or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › ARM-based Windows RT seen confusing consumers, benefitting Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ARM-based Windows RT seen confusing consumers, benefitting Apple - Page 3

post #81 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post


I just have to laugh that you are in a Apple forum complaining about another company using proprierity standards.

 

what "proprietary standards" is Apple pushing that they created?  

post #82 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Microsoft has obviously lost the plot, there is nothing post-Windows 7, post Xbox360 that makes any sense. Again, I call on Bill Gates to remove himself completely from Microsoft, because while he is still tied in with it, I place him as founder and visionary responsible for Microsoft having lost its way, also because he's kept on his college buddy as the person that has also, basically, done nothing much for Microsoft. I admire Bill's philanthropic efforts and hope that he focuses on that rather than nurse the limping horse that is Windows.

Metro on Xbox360, and Xbox360 itself shows what Microsoft actually can do right. It's clean, fresh, simple, practical. Oh, it's also CLOSED AND PROPRIETARY. Funny how that worked out, huh? 

Windows Phone, Mobile, RT, 8, 9, 10, Bulldog, Falcon, Scooter, whatever they are coming up with, clearly makes no sense.

Almost anyone "non-tech" that has actually spent five minutes with an iPad and made a decent effort into understanding OS X for a few days would simply tear their hair out at having to use Windows. It is simply a decrepit and obsolete mode of not only "computing", but "living".

I think there's some truth to the statement that Microsoft's future desktop PC operating systems are not very exciting. However, the same is true of Mac OS X. It's been years since there was a new OS feature I got very excited about. And while there will undoubtedly be future improvements in the OS, most of them will be things that are not immediately obvious to the user - like resolution independence (the user won't immediately notice that they're using a resolution-independent OS on a 2400x1800 screen instead of the old OS in a 1200x900 screen). They'll simply notice how much clearer and sharper everything appears.

I believe it's because operating systems (all of them, even including Linux to a lesser extent) have gotten good enough that users are, by and large, happy with their OS and no longer need dramatic changes. It's not like the 90's when each OS had major issues that needed to be addressed and the major issues interfered with user experience. Combine that with the fact that modern hardware is so much faster than most users need so there's really no need for the OS to find faster ways to do things. That's part of the reason the PC industry is floundering. A decade ago, some businesses were replacing computers every 2 years. Today, a 4 year old computer is more than sufficient for the majority of users, so replacement rates are way down. Same thing with home computers. Until 5 years ago, I bought a new home computer every 2 years on average. I've only bought 1 in the past 5 years.

That's why Apple has pushed the 'post-PC' concept so hard. The PC industry has reached the point that it's a commodity and all of the excitement is gone.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #83 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead View Post
what "proprietary standards" is Apple pushing that they created?  

 

FaceTime's protocol, QuickTime's MOV format, the current state of ePub creation in iBooks Author… 

 

Let's see… Ah, ALAC. 

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #84 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

FaceTime's protocol, QuickTime's MOV format, the current state of ePub creation in iBooks Author… 

Let's see… Ah, ALAC. 

Is creating a proprietary standard the same as pushing it? Everything you've mentioned lives side-by-side with other standards.

FaceTime - Made up of many open protocols and doesn't disallow other A/V services from running on their devices. I'd wager Skype, also proprietary, is still more popular.

.MOV - This is just a container and you can use it and other containers on your devices by default, even with the same codecs inside.

iBooks Author - This uses ePub and other formatting because there was no viable option for Apple to use here. Creating an ePub version, even if 3.0, simply would work hence Apple's need and desire to make their own.

ALAC - This is another option for users but Apple uses the AAC standard across the board. Apple doesn't use FLAC or OGG for reasons that look to be potential costs. They say it's royalty free but if a company like Apple started using it I imagine there would be a slew of lawsuits claiming how Apple is infringing on their IP via Xiph codecs.

Bottom line: Many open and free standards today were once proprietary. All these companies use both as they both suit their needs. If Apple opens these up it won't be because they are altruistic but because they feel it will help them make even more money in some way.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #85 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
Is creating a proprietary standard the same as pushing it? Everything you've mentioned lives side-by-side with other standards.

 

Exactly. The mark of a real troll comes when you can't even try to help their argument out. lol.gif

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #86 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Exactly. The mark of a real troll comes when you can't even try to help their argument out. lol.gif

It certainly makes you better at debating when you can understand your opponents point better than they can.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #87 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post


I just have to laugh that you are in a Apple forum complaining about another company using proprierity standards.

