I could switch to a Windows forum you are right but as I am typing this on a Mac Book Pro what would be the point?
You are clearly one of these people who assume that is Apple = Good then MS must = Bad. A very silly view to have and one that has no basis in reality.
You of course have every right to think as you do and you clearly have no intention of trying to understand the truth of the matter. So I will let you carry on in your deluded world.
I have to stop typing now, my hands get sore after a while. Nothing serious, just a throwback to my early teens when Bill Gates came round to my house and repeatedly smashed my hands with a hammer until I reluctantly agreed to buy his crappy product. They brainwashed me too, though of course everyone back then had been put under his evil spell so we all know what that is like.
I have to stop typing too, since you are obviously impervious to history, facts, reason, or legal findings.
I have to stop typing too, since you are obviously impervious to history, facts, reason, or legal findings.
You left out the fact that it was the Clinton administration that went after MS. The Democrats always see every corporation as evil, because they've become socialists too.
You left out the fact that it was the Clinton administration that went after MS. The Democrats always see every corporation as evil, because they've become socialists too.
No, they and the Progressive (Roosevelt wing) of the Republican party became socialists when they adopted the Socialist Party's platform in its entirety in the 1912 campaign, so frightened were they by the 8 % Eugene V. Debs garnered from his jail cell in the 1908 election. The Taft wing eventually retook control and are now working on destroying the Progressive Era reforms of the 1912-1920 era, now that they've succeeded in destroying the Great Society and the New Deal.
I have to stop typing too, since you are obviously impervious to history, facts, reason, or legal findings.
It has nothing to do with your absurd suggestion that Microsoft have only become the company they are now because they have abused their monopoly.
It is such lunacy to even have such a stance. You only become a monopoly in one of two ways, one, you are state owned, state sponsored or exist in a state where compeition is forbidden. And two, you make a bloody good product that everybody wants to buy and your competition is either not as good as you or they make the wrong decisions and miss the boat.
You may not like Windows, you may prefer OSX, that is fine, so do I. But being a good product is not just about how nice the GUI is or how stable it is or even how it makes everything "just work". Being a good product also means it is sold well, marketed well, supported well, managed well, gone out to town and kicked everyones ass well and taken advantage of weaknesses in the competition well. The product is everything, and in a capitallist nation where consumers have choice if product A sells a billion units and product B sell a thousand units then product A is by far the better product regardless of whether Product B is technically better.
It has nothing to do with your absurd suggestion that Microsoft have only become the company they are now because they have abused their monopoly.
Obviously, you have no idea of the history of Microsoft, so there's no point in continuing this discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb
It is such lunacy to even have such a stance. You only become a monopoly in one of two ways, one, you are state owned, state sponsored or exist in a state where compeition is forbidden. And two, you make a bloody good product that everybody wants to buy and your competition is either not as good as you or they make the wrong decisions and miss the boat.
So Standard Oil became a monopoly in the 19th Century by selling a better product than the other oil companies? Right. Unfortunately, 100%, dog-eat-dog, let-'em-eat-cake, robber-baron Capitalism is thoroughly back in the driver's seat in this country, so let the good times roll!
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyweb
You may not like Windows, you may prefer OSX, that is fine, so do I. But being a good product is not just about how nice the GUI is or how stable it is or even how it makes everything "just work". Being a good product also means it is sold well, marketed well, supported well, managed well, gone out to town and kicked everyones ass well and taken advantage of weaknesses in the competition well. The product is everything, and in a capitallist nation where consumers have choice if product A sells a billion units and product B sell a thousand units then product A is by far the better product regardless of whether Product B is technically better.
I know you don't want to hear about history, but honestly, this is just so rich I can't pass it up! How exactly does the consumer have a "choice" if every OEM has to buy Windows for every box they sell, whether they want to or not? Even if Microsoft didn't carry out their threat to cut them off if they sell a computer with another OS, what are they going to do? Pay for two OSs on every computer, and only ship one? This is capitalism in action? Thanks, but no thanks!
I know you don't want to hear about history, but honestly, this is just so rich I can't pass it up! How exactly does the consumer have a "choice" if every OEM has to buy Windows for every box they sell, whether they want to or not? Even if Microsoft didn't carry out their threat to cut them off if they sell a computer with another OS, what are they going to do? Pay for two OSs on every computer, and only ship one? This is capitalism in action? Thanks, but no thanks!
No it is not, you are completely missing the point and getting your arguments backwards.
We would not be in this situation if Microsoft had any competition. The lack of a competing product meant that Microsoft became a monopoly by default. They were able to get away with strict and unfair OEM agreements because the OEM builders had nowhere else to go to. If there had been another choice Microsoft would never have been able to build up such a dominant position in the marketplace that enables such practices to work.
