Apple’s Tim Cook: The Full D11 Interview [video] | Hacker News Reader

Apple’s Tim Cook: The Full D11 Interview [video]

allthingsd.com

55 pointsadamsmith53 comments

I was pretty surprised how hostile the interviewers were. It seemed like they were trying to trick him up rather than interview him.

They cut him off a few times, not sure if they would have gotten away with that with Jobs. I would have stated that the market still follows Apple, sure there is competition but rarely do new game changers come from other companies. Apple is still a leader. Name one thing (other than a phablet) that other companies did first... Google Glass is one, and there might be more but largely the market still follows Apple's lead at least for now.

I do think the sidetrack on the market and taxes is something Cook needs to hand off if he wants to be a product guy, again Jobs would have slayed the shorts and not given them another minute. Cook is an excellent operations guy, needs to stay focused on product to be guy. Getting tired of the 'post-PC' era line.

He should have asked them what devices they use and what other companies have come up with that wasn't following the Apple product path. Samsung makes good products, but they were making phones before Apple, now they follow their lead.

"Name one thing (other than a phablet) that other companies did first..."

Sure, no problem, the Pebble watch: http://getpebble.com/

Edit: Yes... Apple will likely crush them on June 10th with a much better executed product. But always remember that Apple were not the innovators here.

I dig the Pebble, not sure if I'd wear one but it is a nice product and I supported the kickstarter.

But, it is a third party product, not widely available yet. Apple doesn't launch something that is pre-order or not available within that quarter on a wide scale, they are hype driven but when they drop a product it is available on a wide scale. Does Samsung or others have a wearable other than Google Glass? Is it available anywhere? I want one no doubt (Google Glass) but I can't get one. Microsoft is famous for hyping before a product is available. Apple doesn't talk until it is ready to launch + conquer.

Also, the e-paper screen is something apple would never do, the screens on Apple if they do a watch will be superior. They still have better screens than any competitor. Apple, if they do one, would look more like a Nano on the wrist.

Personally I think Apple could do well with an AppleTV/App/Gaming Console device extending AirPlay like OUYA + Roku and hope they do that. I supported OUYA as well and hope to get my console soon, taking forever.

I dig the Pebble, not sure if I'd wear one but it is a nice product and I supported the kickstarter.

I think this will be the general consensus of any "ground breaking" wearable time keeping device. I just can't see Apple shaking up the Rolex market.

The watch market seems like a "status" market, ie you get a Rolex not for its timekeeping abilities but for the name. A whole heaping generation of youngsters and technology enthusiasts are getting to be the age of status symbols (car, house, etc). I expect they want something also technological in nature when it comes to their watch - something cool, something better than two hands that rotate a fixed amount of time. I can see Apple shaking the shit out of the timepiece market - or else someone else will.

"Name one thing (other than a phablet) that other companies did first"

The smartphone. The mobile device as an independent computer. The voice interface. The web browser. The app store. The notification panel. Push messaging. The lock screen widget. Cloud synchronization. Instant messaging. Panorama images. Mail. Calendar. Documents. Maps.

Apple has a track record in making good and successful products from already existing ideas and products. It's called innovation, and other companies do it too.

Apple's innovations are mostly hardware then software to sell hardware. People are looking at Apple (primarily a hardware company) to innovate on hardware (please, please a beefed up AppleTV like game console/app console). Software like you describe is secondary to them.

But I will say this, Apple funded and created Webkit (Safari/Chrome/Chromium + now Opera), funded Khronos.org and OpenGL ES/WebGL which has retaken the lead and saved OpenGL from near death, <canvas> is also largely to thank from Apple. That is just the tip of the iceberg there. Those are bigger innovations software wise than the feature innovations you mentioned.

Also the app store is largely Apple's doing, everyone followed their lead there. Yes there were other good appstores like Handspring/Palm back in the day but none like the appstore. Apple even revolutionized gaming and handheld gaming as a side thing. Still an innovation leader even when it is software.

"I was pretty surprised how hostile the interviewers were." They are always like that. Every video interview I've seen on their site is exactly in that tone.

Yeah, and not just Walt and Kara, but the Q&A from the audience as well. My favorite is the guy who asks why Apple won't let him dream.

