Because, it's a great example of what competition can do. Apple, by sharply differentiating itself at the top of the market, manages to "stay above the fray", while general PC manufacturers are most definitely caught in a race to the bottom with razor thin margins, little money for R&D, and almost nothing but tiny price differences and cosmetic flourishes to differentiate themselves from their competitors.
See my post above as to why the ascendancy of Google could force Apple into the fray, resulting in a further cheapening of the computing experience across the board, and why it's essential for Apple to resist Google's attempts to commoditize it.
I read your explanation and I'm not buying it. Sorry. There's always going to be a market for quality products. It's a cut-throat business, man. You gotta bring your a-game or you'll suffer for it. Everyone here should know this. I mean you guys practically rejoice at every article published speaking about Microsoft's decline. Vista sucked, they suffered. WM sucked, iphone came along, they are really suffering. Windows 7 is out, it's getting awesome reviews (even if it's still not as good as osx) which means they are listening. WM is taking a bit longer, but they ARE listening. So this goes back to what I was talking about earlier. Either you start to bring products to consumers that they actually want, or you WILL suffer. That's capitalism! It's not a fantasy to say that Microsoft's actions today aren't positive, and the result of companies other than Apple moving in with cheaper and better products.
So while you think the race to the bottom with razor thin profits is what will cheapen computer experiences across the board, I think it's the constant race to the top that will always enrich computing experiences across the board.
So in the end, I stand by my assertion that it's dumb to bash Google for writing an app for the iphone. Really, that's what this discussion is about, and no matter how complicated you want to make it, it all boils down to common sense.
I read your explanation and I'm not buying it. Sorry. There's always going to be a market for quality products. It's a cut-throat business, man. You gotta bring your a-game or you'll suffer for it. [...] So in the end, I stand by my assertion that it's dumb to bash Google for writing an app for the iphone. Really, that's what this discussion is about, and no matter how complicated you want to make it, it all boils down to common sense.
Despite the raft of cliches, it isn't a simple situation, and a Google app for the iPhone can't be divorced from the overall context of what's going on. Complexity can be frustrating, especially when it's related to frustrated desire, but declaring a situation simple and invoking "common sense" doesn't eliminate the real complexity of the world. In reality, nothing is nearly as simple as it seems.
How can you compare the low end PC market to Apple computers? Since when was that logical?
I didn?t compare, I gave examples as to how competition can stifle innovation. But that isn?t entirely true, HP has out innovated Dell in this arena by learning how to market better than Dell and innovating ways to make production cheaper. For Dell to compete with HP they just can?t make as much money per machine whilst keeping it a crappy PC. Innovation can happen on many levels but some of them do not help the consumer.
Quote:
Why don't we look at things like Intel's phase change memory? That's not innovative? Intel sure as hell dominates the low end pc market, but they continue to innovate.
That is innovation for the future of solid-state memory. That has nothing to do with the 4 year old processors that PC vendors are using in those PCs. A company can be innovative in one area of business and not innovative in another. Intel isn?t innovating a damn thing for this cheap PCs with old-hat tech.
I said there is innovation at the low-end of the PC market with razor thin profits, and I meant it.
Once Google has taken over the world you can have the last laugh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Yes, the last refuge of an utterly failed argument, try to paint the opposing view as crazy. You clearly have absolutely zero understanding of the issues involved, and can't comprehend any issue but in the simplest most polarized terms.
Right, because it's not simple minded to say "APPLE IS THE BEST" and dismiss anything else that remotely competes with their business model whatsoever.
Brand loyalty isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's not exactly far from simple minded either.
Apparently the European version of the Droid (Milestone) won't have voice guidance, maybe Verizon is springing for the licensing costs in the US, who knows.
Right, because it's not simple minded to say "APPLE IS THE BEST" and dismiss anything else that remotely competes with their business model whatsoever.
Brand loyalty isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's not exactly far from simple minded either.
Well, currently, what Apple offers as a computing experience is the best. What Google offers is mostly crap and only popular at all because so many people can't resist free. The Google computing model is of no interest to me, I'll take care of my data myself, thank you very much. So, yes, I would like Apple to succeed and I have no interest in seeing Google succeed at their expense, and Google's success will be at the expense of Microsoft, certainly, and Apple possibly.
