I think nvidia2008's analogy is very fitting. Like HTML5, there are plenty of newer fuels under development and it has hit the market in limited quantities. However, like Flash, the bulk of the world still uses fossil fuels.
I think an analogy for your line of thought is that since fossil fuels are technically also a "dead end" technology, that we should all stop using cars that use gas and jump into hydrogen or all-electric cars. Problem is, that the infrastructure (like HTML5 saturation) isn't there to support such an abrupt jump.
No, it's a dumb analogy, there are no parallels. Clinging to Flash is clinging to false hope.
It's not about clinging. It's about being able to use (or view in Flash's case) the resource that's got the largest infrastructure until something new takes over. Like it or not, fossil fuels, like Flash, is still being used by the vast majority of the world. Until some new fuel takes the place of fossil fuels, we're stuck using it.
Just like how right now, you are going to keep using your car/truck/van/SUV that guzzles gas, even though it's going to be a dead end technology. Unless you live in the very limited regions where it's somewhat supported, you aren't going to buy a new all-electric or hydrogen-powered car just because it's the new technology that has potential. The vast majority of the world has yet to have hydrogen dispensing stations on every street corner nor does every house have a compatible charging outlet. What we do have, though, are gas dispensing stations on almost every street corner.
Google's given me the option to be able to view that content as long as it's still around. They've also given me the option to seamlessly transition to HTML5 when it takes over. Flash will die when it dies. But in the meantime, if someone gives me the option to be able to view it on a mobile device, I'm not going to say no.
Nice try, though unfortunately, your answers have absolutely nothing to do with the question.
Upon which I return to explain the relevance to the blind.
Quote:
as a developer, I don't care if [Flash] uses a plugin, or... not. As long as it has wide use.
As long as which version is in wide use? Adobe loves to tout the widespread adoption of their Flash plug-in, but a wide variety of versions is installed. Each version has different bugs and security holes. As a developer, I have to make sure my code works well across the popular versions. As the manager who pays the developer, I have to worry about maintenance costs, too.
Whether you like it or not, the world is moving to HTML5. That means bugs in HTML5 are going to be found and eliminated. For however long Flash continues to survive, bugs will need to be found and eliminated in it--a complete waste/duplication of resources.
Let me further remind you: developers work for others who ultimately want to please users/customers.
Quote:
And I couldn't care less if it was developed by one company, or 50. Clearly, hundreds of thousands of developers side with me on this.
You're vastly outnumbered.
Quote:
you need to add a "so theeeereeee...' or naaaa na na na naaaaa or something to that affect.
Google vs. Apple is much juicier. The competition is driving both companies to innovate using very different tactics, but consumers will benefit. I'm a developer on iPhone and Android, and this is as fun as it gets.
I couldn't get into Google IO Conference (and missed out on two free smartphones!!) but will head to Apple WWDC in about two weeks for Apple's rebuttal. Gotta love it!!
No, it is about clinging. Ubiquitous technologies are EOL'd and displaced time after time, and Flash is one of those that is destined to meet the same fate. Cling to Flash if you want, but the web will pass you by.
Both companies have visions and both companies chase profits. The notion that Apple is some kind of angelic "idealistic" company (that just so happens to have the largest profit margins in the business, which means they're taking far more money from your pocket than other companies) is beyond silly.
Trust me, if those "other companies" had the product and/or service that allows Apple to have higher profit margins .... you can bet the farm that they would be doing that immediately, if not sooner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian
Apple is out here to make as much money as possible. That's the goal of any publicly traded company.
Steve Jobs has, on many occasions, publicly stated that the reason Apple exists is to make the kind of products that he would want to buy. The fact that Apple consistently "breaks the mold" in both business and product models is proof that Apple is not just "chasing profits".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian
Their "idealism" leads them to do some things like intentionally change iTunes specifically to break interoperability with other manufacturer's devices. That doesn't help the consumer in any way, despite Apple's spin that it does. Those are not examples of idealism.
I suppose in your world, that if I spend millions of dollars designing and manufacturing a product/service that is leaps and bounds ahead of everything else in the marketplace .... then I should just give it away to any and all of my competitors to use and sell freely .. Ha! .. good luck with that business model catching on.
Since you have a hard time seeing the difference between "those other guys" and Apple ... here in a nutshell is the BIG difference.
Apple: chases customer satisfaction ... gaining profits as a by product.
