Unless the definition has changed recently, I may disagree with that statement:
com⋅put⋅er
/kəmˈpyutər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhm-pyoo-ter] Show IPA
Use computer in a Sentence
See images of computer
Search computer on the Web
?noun
1. \tAlso called processor. an electronic device designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations.
Actually, you're wrong. For years now, most computers have been bought by people for the home, with home use intended. It's been a long time, the mid 90's since most computers have been used for work.
Ok, I'm not disputing you, but could you provide a link that home computing use is greater than "other".
Quote:
Mac buyers buy the machines they do because they like them. The Macbooks outsell the Macbook Pros by a wide margin, and the iMacs, while used for pro work, are mostly not.
I also know plenty of people who buy MBP's because they like the way it's made, and the way it looks, as opposed to the plastic Macbook, but the Macbook is still Apples best seller.
Apple just revised the MacBook line, only keeping the white one and eliminating the others, why would Apple so that if it's their number one seller?
I'm not trying to troll, just I want to understand a bit better. So don't get pissed.
Well technically yes, yes, yes, yes and yes it is! According to the dictionary definition, these are all computers in their own right. Next on the Discovery Channel, the mating habits of the Blue-Footed Booby.
Because Intel certainly isn't now that Apple is making their own processors and I don't think Apple is going innovate very well without Steve at the helm.
Apple is brilliant 95% of the time. But that doesn't change the fact that they're still infuriatingly stubborn the other 5% of the time.
One example that comes to mind: the Mouse. Apple brilliantly pioneered the GUI and mouse in consumer personal computers. Today EVERYBODY uses a GUI and mouse.
On the other hand, they resisted 2-button mouse functionality for years. THAT was retarded. They knew it was retarded, but it was a matter of pride for them.
It's OK to hide potentially confusing features from newbie users (i.e. the secondary click touchpad function) but it's not OK to completely hold back an essential feature such as this from millions of users who do need it.
Just because Apple is the only computer software and hardware maker who demonstrates any real level of innovation and commitment to the user experience doesn't mean that they should not be criticized when they make a boneheaded move.
And just to bring my comments back into context, I am NOT suggesting that the iPad should have a conventional Finder-type file management system. My comments were directed at the notion that Apple is "reinventing file access." There's a kernel of truth there, and I certainly hope they can reinvent file access, but their current direction on the DESKTOP, as evidenced by Aperture, Iphoto, etc., still needs a lot of work before it can become truly successful.
Apple never ever said that the 2-button mouse was retarded. And when was the last time Apple completely held back this essential feature? I have been using a multi-button mouse for years on my Macs. Haven't you.
Jobs' position is like a tailor who makes suits. Why spend all his time making gloves? It wouldn't matter what, he could never make a glove that would satisfy every hand or occasion. In Jobs' case, let Ballmer do it. Now there is a guy that would love to get in everybody's pocket and grab you by the?.
A bit off topic, but there any word on the underlying OS of v3.2? I have to assume it's still Leopard, not SL with GCD and OpenCL, since it's still in the v3.x range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileMe
Well then a Kindle is a computer.
The Nook is a computer
Apple TV is a computer
iPod Nano is a computer
the shuffle is a computer
hmmmm I wonder how long I can go
I see your point, but I'd say yes to all of those. I can't speak for everyone but I'm certainly being pedantic when we say they're computers. However, I wouldn't say they are PCs (personal computers) despite being used for personal use.
I do have to wonder if there will be a market for the iPad to supplement a traditional PC market to some degree and if Apple had this in mind when they priced the iPad not far from the bargain-basement notebook prices. I suppose this will depend if the iPod and iPhone can be synced to the iPad and if it can be backed up to Time Machine without the use of a PC, which doesn't appear to be the case at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
So Google is going to buy/merge with Apple then?
Because Intel certainly isn't now that Apple is making their own processors and I don't think Apple is going innovate very well without Steve at the helm.
Apple is brilliant 95% of the time. But that doesn't change the fact that they're still infuriatingly stubborn the other 5% of the time.
One example that comes to mind: the Mouse. Apple brilliantly pioneered the GUI and mouse in consumer personal computers. Today EVERYBODY uses a GUI and mouse.
