Oh come on, I can't believe you seriously believe all that.
Bashing Microsoft just for the sake of it is illogical and childish. Why not, you know, just look at what they do with eyes open instead of closed. Buy yourself a 360 and a copy of Red Dead Redemption or Alan Wake and enjoy yourself.
I do believe that MS produces crap products. I've worked my entire career around MS (sigh) and its products and currently work for a partner organisation of MS so I know them very well. I also have a severe loathing for their business practices. You'll never convince me that they do anything special or unique, I have too much experience pointing to the contrary. I don't bash MS for the sake of it, that's silly, but I do believe they could be so much more and yet they always fail to impress me.
It's not illogical and childish, it's based on 20 years using their products and working in this industry.
That said, my opinions needn't be any one else's, I know there are people who think differently. There is one thing that makes me happy when I think of Microsoft and that is that there will come a day when I won't ever have to use another MS product again.
My meaning, obviously too subtle, was their own search as an option (not Yahoo!) as in Apple's own product called something like iSearch. I have discussed it several times before in this forum, hence the reference.
Is there any need to be so obnoxious?
well they just brought Siri, which is in all essence a complete search solution once all the pieces are in place. I hope they invest heavily in this , modular search could be really amazing.
I do believe that MS produces crap products. I've worked my entire career around MS (sigh) and its products and currently work for a partner organisation of MS so I know them very well. I also have a severe loathing for their business practices. You'll never convince me that they do anything special or unique, I have too much experience pointing to the contrary. I don't bash MS for the sake of it, that's silly, but I do believe they could be so much more and yet they always fail to impress me.
It's not illogical and childish, it's based on 20 years using their products and working in this industry.
That said, my opinions needn't be any one else's, I know there are people who think differently. There is one thing that makes me happy when I think of Microsoft and that is that there will come a day when I won't ever have to use another MS product again.
Fist of all welcome to these forums, glad you decided to leave the 12 year olds and the pc zealots (and the moderating morons) at mac rumors fight it out on their own and joined this site.
They do have crap programs ms, but I don't think bing is one of them, it could use some work (in the aesthetics department to say the least), but as someone else said, as more people use it it will improve, it's the way search engines work.
Google's big brother domination (and oh the irony that they throw big brother blame to apple, hilarious) in adverts, personal data etc. etc. is scary. This shouldn't be the case in a global world, its insidious affects can be seen everywhere, local communities losing out on ads (local newspapers, etc. ) because they have to go via the great google bully, personal information and privacy at serious peril, etc.
It's high time they got put back in their place, and if apple can offer this coup de grace with bing, I would be very happy. If I were SJ, I would default bing on the iphone and leave the other options open. I wager that for 80% of the population bing instead of google would make absolutely no difference.
But Ms should start working hard on offering the following via bing: a fairer ad service, less clutter and more intuitiveness (which most of the times is a tall order from microsoft), better and safer privacy policies, and a modicum of search engine innovation. There are a few start ups they could buy up for this. If they feel they have their so to speak "arch rivals" (and arguably the most powerful company in the tech world at the moment) support in jointly bringing a blow to google, they 'll know bing stands a good chance and they 'll step up their game.
Google commands about 90% of the search engine space, but that wasn't always the case as early, as 3 years ago, the situation was as follows:
Search Engine Usage Share (U.S.)
Google = 57%
Yahoo! = 23.7%
Microsoft = 10.3%
Ask = 4.7%
Time Warner (AOL) = 4.3%
Source: comScore, September 2007
Some of those players screwed up, but it just shows that google's dominance is not irreversible.
If I was Apple I wouldn't be happy depending on Google *or* Microsoft for my maps. Can't they leverage the Al Gore connection to get some maps from the CIA or something?
If I was Apple I wouldn't be happy depending on Google *or* Microsoft for my maps. Can't they leverage the Al Gore connection to get some maps from the CIA or something?
They 've already bought a dedicated maps - navigation company a year or so ago, apparently their still integrating it, and nothing has surfaced.
Fist of all welcome to these forums, glad you decided to leave the 12 year olds and the pc zealots (and the moderating morons) at mac rumors fight it out on their own and joined this site.
Thank you! It did come highly recommended. I'm not sure why I didn't join before - you can never have too much Apple information and discussion!
