FaceTime's protocol, QuickTime's MOV format, the current state of ePub creation in iBooks Author…
Let's see… Ah, ALAC.
Ah, Apple often DEVELOPS software or hardware that they then offer to the standards committees for adoption, free of license charges.
Like it or not, that's support of standards of the highest nature. Developing what may seem to be proprietary software and offering it for free to the world is much better than just using what's out there created by others.
Either way, that certainly support of standards. When Apple designed a smaller Displayport, we had people laughing at Apple "again" coming out with their own proprietary design. But Apple offered to the committee, which then adopted it. Now, it's on most every graphics and video card made, and on computers as well.
Even this current argument about the SIM shape involves Apple making, and giving a standard for free.
Few people have any idea as to how standards come about. They don't spring from the air. Most of the time, ONE company developes something and it becomes well used. Then either they apply for it to be used as a standard, or the industry is upset at the proprietary nature of it, and puts a standards committee together. Then, over time, that work becomes incorporated in a standard, or is itself declared a standard. We've seen that with FireWire and USB to just name two.
Standards can be of two types. One is a standard such as the CD, where the code is owned by a company, and in order to use it one must pay licensing fees, and open standards, such as USB, where one doesn't.
It's more complex than that, of course, but that's a fair explanation
OH? Apple is a champion of open standards, perhaps the only champion of open standards. Apple didn't corrupt Java to its own benefit. On Macs Java is Java. PDF is built into the system. Try saving as a PDF on Windows. HTML5? Technologies like Bonjour, Webkit and Firewire were released and open-sourced by Apple. Open audio, video and graphical formats were long standard on Macs before anywhere else. You can barely work with PNGs and alpha layers in Windows even now. Fonts, typographic and printing standards... who developed those (basically wrote the book and let Adobe and others run with them)? Music creating tools and standards? Apple wrote the book on that, too. MS and OEMs tout "Multimedia PCs" every chance they get, but my 1984 Mac was a multimedia pc ten years before Windows was a reality. AAC is open, despite the proganda it is Apple-only and proprietary: it is part of the MPEG group of standards.
You can happily open, import, use and export to any number of open standards and file-types from Apple programs. Of course, there are also app file-types that are unique to certain apps, as there are to any software company in the world; if you want certain features then you usually need the authoring software. However, .doc and .xls have been released openly, supposedly.
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">Mac OS X is posix or unix certified, and of course your Mac can run Windows better than a PC can run Windows. Open networking standards and protocols? Who licenses and implements the proprietary protocol for Exchange Server better than its originating company? Apple. And iOS runs web apps like nobody's business -- probably better than Android.</p>
Of course Apple wants you to use their tools, they believe they are the best and that they can give you the best experience and workflow. But Apple does as much as possible to make sure the THINGS you create with the apps play as well as possible with other things. Apple does more in this regard than just about anyone else you can think of. Output options are what counts.
Ok maybe not pushing but I was actually thinking of hardware when I wrote that i.e. mini displayport, firewire and iPhone connector.
Mini Displayport was given to the VESA standards organization, and was adopted as a standard some time ago. It's difficult to find a graphics or video card without one, as well as computers using built-in Displayport.
FireWire is also a standard, and controlled by the IEEE 1394-2008 standard.
The iPhone connector is one rare case of Apple coming up with a much better port than anyone else, and keeping it to themselves. No company gives away all of its technology. Show me one that has.
Few people have any idea as to how standards come about. They don't spring from the air. Most of the time, ONE company developes something and it becomes well used. Then either they apply for it to be used as a standard, or the industry is upset at the proprietary nature of it, and puts a standards committee together. Then, over time, that work becomes incorporated in a standard, or is itself declared a standard. We've seen that with FireWire and USB to just name two.
...
Most of the time, a consortium of companies works on a common standard. Their ideas are then combined during negotiations, in which every company tries to put as much of their IP into the standard as possible. The reasons are multiple -- control, royalties, prestige -- however the result isn't necessarily the best possible standard. There's much politics and haggling involved, and companies are sometimes in the position to strong-arm their partners into accepting inferior and even useless solutions. That's the ugly reality, although few of the participants will admit it openly.
