Peter Thiel says the age of Apple is over

A few Apple- and tech-related tidbits from Maureen Dowd’s “Confirm or Deny” with Peter Thiel for The New York Times:

Maureen Dowd: You did the seating chart at the Trump tech meeting.

Peter Thiel: Deny.

Dowd: You like “Star Trek” more than “Star Wars.”

Thiel: Deny. I like “Star Wars” way better. I’m a capitalist. “Star Wars” is the capitalist show. “Star Trek” is the communist one. There is no money in “Star Trek” because you just have the transporter machine that can make anything you need. The whole plot of “Star Wars” starts with Han Solo having this debt that he owes and so the plot in “Star Wars” is driven by money.

Dowd: Google had too much power in the Obama administration.

Thiel: Confirm. Google had more power under Obama than Exxon had under Bush 43.

Dowd: California should secede.

Thiel: Confirm. I’d be fine with that. I think it would be good for California, good for the rest of the country. It would help Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign.

Dowd: The age of Apple is over.

Thiel: Confirm. We know what a smartphone looks like and does. It’s not the fault of Tim Cook, but it’s not an area where there will be any more innovation.

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: We believe Thiel means that the age of iPhone is over, not Apple. Either way, he couldn’t be more wrong.

The iPhone age has many years left in its run and Apple, of all companies, has done it multiple times (Apple II, Mac, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch) and, we’re certain, will do it again!

SEE ALSO:
President-elect Trump meets privately with Apple CEO Cook, tells tech leaders: ‘I’m here to help you folks do well’ – December 14, 2016
Tim Cook, other tech elite attend tech summit with President-elect Trump at Trump Tower in Manhattan – December 12, 2016
Tech investor Peter Thiel’s embrace of Donald Trump for U.S. President has Silicon Valley squirming – July 20, 2016
Tech billionaire Peter Thiel funded Hulk Hogan lawsuit to take down Gawker which outed him, Tim Cook, and others – May 27, 2016
An open letter from Apple co-founder Woz, other techies on Donald Trump’s candidacy for U.S. President – July 14, 2016

79 Comments

      1. Apple’s NEXT 30 YEARS is going to be helping people stay & become healthier.

        There is nothing more valuable for us than detecting serious health issues early enough to do something positive in stopping or eliminating those problems so people have more productive, enjoyable lives.

        The health Apps and hardware sensors have already appeared starting over 3 years ago. They are just not mainstream yet. A lot of companies will launch products in the coming year.

        Imagine if your health monitor App could detect a sudden change in body weight, strength, exhaled lung chemicals, oxygenation, heart sounds &/or electrocardiogram and your doctor’s clinic was notified within seconds and a real time response given back to you to either come to an office appointment or “Go to the Em. Dept. now.”

        These things are possible now, today. The NIH knows it has to use these indicators/tests at home if they are ever going to lower healthcare costs in the US. The NIH through Medicare/Medicaid already partially cover the health costs for 130 million people, so they know what they have to do.

        1. In my opinion there is nothing more detrimental for us than detecting serious health issues early. There are far to many humans on this planet and the more we defeat nature and natural selection the more of us there are to cause it’s destruction.

          1. Lifespan will not go up materially, but the total lifetime cost of healthcare (your taxes) could go down a lot if we have early detection.

            There is a doctor shortage in 40% of the States already and doctors are retiring at an accelerating rate. For you to get care, we better have some solutions like early detection.

            1. There won’t be a need for many doctors in 20 years. The devices and AI will detect abnormalities and repair.

              Also within twenty years or less people will be able to turn the clock back on their age. I don’t know how long people will be able to live, but thousands of years doesn’t seem out of the question.

              And there won’t be negative impacts on population growth because of one child policies, and/or some will begin to leave Earth to colonize other planets.

              As it is, Earth could sustain many more billions of people if pollution is reduced via battery cars or other clean forms of creating energy, meat is created instead of grown, and forests are replanted.

            2. MoHu: Sounds like a sci-fi book is in your future. I don’t think it would entertain me b/c I like my fantasy kind of books to have a touch more reality.

          2. That is a wholly repugnant thought. Perhaps you would like to volunteer. Next time you need to go to the hospital for a life threatening injury or illness – don’t.

            By what measure are there too many people on the planet? Starvation occurs not because we cannot produce enough food but because it is not distributed everywhere it is needed due to war and inept government economic controls. Maybe you think we ought to have more wars.

            Socio-economic quack Paul Ehrlich predicted in the 1960s that roughly 20 years later the world as we knew it would come to an end. But as you may have noticed, we’re still here with a population more than double. Some say 10 billion is the limit. I’ve seen estimates as high as 220 billion! Who knows. Historically, every time someone has said we will run out of resources if the population expands beyond a certain point, it has turned out that they grossly underestimated our ability to expand those resources.

