I don't see how thinking that is "closed minded", it seems pretty logical to me.
Sure, selling the OS independently would add some sales. But it would also mean that quite a few sales of $2999 machines would be replaced by sales of a $199 (or whatever) OS disk. And I think the biggest threat is that many people would just pirate the OS - apple would be losing sales of machines and making nothing in return in those cases.
I'l guess we'll never know for now.
And that's all fine but can we then stop the whining about all of Microsoft's sales because they've follwed a different business model?
It's one business model vs the other. Both make money. Yet one's fans whine constantly about the other's share and product, constantly try to compare them to each other, etc, etc. It's so stupid.
The reason that OS X is so well differentiated from everything else out there in terms of stability, reliability and ease of use is BECAUSE it is locked to specific hardware.
Apple's complete control over everything is the very reason they've achieved so much success in such a short time. There is simply no other way to ensure that a particular (in terms of quality) user experience is maintained across the board.
It has been on these forums long enough to either A) understand all this and is choosing to troll, or he really doesn't understand after all this time and therefore you are just wasting your time.
In either event, trying to communicate with Teckstud just puts the posts I have ignored into my view since I have not ignored you. I implore you, please stop.
I don't see how thinking that is "closed minded", it seems pretty logical to me.
Sure, selling the OS independently would add some sales. But it would also mean that quite a few sales of $2999 machines would be replaced by sales of a $199 (or whatever) OS disk. And I think the biggest threat is that many people would just pirate the OS - apple would be losing sales of machines and making nothing in return in those cases.
By "freeing" the OS , Apple would essentially be giving away its core business.
As a stockholder, maybe. But as a user I'd strongly disagree - market share is a major factor in software support, and macs need decent third party apps available to remain a viable platform.
Thank you. And I might add that corporate America would finally have a choice as well. They just will not switch to Apple as long as they have to buy Apple machines.
It has been on these forums long enough to either A) understand all this and is choosing to troll, or he really doesn't understand after all this time and therefore you are just wasting your time.
In either event, trying to communicate with Teckstud just puts the posts I have ignored into my view since I have not ignored you. I implore you, please stop.
Apple does want to increase market share. Any company wants it. But to make the iTablet a best-seller, it must be small (if possible, pocketable) and not more than 300 to 400 g or so.
I'm not sure I agree with this. The iPhone, as small as it is, already gets criticized for being too large to be 'pocketable', so the idea that a larger device could somehow be described in these terms seems unlikely to me. The original Newton was described as something you could put in your pocket, too. Yeah... if you had a reallllly big pocket.
I also think you are describing a very minor market. What you are essentially suggesting is that Apple ought to create a device that you can cart around to run presentations on. That's such a limited use (and hence limited market) that I doubt Apple would even be interested in exploring it. A device that is tailor-made to fit the requirements you mention would be useful for doing little else; too big to be a phone, too little to be useful for much.
There are many MANY uses for tablets if they are not monstrously large and if they have a touch interface that makes them actually usable and useful without additional input devices. The problem with tablets thus far have included the facts that they generally have very limited battery life, they are generally very heavy (too heavy for the roles they play), and they have an OS that is best described as an adaptation of a standard desktop OS rather than something customized for their use contexts. They are, in simple terms, just PC's with no keyboard and mouse. So, while they are intended to meet certain needs, they don't provide the affordances that are necessary to effectively perform in the roles they were intended to fill. In general they are too heavy and too hard to lug around for them to be seen as truly portable devices, they run out of power too fast for the benefit of any real portability to be truly seen, they are expensive and fragile, and their UI makes them cumbersome to use effectively.
There is a lot of potential in this space, but my opinion is that existing devices do not realize the promise or potential of a tablet device. Making a weird in-between device will not help this.
As a stockholder, maybe. But as a user I'd strongly disagree - market share is a major factor in software support, and macs need decent third party apps available to remain a viable platform.
Yes, I was thinking from a stockholder's PoV. However, There this isn't the 90s anymore. There are so many aspects of computing that are OS agnostic, there is Apple's well entrenched and developed SW that would still mature if their userbase increased and this would have some effect on 3rd-parties, too. But you're right, there would be some definite loss if Apple had an eighth of the marketshare they enjoy now, though I imagine this would be more true if that loss if from notebook and desktops and not from netbooks.
By "freeing" the OS , Apple would essentially be giving away its core business.
Exactly. They might as well stop selling hardware, and hardware is what makes their profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Thank you. And I might add that corporate America would finally have a choice as well. They just will not switch to Apple as long as they have to buy Apple machines.