In contrast, the situation that you describe, where one company single-handedly develops a standard, is more ideal and likely to produce compromise-free solutions. However, adoption of those solutions will be met with resistance from other companies in the same industry, for the reasons I pointed out before: control, royalties, and prestige.
I find it admirable when companies such as Apple develop and actually openly publish specifications. Industry-wide adoption is also desirable but, for the reasons outlined above, difficult to achieve.
Most of the time, a consortium of companies works on a common standard. Their ideas are then combined during negotiations, in which every company tries to put as much of their IP into the standard as possible. The reasons are multiple -- control, royalties, prestige -- however the result isn't necessarily the best possible standard. There's much politics and haggling involved, and companies are sometimes in the position to strong-arm their partners into accepting inferior and even useless solutions. That's the ugly reality, although few of the participants will admit it openly.
In contrast, the situation that you describe, where one company single-handedly develops a standard, is more ideal and likely to produce compromise-free solutions. However, adoption of those solutions will be met with resistance from other companies in the same industry, for the reasons I pointed out before: control, royalties, and prestige.
I find it admirable when companies such as Apple develop and actually openly publish specifications. Industry-wide adoption is also desirable but, for the reasons outlined above, difficult to achieve.
I've worked on standards committees in the past. It's an interesting, often long, and acrimonious process. Very often, the committees are organized around the invention of one company or organization, which everyone is not happy about, and who try to get a piece of.
When Sony and Phillips developed thee CD, and licensed it out, many companies were unhappy, but they had little choice. Especially Toshiba, which had a comparing stand that were pushing.
When it came to the DVD, Sony found themselves almost locked out because of the past battles.
When later, we had the HD-DVD vs Blu Ray battle, it was very acrimonious between Sony and Toshiba. But this time, of course, because of a couple of good moves by Sony, and a few things that Toshiba had done to angry the industry, Sony won, almost flat handed.
So even though Sony owns it, it's still a standard.
The interface isn't a problem as far as I'm concerned. The blocks appear to be labeled well enough and easily recognizable; it's just a matter of the user deciding what goes where, and getting used to the positioning. I'm sure you did the same thing with your phone; I know I did with mine.
Nope, the problem is people are going to buy the cheaper tablet, and then wonder why they can't install Steam on it. DOA unfortunately. Not that I wouldn't mind seeing an option other than Premium iOS and malware-ridden Android.
Nope, the problem is people are going to buy the cheaper tablet, and then wonder why they can't install Steam on it. DOA unfortunately. Not that I wouldn't mind seeing an option other than Premium iOS and malware-ridden Android.
How is iOS "premium"? (sounds like you were trying to frame "Premium iOS" as a negative because you contrast it with "the cheaper tablet" and make it parallel to "malware-ridden Android" for which you would like to see alternatives).
You can get an iPad for 499, and now 399. It's solid aluminium and glass. No-one can match it for materials or quality (I drop mine on a regular basis and it has dented corners, but it's still in perfect working order). The battery lasts all day and it has downloaded my mail via WIFI before I get out of the car at McDonalds, while Windows or Android customers struggle for 25 minutes to connect and then come over and ask me if in fact the WIFI is working. It does what it is designed to do... without a dongle, I might add.
Secondly, Google has conditioned us that software itself is worthless, as they try to commoditize everything and redistribute everthing for free. MS, as a software company, has tried to do the opposite and get you to pay 300 bucks for a boxed set of Windows or Office. Apple, on the other hand, has actually added some real value to their products through superior, integrated software. Apple tries to give the best experience possible and tries to extend the life of your Apple product by letting you immediately download updates for about three years before you have to upgrade it. That is worth something. (Of course, Apple products are usable far longer than three years; I love my 2nd gen iPod touch and still use a dual G4 PowerMac running Leopard that is at least ten years old.)
You might be thinking that because Apple gets some good margins on its products, that that automatically makes it a "premium" product? Apple can't help it if others must have fire sales or make a loss in order to shift any of their junk. Others simply can not make a competing product at any where near the same price point.