Comments
Because, it's a great example of what competition can do. Apple, by sharply differentiating itself at the top of the market, manages to "stay above the fray", while general PC manufacturers are most definitely caught in a race to the bottom with razor thin margins, little money for R&D, and almost nothing but tiny price differences and cosmetic flourishes to differentiate themselves from their competitors.
See my post above as to why the ascendancy of Google could force Apple into the fray, resulting in a further cheapening of the computing experience across the board, and why it's essential for Apple to resist Google's attempts to commoditize it.
I read your explanation and I'm not buying it. Sorry. There's always going to be a market for quality products. It's a cut-throat business, man. You gotta bring your a-game or you'll suffer for it. Everyone here should know this. I mean you guys practically rejoice at every article published speaking about Microsoft's decline. Vista sucked, they suffered. WM sucked, iphone came along, they are really suffering. Windows 7 is out, it's getting awesome reviews (even if it's still not as good as osx) which means they are listening. WM is taking a bit longer, but they ARE listening. So this goes back to what I was talking about earlier. Either you start to bring products to consumers that they actually want, or you WILL suffer. That's capitalism! It's not a fantasy to say that Microsoft's actions today aren't positive, and the result of companies other than Apple moving in with cheaper and better products.
So while you think the race to the bottom with razor thin profits is what will cheapen computer experiences across the board, I think it's the constant race to the top that will always enrich computing experiences across the board.
So in the end, I stand by my assertion that it's dumb to bash Google for writing an app for the iphone. Really, that's what this discussion is about, and no matter how complicated you want to make it, it all boils down to common sense.
I read your explanation and I'm not buying it. Sorry. There's always going to be a market for quality products. It's a cut-throat business, man. You gotta bring your a-game or you'll suffer for it. [...] So in the end, I stand by my assertion that it's dumb to bash Google for writing an app for the iphone. Really, that's what this discussion is about, and no matter how complicated you want to make it, it all boils down to common sense.
Despite the raft of cliches, it isn't a simple situation, and a Google app for the iPhone can't be divorced from the overall context of what's going on. Complexity can be frustrating, especially when it's related to frustrated desire, but declaring a situation simple and invoking "common sense" doesn't eliminate the real complexity of the world. In reality, nothing is nearly as simple as it seems.
How can you compare the low end PC market to Apple computers? Since when was that logical?
I didn?t compare, I gave examples as to how competition can stifle innovation. But that isn?t entirely true, HP has out innovated Dell in this arena by learning how to market better than Dell and innovating ways to make production cheaper. For Dell to compete with HP they just can?t make as much money per machine whilst keeping it a crappy PC. Innovation can happen on many levels but some of them do not help the consumer.
Why don't we look at things like Intel's phase change memory? That's not innovative? Intel sure as hell dominates the low end pc market, but they continue to innovate.
That is innovation for the future of solid-state memory. That has nothing to do with the 4 year old processors that PC vendors are using in those PCs. A company can be innovative in one area of business and not innovative in another. Intel isn?t innovating a damn thing for this cheap PCs with old-hat tech.
I said there is innovation at the low-end of the PC market with razor thin profits, and I meant it.
Yes, the last refuge of an utterly failed argument, try to paint the opposing view as crazy. You clearly have absolutely zero understanding of the issues involved, and can't comprehend any issue but in the simplest most polarized terms.
Once Google has taken over the world you can have the last laugh.
Well it all starts with a free iphone app. So long as Apple keeps them from doing that, they will never succeed!
Once Google has taken over the world you can have the last laugh.
Well it all starts with a free iphone app. So long as Apple keeps them from doing that, they will never succeed!
Simple minds, simple pleasures.
Simple minds, simple pleasures.
Right, because it's not simple minded to say "APPLE IS THE BEST" and dismiss anything else that remotely competes with their business model whatsoever.
Brand loyalty isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's not exactly far from simple minded either.
Right, because it's not simple minded to say "APPLE IS THE BEST" and dismiss anything else that remotely competes with their business model whatsoever.
Brand loyalty isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's not exactly far from simple minded either.
Well, currently, what Apple offers as a computing experience is the best. What Google offers is mostly crap and only popular at all because so many people can't resist free. The Google computing model is of no interest to me, I'll take care of my data myself, thank you very much. So, yes, I would like Apple to succeed and I have no interest in seeing Google succeed at their expense, and Google's success will be at the expense of Microsoft, certainly, and Apple possibly.