            1. A lot of people like to claim dwindling resources are our biggest issue, but they’re ignoring something important to our survival as a species. Space. And quite often, these same people are opposed to, or deride, the exploration of space.

              Which I find to be incredibly myopic (and self-destructive), and short-sided for so many reasons too numerous to go into depth here… but the next paragraph should be enough for anyone who can see beyond the end of their own nose.

              We have a solar system just chock full of raw resources that can be had just by going where they are and getting them. No need to dig, or mine, or drill…. and consequently no polluting the Earth getting stuff out of it.

              Of course most of these are in the asteroid belt and the satellites of the gas giants, but there’s enough to last a long, long time.

              The big problem isn’t in getting to the stuff, or in getting it back here. It’s just in the time it will take between those two. It will take months… even years for some stuff, but humans have taken that kind of time to do things before… and for a lot less return in the long run. Magellan took 3 years just to circle the Earth, and not that long ago whalers voyaged for years at a time.

          3. Overpopulation is not an issue it has been shown once most countries have become ‘wealthy’ countries their growth in population slows and stagnates at a certain point. This is true with almost all countries and the world population will not reach 12 billion for a long time. There is a lot of research into this you might want to check it out. FYI natural selection has been over for a while although it is slightly still prevalent it is not at all effective in any way. Greater population is sometimes better for a large scale epidemic, for the chance of someone growing resistance to a particular pathogen rises as the population does. What could ACTUALLY be detrimental is pollution of the environment and war. Both things that can cause distress in the future.

    1. Agreed. Thiel responded with a gross and flawed oversimplification. The Federation was *not* communist, although the ready availability of basic items (food, electrical power, etc.) certainly changes the economic landscape. There was interstellar trade and currencies in Star Trek.

      Furthermore, Star Trek focused on IDIC (infinite diversity in infinite combinations) and important social issues while Star Wars focused on freaking space wizards that generally made things worse, not better, combined with tremendous evil, bigotry, greed, and militaristic aggression. Star Wars is a space opera. Star Trek explored the potential for humanity to evolve towards a more positive and cooperative future.

      1. Especially the part of California seceding. There is no way, CA is bankrupt now and without federal assistance they would be the first state to go under. Now Texas might be a different story.
        Hey, I’m all for CA seceding as long as they pay all their debt before they go. No IOU’s and who’s going to protect them when China starts putting their aircraft carriers off their coast?

        Thiel likes hearing himself talk.

        1. Hey iGads, I have a question.

          Why do you say that “California is bankrupt now” when the state government ran a 2.8 billion dollar budget surplus in 2016?

          1. Dude, you do know the difference between real debt and a pretend balanced sheet, right?

            “More recently, the state government and media began referring to the state’s billions of dollars of mounting debts as a “Wall of Debt.” Generally, state officials and the media depict that “wall” as $26.2 billion, far smaller than it actually is. California’s actual wall of debt is $443 billion.”

      2. Since most of the original Star Trek took place on board a Federation Starship, would one assume that everything received through the replication devices was automatically debited from their credits? If not, then was the Federation actually a slave-based society?

        1. The replicators convert energy to matter, so I suspect that in that time energy is near ‘free’ to allow a cash-less society. Or if you are on a ship perhaps you have ‘rations’ of energy that you can use as you see fit.

    2. Thiel is a troll – says crazy shit just to see how people react.
      Or, maybe his mind is so scattered and disturbed that he actually believes his own bullshit.
      I can’t tell which is the case, but it doesn’t matter. The appropriate response to either situation is: don’t pay attention to what he says, pay attention to what he does and stop him from hurting people whenever you can.
      That’s a good plan when dealing with a lot of different troubling people.

  1. He doesn’t even know anything about Star Trek. The transporter isn’t what makes things. It only transports you from here to there. The replicator is what makes things.
    The age of Apple is over my ass. This guy doesn’t know anything.

    1. Actually you’re mistaken, at least somewhat. The technology that powers the transporter is in part powered by the same technology that is responsible for matter replication. It is matter replication that creates a post scarcity society in the Star Trek/Federation world. In the world of Star Trek need is eliminated, scarcity is eliminated. You just walk up to the machine and say “I’d like a turkey sandwich and a glass of milk,” and matter is reconstituted into your meal. According to the lore of Star Trek this works for pretty much anything except living organics. It was the development of the process of replication that allowed for the transporter.

      There is however nothing communist about Star Trek, nor is there anything capitalist. Complex economic systems are pointless when anyone can have anything they need.

      The interesting question then becomes, what do people live for when survival is taken out of the mix? What would you choose to do with your time?

      Star Wars, on the other hand, depicts what happens when a massive Hitlarian/totalitarian socialist Empire, controls the means of production and the materials through force, and chokes the life out of a Republic/representative form of government similar to the United States. A band of plucky libertarians called the Resistance opposes them, fighting not for equality, (there’s plenty of equality under the Empire), but for Freedom.

