <AUTHOR> http://adamprobolsky.com/i-bet-there-are-100-libraries-within-ten-miles-of-your-house/

<comment><USER2> "I Bet There are 100 Libraries Within Ten Miles of Your House"

There is precisely 1 library within ten miles of my house, and it's a 40-minute walk away.

That said, I wouldn't use the library even if it were closer, and I agree there is no point building more libraries :)

</comment><comment><USER3> definitely true of python... so many abandoned libraries. Oh wait... he means a real library :)</comment>


When can we have such CSS3 effects in Mainstream? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nikesh.me/demo/image-gallery.html

<comment> mike-cardwell Right now... Just make sure it falls back gracefully on browsers without support, unlike the demo.</comment>


The Rise of the Generalist - <AUTHOR> http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/09/16/the-rise-of-the-generalist/

<comment><USER2> Sometimes the specialist/generalist discussion misses something by being too black and white. A computer is created by specialists, but empowers generalists and specialists alike. Founders and CEOs need generalist skills to complement (not replace) their specialist skills. It helps to be a specialist when job hunting - until your skills are out favor, and then it helps to be a generalist.

<comment><USER3> It used to be that there wasn't a debate. There was a choice of whether to be a jack-of-all-trades or not, but it was always pretty clear that both sides had advantages, and both sides were needed for a functioning system. Nobody debated whether each side was needed.

It's even murkier today, though, because while I'm a specialist (IT), and I'm a specialist (programming), I'm also a generalist (web, mobile, desktop... I do it all) and that kind of thing didn't really happen before. You were a handyman, or an electrician. Not some weird hybrid of the 2 where you went down 1 specialized path, only to branch out at the end.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The job market disagrees with you. Corporations want exact or near exact match to their requirements if they are to consider you for a position.

Keyword scanning of resumes by HR and managers looking to minimize the need for training has led to this.

For start-ups I agree with the assertion. Otherwise the reverse is true.

<comment><USER5> But then, is the change going to come in the form of a post-corporate world? One where, because of globalization and hyper-specialization happening beyond our shores, the US undergoes a second "industrial revolution" vis a vis the generalist contractor, who has no corporate affiliation as far as career/jobs go, but goes from job to job, doing whatever is needed and filling in roles as necessary, often from home? From the trivial (stuffing envelopes, follow-the- sun sales/customer support, transcriptions) to non-trivial (programming/development, deployment and remote monitoring and management of cloud compute services, translation, creative output, paralegal or administration), all while on 1099 rather than salaried full-timers. And, this kind of generalist work can be also farmed out, as well, to specialists. What the labor-intensive fields like construction and farming has done with subcontractors and day-laborers, we (meaning both big megacorporations _and_ startups/microbusinesses/mom+pops) can do for our own "softer" industries.

Which, then, begs the question: Is the future a world of mega-multinationals making and doing _everything_ for us? It really seemed to be prior to the 2008 crash. It may be my perception because I'm working on my own multiple side projects and I frequent HN so much, but I feel like the ground is shifting. It looks like it's becoming more of a post-corporate scenario, where the incoming generations Y and Z distrust the corporations by default in favor of the small, more personalized and targeted, vendor (on or offline). One needn't look further than HNs own submissions to see the popularity of indie made goods,the popularity of Kickstarter projects, microISVs (little web apps, mobile apps by small teams), the popularity of Etsy and the Humble Indie bundle and runaway stories like Angry Birds, indie scribes Amanda Hocking and John Locke, and even smaller winemakers and microbreweries. It looks like things are flowing in another direction.

<comment><USER4> Perhaps but I believe the trend of more and more wealth being concentrated in a smaller and smaller percentage of the population indicates that smaller is getting smaller and bigger is getting bigger.

The future for most may very well be as 1099's forever moving between projects but I don't think the vast majority of them will match the income of their corporate-working predecessors. The post corporate world will for most be due to corporations jettisoning expensive human resources in exchange for less expensive resources available elsewhere rather than being due to a populist rush to return to the age of the craftsman.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sure, it's possible to do a lot of things with a computer as a generalist, but as soon as you really need to start digging in and getting to details, you need the specialists. Those that know all of the nooks and crannies of the technology you're using. There are always going to be general concepts that apply across different technologies, but that doesn't mean that you can just have a bunch of generalists that produce.