This is not Microsoft's fault, they can hardly be blamed if nobody was good enough to take them on. All they did was to release a fantastic product that people wanted to buy (and today the vast majority still want to buy).
So yes you can argue that their sales practices are restrictive and unfair, but this is not HOW they became so dominant it is BECAUSE they became so dominant. You have got your thinking the wrong way round - really, don't you get that?
They became so dominant because they had a great product that people wanted and zero competition.
They became so dominant because they had a great product that people wanted and zero competition.
They became dominant in the DOS era. They bought 86DOS from Seattle Computer Products and then sold it to IBM. IBM neglected to get an exclusive on it, and then went on to create an open hardware architecture through their own arrogance and stupidity. The clone makers jumped on that, and started producing IBM-compatible computers. DOS was the only OS that would run on them. By the time anybody came up with any more (and there were several) Microsoft's pirate tactics had created a monopoly, because no one dared sell a computer with anything but DOS on them. Meanwhile, Apple had been taken over in a palace revolution by insensate bean-counters who proceeded to run it into the ground. We are just now approaching the situation we should have been in 20 years ago, with Microsoft getting a little competition. They have never had a great product; they have never created an adequate product without buying it from somebody else!
We would not be in this situation if Microsoft had any competition. The lack of a competing product meant that Microsoft became a monopoly by default. They were able to get away with strict and unfair OEM agreements because the OEM builders had nowhere else to go to. If there had been another choice Microsoft would never have been able to build up such a dominant position in the marketplace that enables such practices to work.
Man, if there was ever a need for an American COMPUTER History class, it's now.
There WERE alternatives besides the beleaguered Apple of the past. You do realize the Microsoft of today is now eerily mimicking the floundering Apple of the '90s, right?
Read the following to watch history repeat itself:
Don't you people even TRY to change the subject. Carniphage, you implied ever so casually that those who will be enjoying the upcoming tablet product from Apple are idiots.
Well they are not. They....WE, like Steveo, are forward thinking individuals while primitives such as yourself will continue to have to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming. You can keep your colossus if that is your idea of a computer.
Oh, and if your thinking you will be buying the tablet when Steve debuts it THINK AGAIN. Your another one I'm adding to the list for Steve to refuse tablet sales to!
Don't you people even TRY to change the subject. Carniphage, you implied ever so casually that those who will be enjoying the upcoming tablet product from Apple are idiots.
Well they are not. They....WE, like Steveo, are forward thinking individuals while primitives such as yourself will continue to have to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming. You can keep your colossus if that is your idea of a computer.
Oh, and if your thinking you will be buying the tablet when Steve debuts it THINK AGAIN. Your another one I'm adding to the list for Steve to refuse tablet sales to!
<Grin>.
I have no intention of changing the subject. I just thought I would patriotically respond to your casual anti-English insult. We Brits do travel however. And some of use have computers. Or "electric computing apparatuses" as they are known here.
If you had some patience you might have re-read the post which you objected to.
I was saying there is a limit to the number of lines that Apple makes. Apple, as a sensible hardware manufacturer, only creates lines which will be profitable. That is a smart business strategy, but causes a problem. There is a bigger demand for Apple OS than there is demand for Mac "boutique" hardware. People like yourself want hardware formats which Apple don't make.
You are going to say "Currently Make"
For your benefit only Olternaut, here's why I think "tablet - hell no"
There have been tablets coming out for the last 10 years and all have failed commercially. You might think that Apple could do better, and it probably could do a little better. But the underlying problems remain.
In vertical markets, Hospital and factory workers find tablets too large to carry around. For Nurses on bed-pad detail, iPod touch is probably an ideal format for checking on Mr. Smith's bowel movements.
Desk workers want a keyboard. They don't want to type on a screen. A screen lying flat is uncomfortable to look at. A screen held vertically must be mounted on a secure base if it to remain vertical. Put those issues together and it leads to to a conventional notebook format.
Digital artists want a large screen with a small control surface. I use a 30" Cinema display with an A5 graphics tablet. They also want a stylus not touch.
I love the idea of radical and new form factors and innovative user-interface designs.
But I can't think of a single application for a small computer where the answer is "Tablet" apart from: "How can I design a computer that looks like something from Star Trek"
Perhaps you could suggest a scenario where a tablet would be the right answer?
I was saying there is a limit to the number of lines that Apple makes. Apple, as a sensible hardware manufacturer, only creates lines which will be profitable. That is a smart business strategy, but causes a problem. There is a bigger demand for Apple OS than there is demand for Mac "boutique" hardware. People like yourself want hardware formats which Apple don't make.