That guy made me think about the fundamental differences between Apple and Google. We often compare the two because they compete in many of the same fields but it's odd to think Apple should always fight with Google products 1 to 1.

If Apple isn't interested in a providing fiber internet to the masses it shouldn't be seen as a misstep.

If Apple releases a wearable, it'll be an interesting test to see if competitors have learned from Apple's success. As in, will the iWearable be as fundamentally different from other watches/bracelets as the iPhone was from prior smartphones? Or will it be essentially the Apple version of the Pebble/Jawbone Up?

Being late to the game didn't stop Apple from dominating smartphones and mp3 players, but at those times (6 and 12 years ago respectively), they were the only ones focusing on design, simplicity and ease-of-use.

I don't think it's fair to say Apple was the only company focusing on design, simplicity and ease-of-use prior to 2001. For example, the palm treo was much easier to use than other "smart" phones of the day. The difference between iPhones and other phones was epic, but it was also generational.

There were people at Motorola focused on these things and they made the RAZR, which dominated the world mobile market for years. Compared to other "feature" phones of the day, it was remarkably awesome (granted some people hated it but its hard to deny its success).

Apple did it better, but they weren't the only ones trying. The fact that they did it much much better than their competition does not necessarily indicate that other companies weren't trying.

/end rant

In other news, Apple watch should be a solid touch screen bracelet. IMHO.

And don't forget Google, who got famous for some of their design decisions early on. E.g. the minimal design of google.com, and the "undo replaces confirm dialog" pattern.

Your "undo replaces confirm dialog" quote blew my mind the second I read it. Is there a specific article discussing this design element?

It's crazy how something simple goes unnoticed when you use it, but when pointed out you realize the thought process behind it.

I'm sure it's not the first documented instance of the principle, but it's part of Android's Design Guidelines. "Decide for me but let me have the final say." - http://developer.android.com/design/get-started/principles.h...

Aza Raskin discusses the feature in 2007: http://alistapart.com/article/neveruseawarning . I don't know if there is more/better material on the topic.

Personally, I have a very positive memory of when I discovered this feature in the early days of Gmail.

Edit: Guide van Rossum also wrote about this in 2005: http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=97581

Aza Raskin's father Jef incorporated the idea in his design for the Canon Cat, released in 1987. Notably, he felt Undo was such an important operation that it deserved its own large key[1]. He discussed many ideas behind the design, including universal undo as an alternative to confirmation, in his book The Humane Interface[2].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canon_Cat_keyboard.jpg [2] http://books.google.com/books?id=D39vjmLfO3kC&q=undo

Apple's ability to turn relatively new product categories into caché products is impressive. But one thing to consider is that the wearable market has been around far longer than the other markets that Apple has moved into.

For instance, the long term existence of a wearable time keeping device has allowed others to cultivate over time the caché market that exists today. Think Rolex, Cartier, etc. Apple is going to have a hard time breaking into that high margin market.

Would you consider the prior portable music market (Walkman, Discman, etc) a parallel?

Of course, time pieces have a much longer history. But as far as the modern consumer/brand marketplace is concerned, portable music devices certainly predated earlier MP3 players by decades, at least.

Underestimate Apple at your peril, as has been amply demonstrated.

It's very unlikely that any Apple product would be designed to compete against the ultra-luxury brands you cite. With consumer oriented products, Apple shoots for the high-middle, where they can capture a high margin on a vast scale. Think BMW 3-series, not a Rolls Royce or Veyron.

An hour of talking about nothing. Why not ask broader questions, and get more interesting answers?

I noticed that as well. He basically answered nothing even though they were taking a pretty hostile stance towards Tim.

Does anyone else think that Apple is pretty late in its interests for wearable technology? I mean I'd have thought that by now, Apple would have something ready.

But then again, when smartphones came out and Apple expressed interest in them, no one could thing of something as beautiful as the iPhone. So maybe it's the same thing here. Still weird to me.

As you say, Apple has a history of do it late but do it right. Whether they can do it right under Cook's leadership is an entirely different question however.

I don't think it's weird at all. In fact, I think it's normal given their history of only embracing technology that is ready and able to provide (in their opinion) a great user experience; If they can't see a way to do it well, they won't do it.

Apple was late in MP3 players too but just dominated the market.