OH? Apple is a champion of open standards, perhaps the only champion of open standards. Apple didn't corrupt Java to its own benefit. On Macs Java is Java. PDF is built into the system. Try saving as a PDF on Windows. HTML5? Technologies like Bonjour, Webkit and Firewire were released and open-sourced by Apple. Open audio, video and graphical formats were long standard on Macs before anywhere else. You can barely work with PNGs and alpha layers in Windows even now. Fonts, typographic and printing standards... who developed those (basically wrote the book and let Adobe and others run with them)? Music creating tools and standards? Apple wrote the book on that, too. MS and OEMs tout "Multimedia PCs" every chance they get, but my 1984 Mac was a multimedia pc ten years before Windows was a reality. AAC is open, despite the proganda it is Apple-only and proprietary: it is part of the MPEG group of standards.

 

You can happily open, import, use and export to any number of open standards and file-types from Apple programs. Of course, there are also app file-types that are unique to certain apps, as there are to any software company in the world; if you want certain features then you usually need the authoring software. However, .doc and .xls have been released openly, supposedly.

 

 

 

Mac OS X is posix or unix certified, and of course your Mac can run Windows better than a PC can run Windows. Open networking standards and protocols? Who licenses and implements the proprietary protocol for Exchange Server better than its originating company? Apple. And iOS runs web apps like nobody's business -- probably better than Android.

 

Of course Apple wants you to use their tools, they believe they are the best and that they can give you the best experience and workflow. But Apple does as much as possible to make sure the THINGS you create with the apps play as well as possible with other things. Apple does more in this regard than just about anyone else you can think of. Output options are what counts.


Edited by krabbelen - 5/23/12 at 9:23am
post #88 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

FaceTime's protocol, QuickTime's MOV format, the current state of ePub creation in iBooks Author… 

 

Let's see… Ah, ALAC. 

 

but where are they "pushing" those?

post #89 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen View Post

OH? Apple is a champion of open standards, perhaps the only champion of open standards. Apple didn't corrupt Java to its own benefit. On Macs Java is Java. PDF is built into the system. Try saving as a PDF on Windows. HTML5? Technologies like Bonjour, Webkit and Firewire were released and open-sourced by Apple. Open audio, video and graphical formats were long standard on Macs before anywhere else. You can barely work with PNGs and alpha layers in Windows even now. Fonts, typographic and printing standards... who developed those (basically wrote the book and let Adobe and others run with them)? AAC is open, despite the proganda it is Apple-only and proprietary: it is part of the MPEG group of standards. Networking standards and protocols? Who licenses and implements the proprietary protocol for Exchange Server better than its originating company? Apple.

 

You can happily open, import, use and export to any number of open standards and file-types from Apple programs. Of course, there are also app file-types that are unique to certain apps, as there are to any software company in the world; if you want certain features then you usually need the authoring software. However, .doc and .xls have been released openly, supposedly.

 

Of course Apple wants you to use their tools, they believe they are the best and that they can give you the best experience and workflow. But Apple does as much as possible to make sure the THINGS you create with the apps play as well as possible with other things. Apple does more in this regard than just about anyone else you can think of. Output options are what counts.

 

exactly....the trolls and even the moderator do not seem to get it...

post #90 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead View Post
exactly....the trolls and even the moderator do not seem to get it...

 

So you didn't read the rest of my posts on this page? lol.gif

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #91 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post


Cute, but delusional.

 

Possibly. It is jolly hard to decide whether MS is out and out evil, or just incredibly inept. But having foisted idiot upside-down and backwards computers on the world which has fostered a whole infrastructure of support, expense, security nightmares, lost productivity and countless hours of hair pulling, the result is the same as quoted:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead
 
no company has done more to cripple innovation, stifle interoperability, unleash countless proprietary and patent crippled protocols on top of standard protocols, subvert ISO standards for their proprietary MSOOXML office format, and i could go on and on and on and on....
post #92 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead View Post

 

exactly....the trolls and even the moderator do not seem to get it...

 

Tell me about it...

 

Know something? I have this client and they have PCs in their office. Well, they can't seem to open Office Docs from one PC to the next: different versions of Windows or Office or something, who knows. Anyhow, get this, they actually email me the files, I open them in Pages, export them and email them back so they can use them!

 

Same happens with Mailchimp. The mailing lists can be exported to Excel file. Their Excel can't open the downloaded file without messing it up completely and shoving all the data into one column! You guessed it, I open it in Numbers, export it as an Excel file and email it to them so they can use it!

post #93 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen View Post

 

Tell me about it...

