Originally Posted by caliminius
And although [Dan Eran, RoughlyDrafted
site author] may report "facts," it's, in general, the same kind of "facts" that were used to justify the U.S. invading Iraq; by that I mean a very select set of facts that supports his view (and ignores all others). I've read several of his articles.
I've read a lot of Eran's articles over at RoughlyDrafted
too, and I'd agree that he is baldly 'partisan' on the facts, re: Apple vs anybody. And I'm sometimes ok with that, as I know coming in that's what he is, and he's a nice counterweight to those who are baldly partisan going the other way, i.e. the Dvoraks and Enderle's of the world.
That said, it does kinda suck that you have to read Eran's stuff with a bit of a bs filter on. When he writes stuff like "The best case scenario for EVDO is about twice as fast as EDGE"
, you have to laugh, because it's not even close to being true... EVDO Rev A(i.e. what's out there now) is actually several times faster than EDGE, and that's with
one giving ATT the benefit of the doubt re: its recent network improvements, and assuming a data speed of 200 kbps for EDGE. Eran isn't even in the ballpark here, though I'm sure he can cite some tortured reasoning in his defense.
It gets funnier if you go to his site, where he mentions that EDGE is 'technically a 3G standard' under the official definition... I guess to imply that Apple 'really does' have 3G in the iPhone after all.
What he doesn't mention is that while there are certain implementations of the EDGE standard that can meet the official definition of 3G (i.e. 384 kbps speeds and up), ATT's implementation of EDGE isn't really one of them. Real-world speeds for ATT's EDGE are, at most, about half of what it'd take to be defined as 3G. Yes, even with their recent 'Fine EDGE' network improvements.
So, no, ATT's EDGE is NOT 3G. Just give it up already.
Dan's a good writer, but he seems to not understand that if you take a step back from the bleeding edge of facts-lawyering, the credibility and trust you gain far exceeds whatever advantage in debating points you lose.
The one that most sticks in my mind is the "10 Myths About AppleTV." He failed to really dispel any of them but he make up a lot of excuses.
There are things I both like and loathe about Eran's writing. On the like side, he seems to have a very good grasp of Apple's business and technology strategies, and does a nice job of explaining their rationales.
On the down side, I think he also overidentifies with Apple through his understanding of those strategies, which results in him being sort of an 'uber-Apple-Apologista' at times... which is annoying. At times he seems to think that Apple, at least in the 'Jobs II' era, can do no wrong.
While they are doing great, no one
Oh, and [he] gets in some MS bashing.
I'm actually okay with the so-called 'MS bashing', because most of it is warranted, actually. Microsoft has been delivering second-rate products and failed strategies for a long time now, its about time more people called them on it.
And, ironically, the harsh criticism may help MS to become a better, more customer-focused company... right now, you get the feeling that they really can't see past their own arrogance and presumptions of eventual dominance.
I don't really understand how PlaysForSure differs from say Apple's FairPlay, unless the argument is about how MS screwed over all of its PlaysForSure partners with the Zune. The open PlaysForSure market where manufacturers could make various devices with various features seems in general much more appealing than the closed iTunes/iPod/AppleTV/iPhone market Apple has produced.
PlaysForSure isn't 'open' from a platform standpoint through. It's Windows-only, last I checked. So if you're on a Mac or on Linux, oh well, too bad. Not so with FairPlay or iTunes, which are cross-platform.
Far as device openness goes, at least Apple is trying to go to DRM-free music, which would play on any device. Microsoft sure wasn't leading that charge, they are much more a 'yes man' to the major music labels than Apple has been.
Yes, IE has cost the internet a great deal in terms of standards and for quite a while browser innovations. I can't really say I feel that MS is any more or less evil than Apple.
Yep. IE's refusal to hew to established standards and its use by MS as a weapon to try to turn the Internet into a two-tier user experience, with non-IE, non-Windows users as second-class citizens, is pretty loathsome, dontcha think?
So happy that Firefox (and now potentially Safari) is grabbing enough marketshare to help defuse those ogre-ish tactics some.
I love the iMac I bought in December but chances are my next computer will be a PC because Apple seems unwilling to provide an upgradeable product at an affordable price point.
I agree. Its ridiculous to me that Apple seems to think that only the $2000-2500 and up market wants upgradeability.
Even if its mostly the 'Pro' market that actually uses upgradeability, there is a growing segment of 'pro wannabees' and 'prosumers' out there, and Apple is silly to either shut them out or drive them to the PC side. Not to mention that even non-Pro consumers still like the idea
of upgradeability, even if they don't usually use it... if its a selling point, why not include it? Its not like Stevie J is going to burn in hades for including only 'cuz it hleps sells Macs.
And Apple seems to keep going further and further into computers as appliances as opposed to general purpose machines (as can be seen in the AppleTV and iPhone).
To be fair, there are many consumers who do want their computers to be appliances. My problem is that Apple erroneously assumes that anyone below the $2000 price range is automatically that customer.
I'd love to be able to slap a PhysX card into a computer and see what it did for games that supported it. Or even just a better graphics card, but even with a Mac Pro it probably wouldn't have drivers for the card. Apple seems to initially target the status symbol crowd and eventually (maybe) get down to the common person (it still hasn't gotten there with Macs). Is that any less evil than MS who basically give away a copy of Windows with every PC?
Microsoft makes a great deal of money off of Windows, actually. It and Office are the two pillars holding up the company while their other ventures either fail or break-even. Yep, even their Xbox business, which has lost billions since it started and is only now starting to turn the corner.
I don't know about 'evil', but it does seem like MS is mostly devoid of innovation these days (the ultimate fast-follower 'me too' company), and they don't seem to be in the business of 'fixing broken things' the way Apple is. High-end, data-rich cellphones were broken... Apple fixed 'em, or is well on their way to doing so. Microsoft? They're looking at the iPhone and going "Ohhh-hh, that's
what people want" (durr) and are trying to figure out ways to copy it and muscle Apple out of this interesting new market they've sort of created.
Not exactly 'evil', but certainly uninspired, at any rate.
As a consumer, Microsoft doesn't seem to actively be solving any of my problems, so, far as I'm concerned, they could dry up and blow away tomorrow and I wouldn't be missing them much. I think more and more people are starting to feel that way.