Those other guys: chases the "bottom line" .... leaving the marketplace open for a cusomer focused company ( see: Apple's growing customer base)
I think nvidia2008's analogy is very fitting. Like HTML5, there are plenty of newer fuels under development and it has hit the market in limited quantities. However, like Flash, the bulk of the world still uses fossil fuels.
I think an analogy for your line of thought is that since fossil fuels are technically also a "dead end" technology, that we should all stop using cars that use gas and jump into hydrogen or all-electric cars. Problem is, that the infrastructure (like HTML5 saturation) isn't there to support such an abrupt jump.
Which is why these kind of analogies are fraught with peril. It might seem explanatory at first blush, but if you give it some thought you'll realize that the infrastructure based barriers to entry for new fuels are just orders of magnitude greater than those for new internet technologies.
Or maybe "orders of magnitude" doesn't even work, since we're talking about completely different definitions of barrier. Vast, trillion dollar deployment of development, processing, delivery and utilization systems which touch on every aspect of modern life, on the one hand, and coding for a new standard on a browser on the other. Which the end user doesn't even notice.
Your points don't include the finer details needed to reach your conclusion. The larger point about the G4 was that PowerPC is a more sophisticated and advanced processing architecure than x86. That is true. The reason Apple had to leave it is because there was little interest in investing the amount of resources in PowerPC for it to reach it's full potential.
As far as iTunes. There is no reason Apple has to allow other devices to plug right into iTunes. Why should Apple allow others to suckle from it's efforts. iTunes does have API's that allow other software to plug devices into it's non-DRM media.
Competiton is good for consumers. If another company wants to provide iTunes like services they need to make their own. Being lazy and complaining that Apple won't share does little to foster competiton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian
Apple's PR historically has been some of the misleading and unidealistic marketing I've ever seen -- do you remember the claims that G4s were "supercomputers"? Their "idealism" leads them to do some things like intentionally change iTunes specifically to break interoperability with other manufacturer's devices. That doesn't help the consumer in any way, despite Apple's spin that it does. Those are not examples of idealism.
Both companies [Apple and Google] have visions and both companies chase profits. The notion that Apple is some kind of angelic "idealistic" company (that just so happens to have the largest profit margins in the business, which means they're taking far more money from your pocket than other companies) is beyond silly.
These gross profit margin & pretax profit margin figures are from Forbes for the most recent quarter:
Google: 68.9%, 36.1%
Apple: 41.1%, 26.9%
IBM: 43.6%, 15.4%
Dell: 19.1%, 3.8%
AT&T: 59%, 15.8%
Verizon: 58.7%, 21.3%
What "notions" do these figures inspire in the "realist"?
Upon which I return to explain the relevance to the blind.
As long as which version is in wide use? Adobe loves to tout the widespread adoption of their Flash plug-in, but a wide variety of versions is installed. Each version has different bugs and security holes. As a developer, I have to make sure my code works well across the popular versions. As the manager who pays the developer, I have to worry about maintenance costs, too.
Whether you like it or not, the world is moving to HTML5. That means bugs in HTML5 are going to be found and eliminated. For however long Flash continues to survive, bugs will need to be found and eliminated in it--a complete waste/duplication of resources.
Let me further remind you: developers work for others who ultimately want to please users/customers.
You're vastly outnumbered.
Not my way. That's your way.
Wow. Such intense revelations here!
First, ok... mind... blown. You mean to tell me... that we have to please the client???
Apple: chases customer satisfaction ... gaining profits as a by product.
Those other guys: chases the "bottom line" .... leaving the marketplace open for a cusomer focused company ( see: Apple's growing customer base)
This just isn't reality. Apple chases profits by having an exceptionally vertical product lineup with high profit margins. High customer satisfaction is a goal of every company.
The people who believe Apple is chasing making people happy more than profits are delusional. If Apple wasn't after profits primarily, they'd move their production and manufacturing away from suicide-ridden exploitation-based labour like Foxconn. They choose to save a few bucks and manufacture their stuff over there regardless of the exploitation. Why? Because it increases their PROFIT margins. It certainly doesn't improve customer satisfaction making their stuff with exploited labour overseas.
The whole concept that Apple exists to satisfy people while everyone else is out just to make money is incredibly naive.
Your points don't include the finer details needed to reach your conclusion. The larger point about the G4 was that PowerPC is a more sophisticated and advanced processing architecure than x86. That is true.
