or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › The Apple Era begins as Microsoft, Google shift to a hardware centric model
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Apple Era begins as Microsoft, Google shift to a hardware centric model - Page 5

post #161 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

Totally true.

But the Nexus line is far from being crap. It's awesome, actually.

Agreed, i had both the 2012 and current n7, the 2012 had
Some issues, the current one, we'll I have trouble deciding whether
I'm going to use it or my iPad. The new n7 is outstanding.
post #162 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

"Cheaper alternatives"? Google was/is paying good money to Apple to have their services defaulted on iOS.

Question is how much more were they making in return? I'm sure it was a handsome sum. Money at one point Apple might very have wanted for themselves.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #163 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post
 

 

You are contradicting yourself multiple times in the above paragraph.  If Apple can be avoided then why are you implying that it is similar to the "Big Brother" in the commercial?  The "Big Brother" commercial was directed at IBM precisely because IBM could not be avoided at that time.  A "Big Brother" commercial should have been created in mid-1990s for Microsoft.

 

 

There is no contradiction there.  Apple tried to copy the exact model they despised, and had they succeeded the market would be in a lousy place and Apple would indeed be akin to Big Brother.  DED is even going so far as to imply Apple 'invented' that model by saying everyone is trying to copy them into 'the Apple Era.'   It is not a model Apple innovated, and as you pointed out, it is even one they failed at pulling off- mostly due to  Android.

 

My argument is simply that consumers (whether Apple or Android) are better off for it.  Apple fans get their tremendous highly integrated products- and yet still get the benefits of cost reductions because Apple can't simply raise prices as high as it likes.

post #164 of 178

Great article!

"iPod stomped PlaysForSure into the horse manure." should read "... into horse manure."

 

I would've also mentioned how SGI replaced their IRIX OS with Windows NT and instantly lost their 3D and video customers to Microsoft.

bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #165 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

 

On the contrary, one of my gripes was precisely that apps in 10.7+ will autosave changes that I *don't* want saved - such as rotating a pdf in Preview for viewing purposes - and that discarding changes is now an expensive process thanks to how OS X autosave is implemented. 

 

I agree that autosave is supposed to act as a safety net and not as the primary means of version control. My issue was that apple's implementation of the safety net is rather frustrating to deal with at times. It's better in OS X 10.8 than it was in 10.7, but it's not optimal.

 

Interesting info on the subject (of which you're likely already aware, but others may not be):

 

http://osxdaily.com/2012/08/22/turn-off-auto-save-os-x/

http://tidbits.com/article/13187

post #166 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavericks View Post

...the nexus line exist to inspire manufactures to make better hardware.

So it's a design point heh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NagG05 View Post

And I can't be happier that a company took 50% more from my hard earned money than it's worth.......

The iPhone is great, isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

I often view documents in Preview, and will rotate them for viewing purposes if they have the wrong orientation. Preview in OS X 10.8 immediately replaces the PDF or image on disk with the rotated version. It's annoying to watch the beach ball spin and wait for my hard drive to grind away when I quit Preview and elect to discard changes.

Hard drive? That is soooo 1954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post


OT: Is the iPhone forum making webkit browsers crash? Both chrome and safari crash for me when I visit that forum, so I'm composing this post in firefox.

Yes, a smart-aleck posted the dumb Arabic character set that crashes Safari. There's apparently a few different combos that will cause it, tho they all seem to be Arabic so far.

This is all Greek to me.
“A PC is no bargain when it doesn’t do what you want.” - Apple 2009
Reply
“A PC is no bargain when it doesn’t do what you want.” - Apple 2009
Reply
post #167 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

There is no contradiction there.  Apple tried to copy the exact model they despised, and had they succeeded the market would be in a lousy place and Apple would indeed be akin to Big Brother.  

 

This is just PURE UNBRIDLED SPECULATION on your part.  It is a fantasy to even think that Apple could have dominated market share in the same way as IBM or Microsoft if they had succeeded (and how exactly would you define success, anyway?).  Your fantasy is the same canard pushed by Fandroids to justify "keeping Apple in check" advocating the copying of patented Apple technologies without permission.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

It is not a model Apple innovated, and as you pointed out, it is even one they failed at pulling off- mostly due to  Android.

 

My argument is simply that consumers (whether Apple or Android) are better off for it.  Apple fans get their tremendous highly integrated products- and yet still get the benefits of cost reductions because Apple can't simply raise prices as high as it likes.