Although I'm more invested in the Android/Google ecosystem, I'd like to see Apple release their own products too.

Android has improved a lot and big part of that is its competition with iOS.

They only develop one new product category at a time, so they wouldn't start on anything new until the iPad came out.

Everyone is talking about wearable computers but no one knows yet what it should look like (heck, I don't either, but certainly it isn't cyborg glasses). It was the same with tablets. Apple's strategy seems to be focusing on launching good products or nothing at all so it's understandable if they are late to the game.

The interview is sad though. The interviewers are too rude at times, it seems bashing Apple is the new thing.

I wouldn't put down Google Glasses so quickly. I really think they're on to something; even if it's a bit ahead its time socially.

Google Glasses (Googles) are all fun and games until some glasshole loses an eye from being punched in the face.

What fraction of the people you know had and regularly used a MP3 player when the iPod came out?

What fraction of the people you know had and regularly used a smartphone when the iPhone came out?

What fraction of the people you know have and regularly use wearable technology now?

I don't think the answer to that third question is higher than that to the other two.

Also, in some sense Apple has been selling wearable technology for years, in cooperation with Nike.

He also dismissed any broad customer interest in AR products such as glass, while at the same time hinting at future "wearable" products from Apple. That strikes me as a strange and possibly regrettable position to take.

My coworkers say Tim's statement "We always focus on making the best products" is BS.

I disagreed, but wonder how that reconciles with a rumored low cost iPhone. If Apple introduces a "low cost" phone (vs. just lowering prices of previous generation models) how will they spin that with Tim's methodology?

It doesn't make any sense to invest in development to make a cheaper product when you can simply lower the cost by absorbing the development cost of a previous generation that is still great and runs the latest software because it had a generous design and specs to begin with. Heck, I still own only an iPhone 3GS, it works fine.

The "low-cost" strategy is for companies that have slim margins on a high-end line (that serves mainly as a way to advertise the brand and relate it to high-quality), but really make the bulk of the profits on poor-quality low-end. E.g.: cars, DSLRs cameras, running shoes... almost all manufacturers work like that nowadays.

Personally I think the low cost iPhone, assuming it is actually more than a rumor, will be more akin to a re-skin than a new endeavor. Wall Street, Tech writers, and those swayed by smartphone marketing don't want to see an "old" iPhone 4S for sale, they want the iPhone Mini! They don't really care what's inside of it so long as it meets their needs and can be perceived as new and cool.

The previous model iPhone generally is relegated to "old/uncool" status as soon as the new model comes out. Shrinking the packaging of the 4S and maybe adding a couple token updates like the Lightning connector, dual flash, iPod Touch lanyard, etc at a price to make prepaid and postpaid phone customers happy will likely be enough to shake the "old/uncool" label and make the aforementioned groups gush for Apple.

Yeah, an idea I've been grasping lately is that the market segment looking for something 'new and shiny' is actually underestimated. If true, I guess it places more emphasis on name/fashion feel of the product even when techies try to "see through" that.

Apple's "low cost" phone will still be sold as a premium product and will be priced accordingly, assuming they do it.

This is a shockingly terrible interview by Tim Cook. He dodged constantly and rarely actually answered a question (instead redirecting by answering something that wasn't asked).

He said they weren't religious about not supporting their software on multiple platforms. If that were true, iTunes would be on Android. The honest answer would have been: we believe putting iTunes on Android would hurt iPhone sales and help Android erode our market share faster.

He completely evaded the discussion on how Apple intentionally evades taxes, almost to a cowardly degree in fact. Obviously the entire global Apple corporate setup is designed to evade taxes, top to bottom. It was dishonest for Cook to pretend otherwise. This is par for the course with big company CEOs, but it's still cowardly.

He did a horrible job discussing iCloud and why it's limited to Apple products, while the competition is multi-platform. The obvious reason why, is Apple is trying to protect iPhone sales. Under no circumstances do they want you using iCloud or iTunes on Android.

Most of his answers about products, present or future were the same monotone lame response: we're focused on making great products. No shit.

On patents he again acted like a coward. He tried to completely evade the fact that Apple started the lawsuit wars in smart phones. He came very close to lying and claiming outright that the competition was responsible for starting the patent war. He might as well have pretended that Steve Jobs never said what he did on the matter.