 

Know something? I have this client and they have PCs in their office. Well, they can't seem to open Office Docs from one PC to the next: different versions of Windows or Office or something, who knows. Anyhow, get this, they actually email me the files, I open them in Pages, export them and email them back so they can use them!

 

Same happens with Mailchimp. The mailing lists can be exported to Excel file. Their Excel can't open the downloaded file without messing it up completely and shoving all the data into one column! You guessed it, I open it in Numbers, export it as an Excel file and email it to them so they can use it!

 

Sounds more like a PEBKAC issue, just saying...

post #94 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

FaceTime's protocol, QuickTime's MOV format, the current state of ePub creation in iBooks Author… 

 

Let's see… Ah, ALAC. 

Apple has moved past QT / .mov. HTML5 video using h.264 codec (both open) is where they have been going for some time. Apple has pushed MP4 files for a long time.

 

QuickTime was a whole encapsulating and multimedia authoring platform equivalent to REAL, Flash or Windows Media (but far more capable and advanced -- 3D, VR, multi-language tracks, scripting, etc.). Mov files were Apple's equivalent of AVI files.

 

FaceTime is an example of a protocol supported by Apple hardware and devices so that you get the best quality and features possible between Apple devices. There are countless iOS and Mac apps for chatting and video conferencing. Use one of them or Skype. Apple has long supported AIM protocol. Apple doesn't expect you to stick to their app. But, hey, you want the best quality communication between Apple devices, use the system Apple developed.

 

Same for iBooks. Uh hum, export as an ePub, PDF, HTML, whatever. But, again, you want all the features, stick to the authoring and decoding apps.

 

In the news lately: MS will no longer license MPEG2 decoding for each copy of Windows.


Edited by krabbelen - 5/23/12 at 10:40am
post #95 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead View Post

 

what "proprietary standards" is Apple pushing that they created?  

Ok maybe not pushing but I was actually thinking of hardware when I wrote that i.e. mini displayport, firewire and iPhone connector. 

post #96 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post
Ok maybe not pushing but I was actually thinking of hardware when I wrote that i.e. mini displayport, firewire and iPhone connector. 

 

FireWire isn't proprietary. Mini DisplayPort isn't proprietary.

 

You've actually hit on something with the 30-pin Dock Connector, but you can't say it hasn't worked well. I shouldn't think the accessory market would have anywhere near the scope it does today had Apple chosen mini or Micro USB.

 

And they'll have a field day when the port changes. We're talking revenue city for them.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #97 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

FireWire isn't proprietary. Mini DisplayPort isn't proprietary.

 

You've actually hit on something with the 30-pin Dock Connector, but you can't say it hasn't worked well. I shouldn't think the accessory market would have anywhere near the scope it does today had Apple chosen mini or Micro USB.

 

And they'll have a field day when the port changes. We're talking revenue city for them.

Why do Apple license Mini displayport then? https://developer.apple.com/softwarelicensing/agreements/pdf/MiniDisplayPortEval.pdf

https://developer.apple.com/hardwaredrivers/firewire/FireWire_RefPlat_Eval_Lic.pdf

post #98 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Ok maybe not pushing but I was actually thinking of hardware when I wrote that i.e. mini displayport, firewire and iPhone connector. 

 

Mini DisplayPort is a part of the DisplayPort 2.1 spec.  Originally developed by Apple, licensed for free, adopted by VESA.  Firewire, aka IEEE 1394, is every bit as much as a standard as USB, licensed under a patent pool by MPEG LA.  Initially developed mainly by Apple, with further contributions from other vendors.  You shouldn't confuse "open" with "ubiquitous" or "proprietary" with "small market share."  Just because these technologies are largely associated with Apple doesn't mean they aren't available for other vendors to use.

 

The dock connector per se is proprietary, since Apple needed a future proofed multipin connector for their long range iPod plans.  However, it plays nice with USB, VGA, audio, etc. and the spec is readily licensable (as the abundance of dock compatible accessories attests).  

 

EDIT:  Eh, Tallest Skil beat me to it.  

You can't stop it.
Reply
You can't stop it.
Reply
post #99 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post


That is not necessarily true (any more)... recently released Android phone based on Intel logic (and I believe that logic is based on Atom) seems to be pretty much on par with equally performing ARM Android devices. I must admit I haven't read whole article, but did have noticed battery life details.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5770/lava-xolo-x900-review-the-first-intel-medfield-phone

That fairly weak single core SoC barely competes. The surprise was that it competed at all. It's in the middle of the competition, stuck with the outdated phones and other single core models.

