I don't think you know what "monpoly" means, but let's say for sake of argument you think it means "majority market share". You're worried about stagnation from a company that had a "monopoly" on its own markets: Mac and iPod? And yet Mac and iPod were innovative, kept changing annually over the past decade, staying fresh, and dropping in price, and even morphing into the iPod Touch which is more like the iPhone than a traditional iPod. Stop this "stifle innovation" nonsense. There will always be competitors/copiers trying to shoot Apple down from the top perch. This ain't Microsoft from the 90s where Microsoft got fat and uncompetitive in their dominant market position.
lol, i'll ignore the candid condescending tone and address just the facts of what you've said.
1. Apple does not have a good record in this respect. After the Apple II was a hit it continued being sold as Apple's primary product far into obsolesence. This happened after Steve Jobs left Apple in the 80's.
2. This stifle innovation "nonsense" applies to everyone, apple included. Consider things like copy and paste, the ability to download and use alternative browsers, Apple's upcoming maps application, all of these are products of competition with android, and they are better for it.
This stifle innovation "nonsense" applies to everyone, apple included. Consider things like copy and paste, the ability to download and use alternative browsers, Apple's upcoming maps application, all of these are products of competition with android, and they are better for it.
hmm, shocking indeed... however am I alone in not wanting the tablet industry to be dominated by Apple? Don't get me wrong, the new iPad is great, but if Apple maintains a monopoly on the sector I think its going to stifle innovation. When I see Apple dominating the sector year after year i see reason to worry, not celebrate.
The Pad is Apple's idea.
There is no such thing a market for anything else similar to an iPad, that is stealing Apple's idea.
if you do not like that do not buy an iPad.
So far one out of nine Americans have bought an iPad from Apple. I do not see them complaining. It is strong testimony to Apple's attention to detail that over 90% of those are very satisfied with the Apple iPad, much higher than anything from the imitation world of stolen ideas using Android to rip Apple and loyal Americans off.
Ah, you don't have Mountain/Lion. They both add emoji, which I use in lieu of forum emoticons because 1. there's a far FAR wider array of them for more emotions and 2. we only have one working forum emoticon.
They're straight-up Unicode characters, so they should be showing up anywhere that knows what they are. But that's the problem with using a standard; not everything supports it.
They work on IE on windows phone but not IE on windows...
I don't mind clarifying my stance, which part is the issue?
Both the claim that Apple would not have added those features were it not for Android and the claim that Apple is attempting to create a monopoly or stifle actual innovations.
There is no such thing a market for anything else similar to an iPad, that is stealing Apple's idea.
if you do not like that do not buy an iPad.
So far one out of nine Americans have bought an iPad from Apple. I do not see them complaining. It is strong testimony to Apple's attention to detail that over 90% of those are very satisfied with the Apple iPad, much higher than anything from the imitation world of stolen ideas using Android to rip Apple and loyal Americans off.
According to this logic Aple committed copyright infringement by making a touchscreen phone seeing how other touch screen phones also existed. "iPad" is nothing more than a brand moniker, the product is a tablet, a concept which has been executed numerous times prior to the iPad. Indeed the iPad has done it well and this is why it sold, but its nonsense to say that anything resembling an iPad in any way is copyright infringement.
Furthermore, I don't understand what national loyalty has to do wih this conversation. Apple contracts the vast majority of its work overseas, and Zteve Jobs has personally told Obama that unless expected wages for the same work goes down dlmestically he refuses to bring operations stateside. Don't be fooled into thinking that Apple's concerns in anyway align with national goals unless those goals get Apple more money. At the end of the day, its a business.
…Zteve Jobs has personally told Obama that unless expected wages for the same work goes down domestically he refuses to bring operations stateside.
No, he said nothing of the sort. Unless you do mean "Zteve Jobs". Steve said nothing about "refusing" to do anything.
Don't be fooled into thinking that Apple's concerns in anyway align with national goals unless those goals get Apple more money. At the end of the day, its a business.
No, he said nothing of the sort. Unless you do mean "Zteve Jobs". Steve said nothing about "refusing" to do anything.
At the end of the day, Apple is more.
Lol, on phone so sorry for the silly spelling mistakes, no need to get petty. In your own link you don't disprove me all it says that Jobs unambiguously states that these jobs are not coming back. The reason why they would not be coming back is because labor wages in the U S of A are much higher than in other places.
What precisely do you mean that at the end of he day Apple is more? They function as a retailer and producer of electronics that we at this forum use and enjoy. In exchange for those electronics we pay the company for services and products rendered. They manufacture their products overseas because it is cheaper, its par for the course. The only reason this was brought up was to show that Apple is no more nationalistic than The Gap, Nike, or Google.
Also I will respond to your other post but am at work right now and can't.
Which isn't what you claimed, meaning you're disproven.
This is your conjecture.
Than just a company looking out for profit.
...I'm really not sure what you are arguing anymore. Steve did in fact claim the jobs weren't coming back anymore, and because the particular article that you provided didn't explicitly say it was because of cost it means my argument is invalid?