        1. I would argue that Star Trek does not deal so much with Egalitarianism, as it does with individualism.

          In the world of Star Trek you are free to choose what you wish to do with your time. It has been stated more than once in Star Trek that the primary goal of most people is self improvement.

          Consequently how you live is up to you as an individual. It is not a matter of who you are equal to but whether you are equal to the tasks you choose. There is no one to blame for your failures but yourself. There is no one to take credit for your successes but yourself.

          1. So what does it mean to be human in the Star Trek universe? Without the need to struggle for survival, would humanity continue to progress? Undoubtedly, some would choose to better themselves. Perhaps a large majority would not, preferring not to study but to eat, sleep, and passively consume media. In a society like that, who gets to make decisions? Can democracy work in such an environment?

            All life was born of struggle. Removal of that from the human experience would change us profoundly and, perhaps, not for the better.

            1. Struggles remain, just not those linked to limited resources unless you are on a colony planet or something. Democracy would still exist to deal with and hopefully solve other sociological problems including those that may crop up among Federation member races.

        1. True but that need for energy and resources has been abstracted higher than the individual or ‘national’ level reducing friction between individuals/groups significantly.

  2. “We know what a smartphone looks like and does … it’s not an area where there will be any more innovation”.

    Well this might be the dumbest quote I’ve read since Ballmer announced that the iPhone would get no serious market share. Wow. Can you imagine where smartphones will be in 5 years, 10, 20 years.

        1. “It would be absurd to suggest that women’s votes will be taken away or that this would solve the political problems that vex us. While I don’t think any class of people should be disenfranchised, I have little hope that voting will make things better.”

          uh, no, that does not say “Peter Thiel doesn’t believe that women should have the right to vote.” To the contrary, Thiel espouses that would be absurd. You might consider a position at BuzzFeed.

          1. Mr. Thiel originally wrote: “Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron.”

            It was only after his words sparked controversy that he later revised his article. It says this on the Cato site already linked. I just happen to believe that he meant what he first said before his words came under fire and he was forced to publish a retraction.

            1. I’m not, his original words are as brian stated. The article I linked states it was changed. That’s all I’m saying, not rendering any opinion on this one.

            2. Even in his original quote, Thiel makes no statement regarding the abolition of suffrage…which is what the original comment from Bryan J Blumberg intentionally & maliciously stated:

              “Peter Thiel doesn’t believe that women should have the right to vote.”

            3. I’ll go with you on that, i don’t think that’s what he was saying either but that’s how it was interpreted by a lot of people especially women in my office. I think the sticking point is when he says “extending the franchise to women renders capatilst democracy an oxymoron” . And yes in a classically purely economic libertarian sense, he is correct. By seeing welfare or any intercedence by the government as a change to the original constitution, hence changing it is seen as oxymoronic. But from a social sense, it’s backwards. So there is room for disagreement with the statement, but I think women see it the way Bryan was saying although his phrasing was inartful.

            4. To site a cause and a subsequent effect does not mean you do not agree with the cause. It simply means that as with all change, there are consequences. The question is are the consequences worth it?

              Bottom line, should women have equal rights to men? Answer, “Yes, of course.”

              Consequence: Men have more competition for jobs, power, and wealth. The nuclear family suffers. Society must be reinvented.

              It is what it is. Change.

    1. Not what he said, even in his original post. To say that the women’s vote renders capitalist democracy an oxymoron is not at all saying he doesn’t believe women should have the right to vote, except in the inaccurate, vague, willfully misunderstood world of lefty politics. George Orwell, you are needed.

  3. Ages last millions of years, so it’s a bit premature to say that it’s over but I’d be willing to be that Apple will be around a bit longer than the chump will be.

    Mind you saying that the age of Apple might be a threat, I mean it’s pretty obvious that the chump is a bully and a cry baby and that might reflect once he finally gets that new bright button to push.

  4. MDN please add this guy to the bunch of quotes from all the other bozo naysayers from 2005 onwards.

    Then please publish the whole list again so we can all have a big laugh again. Sent the list to Thiel and Dowd.

  5. They will never stop. Jealousy have no boundary.

    The FUD’s gonna grow even more in 2017…

    It is about time to kill this unique, useless, universal planetary hit and get back to real innovators like Shamesung, Gaarlge, Fakebutch.

    Apple is too strong, even in their own inconsistency. They make everyone else look like sub-prodcuts. Lets kill this Apple once and for all.

    Who’s with me!

    1. The new term for FUD is fake news…how ingenious!

      Apple has been the fake news champion of the world for ever, but the DDs and the zombies have found a leader in Trump and his detached from real reality misfits.

      Apple will hopefully one day have a real phaser with moron detection built in that will stun and freeze stoooopid, so we can all piss on them.

  6. Hi! I’m Scott Forstall (@forstall)

    The NY Times’ Maureen (Saddam has WMDs) Dowd writes another fake interview.

    I can make Apple super innovative again, better than my friend Steve Jobs did.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.