It most certainly is not. Note that while those commercials were running, I worked at IBM in Toronto working on the PowerPC compilers gearing up for the G5 launch. The commercials were blatant lies.
The point of the commercial was to exploit a decades-old US export law which classified any computer with more than 1GFLOP of CPU power as a "supercomputer". Every PC sold at the time was classified as a "supercomputer", but only Apple chose to misleadingly market it as such.
Quote:
As far as iTunes. There is no reason Apple has to allow other devices to plug right into iTunes. Why should Apple allow others to suckle from it's efforts.
Then why do they use Webkit? Sounds to me like a company chasing 'customer satisfaction' and a company with 'ideals' would allow users to do what they want, if they choose to. There's no good reason for Apple to actively block Palm from syncing its devices with iTunes except corporate greed -- they want to force you to buy their high-profit-margin hardware products to use iTunes.
These gross profit margin & pretax profit margin figures are from Forbes for the most recent quarter:
Google: 68.9%, 36.1%
Apple: 41.1%, 26.9%
IBM: 43.6%, 15.4%
Dell: 19.1%, 3.8%
AT&T: 59%, 15.8%
Verizon: 58.7%, 21.3%
What "notions" do these figures inspire in the "realist"?
I'm referring to the consumer electronics business, not the software business. Of course software companies and service companies have higher profit margins.
Look at Dell vs Apple, the only reasonable comparison in your list: 3.8% vs 26.9%.
I'm not disagreeing with the writer's main point, and I'm not suggesting that no one should be allowed to compete with Apple. But, this phrase is repeated so often, by so many people as a self-evident truism, that I think it's worth examining it.
Competition can often be a force for good. For example, when it leads to a better mousetrap, or prevents price gouging. And lack of competition is often, perhaps even usually, bad, as noted by the FCC in their recent evaluation of the state of the US wireless market.
However, I disagree that competition is always good for consumers. Competition is not some magic force that always produces good. Like the mythical "invisible hand", the virtues of competition are frequently overstated. Competition certainly does not always increase quality, but often simply drives down prices, something that is frequently accomplished by cutting quality -- the race to the bottom. This is not necessarily of real benefit to consumers: products may not last as long, so that savings are lost because they must be replaced more often, or the quality may be cut so much that they become unsafe to use.
Particularly when there is "unfair competition", such as the product dumping engaged in by China or Google (two entities with similar personalities and similar approaches to business), occurring, there may be harm to consumers in other ways. Companies producing quality products may be driven out of business. Companies interested in entering a certain market may face too high a barrier to allow them to do so with a quality product. Consumers again suffer from cheap inferior products, and ultimately lack of choice.
So, no one should look to competition as some magic bullet that will automatically make things better in any particular market. What we may just get instead are cheap, low quality products, especially if unfair competition, which current laws are not able to effectively counter, makes it unprofitable to produce quality products. Just as with natural selection, competition generally is goalless. It does not push companies toward some ideal, it does not necessarily result in the "best" result, it only leads to the predominance of that which is able to better survive the struggle, which may not be the same as that which is in the best interest of consumers.
... The people who believe Apple is chasing making people happy more than profits are delusional. ...
The whole concept that Apple exists to satisfy people while everyone else is out just to make money is incredibly naive.
There you go again. You seem unable to reason except in false dichotomies. Either Apple is working at all times for the selfless good of all mankind, or their only goal is to maximize profits.
You seem to be unable to see the entire multidimensional continuum that exists between these two motivations. Here's what I see.
Apple, like any business, is in business to make money. However, they also have the desire to do so by producing only excellent products. (For example, this is why they consider Apple TV a "hobby", because the conditions don't exist for them to be able to produce what they consider a truly excellent product.) Achieving excellence in product design is bred into their corporate DNA. Do they do it for the good of mankind? Yes and no. Steve Jobs' vision has always been to create great technology that makes peoples lives better. But they also do it, in a completely amoral sense, simply because it's what they want to do. And, they also have to do it, to be able to do it, in a manner subject to the constraints of doing business in the current environment, which forces them to move manufacturing overseas to remain competitive. Are they saints? No. but the primary driving factor that makes them do what they do is not mammon.