I agree with you about the desirability of tablet computers. Well, at least I don't think I want one.
Back to OS X... Yes, I can understand that there's probably a demand for the product apart from Apple computers themselves. What I don't think has been sufficiently demonstrated is why it's in the interest of Apple's shareholders for Apple to sell OS X for computers other than the ones on which they already make a considerable profit.
By the way, Carniphage, have you thought about my question on why Apple is not already selling software for Windows-based computers?
I have no intention of changing the subject. I just thought I would patriotically respond to your casual anti-English insult. We Brits do travel however. And some of use have computers. Or "electric computing apparatuses" as they are known here.
If you had some patience you might have re-read the post which you objected to.
I was saying there is a limit to the number of lines that Apple makes. Apple, as a sensible hardware manufacturer, only creates lines which will be profitable. That is a smart business strategy, but causes a problem. There is a bigger demand for Apple OS than there is demand for Mac "boutique" hardware. People like yourself want hardware formats which Apple don't make.
You are going to say "Currently Make"
For your benefit only Olternaut, here's why I think "tablet - hell no"
There have been tablets coming out for the last 10 years and all have failed commercially. You might think that Apple could do better, and it probably could do a little better. But the underlying problems remain.
In vertical markets, Hospital and factory workers find tablets too large to carry around. For Nurses on bed-pad detail, iPod touch is probably an ideal format for checking on Mr. Smith's bowel movements.
Desk workers want a keyboard. They don't want to type on a screen. A screen lying flat is uncomfortable to look at. A screen held vertically must be mounted on a secure base if it to remain vertical. Put those issues together and it leads to to a conventional notebook format.
Digital artists want a large screen with a small control surface. I use a 30" Cinema display with an A5 graphics tablet. They also want a stylus not touch.
I love the idea of radical and new form factors and innovative user-interface designs.
But I can't think of a single application for a small computer where the answer is "Tablet" apart from: "How can I design a computer that looks like something from Star Trek"
Perhaps you could suggest a scenario where a tablet would be the right answer?
C.
You are quite possibly the rudest most stuck up person i have ever seen post on a forum. You think that you are all mighty god and no matter what anyone else says that you will be correct. That has to be a joke, because im sure that there are others that feel the same way as me. This is a speculation thread for the most part, and when people give their opinions you are making people feel uncomfortable and out of place when you answer with complete shut downs of their ideas. Maybe everyone doesn't want the same thing as you, get over yourself.
After the recent press releases of Sony's new laptop lineup, it shows that Sony's hardware in terms of laptops are far superior. I myself am definitely thinking of porting from my current MacBook Pro to the new Sony Z Series laptop. It packs better specs into a footprint similar to the MacBook that is competetive to current MacBook Pro's and goes beyond them in certain cases.
Apple will need to update their laptop line soon to compete against such laptop releases before they slip too far behind. This is an important product update needed but probably not a products transition unless large overhauls have beeen made.
I definitely prefer OSX, it makes life easy whereas Vista can make computing hard work at times, but I am prepared to port over to much better hardware if I still have a desktop Mac.
I have no intention of changing the subject. I just thought I would patriotically respond to your casual anti-English insult. We Brits do travel however. And some of use have computers. Or "electric computing apparatuses" as they are known here.
If you had some patience you might have re-read the post which you objected to.
I was saying there is a limit to the number of lines that Apple makes. Apple, as a sensible hardware manufacturer, only creates lines which will be profitable. That is a smart business strategy, but causes a problem. There is a bigger demand for Apple OS than there is demand for Mac "boutique" hardware. People like yourself want hardware formats which Apple don't make.
You are going to say "Currently Make"
For your benefit only Olternaut, here's why I think "tablet - hell no"
There have been tablets coming out for the last 10 years and all have failed commercially. You might think that Apple could do better, and it probably could do a little better. But the underlying problems remain.
In vertical markets, Hospital and factory workers find tablets too large to carry around. For Nurses on bed-pad detail, iPod touch is probably an ideal format for checking on Mr. Smith's bowel movements.
Desk workers want a keyboard. They don't want to type on a screen. A screen lying flat is uncomfortable to look at. A screen held vertically must be mounted on a secure base if it to remain vertical. Put those issues together and it leads to to a conventional notebook format.
Digital artists want a large screen with a small control surface. I use a 30" Cinema display with an A5 graphics tablet. They also want a stylus not touch.
I love the idea of radical and new form factors and innovative user-interface designs.