That's the equivalent of me saying that wheels are round and you providing an article saying that they are not square. That they are round is therefore conjecture on my part and my entire argument is thus flawed?
I'm completely open to any other reason why manufacturing jobs are not hosted state side, and if you can provide a logical and credible one I'd gladly agree with you. Unfortunately that is not the case, and as a publicly traded company, Apple's primary responsibility is to its stock holders, not any other purpose that you might think.
Both the claim that Apple would not have added those features were it not for Android and the claim that Apple is attempting to create a monopoly or stifle actual innovations.
Ok, I said I'd address the claims you say I made, and here goes.
1. Apple would not have added these features were it not for Android
I did not say this. I agree that the idea that features such as copy/paste or the ability to install other browsers could ONLY have happened due to Android's existence is absolutely ludicrous, however, I do think that Android's implementation of these features before Apple certainly prioritized them. Furthermore, in an attempt for each to differentiate one another, both have come up with phenomenal platform specific technologies that are now starting to migrate to the other. For example on Google's side you have amazing mapping implementation on Android, something that Apple is now trying to address in iOS 6. In contrast, Apple redefined how voice-phone interaction works with Siri, something that lit a fire under Google's a** to better in their ecosystem.
2. Apple is attempting to create a monopoly or stifle innovation
It is in any company's interest to create a monopoly. In creating a monopoly they ensure that they always remain relevant. As for "attempting to stifle innovation", of course I don't believe Apple is consciously trying to do this, yet it is a by-product of any monopoly that has ever happened. You believe that Apple is somehow different, that it is special. I sincerely hope I do get proved wrong, because I'm loving the consistent leaps and bounds we're making in telecommunications technology. The iPad has only been out for 3 generations (years) now, if it still maintains market dominance by 2020 and keeps the same spirit, I'll gladly say I was wrong. But I'm not holding my breath.
Wow that's a lot, but what do most people use a tablet for? It's something that has always baffled me, unless millions of people have the extra dough laying around I guess. Who is an ipad really geared towards? If anyone in particular.
Wow that's a lot, but what do most people use a tablet for? It's something that has always baffled me, unless millions of people have the extra dough laying around I guess. Who is an ipad really geared towards? If anyone in particular.
… Seriously? The tablet is the every-computer. It'll kill laptops and redefine desktops. It's for everyone.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
I don't think you know what "monpoly" means, but let's say for sake of argument you think it means "majority market share". You're worried about stagnation from a company that had a "monopoly" on its own markets: Mac and iPod? And yet Mac and iPod were innovative, kept changing annually over the past decade, staying fresh, and dropping in price, and even morphing into the iPod Touch which is more like the iPhone than a traditional iPod. Stop this "stifle innovation" nonsense. There will always be competitors/copiers trying to shoot Apple down from the top perch. This ain't Microsoft from the 90s where Microsoft got fat and uncompetitive in their dominant market position.
lol, i'll ignore the candid condescending tone and address just the facts of what you've said.
1. Apple does not have a good record in this respect. After the Apple II was a hit it continued being sold as Apple's primary product far into obsolesence. This happened after Steve Jobs left Apple in the 80's.
2. This stifle innovation "nonsense" applies to everyone, apple included. Consider things like copy and paste, the ability to download and use alternative browsers, Apple's upcoming maps application, all of these are products of competition with android, and they are better for it.
Originally Posted by ChuckVader
This stifle innovation "nonsense" applies to everyone, apple included. Consider things like copy and paste, the ability to download and use alternative browsers, Apple's upcoming maps application, all of these are products of competition with android, and they are better for it.
Nope. Try again with a real argument.
The Pad is Apple's idea.
There is no such thing a market for anything else similar to an iPad, that is stealing Apple's idea.
if you do not like that do not buy an iPad.
So far one out of nine Americans have bought an iPad from Apple. I do not see them complaining. It is strong testimony to Apple's attention to detail that over 90% of those are very satisfied with the Apple iPad, much higher than anything from the imitation world of stolen ideas using Android to rip Apple and loyal Americans off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Ah, you don't have Mountain/Lion. They both add emoji, which I use in lieu of forum emoticons because 1. there's a far FAR wider array of them for more emotions and 2. we only have one working forum emoticon.
They're straight-up Unicode characters, so they should be showing up anywhere that knows what they are. But that's the problem with using a standard; not everything supports it.
They work on IE on windows phone but not IE on windows...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Nope. Try again with a real argument.
I don't mind clarifying my stance, which part is the issue?
Originally Posted by ChuckVader
I don't mind clarifying my stance, which part is the issue?
Both the claim that Apple would not have added those features were it not for Android and the claim that Apple is attempting to create a monopoly or stifle actual innovations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4phun
The Pad is Apple's idea.
There is no such thing a market for anything else similar to an iPad, that is stealing Apple's idea.
if you do not like that do not buy an iPad.