Google, on the other hand, approaches business in a very different fashion. Their goal is essentially to dominate and control in whatever sphere they enter. It's a very ego driven approach to business that often leads to a very ruthless approach to competition. Also, because ego is such a predominate factor, there appears to be a feeling internally that they can do no wrong. There motto is, after all, "Do no evil", so whatever they do, they are unable to see it as evil, even if it is: their ego won't allow that. This often leads them into situations, like the Google Books program where the approach it with an attitude of, to paraphrase Richard Nixon, "If Google does it, it isn't wrong." No doubt many individuals working at Google are focused on making great products for the sake of doing so, but the overall corporate persona is one that care not what havoc it wreaks, so long as Google comes out on top.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian
... Then why do they use Webkit? Sounds to me like a company chasing 'customer satisfaction' and a company with 'ideals' would allow users to do what they want, if they choose to. There's no good reason for Apple to actively block Palm from syncing its devices with iTunes except corporate greed -- they want to force you to buy their high-profit-margin hardware products to use iTunes.
I'm not really sure what using Webkit has to do with Apple preventing iTunes syncing from Palm devices, but the idea that they must be so altruistic as to willingly support a leach with the blood of their own efforts is ridiculous. It's that black and whit thinking you are back to, thinking that oddly leads you sometimes to conclude that if a company is not all good in every way that they are evil, but other times that if they are not all evil in every way that they are good.
The idea that Apple had some obligation to help out Palm and give them a free ride and that to do otherwise makes them evil is a bit fantastic. Palm could have created their own sync software that allowed users to sync their iTunes libraries, other companies have and Apple hasn't stopped them. Instead, they chose to attempt to leverage the work of another company who rightly chose to not allow them to do so. Palm dug their own grave on that one, and it was no fault of Apple's
Being both a realist and an idealist is compatible and synergetic. It brings a lot of zest into my life with little residual after effect.
I harness the Future for its lensing effect on the Present. Apple and I have been in tune for the past 20 plus years and, Human Nature and all, we both have flaws and failings. By and large, it has been a profitable and constructive partnership for both of us.
Apple is one of those rare public entities that celebrate Form and Substance in Life and translate it as a 'modus operandi'. Trial and error phasing in or phasing out its services and products generates frustrations, and much pride and satisfaction with the numerous happy-ending story lines.
To the Present as seen through the Future, to Apple and I... !
The point of the commercial was to exploit a decades-old US export law which classified any computer with more than 1GFLOP of CPU power as a "supercomputer". Every PC sold at the time was classified as a "supercomputer", but only Apple chose to misleadingly market it as such.
Oh you were talking about those commercials where the tank is guarding the G4 tower? That's reaching pretty far back. You couldn't find anything more recent?
Quote:
Then why do they use Webkit? Sounds to me like a company chasing 'customer satisfaction' and a company with 'ideals' would allow users to do what they want, if they choose to. There's no good reason for Apple to actively block Palm from syncing its devices with iTunes except corporate greed -- they want to force you to buy their high-profit-margin hardware products to use iTunes.
What rule says you cannot use open source tools to create proprietary software. A lot of software companies do that.
There's no good reason for Apple to help Palm. If Palm wants a desktop media manager they need to create their own.
.However, I disagree that competition is always good for consumers. Competition is not some magic force that always produces good. Like the mythical "invisible hand", the virtues of competition are frequently overstated. Competition certainly does not always increase quality, but often simply drives down prices, something that is frequently accomplished by cutting quality -- the race to the bottom.
Actually what you are talking about is when companies actually stop competing. They begin to collude and price fix.
Quote:
Particularly when there is "unfair competition", such as the product dumping engaged in by China or Google (two entities with similar personalities and similar approaches to business), occurring, there may be harm to consumers in other ways. Companies producing quality products may be driven out of business. Companies interested in entering a certain market may face too high a barrier to allow them to do so with a quality product. Consumers again suffer from cheap inferior products, and ultimately lack of choice.
What is "product dumping"? And exactly what is Google doing that you consider "unfair competition"?
Quote:
So, no one should look to competition as some magic bullet that will automatically make things better in any particular market. What we may just get instead are cheap, low quality products, especially if unfair competition, which current laws are not able to effectively counter, makes it unprofitable to produce quality products. Just as with natural selection, competition generally is goalless. It does not push companies toward some ideal, it does not necessarily result in the "best" result, it only leads to the predominance of that which is able to better survive the struggle, which may not be the same as that which is in the best interest of consumers.