But I can't think of a single application for a small computer where the answer is "Tablet" apart from: "How can I design a computer that looks like something from Star Trek"
Perhaps you could suggest a scenario where a tablet would be the right answer?
C.
I wasn't being anti-English you freak so save it! I was pointing out that you obviously are not an expert on global markets and the idiosyncrasies of each area of the planet. Suggest a scenario? Who the hell cares?! Just don't call people who are interested in an Apple version of what a tablet might be an idiot. END OF STORY!
You are quite possibly the rudest most stuck up person i have ever seen post on a forum. You think that you are all mighty god and no matter what anyone else says that you will be correct. That has to be a joke, because im sure that there are others that feel the same way as me. This is a speculation thread for the most part, and when people give their opinions you are making people feel uncomfortable and out of place when you answer with complete shut downs of their ideas. Maybe everyone doesn't want the same thing as you, get over yourself.
No offense, but Carniphage made a very logical argument against a Mac tablet. Shoot, the main pusher of that kind of computer is Bill Gates. Sure, Apple could release a Mac tablet that's beyond what Microsoft or most third party hardware vendors can hope to create. They're a hardware company and a great one. But a tablet has not been released for a reason: cannibalization.
Where would a tablet fit in their current Mac lineup? It's a touch-screen laptop. What size screen do you use? 13"? Probably too small. 15"? Possibly too big. Do they make it more powerful than the MacBook Air or MacBook Pro? Mainly, how do they price it so it doesn't affect sales of their other laptops OR iPod touch/iPhone mobile WiFi devices? And who's going to buy one? It's just such a niche market and why would they introduce the MacBook Air with a big Multi-Touch trackpad in January and then release a full-on touch-screen Mac now? Seems like the main people calling for such a device in the tech media are places like Joystiq, Endgadget, Gizmodo, and CNET, all of which slander Apple constantly and want them to go out of business more than anything else.
Carniphage and I certainly haven't agreed in this thread about licensing out the Mac OS, but his argument on this subject is very reasoned and I didn't catch any major sneering.
No offense, but Carniphage made a very logical argument against a Mac tablet. Shoot, the main pusher of that kind of computer is Bill Gates. Sure, Apple could release a Mac tablet that's beyond what Microsoft or most third party hardware vendors can hope to create. They're a hardware company and a great one. But a tablet has not been released for a reason: cannibalization.
Where would a tablet fit in their current Mac lineup? It's a touch-screen laptop. What size screen do you use? 13"? Probably too small. 15"? Possibly too big. Do they make it more powerful than the MacBook Air or MacBook Pro? Mainly, how do they price it so it doesn't affect sales of their other laptops OR iPod touch/iPhone mobile WiFi devices? And who's going to buy one? It's just such a niche market and why would they introduce the MacBook Air with a big Multi-Touch trackpad in January and then release a full-on touch-screen Mac now? Seems like the main people calling for such a device in the tech media are places like Joystiq, Endgadget, Gizmodo, and CNET, all of which slander Apple constantly and want them to go out of business more than anything else.
Carniphage and I certainly haven't agreed in this thread about licensing out the Mac OS, but his argument on this subject is very reasoned and I didn't catch any major sneering.
Olternaut clearly isnt happy with him either. Carniphage is indeed calling people idiots and is being rude and saucy in the comments he makes. Other people have their opinions too. Its not just "his case" that is supported here, everyone has their own opinion on the future of apple. He needs to start respecting the opinions of others.
After the recent press releases of Sony's new laptop lineup, it shows that Sony's hardware in terms of laptops are far superior. I myself am definitely thinking of porting from my current MacBook Pro to the new Sony Z Series laptop. It packs better specs into a footprint similar to the MacBook that is competetive to current MacBook Pro's and goes beyond them in certain cases.
You are probably right.
I was thinking if Apple stopped making OS X overnight - and the hardware had to standup on its own - which lines would survive.
MacPro - yep
Mini - Yep
Air - Probably
iMac - Yep
Macbook - err... not sure. It seems a bit pricey to me for what it does.
Comments
I could switch to a Windows forum you are right but as I am typing this on a Mac Book Pro what would be the point?
You are clearly one of these people who assume that is Apple = Good then MS must = Bad. A very silly view to have and one that has no basis in reality.
You of course have every right to think as you do and you clearly have no intention of trying to understand the truth of the matter. So I will let you carry on in your deluded world.
I have to stop typing now, my hands get sore after a while. Nothing serious, just a throwback to my early teens when Bill Gates came round to my house and repeatedly smashed my hands with a hammer until I reluctantly agreed to buy his crappy product. They brainwashed me too, though of course everyone back then had been put under his evil spell so we all know what that is like.