So far one out of nine Americans have bought an iPad from Apple. I do not see them complaining. It is strong testimony to Apple's attention to detail that over 90% of those are very satisfied with the Apple iPad, much higher than anything from the imitation world of stolen ideas using Android to rip Apple and loyal Americans off.
According to this logic Aple committed copyright infringement by making a touchscreen phone seeing how other touch screen phones also existed. "iPad" is nothing more than a brand moniker, the product is a tablet, a concept which has been executed numerous times prior to the iPad. Indeed the iPad has done it well and this is why it sold, but its nonsense to say that anything resembling an iPad in any way is copyright infringement.
Furthermore, I don't understand what national loyalty has to do wih this conversation. Apple contracts the vast majority of its work overseas, and Zteve Jobs has personally told Obama that unless expected wages for the same work goes down dlmestically he refuses to bring operations stateside. Don't be fooled into thinking that Apple's concerns in anyway align with national goals unless those goals get Apple more money. At the end of the day, its a business.
Originally Posted by ChuckVader
…Zteve Jobs has personally told Obama that unless expected wages for the same work goes down domestically he refuses to bring operations stateside.
No, he said nothing of the sort. Unless you do mean "Zteve Jobs". Steve said nothing about "refusing" to do anything.
Don't be fooled into thinking that Apple's concerns in anyway align with national goals unless those goals get Apple more money. At the end of the day, its a business.
At the end of the day, Apple is more.
Lol, on phone so sorry for the silly spelling mistakes, no need to get petty. In your own link you don't disprove me all it says that Jobs unambiguously states that these jobs are not coming back. The reason why they would not be coming back is because labor wages in the U S of A are much higher than in other places.
What precisely do you mean that at the end of he day Apple is more? They function as a retailer and producer of electronics that we at this forum use and enjoy. In exchange for those electronics we pay the company for services and products rendered. They manufacture their products overseas because it is cheaper, its par for the course. The only reason this was brought up was to show that Apple is no more nationalistic than The Gap, Nike, or Google.
Also I will respond to your other post but am at work right now and can't.
Originally Posted by ChuckVader
In your own link you don't disprove me all it says that Jobs unambiguously states that these jobs are not coming back.
Which isn't what you claimed, meaning you're disproven.
The reason why they would not be coming back is because labor wages in the U S of A are much higher than in other places.
This is your conjecture.
What precisely do you mean that at the end of he day Apple is more?
Than just a company looking out for profit.
...I'm really not sure what you are arguing anymore. Steve did in fact claim the jobs weren't coming back anymore, and because the particular article that you provided didn't explicitly say it was because of cost it means my argument is invalid?
That's the equivalent of me saying that wheels are round and you providing an article saying that they are not square. That they are round is therefore conjecture on my part and my entire argument is thus flawed?
I'm completely open to any other reason why manufacturing jobs are not hosted state side, and if you can provide a logical and credible one I'd gladly agree with you. Unfortunately that is not the case, and as a publicly traded company, Apple's primary responsibility is to its stock holders, not any other purpose that you might think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Both the claim that Apple would not have added those features were it not for Android and the claim that Apple is attempting to create a monopoly or stifle actual innovations.
Ok, I said I'd address the claims you say I made, and here goes.
1. Apple would not have added these features were it not for Android
I did not say this. I agree that the idea that features such as copy/paste or the ability to install other browsers could ONLY have happened due to Android's existence is absolutely ludicrous, however, I do think that Android's implementation of these features before Apple certainly prioritized them. Furthermore, in an attempt for each to differentiate one another, both have come up with phenomenal platform specific technologies that are now starting to migrate to the other. For example on Google's side you have amazing mapping implementation on Android, something that Apple is now trying to address in iOS 6. In contrast, Apple redefined how voice-phone interaction works with Siri, something that lit a fire under Google's a** to better in their ecosystem.
2. Apple is attempting to create a monopoly or stifle innovation
It is in any company's interest to create a monopoly. In creating a monopoly they ensure that they always remain relevant. As for "attempting to stifle innovation", of course I don't believe Apple is consciously trying to do this, yet it is a by-product of any monopoly that has ever happened. You believe that Apple is somehow different, that it is special. I sincerely hope I do get proved wrong, because I'm loving the consistent leaps and bounds we're making in telecommunications technology. The iPad has only been out for 3 generations (years) now, if it still maintains market dominance by 2020 and keeps the same spirit, I'll gladly say I was wrong. But I'm not holding my breath.
34 million iPads? It's more popular than I thought.
Wow that's a lot, but what do most people use a tablet for? It's something that has always baffled me, unless millions of people have the extra dough laying around I guess. Who is an ipad really geared towards? If anyone in particular.
Originally Posted by Shomari Malcolm
Wow that's a lot, but what do most people use a tablet for? It's something that has always baffled me, unless millions of people have the extra dough laying around I guess. Who is an ipad really geared towards? If anyone in particular.
… Seriously? The tablet is the every-computer. It'll kill laptops and redefine desktops. It's for everyone.