Can you please give an example of where the above scenario has played out in real life?
Comments
I think nvidia2008's analogy is very fitting. Like HTML5, there are plenty of newer fuels under development and it has hit the market in limited quantities. However, like Flash, the bulk of the world still uses fossil fuels.
I think an analogy for your line of thought is that since fossil fuels are technically also a "dead end" technology, that we should all stop using cars that use gas and jump into hydrogen or all-electric cars. Problem is, that the infrastructure (like HTML5 saturation) isn't there to support such an abrupt jump.
I don't know that this will ever sink in.
No, it's a dumb analogy, there are no parallels. Clinging to Flash is clinging to false hope.
It's not about clinging. It's about being able to use (or view in Flash's case) the resource that's got the largest infrastructure until something new takes over. Like it or not, fossil fuels, like Flash, is still being used by the vast majority of the world. Until some new fuel takes the place of fossil fuels, we're stuck using it.
Just like how right now, you are going to keep using your car/truck/van/SUV that guzzles gas, even though it's going to be a dead end technology. Unless you live in the very limited regions where it's somewhat supported, you aren't going to buy a new all-electric or hydrogen-powered car just because it's the new technology that has potential. The vast majority of the world has yet to have hydrogen dispensing stations on every street corner nor does every house have a compatible charging outlet. What we do have, though, are gas dispensing stations on almost every street corner.
Google's given me the option to be able to view that content as long as it's still around. They've also given me the option to seamlessly transition to HTML5 when it takes over. Flash will die when it dies. But in the meantime, if someone gives me the option to be able to view it on a mobile device, I'm not going to say no.
Nice try, though unfortunately, your answers have absolutely nothing to do with the question.
Upon which I return to explain the relevance to the blind.
as a developer, I don't care if [Flash] uses a plugin, or... not. As long as it has wide use.
As long as which version is in wide use? Adobe loves to tout the widespread adoption of their Flash plug-in, but a wide variety of versions is installed. Each version has different bugs and security holes. As a developer, I have to make sure my code works well across the popular versions. As the manager who pays the developer, I have to worry about maintenance costs, too.
Whether you like it or not, the world is moving to HTML5. That means bugs in HTML5 are going to be found and eliminated. For however long Flash continues to survive, bugs will need to be found and eliminated in it--a complete waste/duplication of resources.
Let me further remind you: developers work for others who ultimately want to please users/customers.
And I couldn't care less if it was developed by one company, or 50. Clearly, hundreds of thousands of developers side with me on this.
You're vastly outnumbered.
you need to add a "so theeeereeee...' or naaaa na na na naaaaa or something to that affect.
Not my way. That's your way.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/how-s...-tell-you/2152
I couldn't get into Google IO Conference (and missed out on two free smartphones!!) but will head to Apple WWDC in about two weeks for Apple's rebuttal. Gotta love it!!
It's not about clinging.
No, it is about clinging. Ubiquitous technologies are EOL'd and displaced time after time, and Flash is one of those that is destined to meet the same fate. Cling to Flash if you want, but the web will pass you by.
Both companies have visions and both companies chase profits. The notion that Apple is some kind of angelic "idealistic" company (that just so happens to have the largest profit margins in the business, which means they're taking far more money from your pocket than other companies) is beyond silly.
Trust me, if those "other companies" had the product and/or service that allows Apple to have higher profit margins .... you can bet the farm that they would be doing that immediately, if not sooner.
Apple is out here to make as much money as possible. That's the goal of any publicly traded company.
Steve Jobs has, on many occasions, publicly stated that the reason Apple exists is to make the kind of products that he would want to buy. The fact that Apple consistently "breaks the mold" in both business and product models is proof that Apple is not just "chasing profits".
Their "idealism" leads them to do some things like intentionally change iTunes specifically to break interoperability with other manufacturer's devices. That doesn't help the consumer in any way, despite Apple's spin that it does. Those are not examples of idealism.
I suppose in your world, that if I spend millions of dollars designing and manufacturing a product/service that is leaps and bounds ahead of everything else in the marketplace .... then I should just give it away to any and all of my competitors to use and sell freely .. Ha! .. good luck with that business model catching on.
Since you have a hard time seeing the difference between "those other guys" and Apple ... here in a nutshell is the BIG difference.
Apple: chases customer satisfaction ... gaining profits as a by product.