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
...but I don't think bing is one of them, it could use some work (in the aesthetics department to say the least),
That's so funny - every time I use Bing I think the exact same thing (what's with their choice in imagery??). That has got to be the ugliest site, and given their focus on making Bing into something I can't believe they don't put some attention toward it, but user experience is never at the core of their products (which is why I hate their products so much). It would make using Bing so much better, but I just can't get over how ugly it is. I work on SEO (as one element of my job), and their web tools are no better. Maybe it'll get better, but you only get one first impression, and with me, they've made it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
Google's big brother domination (and oh the irony that they throw big brother blame to apple, hilarious) in adverts, personal data etc. etc. is scary. This shouldn't be the case in a global world, its insidious affects can be seen everywhere, local communities losing out on ads (local newspapers, etc. ) because they have to go via the great google bully, personal information and privacy at serious peril, etc.
You and I are absolutely on the same page here. They are building products and the cost to you to obtain them is merely your privacy. Merely. Some may think this sounds cheap, I think it sounds so incredibly expensive.
It will be interesting to see how Apple plays this. They do get $ from Google to be the number 1 search position. At the same time is it feasible to think Google wouldn't pull their non-Flash support for the iDevices rendering them much less interesting? Not sure. Very interesting times.
Colour me skeptical. Apple's still not the most dominant smartphone manufacturer out there. RIM is. And stuff like Maps is still far more driven by desktop use than mobile use. It would seem a futile waste to compete with Google on this front when they're already others map makers out there. Good luck to Jobs if he wants to try.
Is it just search though? How many iPhone owners use GMail? How many use YouTube? How many would use Google Voice and Navigation if those were made available through native apps?
Google's power comes from the fact that people use their stuff which keeps it continually getting better. It's a virtuous cycle for them and a significant barrier for competitors. You want to beat Google? iDevice owners aren't enough. You have to convince regular desktop users of their services to stop supporting them and that's tough.
Exactly, and that's the very reason why Apple should start producing its very own cloud-centric services.. Because of Google dominance in that area, because everyone is using Google's services, even iDevices users.
Google was bashing at Apple during their I/O event not long ago, making fun of Apple's 1984-themed ad by creating its own banner: "Not The Future We Want." But that same joke can be put on to Google itself, seeing it from Apple point of view. In the future Apple definitely doesn't want too many core apps in iPhone are powered and rely too much on Google's services, hence the saying in AI's article above: "Google wrote the iPhone?"
That is of course a scary thought for Steve Jobs..
Perhaps it seem futile to fend off Google powerful services, but I sincerely do hope that Apple (driven by its uncanny CEO, Steve Jobs) will try to take head on at least one or two Google's cloud-centric services. It's not just Apple who should be worried in the future if Google become the one and only dominant force in the cloud-centric market, we should too. The thought of only one company to dictate the market, is frightening..
Besides, Apple wouldn't be Apple if the company doesn't dare enough to challenge what seems impossible..
Why is no one capable of distinguishing between singular and plural?
Because, for some reason, grammar has been determined to be extraneous to communication. It is a particularly surprising development in a world in which so much -- computer coding, for example -- requires the very precision being cast aside.
Then, too, there's the political correctness wing which insists "they" and "their" are singular, as in, "A person should watch what they eat." <headdesk> All the worse because rewriting to avoid the issue entirely is usually so easy.
I like street view by Google, and Bing maps are not that good outside US. It takes time to build up another promising map service and StreetSide
Yeah because you have to drive slowly while taking your photographs and even slower to actually be able do a thorough job of drive-by hacking. Google is prepared to overlay their maps similar to Placebase with the relevant demographic information they collected from your wifi.
...[C]an you explain please how "Apple do not like...." makes any sense at all?
Apple, Inc == singular corporate entity.
The folks at Apple, Inc. == more than one entity.
I know this is unrelated to the post, sorry, but reading "Apple do" rather than Apple does drives me nuts.
I've been down this road with others before, but I never liked the answers I received.
Just because you drop the Inc. when you are writing doesn't mean you have to refer to the employees of Apple as Apple itself.
This is generally a difference in perspective between U.S. and U.K. English users regarding collective nouns. Apple provides a textbook example:
Apple can be seen to act as a single entity, producing new products and defending certain rights in court, for example. By that logic, singular verbs and pronouns are used, e.g., "Apple surprises analysts with its quarterly results." There is not a single Apple entity like the MCP in Tron, though (sorry; love the old tech references). The work Apple does is the result of the labor of thousands. Legally, Apple is the communal enterprise of shareholders. So, "Apple specialize (specialise) in elegant design."