 

 

Android didn't exist in mid-1990s.  What the heck are you talking about??  We have been discussing about the "Big Brother" ad and its relationship to IBM.  Apple was never and will never be IBM not because of some stolen technologies but because they simply compete on basis of merits of their products, not by using anticompetitive tactics like Microsoft or IBM or using stolen technologies like Samsung or Motorola.  

post #168 of 178
I would argue that very few companies can continue to operate not making money. Android may be winning the war, but will it will the battle?

Tech journalists are historically fond of calling the demise of technologies and companies, but few get it right. We will see how all this plays out.

I would also say that Google needs to be very careful. Microsoft demonstrably became the IBM of 1982 ... too fat, too slow, too much in its own way, and unable to innovate due to blinders so obvious, that I'm surprised Ballmer lasted this long.
post #169 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by axual View Post

I would argue that very few companies can continue to operate not making money. Android may be winning the war, but will it will the battle?

Tech journalists are historically fond of calling the demise of technologies and companies, but few get it right. We will see how all this plays out.

I would also say that Google needs to be very careful. Microsoft demonstrably became the IBM of 1982 ... too fat, too slow, too much in its own way, and unable to innovate due to blinders so obvious, that I'm surprised Ballmer lasted this long.

Google's making money it's most of the manufacturers that are losing.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #170 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

Whatever happened to the days when Apple insisted and was all in support of saying owning both the hardware and software was evil and gave a company *way* too much market power?  Remember the 'Big Brother' commercial?

IBM didn't give their software away, they were essentially forced to.  They had just come off several decades of antitrust lawsuits and did not want to go through the same with their PC business.  The DoJ pushed by companies like Apple claimed IBM owning both the hardware and software let them dictate everything and didn't allow others to compete.   Now Apple has the shoe on the other foot and its all good.  They own both the hardware and software and can extort 30% from anyone who touches their system.  I'm okay with it because Apple can be easily avoided.  If they actually had more market share that would be a terrible thing for everyone (except Apple), and Apple would be in a position to abuse their clout much more than they currently do.  Watching that 'Big Brother' commercial is a little creepy now because maybe it was just Apple prophesizing what it would become with its followers =)  Steve was pretty brilliant that way.

To me, things are pretty good as they are.  Android is walloping Apple in global market share and keeps Apple from really putting the screws to people doing business through them.  Apple fans are happy because they have Apple.  Its all good.  Corporations do want profits, so it is no surprise everyone is going to chase the 'closed' model.  I think most of them will fail.  Samsung might be big enough to pull it off and it will be logical for them to try.   My guess is they introduce a 'Tizen' phone alongside their Android and Windows offerings, and that they find it doesn't do very well.  Others aren't big enough to pull it off.  Having 50 different closed ecosystems out their all trying desperately not to work well with the other ecosystems just doesn't work.  Having ONE ecosystem would work, but give that company a monopoly.  Having an open system that everyone can use and fork off gives one system that works, but doesn't give a monopoly.  We have the best of both worlds.

I did get a chuckle out of 'Apple Era' though.  DED is obviously a little bit delusional (but I think it is deliberate) and over the top, but he is pretty darn good.

you have a very strange idea of history. When did Apple ever think that owning the hardware and the software was evil? From the very first Apple to the Apple II to the Mac to the Lisa to the iMac that every computer Apple makes they have always made the hardware and the software. The big brother commercial was about computing being dominated by IBM that's what big brother was about. The big brother metaphor came from people using IBM simply because they were computers they had to use at work not because they chose them as consumers. Apples choice to own the hardware and software is to give the consumer a better user experience. If Apple dominates in any hardware software device category because consumers choose to buy it because they like it better that's not a monopoly, that's good business and it certainly doesn't make them a big brother type company.
post #171 of 178
Slowly Microsoft will erode around from Viruses and Malware from websites in the next 19 years. Sadly because I really don't think they will ever give up on the "Windows Kernel."

Another thing to note is Microsoft people hate Apple products and some even Google products too that they will install their OS every 1-3 months after their whole hard drive gets "Contaminated." I mean seriously they have a windows recovery now on the tablets not really to mimic Apple's recovery. But for the plain and simple fact that when the system gets corrupt they can do re-installs of the OS in under 30 minutes. Which like I said they do every 1-3 months, on the advice of Tech Savvy support people.

I mean honestly, Mac people go alone year after year just upgrading on a somewhat yearly basis, upgrading their apps in addition, and working on projects and getting "More" done. Windows people browse the Web and use the works proprietary software and use it more like a database for tracking whatever products and inventory, or client tracking, not really innovating or coming up with something new for their company or workplace.