On the other hand, they resisted 2-button mouse functionality for years. THAT was retarded. They knew it was retarded, but it was a matter of pride for them.
It's OK to hide potentially confusing features from newbie users (i.e. the secondary click touchpad function) but it's not OK to completely hold back an essential feature such as this from millions of users who do need it.
Just because Apple is the only computer software and hardware maker who demonstrates any real level of innovation and commitment to the user experience doesn't mean that they should not be criticized when they make a boneheaded move.
And just to bring my comments back into context, I am NOT suggesting that the iPad should have a conventional Finder-type file management system. My comments were directed at the notion that Apple is "reinventing file access." There's a kernel of truth there, and I certainly hope they can reinvent file access, but their current direction on the DESKTOP, as evidenced by Aperture, Iphoto, etc., still needs a lot of work before it can become truly successful.
They resisted it only with their own mice. You were able to use 2, 3 and 4 button mice. You could use trackballs and joysticks. You could use audio and video controllers.
You know, there's been a vast industry selling these things for over two decades now, and guess what, most are bought by PC users. No one had to use Apple's mouse.
I don't think a lot of people understand Apple, and what is possible.
Not really. You still have to make up folders, give them a proper name, and when you throw things into them, figure out which folder it's in, if it's ambiguous.
I think you may have hit the nail on the head there. I believe a lack of organizational responsibility often extends far beyond the computer realm in today's society. I particularly enjoy the entertaining TV show that was just released recently by A&E entitled "Hoarders." Perhaps this a bit off-topic but I believe that, more often than not, this is simply a learned behavior rather than some sort of mysterious medical problem. But, back to computers. Can we become TOO dependent on them? I tend to think we can.
We certainly can.
My daughter thinks her computer is perfectly organized because she CAN find everything she has. She doesn't see why she must look for folders, and then look inside them when she can just quickly type a word or two, and there it is.
After all, who says folders are so great? We just like doing things the way we've been doing things. Doesn't make it right.
i find it funny that people think they're being deprived of their freedom when they can't drag and drop from a folder to another like they do with finder...there are popover lists in the ipad, this will be achievable somehow or another
do you need to be looking at where in the hard drive your files are written? what sector and cluster? no, then this should be the same...and i doubt it restricts you in any way
People are so used to think "folder" that they can't imagine any other way. That's because people get locked into doing things in certain ways mentally.
Let's take a famous example. Everyone knows that the qwerty keyboard was designed in the 19th century when mechanics was not very sophisticated, and so they had to slow typing down. Now that mechanics have nothing to do with typing, we all know that the Dvorak keyboard layout is so much better, easier, and faster.
If you place your complete trust in such a system, you're always just a misspelled filename or keyword away from losing an important file. Organizational systems need some degree of redundancy. And file folders, metaphorical or otherwise, are a great way to group related files so you can quickly find and isolate them when needed.
Projects are a great example of this. Let's say your working on a complex presentation with all sorts of files. Do you really want to wade through an endless search results list every time you want to access each individual file you're working with? Or is it simpler to just toss your project files into a folder where they will always be at your fingertips?
I fell in love with Spotlight the first time I used it. Over the years, though, I've noticed that sometimes there are quicker and easier ways to find what you want. Bottom line, I never rely on a single system.
It's just as bad with hierarchical folder systems. A letter or two away, and you may never find your file. People put files in the wrong folders all the time. I've done that too. Worse things happen.
But this whole thing is being blown far out of proportion.
Too many people here are talking as though this simple first gen product will be used by people with thousands of files from numerous programs. It ain't so.
People will use this for what it's suited for. At first, you aren't going to be using it for your projects, because the software hasn't been written for it. Maybe in several years, when it will have the features you need. If it doesn't get to that point, then you won't use it for that. Pretty simple when you think about it.
Meanwhile others will find it to be just fine. And you'll be surprised at how a broad a base that will be.
Everyone knows that the qwerty keyboard was designed in the 19th century when mechanics was not very sophisticated, and so they had to slow typing down. Now that mechanics have nothing to do with typing, we all know that the Dvorak keyboard layout is so much better, easier, and faster.
I learned how to type ( with all the fingers) in high school when no guy would be caught dead doing "a woman's work." Turns out it was worth learning in the tech age.