So, is Apple a single thing or a hive? If raised in the U.S., odds are one will say "Apple is"; in the U.K., one will prefer "Apple are". There is logic to both. If the plural usage seems odd, it is perhaps most so when the collective has a single name. It always sounds funny to me to hear something like, "Manchester United are playing well." Think of an example with, say, a panel of nine members who do not act in unison. Do the panel deliberate, or does it? Its members certainly don't all act the same.
So there, in a rather large nutshell, is my stab at explanation. Hope it helps!
Since we're picking nits... Are you sure you know the meaning of the words no one?
To all posters who "feel the need" to correct minor grammatical errors on the internet:
The need to build one's self up is aptly demonstrated by the need and willingness to "correct", i.e. tear someone else down. The constant use of sarcasm is usually indicative of one's insecurities.
I don't know if I'd use the word "cute" to describe the situation, but it does bode well for AAPL shareholders.
Much of Apple's success today derives from the propitious 2003 decision to port iTunes to the Windows operating system and thus gain access to a huge market for the iPod and eventually the iPhone (and now iPad).
If you had purchased one hundred shares of AAPL at the split adjusted price of $11.62 (total amount $1162) the day that iTunes for Windows was released (October 16, 2003), today those same shares would be worth $25,688.
Naturally, both parties can see an upside to a particular partnership, but you can take advantage of your competitors. Despite the occasional complaints here about iTunes performance on Windows, the overall marketplace (Joe Consumer, not the noisy fanboys/haters) responded well.
Apple should buy a promising search company like cuil or create a search engine on their own. They have the resources to fund $500 milllion a year a search engine will take. They have to go to cloud business anyway.
In the meantime, they could use Bing just to spite Google.
Actually Apple has a search engine. The one that powers iTunes and the Genius feature for playlists etc. They may scale the out further. What they need is a web crawler to collect and cache the data. That's a big job that they probably don't want to do. There are other ways they can take on search without having to do that.
Fist of all welcome to these forums, glad you decided to leave the 12 year olds and the pc zealots (and the moderating morons) at mac rumors fight it out on their own and joined this site.
The problem with search engines is that people have to use them for them to improve.
This is why an Apple search engine would be tough. Who'd use it? Even if every Mac and iDevice used Apple search it still could not compare to Google's power arising from its popularity.
The same with Bing. Really, who uses Bing?
Google went from nothing to bazillionaires because of one thing, a stupid search engine with ad money. Doesn't apple see how much money can be made this way? They just bought an ad company to do this for the iphone, so they must be starting to see the light.
How many millions iphones and 'growing' numbers of macs are out there? Man that would be alot of people using 'apple search'... they should totally start there own engine. Why not?!
This is generally a difference in perspective between U.S. and U.K. English users regarding collective nouns. Apple provides a textbook example:
Apple can be seen to act as a single entity, producing new products and defending certain rights in court, for example. By that logic, singular verbs and pronouns are used, e.g., "Apple surprises analysts with its quarterly results." There is not a single Apple entity like the MCP in Tron, though (sorry; love the old tech references). The work Apple does is the result of the labor of thousands. Legally, Apple is the communal enterprise of shareholders. So, "Apple specialize (specialise) in elegant design."
So, is Apple a single thing or a hive? If raised in the U.S., odds are one will say "Apple is"; in the U.K., one will prefer "Apple are". There is logic to both. If the plural usage seems odd, it is perhaps most so when the collective has a single name. It always sounds funny to me to hear something like, "Manchester United are playing well." Think of an example with, say, a panel of nine members who do not act in unison. Do the panel deliberate, or does it? Its members certainly don't all act the same.
So there, in a rather large nutshell, is my stab at explanation. Hope it helps!
It is an explanation
However, a panel is still a panel, regardless of how its members act. A school of fish is a school, regardless of how many fish are in it or what an individual fish does. A fish does, a school of fish do. Apple is an entity. It does (or doesn't do) stuff. The employees of Apple do (or don't do) stuff.
Manchester United, then, is (or is not) playing well, as a team.
mmmm.... I understand but I don't like Apple getting anywhere near MS. I wish Apple had another option.
That is understandable. In this day and age, Apple fans need some kind of hierarchy as to who is most hated by Apple. Lately, Google might top that list:
Google
Adobe
Intuit
...
...
Microsoft.
So while M$ is a hated company, it is not nearly as hated (these days) as some others.
Comments
Oh come on, I can't believe you seriously believe all that.
Bashing Microsoft just for the sake of it is illogical and childish. Why not, you know, just look at what they do with eyes open instead of closed. Buy yourself a 360 and a copy of Red Dead Redemption or Alan Wake and enjoy yourself.