Those other guys: chases the "bottom line" .... leaving the marketplace open for a cusomer focused company ( see: Apple's growing customer base)
I think nvidia2008's analogy is very fitting. Like HTML5, there are plenty of newer fuels under development and it has hit the market in limited quantities. However, like Flash, the bulk of the world still uses fossil fuels.
I think an analogy for your line of thought is that since fossil fuels are technically also a "dead end" technology, that we should all stop using cars that use gas and jump into hydrogen or all-electric cars. Problem is, that the infrastructure (like HTML5 saturation) isn't there to support such an abrupt jump.
Which is why these kind of analogies are fraught with peril. It might seem explanatory at first blush, but if you give it some thought you'll realize that the infrastructure based barriers to entry for new fuels are just orders of magnitude greater than those for new internet technologies.
Or maybe "orders of magnitude" doesn't even work, since we're talking about completely different definitions of barrier. Vast, trillion dollar deployment of development, processing, delivery and utilization systems which touch on every aspect of modern life, on the one hand, and coding for a new standard on a browser on the other. Which the end user doesn't even notice.
As far as iTunes. There is no reason Apple has to allow other devices to plug right into iTunes. Why should Apple allow others to suckle from it's efforts. iTunes does have API's that allow other software to plug devices into it's non-DRM media.
Competiton is good for consumers. If another company wants to provide iTunes like services they need to make their own. Being lazy and complaining that Apple won't share does little to foster competiton.
Apple's PR historically has been some of the misleading and unidealistic marketing I've ever seen -- do you remember the claims that G4s were "supercomputers"? Their "idealism" leads them to do some things like intentionally change iTunes specifically to break interoperability with other manufacturer's devices. That doesn't help the consumer in any way, despite Apple's spin that it does. Those are not examples of idealism.
I'm a realist.
Both companies [Apple and Google] have visions and both companies chase profits. The notion that Apple is some kind of angelic "idealistic" company (that just so happens to have the largest profit margins in the business, which means they're taking far more money from your pocket than other companies) is beyond silly.
These gross profit margin & pretax profit margin figures are from Forbes for the most recent quarter:
Google: 68.9%, 36.1%
Apple: 41.1%, 26.9%
IBM: 43.6%, 15.4%
Dell: 19.1%, 3.8%
AT&T: 59%, 15.8%
Verizon: 58.7%, 21.3%
What "notions" do these figures inspire in the "realist"?
Upon which I return to explain the relevance to the blind.
As long as which version is in wide use? Adobe loves to tout the widespread adoption of their Flash plug-in, but a wide variety of versions is installed. Each version has different bugs and security holes. As a developer, I have to make sure my code works well across the popular versions. As the manager who pays the developer, I have to worry about maintenance costs, too.
Whether you like it or not, the world is moving to HTML5. That means bugs in HTML5 are going to be found and eliminated. For however long Flash continues to survive, bugs will need to be found and eliminated in it--a complete waste/duplication of resources.
Let me further remind you: developers work for others who ultimately want to please users/customers.
You're vastly outnumbered.
Not my way. That's your way.
Wow. Such intense revelations here!
First, ok... mind... blown. You mean to tell me... that we have to please the client???
WOW.
And, secondly, we're gonna use html a lot?
Your wisdom is blinding. Carry on.
Apple: chases customer satisfaction ... gaining profits as a by product.
Those other guys: chases the "bottom line" .... leaving the marketplace open for a cusomer focused company ( see: Apple's growing customer base)
This just isn't reality. Apple chases profits by having an exceptionally vertical product lineup with high profit margins. High customer satisfaction is a goal of every company.
The people who believe Apple is chasing making people happy more than profits are delusional. If Apple wasn't after profits primarily, they'd move their production and manufacturing away from suicide-ridden exploitation-based labour like Foxconn. They choose to save a few bucks and manufacture their stuff over there regardless of the exploitation. Why? Because it increases their PROFIT margins. It certainly doesn't improve customer satisfaction making their stuff with exploited labour overseas.
The whole concept that Apple exists to satisfy people while everyone else is out just to make money is incredibly naive.
Your points don't include the finer details needed to reach your conclusion. The larger point about the G4 was that PowerPC is a more sophisticated and advanced processing architecure than x86. That is true.
It most certainly is not. Note that while those commercials were running, I worked at IBM in Toronto working on the PowerPC compilers gearing up for the G5 launch. The commercials were blatant lies.