But I see young people on blackberry's pecking away with their thumbs and wonder if I could beat them in a race of words per minute. The plastic keyboards were a new interface and people seem to have picked it up okay.
Then the touchscreen came out and all I heard from Apple naysayers was "I would like to get one but not until it has a physical keyboard." Now touch screens are all over the place and no one seems to mind anymore. I guess people naturally fuss at first and then accept it.
I for one quiver at the thought of loosing my full size keyboard and mouse. (shudder)
But I think that the word "computer" is becoming obsolete.
When our clothes contain computers, as is being predicted, will they BE computers, or will they just have computing as one of their functions, the other of which will be to clothe us?
My camera has several computers, but it's not a computer.
My Tv runs on Linux, but it's also not a computer. Many audio components have computers, but they are not computers.
I suppose what it's used for gives name to the definition.
What do we think of today when we thing of "computing"? Is it arranging photos? Is it listening to music? Is it writing a letter? If not, then this isn't a computer, though it contains one.
We're abstracting tasks from the device as the device takes on more of the drudge work from us.
I don't consider it to be computing on our part, and so, maybe these are NOT computers per se, though they contain them.
I think that this is what Apple does best, given the possible level of technology at the time.
What I love is the passion this device is invoking, there are suddenly heated debates about the future not of apple products, but in computing in general - the next chapter.
Plain HORRIBLE. Apple, please bring back the great Mac OS X file system! If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!!
If everyone subscribed to that school of thought nothing would ever change! What's wrong with innovation? If people really don't like it, people won't buy it. Apple will adapt. But if it's a success, it could change a lot of things.
Because Intel certainly isn't now that Apple is making their own processors and I don't think Apple is going innovate very well without Steve at the helm.
I don't see where you get the Google/Apple thing. At one time, before Google started copying Apple's product line, it looked as though they might merge. Their products were complimentary. But then Google began to compete with Apple, and now, all bets are off as to what will happen between them.
I could write a REALLY long post on this, but I'm sure you don't want me to. So I'll just write a slightly long one.
My take on where Apple is going now, because of Steve's long term vision, is to extend the iPhone OS. Heh, we had a thread (maybe it was early in this one) in which someone complained about Apple's use of "i" before so many products.
Well, I hate to see this OS referred to as the iPhone OS because the Touch, and especially the iPad are most certainly not phones, though they can make Skype and Vonage VOIP calls.
So, let's call it the iOS for now. It could be a worse name.
Apple is taking the iOS upscale with the iPad. I think it will continue to go further.
You see, he's being cagy here, and is leading developers down a path they don't even know they're taking!
So, the iPhone comes out without programming possible. Use the cloud is the first mantra, with a promise to make everyone happy with development later.
Then comes the SDK, and the app store. So everyone and their sister begins to write programs for these little devices. They become wildly popular, and so do the programs.
So, most every company starts writing programs for them. And I mean everyone. Media companies, industrial companies, software companies, governments, etc. So we've got a whole load of developers here.
But this is for a phone, right? So, well, it's ok then to get programmers to write for it with the different cpu, and different gpu with the limitations all small devices have.
But they're growing software development teams to write for it.
So, almost three years later, Apple announces the iPad. With the same basic OS, but with additional features, a more powerful hardware with a real computer sized screen.
Well now, there are over 140,000 apps that can run on this. but they run better when modded for it. So they start working on it.
But wait, it also can run iWork in modified form, and it's finally got a "real" keyboard, and a good, big virtual one. This is a new opportunity! So, we start to see more software companies hiring more programmers to write more sophisticated software.
Now, normally, companies don't want to change processors they're writing for, because they have to change their codebase over, and gain expertise with it all at once.
But hey, we're writing for phones, of COURSE we've got to work with a different hardware base, and a slightly different OS, which just HAPPENs to be based on full fledged UNIX so it's got far more power than any other phone OS.
Hmm! So now there are at least a couple hundred thousand programmers with experience on this platform.
And the platform expands over the years. Slowly but surely.
Next up, a model with 15" screen at maybe 1600 x 1200, and more powerful processors.
Then before you know it, these companies have almost as many programmers working on the iOS on ARM as they do working on OS X and x86.