I have to stop typing too, since you are obviously impervious to history, facts, reason, or legal findings.
I have to stop typing too, since you are obviously impervious to history, facts, reason, or legal findings.
You left out the fact that it was the Clinton administration that went after MS. The Democrats always see every corporation as evil, because they've become socialists too.
You left out the fact that it was the Clinton administration that went after MS. The Democrats always see every corporation as evil, because they've become socialists too.
No, they and the Progressive (Roosevelt wing) of the Republican party became socialists when they adopted the Socialist Party's platform in its entirety in the 1912 campaign, so frightened were they by the 8 % Eugene V. Debs garnered from his jail cell in the 1908 election. The Taft wing eventually retook control and are now working on destroying the Progressive Era reforms of the 1912-1920 era, now that they've succeeded in destroying the Great Society and the New Deal.
Yada, yada, yada, Take that you pinko Commie bastard, blah, blah, blah....
Yawn!
Originally Posted by murphyweb
Yada, yada, yada, Take that you pinko Commie bastard, blah, blah, blah....
Why are you inventing things that I have supposedly said? Are you a child?
I have to stop typing too, since you are obviously impervious to history, facts, reason, or legal findings.
It has nothing to do with your absurd suggestion that Microsoft have only become the company they are now because they have abused their monopoly.
It is such lunacy to even have such a stance. You only become a monopoly in one of two ways, one, you are state owned, state sponsored or exist in a state where compeition is forbidden. And two, you make a bloody good product that everybody wants to buy and your competition is either not as good as you or they make the wrong decisions and miss the boat.
You may not like Windows, you may prefer OSX, that is fine, so do I. But being a good product is not just about how nice the GUI is or how stable it is or even how it makes everything "just work". Being a good product also means it is sold well, marketed well, supported well, managed well, gone out to town and kicked everyones ass well and taken advantage of weaknesses in the competition well. The product is everything, and in a capitallist nation where consumers have choice if product A sells a billion units and product B sell a thousand units then product A is by far the better product regardless of whether Product B is technically better.
It has nothing to do with your absurd suggestion that Microsoft have only become the company they are now because they have abused their monopoly.
Obviously, you have no idea of the history of Microsoft, so there's no point in continuing this discussion
It is such lunacy to even have such a stance. You only become a monopoly in one of two ways, one, you are state owned, state sponsored or exist in a state where compeition is forbidden. And two, you make a bloody good product that everybody wants to buy and your competition is either not as good as you or they make the wrong decisions and miss the boat.
So Standard Oil became a monopoly in the 19th Century by selling a better product than the other oil companies? Right. Unfortunately, 100%, dog-eat-dog, let-'em-eat-cake, robber-baron Capitalism is thoroughly back in the driver's seat in this country, so let the good times roll!
You may not like Windows, you may prefer OSX, that is fine, so do I. But being a good product is not just about how nice the GUI is or how stable it is or even how it makes everything "just work". Being a good product also means it is sold well, marketed well, supported well, managed well, gone out to town and kicked everyones ass well and taken advantage of weaknesses in the competition well. The product is everything, and in a capitallist nation where consumers have choice if product A sells a billion units and product B sell a thousand units then product A is by far the better product regardless of whether Product B is technically better.
I know you don't want to hear about history, but honestly, this is just so rich I can't pass it up! How exactly does the consumer have a "choice" if every OEM has to buy Windows for every box they sell, whether they want to or not? Even if Microsoft didn't carry out their threat to cut them off if they sell a computer with another OS, what are they going to do? Pay for two OSs on every computer, and only ship one? This is capitalism in action? Thanks, but no thanks!
I know you don't want to hear about history, but honestly, this is just so rich I can't pass it up! How exactly does the consumer have a "choice" if every OEM has to buy Windows for every box they sell, whether they want to or not? Even if Microsoft didn't carry out their threat to cut them off if they sell a computer with another OS, what are they going to do? Pay for two OSs on every computer, and only ship one? This is capitalism in action? Thanks, but no thanks!
No it is not, you are completely missing the point and getting your arguments backwards.
We would not be in this situation if Microsoft had any competition. The lack of a competing product meant that Microsoft became a monopoly by default. They were able to get away with strict and unfair OEM agreements because the OEM builders had nowhere else to go to. If there had been another choice Microsoft would never have been able to build up such a dominant position in the marketplace that enables such practices to work.
This is not Microsoft's fault, they can hardly be blamed if nobody was good enough to take them on. All they did was to release a fantastic product that people wanted to buy (and today the vast majority still want to buy).
So yes you can argue that their sales practices are restrictive and unfair, but this is not HOW they became so dominant it is BECAUSE they became so dominant. You have got your thinking the wrong way round - really, don't you get that?