The point of the commercial was to exploit a decades-old US export law which classified any computer with more than 1GFLOP of CPU power as a "supercomputer". Every PC sold at the time was classified as a "supercomputer", but only Apple chose to misleadingly market it as such.
As far as iTunes. There is no reason Apple has to allow other devices to plug right into iTunes. Why should Apple allow others to suckle from it's efforts.
Then why do they use Webkit? Sounds to me like a company chasing 'customer satisfaction' and a company with 'ideals' would allow users to do what they want, if they choose to. There's no good reason for Apple to actively block Palm from syncing its devices with iTunes except corporate greed -- they want to force you to buy their high-profit-margin hardware products to use iTunes.
These gross profit margin & pretax profit margin figures are from Forbes for the most recent quarter:
Google: 68.9%, 36.1%
Apple: 41.1%, 26.9%
IBM: 43.6%, 15.4%
Dell: 19.1%, 3.8%
AT&T: 59%, 15.8%
Verizon: 58.7%, 21.3%
What "notions" do these figures inspire in the "realist"?
I'm referring to the consumer electronics business, not the software business. Of course software companies and service companies have higher profit margins.
Look at Dell vs Apple, the only reasonable comparison in your list: 3.8% vs 26.9%.
Competiton is good for consumers.
I'm not disagreeing with the writer's main point, and I'm not suggesting that no one should be allowed to compete with Apple. But, this phrase is repeated so often, by so many people as a self-evident truism, that I think it's worth examining it.
Competition can often be a force for good. For example, when it leads to a better mousetrap, or prevents price gouging. And lack of competition is often, perhaps even usually, bad, as noted by the FCC in their recent evaluation of the state of the US wireless market.
However, I disagree that competition is always good for consumers. Competition is not some magic force that always produces good. Like the mythical "invisible hand", the virtues of competition are frequently overstated. Competition certainly does not always increase quality, but often simply drives down prices, something that is frequently accomplished by cutting quality -- the race to the bottom. This is not necessarily of real benefit to consumers: products may not last as long, so that savings are lost because they must be replaced more often, or the quality may be cut so much that they become unsafe to use.
Particularly when there is "unfair competition", such as the product dumping engaged in by China or Google (two entities with similar personalities and similar approaches to business), occurring, there may be harm to consumers in other ways. Companies producing quality products may be driven out of business. Companies interested in entering a certain market may face too high a barrier to allow them to do so with a quality product. Consumers again suffer from cheap inferior products, and ultimately lack of choice.
So, no one should look to competition as some magic bullet that will automatically make things better in any particular market. What we may just get instead are cheap, low quality products, especially if unfair competition, which current laws are not able to effectively counter, makes it unprofitable to produce quality products. Just as with natural selection, competition generally is goalless. It does not push companies toward some ideal, it does not necessarily result in the "best" result, it only leads to the predominance of that which is able to better survive the struggle, which may not be the same as that which is in the best interest of consumers.
... The people who believe Apple is chasing making people happy more than profits are delusional. ...
The whole concept that Apple exists to satisfy people while everyone else is out just to make money is incredibly naive.
There you go again. You seem unable to reason except in false dichotomies. Either Apple is working at all times for the selfless good of all mankind, or their only goal is to maximize profits.
You seem to be unable to see the entire multidimensional continuum that exists between these two motivations. Here's what I see.
Apple, like any business, is in business to make money. However, they also have the desire to do so by producing only excellent products. (For example, this is why they consider Apple TV a "hobby", because the conditions don't exist for them to be able to produce what they consider a truly excellent product.) Achieving excellence in product design is bred into their corporate DNA. Do they do it for the good of mankind? Yes and no. Steve Jobs' vision has always been to create great technology that makes peoples lives better. But they also do it, in a completely amoral sense, simply because it's what they want to do. And, they also have to do it, to be able to do it, in a manner subject to the constraints of doing business in the current environment, which forces them to move manufacturing overseas to remain competitive. Are they saints? No. but the primary driving factor that makes them do what they do is not mammon.