We could have a whole discussion on margin. Apple makes good margins (and it makes far less margin on the iPad than the iPhone), because of its product strategy and development process. Apple makes one tablet. It puts X amount of fixed cost into development/design/tooling/etc. It aims to make back that fixed cost by selling Y number of iPads at Z margin over the following year before the next model. Except, what do you know, the iPad is so popular that they practically sell that Y number of iPads in two months! So, the more they sell, the more Z goes up. If they keep selling a model the next year as the new low end, why, the margin on those models goes up even more (because all the fixed costs for it have been more than covered). The more you sell, the less each unit costs to produce. This is pretty obvious to people that have had to get something printed like a brochure or T-shirt: you order more, your unit cost goes down. Simple as that. And Apple is selling as many iPads as it can make.
By contrast, other makers are developing all sorts of tablets because they have no idea what works, they need to throw something at the wall to see what sticks; they need to tweak and change the color or button arrangement every three months, and they sell maybe 200,000 before they discontinue and move on to the next idea. See how that works? They can't make any margin that way. So, if all you have to go on to call iOS "premium" is that Apple actually makes some money on it because they do a good job, then I urge you to reconsider your classification of iOS.
Comments
Ah, Apple often DEVELOPS software or hardware that they then offer to the standards committees for adoption, free of license charges.
Like it or not, that's support of standards of the highest nature. Developing what may seem to be proprietary software and offering it for free to the world is much better than just using what's out there created by others.
Either way, that certainly support of standards. When Apple designed a smaller Displayport, we had people laughing at Apple "again" coming out with their own proprietary design. But Apple offered to the committee, which then adopted it. Now, it's on most every graphics and video card made, and on computers as well.
Even this current argument about the SIM shape involves Apple making, and giving a standard for free.
Few people have any idea as to how standards come about. They don't spring from the air. Most of the time, ONE company developes something and it becomes well used. Then either they apply for it to be used as a standard, or the industry is upset at the proprietary nature of it, and puts a standards committee together. Then, over time, that work becomes incorporated in a standard, or is itself declared a standard. We've seen that with FireWire and USB to just name two.
Standards can be of two types. One is a standard such as the CD, where the code is owned by a company, and in order to use it one must pay licensing fees, and open standards, such as USB, where one doesn't.
It's more complex than that, of course, but that's a fair explanation
We should put two posts on this together!
Mini Displayport was given to the VESA standards organization, and was adopted as a standard some time ago. It's difficult to find a graphics or video card without one, as well as computers using built-in Displayport.
FireWire is also a standard, and controlled by the IEEE 1394-2008 standard.
http://ipod.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=ipod&cdn=gadgets&tm=18&f=00&tt=8&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewire
The iPhone connector is one rare case of Apple coming up with a much better port than anyone else, and keeping it to themselves. No company gives away all of its technology. Show me one that has.
Free license. This is what many companies do when offering their IP out as a standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
...
Few people have any idea as to how standards come about. They don't spring from the air. Most of the time, ONE company developes something and it becomes well used. Then either they apply for it to be used as a standard, or the industry is upset at the proprietary nature of it, and puts a standards committee together. Then, over time, that work becomes incorporated in a standard, or is itself declared a standard. We've seen that with FireWire and USB to just name two.
...
Most of the time, a consortium of companies works on a common standard. Their ideas are then combined during negotiations, in which every company tries to put as much of their IP into the standard as possible. The reasons are multiple -- control, royalties, prestige -- however the result isn't necessarily the best possible standard. There's much politics and haggling involved, and companies are sometimes in the position to strong-arm their partners into accepting inferior and even useless solutions. That's the ugly reality, although few of the participants will admit it openly.
In contrast, the situation that you describe, where one company single-handedly develops a standard, is more ideal and likely to produce compromise-free solutions. However, adoption of those solutions will be met with resistance from other companies in the same industry, for the reasons I pointed out before: control, royalties, and prestige.
I find it admirable when companies such as Apple develop and actually openly publish specifications. Industry-wide adoption is also desirable but, for the reasons outlined above, difficult to achieve.
I've worked on standards committees in the past. It's an interesting, often long, and acrimonious process. Very often, the committees are organized around the invention of one company or organization, which everyone is not happy about, and who try to get a piece of.
When Sony and Phillips developed thee CD, and licensed it out, many companies were unhappy, but they had little choice. Especially Toshiba, which had a comparing stand that were pushing.