This chip has nothing to do with running Windows on a phone or tablet. Using this, it wouldn't even be able to boot. It requires a much more powerful chip with at least 2GB of RAM, which is double what is used anywhere else, because it isn't NEEDED anywhere else, though RAM may eventually go up to that number. But Windows needs at least that much, and is much happier with 4GB.

Just look at a notebook's specs, and you'll see what we're talking about for x86.

WP7 isn't Windows, it's the old obsolete CE based OS Win Mobile was saddled with. When WP8 comes out at the end of the year, it won't be able to run on this chip. It will require a dual core chip. By then, Intel should have one, but we don't have any idea as to how it will perform with even WP8, which is much simpler than Windows 8 will be.

While 1GB RAM and 64GB flash is more than enough for ARM based OS's, it is just barely a starting point for a true Windows product. It will be interesting!
post #100 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post


I don't think RT will have classic desktop at all. Only Metro. Likewise Windows Phones will not have classic desktop.

At least that is what we have been told by MS reps...

According to Microsoft, it will have what looks to be a classic Desktop. But it won't be real, as it will only allow a few of Microsoft's own apps, such as a rewritten version of Office, whatever that will be. Third party developers need not apply.

Now with the renewed rumors of Office for iOS coming out in October or November, I wonder what advantage RT would have at all.
post #101 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

I just have to laugh that you are in a Apple forum complaining about another company using proprierity standards.

For quite a few years now Apple has been at the forefront of using and promoting open standards. It just makes sense. At first, Apple was small, and when some of their proprietary work didn't help them, they moved to open standards. This enabled them to get support where they wouldn't have otherwise been able to. Even now that they're the world's largest technology company, they push open standards.

It's also interesting that they are also one of the world's largest software developers. Their software inventions and improvements are offered as free standards, and are being adopted everywhere. Their Webkit, which is a much expanded and sophisticated offshoot of an open project has become standard in mobile browsers, with 90% of phones and tablets running browsers using it. Open CL and Open GL are now standards. Other companies with their own software have dropped theirs in favor of Apple's. Even Unix has benefitted with Apple's input.

There are quite a few areas in which Apple's contributions and support have made the difference between poor takeup of new technologies and the rapid adoption of them. We can look back to USB, which didn't work properly, and was rarely used. It might have faced extinction if Apple's new iMacs didn't adopt it. The same is true for Displayport, and other hardware technologies. The first major use if 3.5" floppies. The first major use of the CD player in computers.

There's so much more.

It's a myth that Apple doesn't support open standards or develop them themselves.
post #102 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

FaceTime's protocol, QuickTime's MOV format, the current state of ePub creation in iBooks Author… 

Let's see… Ah, ALAC. 

Ah, Apple often DEVELOPS software or hardware that they then offer to the standards committees for adoption, free of license charges.

Like it or not, that's support of standards of the highest nature. Developing what may seem to be proprietary software and offering it for free to the world is much better than just using what's out there created by others.

Either way, that certainly support of standards. When Apple designed a smaller Displayport, we had people laughing at Apple "again" coming out with their own proprietary design. But Apple offered to the committee, which then adopted it. Now, it's on most every graphics and video card made, and on computers as well.

Even this current argument about the SIM shape involves Apple making, and giving a standard for free.

Few people have any idea as to how standards come about. They don't spring from the air. Most of the time, ONE company developes something and it becomes well used. Then either they apply for it to be used as a standard, or the industry is upset at the proprietary nature of it, and puts a standards committee together. Then, over time, that work becomes incorporated in a standard, or is itself declared a standard. We've seen that with FireWire and USB to just name two.

Standards can be of two types. One is a standard such as the CD, where the code is owned by a company, and in order to use it one must pay licensing fees, and open standards, such as USB, where one doesn't.

It's more complex than that, of course, but that's a fair explanation
post #103 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen View Post

OH? Apple is a champion of open standards, perhaps the only champion of open standards. Apple didn't corrupt Java to its own benefit. On Macs Java is Java. PDF is built into the system. Try saving as a PDF on Windows. HTML5? Technologies like Bonjour, Webkit and Firewire were released and open-sourced by Apple. Open audio, video and graphical formats were long standard on Macs before anywhere else. You can barely work with PNGs and alpha layers in Windows even now. Fonts, typographic and printing standards... who developed those (basically wrote the book and let Adobe and others run with them)? Music creating tools and standards? Apple wrote the book on that, too. MS and OEMs tout "Multimedia PCs" every chance they get, but my 1984 Mac was a multimedia pc ten years before Windows was a reality. AAC is open, despite the proganda it is Apple-only and proprietary: it is part of the MPEG group of standards.