Just one example without even leaving the software development world: If I'm a Ruby developer (I'm not) would you hire me to work on your trading system built in C++?

<comment><USER7> > Just one example without even leaving the software development world: If I'm > a Ruby developer (I'm not) would you hire me to work on your trading system > built in C++?

It depends on a) my assessment of your transferrable skills and b) your domain knowledge.

In fact, coding language skills are not the best indicator of whether a prospective employee is a good fit for a particular position.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "To be good you can be a generalist and you could also be a specialist. But the trick to greatness is to be both."

Paraphrasing from memory, source unknown.</comment>


Entrepreneur, the Magazine That Sues Entrepreneurs - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_22/b4230078121476.htm <comment><USER2> Paragraph that sums the article: An attorney with the corporate law firm Latham & Watkins informed Castro that EMI owns the U.S. trademark for the word "entrepreneur." With 2,000 lawyers in 31 offices around the world, Latham polices EMI's intellectual property aggressively. The firm even instructed Castro to surrender his domain name to EMI. "If you fail to abide by these demands," the letter said, "Entrepreneur Media will have no choice but to take appropriate action to prevent continued use of an infringing mark and domain name."

Looks like an app store issue! How can a business trademark a single English word that effectively describes the industry?

<comment><USER3> I'm curious if it would stand up in court.

Microsoft owns the trademark for "Windows", but walk into a hardware store and you'll see dozens of companies that freely use windows in their name. I've never heard of Microsoft going after them.

<comment><USER2> Trademarks are granted for certain products and services. In Microsoft's case, it's computer services or something. If you try to offer an operating system with a name that has Windows in it, then you would be sued.

Here's an example: [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Microsoft_vs....](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Microsoft_vs._Lindows)

<comment><USER4> You're right in general, but that example doesn't support it: MS didn't win, but bought the trademark. _For $20 million._

<comment><USER2> Here's a list of other trademark litigation cases: [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Microsoft_lit...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Microsoft_litigation#Trademarks)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Entrepreneur Magazine is the exact match domain of the magazine world. Because of the name entrepreneurs will always read it, but the content is rarely good enough to be worth buying or even shelf-reading.

<comment><USER6> I totally disagree about the content.

I find it to be the absolute best small business / entrepreneur magazine out there. I prefer it over Inc and others by far.

It opens your eyes beyond tech as it covers so much ground.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Single page:

[http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/11_22/b42...](http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/11_22/b4230078121476.htm)

</comment><comment><USER8> When I hear EMI, I don't think of Entrepreneur magazine. I think of the EMI Group, the British music company. It seems this "EMI" has some other brand confusions to take care of.

A quick search on uspto.gov reveals that there are several "EMI" trademarks.

</comment><comment><USER4> > In the end, Ernst and EMI settled their differences confidentially and out > of court.

Pragmatic.

Curious side-note: when it was first introduced into Victoria Australia, Hungry Jacks (Burger King in US) failed to trademark the term "whopper", because was a generic term. But, today, it's a registered trademark. Over time, advertising can create an association.

</comment><comment><USER9> Should 50 people be allowed to create magazines titled "Entrepreneur", regardless of whether the word is commonly used. If you are the first to think of something, shouldn't you have some _limited_ right to protect whatever investment you are making in developing the idea. It is certainly fair to ask if someone else's magazine title is sufficiently similar as to be confusing, but that isn't a question for a judge and/or jury to adjudicate.

As technologists, we may instinctively view most attempts to use the law to protect intellectual property as abusive, but at least there is a transparent, although expensive, way to solve conflicts.

Think for a moment about how brands, like Entrepreneur Magazine, are built on the internet. The authors work very hard to develop interesting content and then try to get Google to rank the content. Unless you get very large, or spend a lot of money in traditional brand advertising, it is unlikely that anyone will find your content without Google's help. If someone comes along and steals your content, and puts it on a more "trusted" site it may well be seen by more people than the original (there have been plenty of Hacker News articles pointing this out). In this case, the only redress is to try to get Google to listen - certainly an uphill battle. Again, as technologists, we may feel that Google system is fairer because its an algorithm, but when a spammer abuses the system there is rarely any redress.