But, guess what? The iOS machines are vastly outselling the machines using OS X and x86. Whoops!
As Apple reduces the OS X x86 machines in their line, most work is being done on iOS and ARM.
Guess what Apple is doing to these companies?
And the iOS is now the 2nd most used OS, and rising fast.
If you provide the link "proving" that 90% are used for work.
I was going by Microsoft's 90% market share and how they are the dominate in that market, also in devices like ATM machines, POS devices, CAD/CAM, engineering machines etc. to give a idea that the OP's claim that 90% of computers are just used for netbook type computing, wasn't realistic.
Perhaps 90% of home computers might be used for netbook type computing, but not 90% of all computers. Perhaps I should have said that instead.
Thanks for those links, it does show a pattern of increased home use (and what demographics) and the typical home does have a lot more computers than before. Also if you throw in the car, in the TV's, the microwaves and so on.
I guess what I was looking for is personal computers, how much were used in business and how much were used in the home.
If I come across such statistical information I will share it with you.
If everyone subscribed to that school of thought nothing would ever change! What's wrong with innovation? If people really don't like it, people won't buy it. Apple will adapt. But if it's a success, it could change a lot of things.
Why are people afraid of change?
It's why most people don't change jobs, or where they live, or their haircut.
They are afraid of change, because it may not work out. Change your job, and you may not do well there. It's a mentality of a lack of self confidence.
Comments
Unless the definition has changed recently, I may disagree with that statement:
com⋅put⋅er
/kəmˈpyutər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhm-pyoo-ter] Show IPA
Use computer in a Sentence
See images of computer
Search computer on the Web
?noun
1. \tAlso called processor. an electronic device designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations.
Well then a Kindle is a computer.
The Nook is a computer
Apple TV is a computer
iPod Nano is a computer
the shuffle is a computer
hmmmm I wonder how long I can go
Actually, you're wrong. For years now, most computers have been bought by people for the home, with home use intended. It's been a long time, the mid 90's since most computers have been used for work.
Ok, I'm not disputing you, but could you provide a link that home computing use is greater than "other".
Mac buyers buy the machines they do because they like them. The Macbooks outsell the Macbook Pros by a wide margin, and the iMacs, while used for pro work, are mostly not.
I also know plenty of people who buy MBP's because they like the way it's made, and the way it looks, as opposed to the plastic Macbook, but the Macbook is still Apples best seller.
Apple just revised the MacBook line, only keeping the white one and eliminating the others, why would Apple so that if it's their number one seller?
I'm not trying to troll, just I want to understand a bit better. So don't get pissed.
Well then a Kindle is a computer.
The Nook is a computer
Apple TV is a computer
iPod Nano is a computer
the shuffle is a computer
hmmmm I wonder how long I can go
Well technically yes, yes, yes, yes and yes it is! According to the dictionary definition, these are all computers in their own right. Next on the Discovery Channel, the mating habits of the Blue-Footed Booby.
That's actually what Google wants.
So Google is going to buy/merge with Apple then?
Because Intel certainly isn't now that Apple is making their own processors and I don't think Apple is going innovate very well without Steve at the helm.
Apple is brilliant 95% of the time. But that doesn't change the fact that they're still infuriatingly stubborn the other 5% of the time.
One example that comes to mind: the Mouse. Apple brilliantly pioneered the GUI and mouse in consumer personal computers. Today EVERYBODY uses a GUI and mouse.
On the other hand, they resisted 2-button mouse functionality for years. THAT was retarded. They knew it was retarded, but it was a matter of pride for them.
It's OK to hide potentially confusing features from newbie users (i.e. the secondary click touchpad function) but it's not OK to completely hold back an essential feature such as this from millions of users who do need it.
Just because Apple is the only computer software and hardware maker who demonstrates any real level of innovation and commitment to the user experience doesn't mean that they should not be criticized when they make a boneheaded move.
And just to bring my comments back into context, I am NOT suggesting that the iPad should have a conventional Finder-type file management system. My comments were directed at the notion that Apple is "reinventing file access." There's a kernel of truth there, and I certainly hope they can reinvent file access, but their current direction on the DESKTOP, as evidenced by Aperture, Iphoto, etc., still needs a lot of work before it can become truly successful.