They became so dominant because they had a great product that people wanted and zero competition.
They became so dominant because they had a great product that people wanted and zero competition.
They became dominant in the DOS era. They bought 86DOS from Seattle Computer Products and then sold it to IBM. IBM neglected to get an exclusive on it, and then went on to create an open hardware architecture through their own arrogance and stupidity. The clone makers jumped on that, and started producing IBM-compatible computers. DOS was the only OS that would run on them. By the time anybody came up with any more (and there were several) Microsoft's pirate tactics had created a monopoly, because no one dared sell a computer with anything but DOS on them. Meanwhile, Apple had been taken over in a palace revolution by insensate bean-counters who proceeded to run it into the ground. We are just now approaching the situation we should have been in 20 years ago, with Microsoft getting a little competition. They have never had a great product; they have never created an adequate product without buying it from somebody else!
We would not be in this situation if Microsoft had any competition. The lack of a competing product meant that Microsoft became a monopoly by default. They were able to get away with strict and unfair OEM agreements because the OEM builders had nowhere else to go to. If there had been another choice Microsoft would never have been able to build up such a dominant position in the marketplace that enables such practices to work.
Man, if there was ever a need for an American COMPUTER History class, it's now.
There WERE alternatives besides the beleaguered Apple of the past. You do realize the Microsoft of today is now eerily mimicking the floundering Apple of the '90s, right?
Read the following to watch history repeat itself:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/0...ered-apple-96/
Now read the following to get up to speed on...history:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Hom...EF7FAFD3A.html
At the bottom of that ^ article, it links to the next article: 1980-1985: 8-bit Platforms
At the bottom of that article on 8-bit systems will be one on 16-bit systems. Read that too. Keep following the links 'til you reach the end.
The articles are all part of a logical, well written, and easy to understand series: The Rise and Fall of Platforms.
After your done reading all that, please tell Carniphage about it and make sure to say pass it on.
Then rejoin the discussion if you wish.
Here's another article from that series. It should be quite relevant to you: 1990-1995: Why the World Went Windows
But seriously, make sure to read the rest.
Dude, we *invented* the computer. You heard of it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer
C.
Don't you people even TRY to change the subject. Carniphage, you implied ever so casually that those who will be enjoying the upcoming tablet product from Apple are idiots.
Well they are not. They....WE, like Steveo, are forward thinking individuals while primitives such as yourself will continue to have to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming. You can keep your colossus if that is your idea of a computer.
Oh, and if your thinking you will be buying the tablet when Steve debuts it THINK AGAIN. Your another one I'm adding to the list for Steve to refuse tablet sales to!
Don't you people even TRY to change the subject. Carniphage, you implied ever so casually that those who will be enjoying the upcoming tablet product from Apple are idiots.
Well they are not. They....WE, like Steveo, are forward thinking individuals while primitives such as yourself will continue to have to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming. You can keep your colossus if that is your idea of a computer.
Oh, and if your thinking you will be buying the tablet when Steve debuts it THINK AGAIN. Your another one I'm adding to the list for Steve to refuse tablet sales to!
<Grin>.
I have no intention of changing the subject. I just thought I would patriotically respond to your casual anti-English insult. We Brits do travel however. And some of use have computers. Or "electric computing apparatuses" as they are known here.
If you had some patience you might have re-read the post which you objected to.
I was saying there is a limit to the number of lines that Apple makes. Apple, as a sensible hardware manufacturer, only creates lines which will be profitable. That is a smart business strategy, but causes a problem. There is a bigger demand for Apple OS than there is demand for Mac "boutique" hardware. People like yourself want hardware formats which Apple don't make.
You are going to say "Currently Make"
For your benefit only Olternaut, here's why I think "tablet - hell no"
There have been tablets coming out for the last 10 years and all have failed commercially. You might think that Apple could do better, and it probably could do a little better. But the underlying problems remain.
In vertical markets, Hospital and factory workers find tablets too large to carry around. For Nurses on bed-pad detail, iPod touch is probably an ideal format for checking on Mr. Smith's bowel movements.
Desk workers want a keyboard. They don't want to type on a screen. A screen lying flat is uncomfortable to look at. A screen held vertically must be mounted on a secure base if it to remain vertical. Put those issues together and it leads to to a conventional notebook format.
Digital artists want a large screen with a small control surface. I use a 30" Cinema display with an A5 graphics tablet. They also want a stylus not touch.
I love the idea of radical and new form factors and innovative user-interface designs.