</comment><comment><USER10> Do any HN'ers actually read Entrepreneur magazine?

<comment><USER11> I used to. Like another comment says, because of the name many aspiring entrepreneurs read it.

The thing is, when you don't know _what_ you don't know it takes a while to recognize good advice from piles of obvious bullshit like this magazine articles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm not sure what the author of the article is trying to prove... that trademark law can be (and is being) abused? At least he had the integrity to quote the EMI lawyer throwing examples back of Bloomberg engaging in similarly questionable legal action.

As several people have already pointed out, there is Windows, there is Time. Oddly no-one has yet mentioned Face and Book.

<comment><USER13> There is a difference: Microsoft Windows has nothing to do with panes of glass in walls; Time Magazine is not about clocks or watches. You're not supposed to be able to trademark a pre-existing industry term within its own industry; Lowe's Hardware should not be able to register "plywood" as trademark for plywood and sue Home Depot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> They also own a magazined called "StartUps": <http://www.entrepreneur.com/magazine/startup/index.html>

Does that mean they will sue all the companies with the word "startups" in their domain name as well?

</comment><comment><USER15> Here's a sideways look at this:

If you have a trademark you are _legally_ required and compelled to go after anyone who is infringing on it. Otherwise it is deemed that you have let it lapse into the public domain.

 _enter debate on trademarks, patents, blah blah etc..._

My point is that clearly EMI should not have been awarded a trademark on the term "entrepreneur" in the first place. However, once that trademark was granted, there was no other option but for them to start aggressively guarding it.

(and to a lesser extent EMI, if they had any decency, shouldn't have attempted to trademark it).

Don't hate the player, hate the game, etc

<comment><USER16> _Don't hate the player, hate the game, etc_

I'm amazed that almost invariably, when a business doing something egregiously despicable pops up hear, someone here comes up with a "don't hate the player..." type argument.

But the argument falls flat in this case. Entrepreneur Magazine could give up with their trademark tomorrow if they wished. The only thing your argument shows is that to keep their evil, parasitical business model, they have to keep aggressively pushing that evil, parasitical legal extortion on all concerned - they can't just lazily extract only a few unearned bucks from a few unlucky folks.

I think we can hate the player and the game here...

<comment><USER15> As I said elsewhere, if they gave up the trademark, someone else would probably register it and do the same. Thus hate the game.

<comment><USER17> And I suppose if I didn't <negative action verb> your <relative>, some other bloke would?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Given this article, I'm kind of surprised that they are using @EntMagazine for their Twitter handle. Why not sue @entrepreneur into submission too?

</comment><comment><USER19> Stardock was one of the victims that had a game called it.

</comment><comment><USER20> quoth: EMI sees no irony, let alone bullying. In an e-mail, the company's lead attorney at Latham, Perry J. Viscounty...

lol Perry J. Viscounty

</comment><comment><USER10> Wow</comment>


The AI Machine: BMW Group Selects Nvidia to Redefine Factory Logistics - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2020/05/14/bmw-nvidia-isaac-factory-logistics/ <comment><AUTHOR> The ultimate in AI technology is now helping build the ultimate driving machine.</comment>


Freedivers who swim with whales - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29209139 <comment><USER3> Re-purposing and embellishing an old comment of mine:

Among all free diving warm blooded animals sperm whales go the deepest. They dive to depths 25 times deeper than their other equally famous and endangered cousin the blue whales. To give an idea of how deep they dive, here is a picture [http://i.imgur.com/ESp2j.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/ESp2j.jpg) It needs to be magnified for perspective and for the little surprise at the bottom.

They are also fast divers/risers. It is interesting how they manage to hold their breath for so long and yet manage to survive the bends (decompression sickness. They do get bends related damage but they can survive it).

The whales are challenging our assumptions about animal intelligence, empathy, society, culture and language. For a long time we believed that the primates were at the top. Search Ted talks and youtube for dolphin intelligence, dont miss the Attenborough ones. For lack of a better word they are just amazing.

Dolphins are for example known to build difficult to make toys (air bubble vortex rings) just to entertain themselves. They have to discover how to make it. Sometimes they can be quite possessive, they would break the toy if someone not so knowledgeable wants to play with it. Once a dolphin figures it out how to make one, his/her peers eventually figure it out as well. So it kind of spreads within a group like fashion, their version of the hula hoop.