Google, on the other hand, approaches business in a very different fashion. Their goal is essentially to dominate and control in whatever sphere they enter. It's a very ego driven approach to business that often leads to a very ruthless approach to competition. Also, because ego is such a predominate factor, there appears to be a feeling internally that they can do no wrong. There motto is, after all, "Do no evil", so whatever they do, they are unable to see it as evil, even if it is: their ego won't allow that. This often leads them into situations, like the Google Books program where the approach it with an attitude of, to paraphrase Richard Nixon, "If Google does it, it isn't wrong." No doubt many individuals working at Google are focused on making great products for the sake of doing so, but the overall corporate persona is one that care not what havoc it wreaks, so long as Google comes out on top.
... Then why do they use Webkit? Sounds to me like a company chasing 'customer satisfaction' and a company with 'ideals' would allow users to do what they want, if they choose to. There's no good reason for Apple to actively block Palm from syncing its devices with iTunes except corporate greed -- they want to force you to buy their high-profit-margin hardware products to use iTunes.
I'm not really sure what using Webkit has to do with Apple preventing iTunes syncing from Palm devices, but the idea that they must be so altruistic as to willingly support a leach with the blood of their own efforts is ridiculous. It's that black and whit thinking you are back to, thinking that oddly leads you sometimes to conclude that if a company is not all good in every way that they are evil, but other times that if they are not all evil in every way that they are good.
The idea that Apple had some obligation to help out Palm and give them a free ride and that to do otherwise makes them evil is a bit fantastic. Palm could have created their own sync software that allowed users to sync their iTunes libraries, other companies have and Apple hasn't stopped them. Instead, they chose to attempt to leverage the work of another company who rightly chose to not allow them to do so. Palm dug their own grave on that one, and it was no fault of Apple's
I'm a realist.
Being both a realist and an idealist is compatible and synergetic. It brings a lot of zest into my life with little residual after effect.
I harness the Future for its lensing effect on the Present. Apple and I have been in tune for the past 20 plus years and, Human Nature and all, we both have flaws and failings. By and large, it has been a profitable and constructive partnership for both of us.
Apple is one of those rare public entities that celebrate Form and Substance in Life and translate it as a 'modus operandi'. Trial and error phasing in or phasing out its services and products generates frustrations, and much pride and satisfaction with the numerous happy-ending story lines.
To the Present as seen through the Future, to Apple and I... !
I love how Microsoft is nowhere on the radar.
Yes, with over 90% of desktop market they are really hard to spot
The point of the commercial was to exploit a decades-old US export law which classified any computer with more than 1GFLOP of CPU power as a "supercomputer". Every PC sold at the time was classified as a "supercomputer", but only Apple chose to misleadingly market it as such.
Oh you were talking about those commercials where the tank is guarding the G4 tower? That's reaching pretty far back. You couldn't find anything more recent?
Then why do they use Webkit? Sounds to me like a company chasing 'customer satisfaction' and a company with 'ideals' would allow users to do what they want, if they choose to. There's no good reason for Apple to actively block Palm from syncing its devices with iTunes except corporate greed -- they want to force you to buy their high-profit-margin hardware products to use iTunes.
What rule says you cannot use open source tools to create proprietary software. A lot of software companies do that.
There's no good reason for Apple to help Palm. If Palm wants a desktop media manager they need to create their own.
.However, I disagree that competition is always good for consumers. Competition is not some magic force that always produces good. Like the mythical "invisible hand", the virtues of competition are frequently overstated. Competition certainly does not always increase quality, but often simply drives down prices, something that is frequently accomplished by cutting quality -- the race to the bottom.
Actually what you are talking about is when companies actually stop competing. They begin to collude and price fix.
Particularly when there is "unfair competition", such as the product dumping engaged in by China or Google (two entities with similar personalities and similar approaches to business), occurring, there may be harm to consumers in other ways. Companies producing quality products may be driven out of business. Companies interested in entering a certain market may face too high a barrier to allow them to do so with a quality product. Consumers again suffer from cheap inferior products, and ultimately lack of choice.
What is "product dumping"? And exactly what is Google doing that you consider "unfair competition"?
So, no one should look to competition as some magic bullet that will automatically make things better in any particular market. What we may just get instead are cheap, low quality products, especially if unfair competition, which current laws are not able to effectively counter, makes it unprofitable to produce quality products. Just as with natural selection, competition generally is goalless. It does not push companies toward some ideal, it does not necessarily result in the "best" result, it only leads to the predominance of that which is able to better survive the struggle, which may not be the same as that which is in the best interest of consumers.
Can you please give an example of where the above scenario has played out in real life?