But I can't think of a single application for a small computer where the answer is "Tablet" apart from: "How can I design a computer that looks like something from Star Trek"
Perhaps you could suggest a scenario where a tablet would be the right answer?
C.
I was saying there is a limit to the number of lines that Apple makes. Apple, as a sensible hardware manufacturer, only creates lines which will be profitable. That is a smart business strategy, but causes a problem. There is a bigger demand for Apple OS than there is demand for Mac "boutique" hardware. People like yourself want hardware formats which Apple don't make.
I agree with you about the desirability of tablet computers. Well, at least I don't think I want one.
Back to OS X... Yes, I can understand that there's probably a demand for the product apart from Apple computers themselves. What I don't think has been sufficiently demonstrated is why it's in the interest of Apple's shareholders for Apple to sell OS X for computers other than the ones on which they already make a considerable profit.
By the way, Carniphage, have you thought about my question on why Apple is not already selling software for Windows-based computers?
So...what is a "product transition?"
Is it not a transition from one product into another?
I think product transition conveys this information- Apple is preparing for that will cut profit margins to help shut out rivals.
__________________________________________________ ____
Baby clothes,Kids wear,Maternity wear,baby designer cloth
<Grin>.
I have no intention of changing the subject. I just thought I would patriotically respond to your casual anti-English insult. We Brits do travel however. And some of use have computers. Or "electric computing apparatuses" as they are known here.
If you had some patience you might have re-read the post which you objected to.
I was saying there is a limit to the number of lines that Apple makes. Apple, as a sensible hardware manufacturer, only creates lines which will be profitable. That is a smart business strategy, but causes a problem. There is a bigger demand for Apple OS than there is demand for Mac "boutique" hardware. People like yourself want hardware formats which Apple don't make.
You are going to say "Currently Make"
For your benefit only Olternaut, here's why I think "tablet - hell no"
There have been tablets coming out for the last 10 years and all have failed commercially. You might think that Apple could do better, and it probably could do a little better. But the underlying problems remain.
In vertical markets, Hospital and factory workers find tablets too large to carry around. For Nurses on bed-pad detail, iPod touch is probably an ideal format for checking on Mr. Smith's bowel movements.
Desk workers want a keyboard. They don't want to type on a screen. A screen lying flat is uncomfortable to look at. A screen held vertically must be mounted on a secure base if it to remain vertical. Put those issues together and it leads to to a conventional notebook format.
Digital artists want a large screen with a small control surface. I use a 30" Cinema display with an A5 graphics tablet. They also want a stylus not touch.
I love the idea of radical and new form factors and innovative user-interface designs.
But I can't think of a single application for a small computer where the answer is "Tablet" apart from: "How can I design a computer that looks like something from Star Trek"
Perhaps you could suggest a scenario where a tablet would be the right answer?
C.
You are quite possibly the rudest most stuck up person i have ever seen post on a forum. You think that you are all mighty god and no matter what anyone else says that you will be correct. That has to be a joke, because im sure that there are others that feel the same way as me. This is a speculation thread for the most part, and when people give their opinions you are making people feel uncomfortable and out of place when you answer with complete shut downs of their ideas. Maybe everyone doesn't want the same thing as you, get over yourself.
After the recent press releases of Sony's new laptop lineup, it shows that Sony's hardware in terms of laptops are far superior. I myself am definitely thinking of porting from my current MacBook Pro to the new Sony Z Series laptop. It packs better specs into a footprint similar to the MacBook that is competetive to current MacBook Pro's and goes beyond them in certain cases.
Apple will need to update their laptop line soon to compete against such laptop releases before they slip too far behind. This is an important product update needed but probably not a products transition unless large overhauls have beeen made.
I definitely prefer OSX, it makes life easy whereas Vista can make computing hard work at times, but I am prepared to port over to much better hardware if I still have a desktop Mac.
SJ...please update the laptop line !!!
<Grin>.
I have no intention of changing the subject. I just thought I would patriotically respond to your casual anti-English insult. We Brits do travel however. And some of use have computers. Or "electric computing apparatuses" as they are known here.
If you had some patience you might have re-read the post which you objected to.
I was saying there is a limit to the number of lines that Apple makes. Apple, as a sensible hardware manufacturer, only creates lines which will be profitable. That is a smart business strategy, but causes a problem. There is a bigger demand for Apple OS than there is demand for Mac "boutique" hardware. People like yourself want hardware formats which Apple don't make.
You are going to say "Currently Make"
For your benefit only Olternaut, here's why I think "tablet - hell no"
There have been tablets coming out for the last 10 years and all have failed commercially. You might think that Apple could do better, and it probably could do a little better. But the underlying problems remain.