This behavior has been observed both in captivity and in the wild. Dolphins in captivity try to imitate us and seem to have no trouble mapping our body parts to theirs.

A story goes that a scientist observing an young dolphin from an underwater portal had blown a cloud of cigarette smoke at it (on the human side of the glass). The dolphin promptly went to its mother and did the same to the scientist with dolphin milk ! Which BTW is almost as thick as tooth paste and is more squirted out than sucked.

It is now strongly believed that dolphins and killer whales call each other by name. Dolphins in captivity try to imitate human speech which takes enormous effort on their part because unlike for example parrots their vocal tract is not conducive for this at all. People believe this to be an indication of their strong desire to communicate with us.

And they originated from ungulates: hoofed warm blooded animals. It came as a surprise to me that that there were hoofed carnivorous animals.

@walterbell thats my favorite part of posting this. I say wait for it, a fellow HN'er will surely be here with the answer any time now....and I was right :) You saw the weird octopus headed thing right ? that's a hint.

<comment><USER4> Your interesting comment led me to do some more reading on whales and it seems that Cuvier's Beaked Whale now holds the record for both deepest and longest diving mammal.

A study of this whale published in March of this year recorded a dive of 2,992 meters (9,816 feet) and another dive lasting 137.5 min.

Pop science article: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140326-cuvie...](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140326-cuvier- beaked-whale-record-dive-depth-ocean-animal-science/)

Actual study: [http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna...](http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0092633)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the comment, I stand corrected.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > The gurgle of scuba equipment, submarines and robots that are normally used > to study marine life tend to spook whales. To avoid scaring them, the Dare > Win team have abandoned much of this technology and use freediving > techniques instead, using only a mask, flippers, and a single breath of air > to dive dozens of feet deep into the ocean.

SCUBA doesnt make any more noise than freediving other than the bubbles, which can be solved by using (somewhat expensive) rebreathers [1][2]

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebreather](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebreather)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebreather_diving#Other_advanta...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebreather_diving#Other_advantages)

<comment><USER6> Scuba diving does make A LOT of noise indeed.

When I freedive I can hear scubadivers by their loud sound from far away; even when I cannot see them underwater nor their boats on the surface. Then, I change location because I know I won't be able to catch any fish where they are.

Even the slightest noise can scare fish, not to say marine mammals like whales. Of course I'm talking of those in open waters, not in marine reserves where they are used to humans.

I've been swimming with dolphins in the Mediterranean but they were very shy. Friends of mine have been freediving with common rorquals (2nd largest whale in the world, 75Ton) also in the Med. Their pictures which I'm no sure I'm allowed to share are just breathtaking. We, the human beings are so small compared to whales!

Also, a friend of mine has a rebreather. It's quite an expensive equipment and needs a special training in order to be used. They are quite complex too compared to regular scuba. Besides making no bubbles, rebreathers allow longer dive times. It's the best way to approach marine life without scaring all animals around besides freediving.

<comment><USER7> Is it true, that a freediver can stay under water for 4 minutes? I recently held my breath for as long as I could and measured 4 minutes (I am a trained swimmer). But without moving at all and the last minute tends to be - <USER2> :o)

Are there techniques, or is it just training?

<comment><USER8> > Is it true, that a freediver can stay under water for 4 minutes?

Yes. It's true. This doesn't mean anyone can do it.

> Are there techniques, or is it just training?

Yes to both. One technique is to over-oxygenate yourself before diving. Another is to minimize oxygen use while on the dive, easier said than done, but possible.

And four minutes isn't all that special:

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2154442/Free- diver-b...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2154442/Free-diver-breaks- world-record-holding-breath-underwater-22-22-minutes.html)

<comment><USER7> Impressive. 20 minutes. Of course only 10 minutes without oxygen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Even accepting that whales are peace-loving, gentle creatures who mean no harm - isn't this insanely dangerous? They are enormous and massive. They could accidentally crush you and not even realise it, like a dog playing with a beetle.