The sickest part of all of this is that there are probably, and this is an estimate, a 1/4 of the workplaces in the country that use Windows OS, and are NOT allowed to use the web, not because they are afraid of FaceBook and social media, but because they don't want to have to make the IT guy re-install the OS and proprietary Apps from the "Consultant" companies who rake them over the coals. So honestly? 2013 and you are not allowed to go on the Web at work if you use Windows?

Please! Stop just stop lying to yourself people. And this is the problem, they lie to themselves and will not admit failure. But this is LIFE. People have this problem admitting failure AND THEY WON'T and THEY NEVER WILL. But we DON'T get ANYTHING from it anyway what another Mac user, they are getting what they want, re-installs every 1-3 months, and they keep taking it. Over 5 years of this.

Mac users need to get over this and understand Macs won the OS war, but there are NO SPOILS. We get nothing from being RIGHT. Unless you revel in laughing at Windows users loosing all their files and photos, bookmarks, system settings etc. I don't though I just think it's sad, but it's what THEY WANT...
Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
post #172 of 178
It’s never been about whether the vendor controls the hardware and the software, or just the software. It’s always been about whether the vendor has control, or the user.

IBM and AT&T (Bell), and GE were some of the first allowed to commercialize technology that was formerly the exclusive domain of the “intelligence community” (see “Collousus” ENIAC, etc.) They controlled everything. User’s could not even own the machines, but “leased” them.

When the reality of the potential to home-build the hardware came about in the 1970’s, the quick-fix that allowed control to be maintained was to make the software “proprietary.” IBM was secure, UNIX was quickly “fixed,” and Microsoft emerged to fill the temporary niche formed by the flood of junky consumer hardware. Technically, the code was secret, and legally it was proprietary and could only be used under license terms. Effectively, you were not in control.

Perhaps even more importantly, the interconnects or “internet” of the computers was locked up. If you want to interconnect, you have to have one of “their” addresses. If you want a connection, you’re restricted to approved middle-men that enforce the handling your traffic and profit from their exclusive rights to it (eg. peddling the metadata).

Look for the technology that actually allows you to shut-out the middleman and take control of your own computing. The most significant functions are flat-out illegal. But the few potential alternatives that do exist are often just lost to the overwhelming success of the winners that are chosen and financed because they do in fact contribute to the “surveillance engine” paradigm. That term is not quite accurate because surveillance is only part of the intention that doesn’t fully describe the control and manipulation that is done in a way that makes you think that what you know is all there is.
post #173 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post

Your disputation of my claim has no standing.  You cited examples of computers that could be purchased with OS/2, BeOS, and NextSTEP loaded.  However, your examples contradict the very argument you are attempting to make.  BeOS is a Be Inc. product available on Be, Inc. computers ONLY and Be doesn't sell Wintel computers.  NextSTEP is a Next Inc. product available on Next workstations ONLY and Next doesn't sell Wintel computers.  The MacOS is an Apple product available on Apple computers ONLY and Apple doesn't sell Wintel computers.  Do you see where I am going with this?   OS/2 was an IBM product available on IBM-branded PCs ONLY but because IBM also sold Wintel PCs, it was forced to drop OS/2 due to pressure from Microsoft.  Not because of any lack of consumer demand
That's not quite true. Be and NeXT both failed selling their own hardware, and transitioned to selling their OSes to run on "Wintel" hardware, where they eventually died. (Until Apple bought NeXT, of course.) This in spite of being popular with the tech community (or at least segments of it), and attempting both the "Apple way" and then the "Microsoft way". Their real problem was not being able to get their products (hardware or software) into the places where ordinary people might buy them. Even if they had, they would have needed the support of the sales staff. (Here in Australia, the tendency of department store staff to discourage people from buying Macs is legendary.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok View Post

Yes that was the period, Apple's product line was confusing and had little to almost no innovation in them. It's a very different Apple today
In fairness, that wasn't the only reason they were going bankrupt, but it was a big one. Anyway, my point was that their "low" marketshare wasn't due to not selling computers at a particular pricepoint. The real "problem" with Apple's marketshare is that people continue to compare it to all Windows PCs sold, rather than to each PC manufacturer's sales. Compared to the sales at Dell, Asus, etc they're competitive.
post #174 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anome View Post

That's not quite true. Be and NeXT both failed selling their own hardware, and transitioned to selling their OSes to run on "Wintel" hardware, where they eventually died. (Until Apple bought NeXT, of course.) This in spite of being popular with the tech community (or at least segments of it), and attempting both the "Apple way" and then the "Microsoft way". Their real problem was not being able to get their products (hardware or software) into the places where ordinary people might buy them. Even if they had, they would have needed the support of the sales staff. (Here in Australia, the tendency of department store staff to discourage people from buying Macs is legendary.)