When it came to the DVD, Sony found themselves almost locked out because of the past battles.
When later, we had the HD-DVD vs Blu Ray battle, it was very acrimonious between Sony and Toshiba. But this time, of course, because of a couple of good moves by Sony, and a few things that Toshiba had done to angry the industry, Sony won, almost flat handed.
So even though Sony owns it, it's still a standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zaren
The interface isn't a problem as far as I'm concerned. The blocks appear to be labeled well enough and easily recognizable; it's just a matter of the user deciding what goes where, and getting used to the positioning. I'm sure you did the same thing with your phone; I know I did with mine.
Nope, the problem is people are going to buy the cheaper tablet, and then wonder why they can't install Steam on it. DOA unfortunately. Not that I wouldn't mind seeing an option other than Premium iOS and malware-ridden Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa
Nope, the problem is people are going to buy the cheaper tablet, and then wonder why they can't install Steam on it. DOA unfortunately. Not that I wouldn't mind seeing an option other than Premium iOS and malware-ridden Android.
How is iOS "premium"? (sounds like you were trying to frame "Premium iOS" as a negative because you contrast it with "the cheaper tablet" and make it parallel to "malware-ridden Android" for which you would like to see alternatives).
You can get an iPad for 499, and now 399. It's solid aluminium and glass. No-one can match it for materials or quality (I drop mine on a regular basis and it has dented corners, but it's still in perfect working order). The battery lasts all day and it has downloaded my mail via WIFI before I get out of the car at McDonalds, while Windows or Android customers struggle for 25 minutes to connect and then come over and ask me if in fact the WIFI is working. It does what it is designed to do... without a dongle, I might add.
Secondly, Google has conditioned us that software itself is worthless, as they try to commoditize everything and redistribute everthing for free. MS, as a software company, has tried to do the opposite and get you to pay 300 bucks for a boxed set of Windows or Office. Apple, on the other hand, has actually added some real value to their products through superior, integrated software. Apple tries to give the best experience possible and tries to extend the life of your Apple product by letting you immediately download updates for about three years before you have to upgrade it. That is worth something. (Of course, Apple products are usable far longer than three years; I love my 2nd gen iPod touch and still use a dual G4 PowerMac running Leopard that is at least ten years old.)
You might be thinking that because Apple gets some good margins on its products, that that automatically makes it a "premium" product? Apple can't help it if others must have fire sales or make a loss in order to shift any of their junk. Others simply can not make a competing product at any where near the same price point.
We could have a whole discussion on margin. Apple makes good margins (and it makes far less margin on the iPad than the iPhone), because of its product strategy and development process. Apple makes one tablet. It puts X amount of fixed cost into development/design/tooling/etc. It aims to make back that fixed cost by selling Y number of iPads at Z margin over the following year before the next model. Except, what do you know, the iPad is so popular that they practically sell that Y number of iPads in two months! So, the more they sell, the more Z goes up. If they keep selling a model the next year as the new low end, why, the margin on those models goes up even more (because all the fixed costs for it have been more than covered). The more you sell, the less each unit costs to produce. This is pretty obvious to people that have had to get something printed like a brochure or T-shirt: you order more, your unit cost goes down. Simple as that. And Apple is selling as many iPads as it can make.
By contrast, other makers are developing all sorts of tablets because they have no idea what works, they need to throw something at the wall to see what sticks; they need to tweak and change the color or button arrangement every three months, and they sell maybe 200,000 before they discontinue and move on to the next idea. See how that works? They can't make any margin that way. So, if all you have to go on to call iOS "premium" is that Apple actually makes some money on it because they do a good job, then I urge you to reconsider your classification of iOS.
To the person that didn't know what RT meant.
There will be two types of tablets.
One that uses intel chips, and will use Windows 8. Those tablets will supposedly be able to run current windows software.
RT tablets will use the ARM chips. They will not be able to run current windows software. Only updated windows 8/metro software.
Confused?
I can't remember what RT really stands for though.
Ah yes....Microsoft marketing!
Here is a blast from the past...a spoof video showing what Microsoft would likely do if they were designing the marketing/packaging for the iPod:
Will there be similar considerations for their new tablet?