<comment><USER10> Sure is. The article acknowledges this:

> I never wanted to swim with sperm whales. I'm not an adrenaline junky with a > death wish

> while swimming side-by-side with them, sperm whales can accidentally smother > you, decapitate you with their tails, and many researchers believe they can > also vibrate your body to death with their most intense vocalisations if > they choose

I occasionally step on snails despite, for the obvious reasons, being quite willing to go out of my way to avoid doing so. Same problem here.</comment></comment>


How Bad Entrepreneurial Judgment Killed Half-Life 3 - <AUTHOR> https://mises.org/blog/how-bad-entrepreneurial-judgment-killed-half-life-3 <comment><USER2> Interesting that there isn't anyone at Valve that feels enough ownership to the franchise to push it along.

It seems like if you threw a compelling script into a development studio it would be hard NOT to make it happen... there's such a desire for it (but maybe that's also scary now).

On the other hand... I guess a huge part of Valve isn't a development studio these days and a lot of their development projects involve short-term profitability vs long-term investments (DOTA kind of is/isn't an exception to that).

I also wonder if the flat "do something good for the company" structure cramps the creative process a bit — if someone tools around with an idea for a year without anything beyond concept work to show for it... is that welcome at Valve? or would it be perceived as a burden by others who are working on short-term projects?

I do recall there being a previous falling-out there with an employee doing R&D hardware work (was it VR related? I can't remember)

</comment><comment><USER3> Gabe Newell is doing an AMA on reddit later today: [https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Gaben/comments/5o8fsy/gabe_l_ne...](https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Gaben/comments/5o8fsy/gabe_l_newell_will_be_joining_us_tuesday_the_17th/)

<comment><USER4> When asked about rumors about HL3 begin canceled today he responded :

"I personally believe all unidentified anonymous sources on the Internet".

source: [https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Gaben/comments/5olhj4/hi_im_gab...](https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Gaben/comments/5olhj4/hi_im_gabe_newell_ama/dck9hyk/?context=10000)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Although I know gamers and fans want HL3, and I say this as a huge Half-Life fan, I can't imagine a scenario where releasing Half-Life 3 would be a good business decision for Valve.

Releasing Half-Life 3 or episode 3 in 2008-2010 could have been good for Valve, in the sense that it would tie up lose ends in the story for players and would have sold well enough to be profitable. At this point Half-Life 3 is the most hyped game that has never existed and it'd be very hard for them to live up to most people's expectations. Valve is a pretty data driven company, and they have a lot of data about what sells and what players are playing. I don't think it's coincidence that most of the top played and top grossing games on Steam are Valve games and that Valve has moved away from single player games in favor of multiplayer games as a service.

There haven't been many commercially successful single player only, or primarily single player AAA campaign based first person shooters in recent history. Half-Life 3 could probably follow the model of last year's Doom and be successful, but it wouldn't live up to a lot of people's expectations. Doing something weirder, niche, outside of the box or supporting Valve's new business models (making HL3 VR only or a online competitive multiplayer or sandbox game) would alienate people, even if the game is amazing and innovative, because its once again not what they want from a Half-Life game. I don't believe Valve can make a Half-Life game without angering a large segment of fan base and ending up in a No Man Sky type situation. The cost of AAA single player games has skyrocketed as well, so I'm not sure if Valve wants to hire and spend the money on Half-Life 3 in terms of production values and content. Maybe eventually there will be an HL3 once Valve creates a game making AI that can read your mind and perfectly tailor a game to your expectations :). Valve could also make "Half-Life 3" without calling it Half- Life 3, I guess.

That Valve has not released HL3 and probably never will shows a strength in their business and business model, not an inability to execute or a flaw. Current day Valve is not the same company that made Half-Life and Half-Life 2, but I think they foster innovation and high quality games in a more impactful way (Steam, hardware, VR, etc.)

<comment><USER6> They could avoid the hype situation by just releasing HL3 without any buildup. Drop it on us out of the blue. Sure, it wouldn't live up to many people's (unrealistic) expectations, but they wouldn't have an NMS problem because nobody would have pre-ordered it, or been actively anticipating it before release. It would just be out, and people could buy it, or they could read reviews first, or whatever else they want to do before plunking down their money for a copy.