Apple never ever said that the 2-button mouse was retarded. And when was the last time Apple completely held back this essential feature? I have been using a multi-button mouse for years on my Macs. Haven't you.
Jobs' position is like a tailor who makes suits. Why spend all his time making gloves? It wouldn't matter what, he could never make a glove that would satisfy every hand or occasion. In Jobs' case, let Ballmer do it. Now there is a guy that would love to get in everybody's pocket and grab you by the?.
Well then a Kindle is a computer.
The Nook is a computer
Apple TV is a computer
iPod Nano is a computer
the shuffle is a computer
hmmmm I wonder how long I can go
I see your point, but I'd say yes to all of those. I can't speak for everyone but I'm certainly being pedantic when we say they're computers. However, I wouldn't say they are PCs (personal computers) despite being used for personal use.
I do have to wonder if there will be a market for the iPad to supplement a traditional PC market to some degree and if Apple had this in mind when they priced the iPad not far from the bargain-basement notebook prices. I suppose this will depend if the iPod and iPhone can be synced to the iPad and if it can be backed up to Time Machine without the use of a PC, which doesn't appear to be the case at all.
So Google is going to buy/merge with Apple then?
Because Intel certainly isn't now that Apple is making their own processors and I don't think Apple is going innovate very well without Steve at the helm.
Oy vey!
Apple is brilliant 95% of the time. But that doesn't change the fact that they're still infuriatingly stubborn the other 5% of the time.
One example that comes to mind: the Mouse. Apple brilliantly pioneered the GUI and mouse in consumer personal computers. Today EVERYBODY uses a GUI and mouse.
On the other hand, they resisted 2-button mouse functionality for years. THAT was retarded. They knew it was retarded, but it was a matter of pride for them.
It's OK to hide potentially confusing features from newbie users (i.e. the secondary click touchpad function) but it's not OK to completely hold back an essential feature such as this from millions of users who do need it.
Just because Apple is the only computer software and hardware maker who demonstrates any real level of innovation and commitment to the user experience doesn't mean that they should not be criticized when they make a boneheaded move.
And just to bring my comments back into context, I am NOT suggesting that the iPad should have a conventional Finder-type file management system. My comments were directed at the notion that Apple is "reinventing file access." There's a kernel of truth there, and I certainly hope they can reinvent file access, but their current direction on the DESKTOP, as evidenced by Aperture, Iphoto, etc., still needs a lot of work before it can become truly successful.
They resisted it only with their own mice. You were able to use 2, 3 and 4 button mice. You could use trackballs and joysticks. You could use audio and video controllers.
You know, there's been a vast industry selling these things for over two decades now, and guess what, most are bought by PC users. No one had to use Apple's mouse.
I don't think a lot of people understand Apple, and what is possible.
Aren't "Folders" easier than that?
Not really. You still have to make up folders, give them a proper name, and when you throw things into them, figure out which folder it's in, if it's ambiguous.
I think you may have hit the nail on the head there. I believe a lack of organizational responsibility often extends far beyond the computer realm in today's society. I particularly enjoy the entertaining TV show that was just released recently by A&E entitled "Hoarders." Perhaps this a bit off-topic but I believe that, more often than not, this is simply a learned behavior rather than some sort of mysterious medical problem. But, back to computers. Can we become TOO dependent on them? I tend to think we can.
We certainly can.
My daughter thinks her computer is perfectly organized because she CAN find everything she has. She doesn't see why she must look for folders, and then look inside them when she can just quickly type a word or two, and there it is.
After all, who says folders are so great? We just like doing things the way we've been doing things. Doesn't make it right.
The iPad and Information?s Third Age
Perhaps a little biased, but Bill Rankin is no lightweight.
http://www.openculture.com/2010/01/t...third_age.html
i find it funny that people think they're being deprived of their freedom when they can't drag and drop from a folder to another like they do with finder...there are popover lists in the ipad, this will be achievable somehow or another
do you need to be looking at where in the hard drive your files are written? what sector and cluster? no, then this should be the same...and i doubt it restricts you in any way
People are so used to think "folder" that they can't imagine any other way. That's because people get locked into doing things in certain ways mentally.