You can happily open, import, use and export to any number of open standards and file-types from Apple programs. Of course, there are also app file-types that are unique to certain apps, as there are to any software company in the world; if you want certain features then you usually need the authoring software. However, .doc and .xls have been released openly, supposedly.


 




 




Mac OS X is posix or unix certified, and of course your Mac can run Windows better than a PC can run Windows. Open networking standards and protocols? Who licenses and implements the proprietary protocol for Exchange Server better than its originating company? Apple. And iOS runs web apps like nobody's business -- probably better than Android.





Of course Apple wants you to use their tools, they believe they are the best and that they can give you the best experience and workflow. But Apple does as much as possible to make sure the THINGS you create with the apps play as well as possible with other things. Apple does more in this regard than just about anyone else you can think of. Output options are what counts.

We should put two posts on this together!
post #104 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

Ok maybe not pushing but I was actually thinking of hardware when I wrote that i.e. mini displayport, firewire and iPhone connector. 

Mini Displayport was given to the VESA standards organization, and was adopted as a standard some time ago. It's difficult to find a graphics or video card without one, as well as computers using built-in Displayport.

FireWire is also a standard, and controlled by the IEEE 1394-2008 standard.

http://ipod.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=ipod&cdn=gadgets&tm=18&f=00&tt=8&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewire

The iPhone connector is one rare case of Apple coming up with a much better port than anyone else, and keeping it to themselves. No company gives away all of its technology. Show me one that has.
post #105 of 111

Free license. This is what many companies do when offering their IP out as a standard.
post #106 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

...

Few people have any idea as to how standards come about. They don't spring from the air. Most of the time, ONE company developes something and it becomes well used. Then either they apply for it to be used as a standard, or the industry is upset at the proprietary nature of it, and puts a standards committee together. Then, over time, that work becomes incorporated in a standard, or is itself declared a standard. We've seen that with FireWire and USB to just name two.
...

 

Most of the time, a consortium of companies works on a common standard. Their ideas are then combined during negotiations, in which every company tries to put as much of their IP into the standard as possible. The reasons are multiple -- control, royalties, prestige -- however the result isn't necessarily the best possible standard. There's much politics and haggling involved, and companies are sometimes in the position to strong-arm their partners into accepting inferior and even useless solutions. That's the ugly reality, although few of the participants will admit it openly.

 

In contrast, the situation that you describe, where one company single-handedly develops a standard, is more ideal and likely to produce compromise-free solutions. However, adoption of those solutions will be met with resistance from other companies in the same industry, for the reasons I pointed out before: control, royalties, and prestige. 

 

I find it admirable when companies such as Apple develop and actually openly publish specifications. Industry-wide adoption is also desirable but, for the reasons outlined above, difficult to achieve.

post #107 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Most of the time, a consortium of companies works on a common standard. Their ideas are then combined during negotiations, in which every company tries to put as much of their IP into the standard as possible. The reasons are multiple -- control, royalties, prestige -- however the result isn't necessarily the best possible standard. There's much politics and haggling involved, and companies are sometimes in the position to strong-arm their partners into accepting inferior and even useless solutions. That's the ugly reality, although few of the participants will admit it openly.

In contrast, the situation that you describe, where one company single-handedly develops a standard, is more ideal and likely to produce compromise-free solutions. However, adoption of those solutions will be met with resistance from other companies in the same industry, for the reasons I pointed out before: control, royalties, and prestige. 

I find it admirable when companies such as Apple develop and actually openly publish specifications. Industry-wide adoption is also desirable but, for the reasons outlined above, difficult to achieve.

I've worked on standards committees in the past. It's an interesting, often long, and acrimonious process. Very often, the committees are organized around the invention of one company or organization, which everyone is not happy about, and who try to get a piece of.

When Sony and Phillips developed thee CD, and licensed it out, many companies were unhappy, but they had little choice. Especially Toshiba, which had a comparing stand that were pushing.

When it came to the DVD, Sony found themselves almost locked out because of the past battles.