On a question that was about advertising, he dodged massively, and redirected by answering that iPhone app sales are three times that on Android. He obviously was desperate to evade the fact that Android's huge user base means ad supported apps are generating sales far beyond iOS (he didn't even mention iAds, for good reason).

When asked a straight forward question about streaming vs content ownership, he couldn't have possibly dodged any more. Instead of answering it, he simply said that iTunes is still growing. So he ignored the issue of Netflix, Pandora, Spotify, Hulu, YouTube, etc taking over the media landscape as iTunes begins to rapidly lose its music dominance (for good reason he avoided talking about books).

Also, when asked by Mossberg why Apple does not constantly churn out top hits (using a music metaphor) it apparently didn't occur to him to reject the premise of the question. The obvious answer would have been "I disagree, Apple continues to deliver a constant stream of big hits every single year. What you're really asking is how often do we get to invent entirely new genres, and I assure you you have seen nothing yet. At the same time you have to keep in mind that innovation is not a mechanical process occurring at regular intervals."

He said they weren't religious about not supporting their software on multiple platforms. If that were true, iTunes would be on Android.

How does that follow? I think it's a rather strong signal that they're going to do it. Let's not forget that following his announcement that he wasn't "religious" about hoarding cash, a dividend program was announced. Let's not also forget that once upon a time they ported iTunes to a dominant Windows with incredible success.

HN: I don't think we should aspire to comments like the parent that are filled with vitriolic personal attacks and name calling.

Well we'll find out soon enough. But then again Jobs promised Facetime would be cross-platform almost 3 years ago and there's still nothing there.

Tim Cook could start by getting the Apple Store app (1) to Android and WP8. There's no reason not to and it'd be helpful for Apple's core business.

(1) https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/apple-store/id375380948?mt=8

It would seem a better return on investment to make the App Store work better in IOS than invest on an (at this stage) also-ran platform like WP8. However investing in android whilst keeping the 30% would be amusing, and, if it worked, amazing. But it's not going to happen is it...

It was also a shockingly terrible interview by Walt and Kara. I don't get why they were so desperate to get secrets out of Cook. I'm guessing they know that he would never answer questions regarding future products, so why waste everyone's time? Jobs seemed to dodge these questions by sharing his views on the future of technology. Cook always replies with the "area of great interest" line, which (paired with the "we're focused on making the best products" one) made up almost the entire hour.

Maybe a crowd funded site to bribe Kara to never do one of these again.

HN, really? This is the #1 comment?

If you're going to criticize, criticize. What's your problem with the post? Tear it apart so there's a real discussion on the points brought up.

> intentionally evades taxes, almost to a cowardly degree in fact.

To a "cowardly" degree? What does that even mean?

This tech witchhunt over companies not paying optional taxes is getting pretty crazy. How long before it becomes "cowardly" to use the deduction on mortgage payments or medical expenses?

Attempts to limit high earners' use of deductions like that for home mortgage interest are already routinely described as "closing loopholes" in the language of much of the media and the Democratic party.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/sequester/the-presidents-pl...

Limit tax deductions to 28% for the wealthiest and close other loopholes.

I won't even start on the deliberate confusion here between "high income" and "wealthy".

Yet, I bet every Democratic Senator still takes that deduction.

So if they feel what Apple is doing is "legal, but immoral", tell me, if these Senators believe the mortgage deduction is "legal, but immoral", why do they continue to exploit it themselves?

You and I and apple avoid taxes. They are not evading. Do you intentionally pay more taxes than the law requires you to?

I think its important to remember that this is a WSJ interview meant to not to befriend industry leaders but to grill them on investors behalf. If you watch previous ATD interviews with Steve Jobs even, you see some of the same attitude from Kara, and Walt.

If you go back far enough in ATD, you can see Walt mocking Steve Jobs before he had completed their comeback. Mocking Steve's demo of iTunes. Which saved the company.

I think the worst you can say about this interview was, Tim Cook is not as disarming (and in some cases dishonest) as Steve Jobs was.

And it was boring to see WSJ tech reporters try and call him on the carpet to expose a vision, just to please the stock market.

We all were left unsatisfied by the excersis, but ATD shouldnt call itself a tech event, if its really just a second rate version of an investor conference call.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com