In vertical markets, Hospital and factory workers find tablets too large to carry around. For Nurses on bed-pad detail, iPod touch is probably an ideal format for checking on Mr. Smith's bowel movements.
Desk workers want a keyboard. They don't want to type on a screen. A screen lying flat is uncomfortable to look at. A screen held vertically must be mounted on a secure base if it to remain vertical. Put those issues together and it leads to to a conventional notebook format.
Digital artists want a large screen with a small control surface. I use a 30" Cinema display with an A5 graphics tablet. They also want a stylus not touch.
I love the idea of radical and new form factors and innovative user-interface designs.
But I can't think of a single application for a small computer where the answer is "Tablet" apart from: "How can I design a computer that looks like something from Star Trek"
Perhaps you could suggest a scenario where a tablet would be the right answer?
C.
I wasn't being anti-English you freak so save it! I was pointing out that you obviously are not an expert on global markets and the idiosyncrasies of each area of the planet. Suggest a scenario? Who the hell cares?! Just don't call people who are interested in an Apple version of what a tablet might be an idiot. END OF STORY!
You are quite possibly the rudest most stuck up person i have ever seen post on a forum. You think that you are all mighty god and no matter what anyone else says that you will be correct. That has to be a joke, because im sure that there are others that feel the same way as me. This is a speculation thread for the most part, and when people give their opinions you are making people feel uncomfortable and out of place when you answer with complete shut downs of their ideas. Maybe everyone doesn't want the same thing as you, get over yourself.
No offense, but Carniphage made a very logical argument against a Mac tablet. Shoot, the main pusher of that kind of computer is Bill Gates. Sure, Apple could release a Mac tablet that's beyond what Microsoft or most third party hardware vendors can hope to create. They're a hardware company and a great one. But a tablet has not been released for a reason: cannibalization.
Where would a tablet fit in their current Mac lineup? It's a touch-screen laptop. What size screen do you use? 13"? Probably too small. 15"? Possibly too big. Do they make it more powerful than the MacBook Air or MacBook Pro? Mainly, how do they price it so it doesn't affect sales of their other laptops OR iPod touch/iPhone mobile WiFi devices? And who's going to buy one? It's just such a niche market and why would they introduce the MacBook Air with a big Multi-Touch trackpad in January and then release a full-on touch-screen Mac now? Seems like the main people calling for such a device in the tech media are places like Joystiq, Endgadget, Gizmodo, and CNET, all of which slander Apple constantly and want them to go out of business more than anything else.
Carniphage and I certainly haven't agreed in this thread about licensing out the Mac OS, but his argument on this subject is very reasoned and I didn't catch any major sneering.
No offense, but Carniphage made a very logical argument against a Mac tablet. Shoot, the main pusher of that kind of computer is Bill Gates. Sure, Apple could release a Mac tablet that's beyond what Microsoft or most third party hardware vendors can hope to create. They're a hardware company and a great one. But a tablet has not been released for a reason: cannibalization.
Where would a tablet fit in their current Mac lineup? It's a touch-screen laptop. What size screen do you use? 13"? Probably too small. 15"? Possibly too big. Do they make it more powerful than the MacBook Air or MacBook Pro? Mainly, how do they price it so it doesn't affect sales of their other laptops OR iPod touch/iPhone mobile WiFi devices? And who's going to buy one? It's just such a niche market and why would they introduce the MacBook Air with a big Multi-Touch trackpad in January and then release a full-on touch-screen Mac now? Seems like the main people calling for such a device in the tech media are places like Joystiq, Endgadget, Gizmodo, and CNET, all of which slander Apple constantly and want them to go out of business more than anything else.
Carniphage and I certainly haven't agreed in this thread about licensing out the Mac OS, but his argument on this subject is very reasoned and I didn't catch any major sneering.
Olternaut clearly isnt happy with him either. Carniphage is indeed calling people idiots and is being rude and saucy in the comments he makes. Other people have their opinions too. Its not just "his case" that is supported here, everyone has their own opinion on the future of apple. He needs to start respecting the opinions of others.
Carniphage:
After the recent press releases of Sony's new laptop lineup, it shows that Sony's hardware in terms of laptops are far superior. I myself am definitely thinking of porting from my current MacBook Pro to the new Sony Z Series laptop. It packs better specs into a footprint similar to the MacBook that is competetive to current MacBook Pro's and goes beyond them in certain cases.
You are probably right.
I was thinking if Apple stopped making OS X overnight - and the hardware had to standup on its own - which lines would survive.
MacPro - yep
Mini - Yep
Air - Probably
iMac - Yep
Macbook - err... not sure. It seems a bit pricey to me for what it does.
C