I do believe that MS produces crap products. I've worked my entire career around MS (sigh) and its products and currently work for a partner organisation of MS so I know them very well. I also have a severe loathing for their business practices. You'll never convince me that they do anything special or unique, I have too much experience pointing to the contrary. I don't bash MS for the sake of it, that's silly, but I do believe they could be so much more and yet they always fail to impress me.
It's not illogical and childish, it's based on 20 years using their products and working in this industry.
That said, my opinions needn't be any one else's, I know there are people who think differently. There is one thing that makes me happy when I think of Microsoft and that is that there will come a day when I won't ever have to use another MS product again.
My meaning, obviously too subtle, was their own search as an option (not Yahoo!) as in Apple's own product called something like iSearch. I have discussed it several times before in this forum, hence the reference.
Is there any need to be so obnoxious?
well they just brought Siri, which is in all essence a complete search solution once all the pieces are in place. I hope they invest heavily in this , modular search could be really amazing.
I do believe that MS produces crap products. I've worked my entire career around MS (sigh) and its products and currently work for a partner organisation of MS so I know them very well. I also have a severe loathing for their business practices. You'll never convince me that they do anything special or unique, I have too much experience pointing to the contrary. I don't bash MS for the sake of it, that's silly, but I do believe they could be so much more and yet they always fail to impress me.
It's not illogical and childish, it's based on 20 years using their products and working in this industry.
That said, my opinions needn't be any one else's, I know there are people who think differently. There is one thing that makes me happy when I think of Microsoft and that is that there will come a day when I won't ever have to use another MS product again.
Fist of all welcome to these forums, glad you decided to leave the 12 year olds and the pc zealots (and the moderating morons) at mac rumors fight it out on their own and joined this site.
They do have crap programs ms, but I don't think bing is one of them, it could use some work (in the aesthetics department to say the least), but as someone else said, as more people use it it will improve, it's the way search engines work.
Google's big brother domination (and oh the irony that they throw big brother blame to apple, hilarious) in adverts, personal data etc. etc. is scary. This shouldn't be the case in a global world, its insidious affects can be seen everywhere, local communities losing out on ads (local newspapers, etc. ) because they have to go via the great google bully, personal information and privacy at serious peril, etc.
It's high time they got put back in their place, and if apple can offer this coup de grace with bing, I would be very happy. If I were SJ, I would default bing on the iphone and leave the other options open. I wager that for 80% of the population bing instead of google would make absolutely no difference.
But Ms should start working hard on offering the following via bing: a fairer ad service, less clutter and more intuitiveness (which most of the times is a tall order from microsoft), better and safer privacy policies, and a modicum of search engine innovation. There are a few start ups they could buy up for this. If they feel they have their so to speak "arch rivals" (and arguably the most powerful company in the tech world at the moment) support in jointly bringing a blow to google, they 'll know bing stands a good chance and they 'll step up their game.
Google commands about 90% of the search engine space, but that wasn't always the case as early, as 3 years ago, the situation was as follows:
Search Engine Usage Share (U.S.)
Google = 57%
Yahoo! = 23.7%
Microsoft = 10.3%
Ask = 4.7%
Time Warner (AOL) = 4.3%
Source: comScore, September 2007
Some of those players screwed up, but it just shows that google's dominance is not irreversible.
If I was Apple I wouldn't be happy depending on Google *or* Microsoft for my maps. Can't they leverage the Al Gore connection to get some maps from the CIA or something?
They 've already bought a dedicated maps - navigation company a year or so ago, apparently their still integrating it, and nothing has surfaced.
Fist of all welcome to these forums, glad you decided to leave the 12 year olds and the pc zealots (and the moderating morons) at mac rumors fight it out on their own and joined this site.
Thank you! It did come highly recommended. I'm not sure why I didn't join before - you can never have too much Apple information and discussion!
...but I don't think bing is one of them, it could use some work (in the aesthetics department to say the least),
That's so funny - every time I use Bing I think the exact same thing (what's with their choice in imagery??). That has got to be the ugliest site, and given their focus on making Bing into something I can't believe they don't put some attention toward it, but user experience is never at the core of their products (which is why I hate their products so much). It would make using Bing so much better, but I just can't get over how ugly it is. I work on SEO (as one element of my job), and their web tools are no better. Maybe it'll get better, but you only get one first impression, and with me, they've made it.