Let's take a famous example. Everyone knows that the qwerty keyboard was designed in the 19th century when mechanics was not very sophisticated, and so they had to slow typing down. Now that mechanics have nothing to do with typing, we all know that the Dvorak keyboard layout is so much better, easier, and faster.
So how many people here use it?
I'm sorry, I didn't hear you!
And it's been around for decades.
If you place your complete trust in such a system, you're always just a misspelled filename or keyword away from losing an important file. Organizational systems need some degree of redundancy. And file folders, metaphorical or otherwise, are a great way to group related files so you can quickly find and isolate them when needed.
Projects are a great example of this. Let's say your working on a complex presentation with all sorts of files. Do you really want to wade through an endless search results list every time you want to access each individual file you're working with? Or is it simpler to just toss your project files into a folder where they will always be at your fingertips?
I fell in love with Spotlight the first time I used it. Over the years, though, I've noticed that sometimes there are quicker and easier ways to find what you want. Bottom line, I never rely on a single system.
It's just as bad with hierarchical folder systems. A letter or two away, and you may never find your file. People put files in the wrong folders all the time. I've done that too. Worse things happen.
But this whole thing is being blown far out of proportion.
Too many people here are talking as though this simple first gen product will be used by people with thousands of files from numerous programs. It ain't so.
People will use this for what it's suited for. At first, you aren't going to be using it for your projects, because the software hasn't been written for it. Maybe in several years, when it will have the features you need. If it doesn't get to that point, then you won't use it for that. Pretty simple when you think about it.
Meanwhile others will find it to be just fine. And you'll be surprised at how a broad a base that will be.
Everyone knows that the qwerty keyboard was designed in the 19th century when mechanics was not very sophisticated, and so they had to slow typing down. Now that mechanics have nothing to do with typing, we all know that the Dvorak keyboard layout is so much better, easier, and faster.
I learned how to type ( with all the fingers) in high school when no guy would be caught dead doing "a woman's work." Turns out it was worth learning in the tech age.
But I see young people on blackberry's pecking away with their thumbs and wonder if I could beat them in a race of words per minute. The plastic keyboards were a new interface and people seem to have picked it up okay.
Then the touchscreen came out and all I heard from Apple naysayers was "I would like to get one but not until it has a physical keyboard." Now touch screens are all over the place and no one seems to mind anymore. I guess people naturally fuss at first and then accept it.
I for one quiver at the thought of loosing my full size keyboard and mouse. (shudder)
Well then a Kindle is a computer.
The Nook is a computer
Apple TV is a computer
iPod Nano is a computer
the shuffle is a computer
hmmmm I wonder how long I can go
Anything that computes is a computer.
But I think that the word "computer" is becoming obsolete.
When our clothes contain computers, as is being predicted, will they BE computers, or will they just have computing as one of their functions, the other of which will be to clothe us?
My camera has several computers, but it's not a computer.
My Tv runs on Linux, but it's also not a computer. Many audio components have computers, but they are not computers.
I suppose what it's used for gives name to the definition.
What do we think of today when we thing of "computing"? Is it arranging photos? Is it listening to music? Is it writing a letter? If not, then this isn't a computer, though it contains one.
We're abstracting tasks from the device as the device takes on more of the drudge work from us.
I don't consider it to be computing on our part, and so, maybe these are NOT computers per se, though they contain them.
I think that this is what Apple does best, given the possible level of technology at the time.
Ok, I'm not disputing you, but could you provide a link that home computing use is greater than "other".
If you provide the link "proving" that 90% are used for work.
No, I can't easily find a definitive link. But there has been so much written about this over the years, that you should have known.
Here's a few links.
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/issuebrf/sib00314.htm
http://www.edweek.org/login.html?sou...l&levelId=2100
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyl...ay/635134.html
Apple just revised the MacBook line, only keeping the white one and eliminating the others, why would Apple so that if it's their number one seller?
Ask Apple, but they're saying it's their biggest seller.
I'm not trying to troll, just I want to understand a bit better. So don't get pissed.
I'm answering your questions, so I'm not pissed.
Plain HORRIBLE. Apple, please bring back the great Mac OS X file system! If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!!