When later, we had the HD-DVD vs Blu Ray battle, it was very acrimonious between Sony and Toshiba. But this time, of course, because of a couple of good moves by Sony, and a few things that Toshiba had done to angry the industry, Sony won, almost flat handed.

So even though Sony owns it, it's still a standard.
post #108 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by zaren View Post

The interface isn't a problem as far as I'm concerned. The blocks appear to be labeled well enough and easily recognizable; it's just a matter of the user deciding what goes where, and getting used to the positioning. I'm sure you did the same thing with your phone; I know I did with mine. 

Nope, the problem is people are going to buy the cheaper tablet, and then wonder why they can't install Steam on it. DOA unfortunately. Not that I wouldn't mind seeing an option other than Premium iOS and malware-ridden Android.

post #109 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa View Post

Nope, the problem is people are going to buy the cheaper tablet, and then wonder why they can't install Steam on it. DOA unfortunately. Not that I wouldn't mind seeing an option other than Premium iOS and malware-ridden Android.

How is iOS "premium"? (sounds like you were trying to frame "Premium iOS" as a negative because you contrast it with "the cheaper tablet" and make it parallel to "malware-ridden Android" for which you would like to see alternatives).

 

You can get an iPad for 499, and now 399. It's solid aluminium and glass. No-one can match it for materials or quality (I drop mine on a regular basis and it has dented corners, but it's still in perfect working order). The battery lasts all day and it has downloaded my mail via WIFI before I get out of the car at McDonalds, while Windows or Android customers struggle for 25 minutes to connect and then come over and ask me if in fact the WIFI is working. It does what it is designed to do... without a dongle, I might add.

 

Secondly, Google has conditioned us that software itself is worthless, as they try to commoditize everything and redistribute everthing for free. MS, as a software company, has tried to do the opposite and get you to pay 300 bucks for a boxed set of Windows or Office. Apple, on the other hand, has actually added some real value to their products through superior, integrated software. Apple tries to give the best experience possible and tries to extend the life of your Apple product by letting you immediately download updates for about three years before you have to upgrade it. That is worth something. (Of course, Apple products are usable far longer than three years; I love my 2nd gen iPod touch and still use a dual G4 PowerMac running Leopard that is at least ten years old.)

 

You might be thinking that because Apple gets some good margins on its products, that that automatically makes it a "premium" product? Apple can't help it if others must have fire sales or make a loss in order to shift any of their junk. Others simply can not make a competing product at any where near the same price point.

 

We could have a whole discussion on margin. Apple makes good margins (and it makes far less margin on the iPad than the iPhone), because of its product strategy and development process. Apple makes one tablet. It puts X amount of fixed cost into development/design/tooling/etc. It aims to make back that fixed cost by selling Y number of iPads at Z margin over the following year before the next model. Except, what do you know, the iPad is so popular that they practically sell that Y number of iPads in two months! So, the more they sell, the more Z goes up. If they keep selling a model the next year as the new low end, why, the margin on those models goes up even more (because all the fixed costs for it have been more than covered). The more you sell, the less each unit costs to produce. This is pretty obvious to people that have had to get something printed like a brochure or T-shirt: you order more, your unit cost goes down. Simple as that. And Apple is selling as many iPads as it can make.

 

By contrast, other makers are developing all sorts of tablets because they have no idea what works, they need to throw something at the wall to see what sticks; they need to tweak and change the color or button arrangement every three months, and they sell maybe 200,000 before they discontinue and move on to the next idea. See how that works? They can't make any margin that way. So, if all you have to go on to call iOS "premium" is that Apple actually makes some money on it because they do a good job, then I urge you to reconsider your classification of iOS.


Edited by krabbelen - 5/24/12 at 1:32am
post #110 of 111

To the person that didn't know what RT meant. 

 

There will be two types of tablets. 

One that uses intel chips, and will use Windows 8. Those tablets will supposedly be able to run current windows software.

RT tablets will use the ARM chips. They will not be able to run current windows software. Only updated windows 8/metro software.

Confused?

 

I can't remember what RT really stands for though.

post #111 of 111

Ah yes....Microsoft marketing!    ;)  

 

Here is a blast from the past...a spoof video showing what Microsoft would likely do if they were designing the marketing/packaging for the iPod:   

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUXnJraKM3k 

 

Will there be similar considerations for their new tablet?     ;) 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • ARM-based Windows RT seen confusing consumers, benefitting Apple
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › ARM-based Windows RT seen confusing consumers, benefitting Apple