 

Envision this happening in 1995:

 

Dell, Compaq, HP, Packard Bell, Gateway, etc all decide that they want to expand their product lines by offering similar computers with different operating system.  They would purchase operating systems from Be, NeXT, IBM, etc. at wholesale volume discounts, pre-load them on their computers, market these computers through their distribution channels, and let the consumers select the computers based on the merits of the Operating System alone (since computers with different OSes would be configured the same hardware-wise in each product line).

 

This is what a competitive OS marketplace means.  Not only do the hardware companies compete on basis of their hardware, they also let the consumers choose the operating system.  

 

Why wasn't this choice available to consumers from the big Wintel computer manufacturers?  Why weren't Be, IBM, NexT able to get their operating system pre-loaded on the PC clone makers' computers?  It can't be because they were charging too much for the operating systems. . they were small enough to be able to undercut Microsoft in the OS pricing.   

post #175 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezwits View Post

Slowly Microsoft will erode around from Viruses and Malware from websites in the next 19 years. Sadly because I really don't think they will ever give up on the "Windows Kernel."

Another thing to note is Microsoft people hate Apple products and some even Google products too that they will install their OS every 1-3 months after their whole hard drive gets "Contaminated." I mean seriously they have a windows recovery now on the tablets not really to mimic Apple's recovery. But for the plain and simple fact that when the system gets corrupt they can do re-installs of the OS in under 30 minutes. Which like I said they do every 1-3 months, on the advice of Tech Savvy support people.

I mean honestly, Mac people go alone year after year just upgrading on a somewhat yearly basis, upgrading their apps in addition, and working on projects and getting "More" done. Windows people browse the Web and use the works proprietary software and use it more like a database for tracking whatever products and inventory, or client tracking, not really innovating or coming up with something new for their company or workplace.

The sickest part of all of this is that there are probably, and this is an estimate, a 1/4 of the workplaces in the country that use Windows OS, and are NOT allowed to use the web, not because they are afraid of FaceBook and social media, but because they don't want to have to make the IT guy re-install the OS and proprietary Apps from the "Consultant" companies who rake them over the coals. So honestly? 2013 and you are not allowed to go on the Web at work if you use Windows?

Please! Stop just stop lying to yourself people. And this is the problem, they lie to themselves and will not admit failure. But this is LIFE. People have this problem admitting failure AND THEY WON'T and THEY NEVER WILL. But we DON'T get ANYTHING from it anyway what another Mac user, they are getting what they want, re-installs every 1-3 months, and they keep taking it. Over 5 years of this.

Mac users need to get over this and understand Macs won the OS war, but there are NO SPOILS. We get nothing from being RIGHT. Unless you revel in laughing at Windows users loosing all their files and photos, bookmarks, system settings etc. I don't though I just think it's sad, but it's what THEY WANT...

(Is this one for real..?)
post #176 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by kharvel View Post

Why wasn't this choice available to consumers from the big Wintel computer manufacturers?  Why weren't Be, IBM, NexT able to get their operating system pre-loaded on the PC clone makers' computers?  It can't be because they were charging too much for the operating systems. . they were small enough to be able to undercut Microsoft in the OS pricing.   
Basically, MS's anti-competitive practices again. Be tried to get deals with PC manufacturers, but they claim MS directly intervened to stop them going through.

NeXTStep was sold mainly to enterprise, and had some success, but that came to an end with the Apple deal (which also pretty much destroyed Be's last chance at survival).
post #177 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Hard drive? That is soooo 1954
 

 

Yet in 2013 Apple still configures two lines of laptops (13 and 15 inch MBPs) and all of its desktops with 5400rpm rotating disk drives as standard. 

post #178 of 178
While I liked the data in the article, I truly wished that the colorful descriptions and personal asides had been toned down significantly. The data spoke for itself in my opinion and did not need the amplification that shrieked I hate anything not Apple...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • The Apple Era begins as Microsoft, Google shift to a hardware centric model
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › The Apple Era begins as Microsoft, Google shift to a hardware centric model