Google's big brother domination (and oh the irony that they throw big brother blame to apple, hilarious) in adverts, personal data etc. etc. is scary. This shouldn't be the case in a global world, its insidious affects can be seen everywhere, local communities losing out on ads (local newspapers, etc. ) because they have to go via the great google bully, personal information and privacy at serious peril, etc.
You and I are absolutely on the same page here. They are building products and the cost to you to obtain them is merely your privacy. Merely. Some may think this sounds cheap, I think it sounds so incredibly expensive.
It will be interesting to see how Apple plays this. They do get $ from Google to be the number 1 search position. At the same time is it feasible to think Google wouldn't pull their non-Flash support for the iDevices rendering them much less interesting? Not sure. Very interesting times.
Colour me skeptical. Apple's still not the most dominant smartphone manufacturer out there. RIM is. And stuff like Maps is still far more driven by desktop use than mobile use. It would seem a futile waste to compete with Google on this front when they're already others map makers out there. Good luck to Jobs if he wants to try.
Is it just search though? How many iPhone owners use GMail? How many use YouTube? How many would use Google Voice and Navigation if those were made available through native apps?
Google's power comes from the fact that people use their stuff which keeps it continually getting better. It's a virtuous cycle for them and a significant barrier for competitors. You want to beat Google? iDevice owners aren't enough. You have to convince regular desktop users of their services to stop supporting them and that's tough.
Exactly, and that's the very reason why Apple should start producing its very own cloud-centric services.. Because of Google dominance in that area, because everyone is using Google's services, even iDevices users.
Google was bashing at Apple during their I/O event not long ago, making fun of Apple's 1984-themed ad by creating its own banner: "Not The Future We Want." But that same joke can be put on to Google itself, seeing it from Apple point of view. In the future Apple definitely doesn't want too many core apps in iPhone are powered and rely too much on Google's services, hence the saying in AI's article above: "Google wrote the iPhone?"
That is of course a scary thought for Steve Jobs..
Perhaps it seem futile to fend off Google powerful services, but I sincerely do hope that Apple (driven by its uncanny CEO, Steve Jobs) will try to take head on at least one or two Google's cloud-centric services. It's not just Apple who should be worried in the future if Google become the one and only dominant force in the cloud-centric market, we should too. The thought of only one company to dictate the market, is frightening..
Besides, Apple wouldn't be Apple if the company doesn't dare enough to challenge what seems impossible..
its current primary dependance upon Google...
Why is no one capable of distinguishing between singular and plural?
...search and web services....
They are more than one thing, no?
Edit: Since you seem to be a grammar genius, can you explain please how "Apple do not like...." makes any sense at all?
Apple, Inc == singular corporate entity.
The folks at Apple, Inc. == more than one entity.
I know this is unrelated to the post, sorry, but reading "Apple do" rather than Apple does drives me nuts.
I've been down this road with others before, but I never liked the answers I received.
Just because you drop the Inc. when you are writing doesn't mean you have to refer to the employees of Apple as Apple itself.
Why is no one capable of distinguishing between singular and plural?
Because, for some reason, grammar has been determined to be extraneous to communication. It is a particularly surprising development in a world in which so much -- computer coding, for example -- requires the very precision being cast aside.
Then, too, there's the political correctness wing which insists "they" and "their" are singular, as in, "A person should watch what they eat." <headdesk> All the worse because rewriting to avoid the issue entirely is usually so easy.
/rant
I like street view by Google, and Bing maps are not that good outside US. It takes time to build up another promising map service and StreetSide
Yeah because you have to drive slowly while taking your photographs and even slower to actually be able do a thorough job of drive-by hacking. Google is prepared to overlay their maps similar to Placebase with the relevant demographic information they collected from your wifi.
...[C]an you explain please how "Apple do not like...." makes any sense at all?
Apple, Inc == singular corporate entity.
The folks at Apple, Inc. == more than one entity.
I know this is unrelated to the post, sorry, but reading "Apple do" rather than Apple does drives me nuts.
I've been down this road with others before, but I never liked the answers I received.
Just because you drop the Inc. when you are writing doesn't mean you have to refer to the employees of Apple as Apple itself.
This is generally a difference in perspective between U.S. and U.K. English users regarding collective nouns. Apple provides a textbook example:
Apple can be seen to act as a single entity, producing new products and defending certain rights in court, for example. By that logic, singular verbs and pronouns are used, e.g., "Apple surprises analysts with its quarterly results." There is not a single Apple entity like the MCP in Tron, though (sorry; love the old tech references). The work Apple does is the result of the labor of thousands. Legally, Apple is the communal enterprise of shareholders. So, "Apple specialize (specialise) in elegant design."