That said, I agree that Valve will probably never release HL3. There's not much benefit to doing so at this point, and it will likely piss off a lot of gamers when the game doesn't match their expectations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> An interesting tidbit about Valve is that for some time, Yannis Varoufakis worked there, before he became the finance minister of Greece. He became of course (in)famous for his work in the left-wing government, his rejection of the "troika"'s demands, and being one of very few influtential economists with a Marxist background (not to speak of his unconventional style). But before that, he was advising Valve on virtual enconomies (I think for Team Fortress 2).

So, I wonder if there is any connection between Valve's unconventional organisational structure, and the fact that they attracted this influential left-wing thinker. What I heard about Valve reminds me of some left-wing cooperatives I know in Europe (factories, shops, farms, ...), where the employees share ownership and decision making. Unfortunately, many of those struggle with similar problems - but not all, some are also fairly successful.

I don't think there is neccessarily a left-wing or liberal political idea going on at Valve, but probably there was a kind of co-evolution of this hierarchy-less idea in tech and in leftist circles? A quick google search suggests that Varoufakis (who blogged about his time at Valve) was aware of this similarity.

<comment><USER8> I believe he was doing an academic study of the economics of in-game purchases with them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This just confirms what I have always suspected. That Valve's flat structure couldn't get people to work on it.

Which is a shame because even an inferior hl3 would have been guaranteed to make money. Hell they couldn't even finish hl2 episode3.

<comment><USER10> Perhaps they should sell the rights to another developer. I wonder how that would work in the flat structure.

<comment><USER11> I believe this was actually the case, Arkane Studios was contracted to work on a Half-Life title before they were purchased by ZeniMax

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> (And how Valve doesn't care since Steam prints money.)

</comment><comment><USER13> People don't understand that Valve is not really a video game company anymore.

<comment><USER14> That's vague (thus arguably incorrect). Valve makes a video game every few years, and sells more video games except for about five other companies.

<comment><USER5> This is commonly mentioned on the internet because Valve puts a lot of effort into Steam and hardware, but they also have (at least) three games in active development that are among the top grossing games on Steam, and among the top grossing and most played PC games.

No one would say, Blizzard, Riot, Supercell or Machine Zone aren't game companies because they rarely release new games and most of their revenue comes from a few, large player count (or high monetizing), consistently played games. I've taken it mostly as code for "Valve doesn't release Half-Life or Portal games as much as I'd like" :).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is consistent with discussions I've had with various Valve employees and former employees over the years. If you want your project to succeed you need to evangelize it within the company and get people to join you. Which is a lot of work!

Note: I have never worked at valve!! Though I visit friends there from time to time.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm glad they never released HL3 yet ; maybe they (collectively ?) feel they need to find something really new and exciting before releasing a new HL.

I'm really interested in understanding/criticising Valve flat management but this article doesn't seem to make a good argument

</comment><comment><USER17> So what? They couldn't be bothered to create another sequel. They went on and did something different. That is admirable, not something to frown upon...

Many economists don't have a clue...

<comment><USER18> That's also something the article mentions. If you're not going to read it, indignant superiority is a risky attitude to project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'd like to see more of the concept art from episode 3! Less talk, more art please!

Anyway, Valve can always do another sequel, I don't think age will make that any worse an opportunity.

</comment><comment><USER20> Libertarians discovering the benefits of central planning… film at 11!

<comment><USER21> When they use "central planning", they mean when the decision making process is interfered by a govt/state authority. Their wiki is down, but here is an archive for more info. on their definition of "central planning": [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YXC5Xl...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YXC5XlteU_UJ:https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Central_planning+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I suppose as long as they keep being showered with money from Steam, they don't really have an incentive to end with that chaotic way of organising the corporation.

<comment><USER23> At the same time, it would be nice to have that level of resources to devote to a project like HL3, even if it was only "sold" to the bean counters as an excellent way to boost the company's reputation and "standing" from a marketing angle.

Then again, as picky and vocal as gamers can be, would they even want to risk ending up with a less than stellar result? At this point the status of HL3 has become so huge as to provide countless running jokes and cliches. Could they even risk putting out something that wasn't the second (third?) coming?

<comment><USER24> Is it long-term good to make a something no one wants to make well?

Remember what happened to Star Wars? Lucas pumped out a prequel trilogy that made a ton of short-term money, but then put a 15 year delay to wash away the filthy taste, before Disney took over and started self-perpetuation engine pumping out enjoyable and massively profitable movies</comment></comment></comment>