If everyone subscribed to that school of thought nothing would ever change! What's wrong with innovation? If people really don't like it, people won't buy it. Apple will adapt. But if it's a success, it could change a lot of things.
Why are people afraid of change?
So Google is going to buy/merge with Apple then?
Because Intel certainly isn't now that Apple is making their own processors and I don't think Apple is going innovate very well without Steve at the helm.
I don't see where you get the Google/Apple thing. At one time, before Google started copying Apple's product line, it looked as though they might merge. Their products were complimentary. But then Google began to compete with Apple, and now, all bets are off as to what will happen between them.
I could write a REALLY long post on this, but I'm sure you don't want me to. So I'll just write a slightly long one.
My take on where Apple is going now, because of Steve's long term vision, is to extend the iPhone OS. Heh, we had a thread (maybe it was early in this one) in which someone complained about Apple's use of "i" before so many products.
Well, I hate to see this OS referred to as the iPhone OS because the Touch, and especially the iPad are most certainly not phones, though they can make Skype and Vonage VOIP calls.
So, let's call it the iOS for now. It could be a worse name.
Apple is taking the iOS upscale with the iPad. I think it will continue to go further.
You see, he's being cagy here, and is leading developers down a path they don't even know they're taking!
So, the iPhone comes out without programming possible. Use the cloud is the first mantra, with a promise to make everyone happy with development later.
Then comes the SDK, and the app store. So everyone and their sister begins to write programs for these little devices. They become wildly popular, and so do the programs.
So, most every company starts writing programs for them. And I mean everyone. Media companies, industrial companies, software companies, governments, etc. So we've got a whole load of developers here.
But this is for a phone, right? So, well, it's ok then to get programmers to write for it with the different cpu, and different gpu with the limitations all small devices have.
But they're growing software development teams to write for it.
So, almost three years later, Apple announces the iPad. With the same basic OS, but with additional features, a more powerful hardware with a real computer sized screen.
Well now, there are over 140,000 apps that can run on this. but they run better when modded for it. So they start working on it.
But wait, it also can run iWork in modified form, and it's finally got a "real" keyboard, and a good, big virtual one. This is a new opportunity! So, we start to see more software companies hiring more programmers to write more sophisticated software.
Now, normally, companies don't want to change processors they're writing for, because they have to change their codebase over, and gain expertise with it all at once.
But hey, we're writing for phones, of COURSE we've got to work with a different hardware base, and a slightly different OS, which just HAPPENs to be based on full fledged UNIX so it's got far more power than any other phone OS.
Hmm! So now there are at least a couple hundred thousand programmers with experience on this platform.
And the platform expands over the years. Slowly but surely.
Next up, a model with 15" screen at maybe 1600 x 1200, and more powerful processors.
Then before you know it, these companies have almost as many programmers working on the iOS on ARM as they do working on OS X and x86.
But, guess what? The iOS machines are vastly outselling the machines using OS X and x86. Whoops!
As Apple reduces the OS X x86 machines in their line, most work is being done on iOS and ARM.
Guess what Apple is doing to these companies?
And the iOS is now the 2nd most used OS, and rising fast.
Well, where might we be in 2020?
What was that about the OS wars being won?
If you provide the link "proving" that 90% are used for work.
I was going by Microsoft's 90% market share and how they are the dominate in that market, also in devices like ATM machines, POS devices, CAD/CAM, engineering machines etc. to give a idea that the OP's claim that 90% of computers are just used for netbook type computing, wasn't realistic.
Perhaps 90% of home computers might be used for netbook type computing, but not 90% of all computers. Perhaps I should have said that instead.
Thanks for those links, it does show a pattern of increased home use (and what demographics) and the typical home does have a lot more computers than before. Also if you throw in the car, in the TV's, the microwaves and so on.
I guess what I was looking for is personal computers, how much were used in business and how much were used in the home.
If I come across such statistical information I will share it with you.
If everyone subscribed to that school of thought nothing would ever change! What's wrong with innovation? If people really don't like it, people won't buy it. Apple will adapt. But if it's a success, it could change a lot of things.
Why are people afraid of change?
It's why most people don't change jobs, or where they live, or their haircut.
They are afraid of change, because it may not work out. Change your job, and you may not do well there. It's a mentality of a lack of self confidence.