So, is Apple a single thing or a hive? If raised in the U.S., odds are one will say "Apple is"; in the U.K., one will prefer "Apple are". There is logic to both. If the plural usage seems odd, it is perhaps most so when the collective has a single name. It always sounds funny to me to hear something like, "Manchester United are playing well." Think of an example with, say, a panel of nine members who do not act in unison. Do the panel deliberate, or does it? Its members certainly don't all act the same.
So there, in a rather large nutshell, is my stab at explanation. Hope it helps!
Since we're picking nits... Are you sure you know the meaning of the words no one?
To all posters who "feel the need" to correct minor grammatical errors on the internet:
The need to build one's self up is aptly demonstrated by the need and willingness to "correct", i.e. tear someone else down. The constant use of sarcasm is usually indicative of one's insecurities.
Aww Apple and MS. Aint it cute?
I don't know if I'd use the word "cute" to describe the situation, but it does bode well for AAPL shareholders.
Much of Apple's success today derives from the propitious 2003 decision to port iTunes to the Windows operating system and thus gain access to a huge market for the iPod and eventually the iPhone (and now iPad).
If you had purchased one hundred shares of AAPL at the split adjusted price of $11.62 (total amount $1162) the day that iTunes for Windows was released (October 16, 2003), today those same shares would be worth $25,688.
Naturally, both parties can see an upside to a particular partnership, but you can take advantage of your competitors. Despite the occasional complaints here about iTunes performance on Windows, the overall marketplace (Joe Consumer, not the noisy fanboys/haters) responded well.
Apple should buy a promising search company like cuil or create a search engine on their own. They have the resources to fund $500 milllion a year a search engine will take. They have to go to cloud business anyway.
In the meantime, they could use Bing just to spite Google.
Actually Apple has a search engine. The one that powers iTunes and the Genius feature for playlists etc. They may scale the out further. What they need is a web crawler to collect and cache the data. That's a big job that they probably don't want to do. There are other ways they can take on search without having to do that.
Fist of all welcome to these forums, glad you decided to leave the 12 year olds and the pc zealots (and the moderating morons) at mac rumors fight it out on their own and joined this site.
What happened? Can you please fill me in..?
The problem with search engines is that people have to use them for them to improve.
This is why an Apple search engine would be tough. Who'd use it? Even if every Mac and iDevice used Apple search it still could not compare to Google's power arising from its popularity.
The same with Bing. Really, who uses Bing?
Google went from nothing to bazillionaires because of one thing, a stupid search engine with ad money. Doesn't apple see how much money can be made this way? They just bought an ad company to do this for the iphone, so they must be starting to see the light.
How many millions iphones and 'growing' numbers of macs are out there? Man that would be alot of people using 'apple search'... they should totally start there own engine. Why not?!
This is generally a difference in perspective between U.S. and U.K. English users regarding collective nouns. Apple provides a textbook example:
Apple can be seen to act as a single entity, producing new products and defending certain rights in court, for example. By that logic, singular verbs and pronouns are used, e.g., "Apple surprises analysts with its quarterly results." There is not a single Apple entity like the MCP in Tron, though (sorry; love the old tech references). The work Apple does is the result of the labor of thousands. Legally, Apple is the communal enterprise of shareholders. So, "Apple specialize (specialise) in elegant design."
So, is Apple a single thing or a hive? If raised in the U.S., odds are one will say "Apple is"; in the U.K., one will prefer "Apple are". There is logic to both. If the plural usage seems odd, it is perhaps most so when the collective has a single name. It always sounds funny to me to hear something like, "Manchester United are playing well." Think of an example with, say, a panel of nine members who do not act in unison. Do the panel deliberate, or does it? Its members certainly don't all act the same.
So there, in a rather large nutshell, is my stab at explanation. Hope it helps!
It is an explanation
However, a panel is still a panel, regardless of how its members act. A school of fish is a school, regardless of how many fish are in it or what an individual fish does. A fish does, a school of fish do. Apple is an entity. It does (or doesn't do) stuff. The employees of Apple do (or don't do) stuff.
Manchester United, then, is (or is not) playing well, as a team.
mmmm.... I understand but I don't like Apple getting anywhere near MS. I wish Apple had another option.
That is understandable. In this day and age, Apple fans need some kind of hierarchy as to who is most hated by Apple. Lately, Google might top that list:
Google
Adobe
Intuit
...
...
Microsoft.
So while M$ is a hated company, it is not nearly as hated (these days) as some others.