I disagree. I think the barrier to switching is that apple generally doesn't offer machines that are price competitive enough and that they don't offer enough options of configurations. That could be solved by Apple without releasing the OS independently, although I'm not getting my hopes up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Yes, I was thinking from a stockholder's PoV. However, There this isn't the 90s anymore. There are so many aspects of computing that are OS agnostic, there is Apple's well entrenched and developed SW that would still mature if their userbase increased and this would have some effect on 3rd-parties, too. But you're right, there would be some definite loss if Apple had an eighth of the marketshare they enjoy now, though I imagine this would be more true if that loss if from notebook and desktops and not from netbooks.
True, there is much more that is browser based etc, but real apps are still needed for many people. And based on what I've seen with FCS and Logic I'd hate to have to rely solely on Apple for apps.
It has been on these forums long enough to either A) understand all this and is choosing to troll, or he really doesn't understand after all this time and therefore you are just wasting your time.
In either event, trying to communicate with Teckstud just puts the posts I have ignored into my view since I have not ignored you. I implore you, please stop.
Talk about whining.
I completely understand all he's said. ANd looks who talkling - someone whot makes inane statements like "These latest MacBooks are the best Apple has ever produced." Why wouldn't they be?
I'm not the one doing that particular whining. If you're going to whine about it, could you do it in a response to somebody else's post?
No you're not- no offense intended. And I will bring this point up the next time I have to read the whines. I will, of course, be accused at that point of trolling by solipism and his ilk.
Some of the posters here that think that netbooks are not "real" computers obviously have not been shopping for them.
I don't deny that a net-book is a 'real' computer. In fact, I would wager that Jobs himself would not contest you on that point. The issue is that they are 'real junky' computers. They are trash, by today's standards. It's pointless to reference old hardware and say something like 'hey, these machines were actually far LESS powerful'. While true, it has no bearing, here. A commodore 64 was a 'real computer' too... but that doesn't mean selling one today with the same features and characteristics is a good idea.
Net-books average $300 to $400 dollars, and typically have about 1Gb RAM, no optical drive, and tend to have a 1.6 GHZ atom or equivalent. If you add an optical drive, then you might as well consider the range to be $350 - $450. So with the net-book you get a machine that fits basic productivity needs and which you can use to surf, and that is roughly it. On the other hand, laptops with core 2 duo or athlon X2 can be had starting around $520! So, for maybe $100 - $150 more you get 2 or 3GB RAM, a 2GHZ plus dual core processor, optical drive, larger screen... is there any need to continue?
Net-books are, in my opinion, an atrocious rip-off for consumers.
True, there is much more that is browser based etc, but real apps are still needed for many people. And based on what I've seen with FCS and Logic I'd hate to have to rely solely on Apple for apps.
My <1% comment was hyperbolic to relay a point and had the PoV of stockholder, but even if Apple does continue to loss a little marketshare when you include netbooks I see no reason why 3rd-party developers would pull out as Apple would probably still be adding marketshare if netbooks were excluded from the segment. There just isn't much room for 3rd-parties to sell the cheap PCs, especially ones running on Atom CPUs. It's the mid and high-end that the real sales are made, and Apple holds about 70% of that segment in the consumer space.
Are you the director/spin doctor of Apple publicity? How many posters have stated they hate high glossy screens esoecially on the iMAc? I was in the Apple store 5th Ave yesterday and they still teach Apple class on the last matte cinema display. Why> so everbody can view it. It's clearly the best display in the whole store out of close to 100 perhaps?
To be honest, you are the primary person around here yelling about glossy. I happen to love my glossy display. It's not the issue you make it out to be.
I don't deny that a net-book is a 'real' computer. In fact, I would wager that Jobs himself would not contest you on that point. The issue is that they are 'real junky' computers. They are trash, by today's standards.
Have you actually used one? If they do everything a user wants to do, then they aren't really "trash" are they? Obviously they aren't as good as a desktop or pricier laptop, but that's the whole point - those other machines are overkill for what many people are doing, and they don't want the extra cost or weight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618
So with the net-book you get a machine that fits basic productivity needs and which you can use to surf, and that is roughly it.
And that's roughly all many people need to do. If it meets someone's needs, why pay 50% more just for better specs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tt92618
To be honest, you are the primary person around here yelling about glossy. I happen to love my glossy display. It's not the issue you make it out to be.
The machines with the glossy screens are obviously selling. If they were such a debacle and actually hurt sales, don't you think the numbers would bear that out? And that apple would figure it out and stop selling them?
The machines with the glossy screens are obviously selling. If they were such a debacle and actually hurt sales, don't you think the numbers would bear that out? And that apple would figure it out and stop selling them?
I agree with you on the glossy displays, obviously. I think we need to agree to disagree on net-books. I admit I don't have a net-book, and I know few people that have them. I have a laptop, though, with a Celeron in it and about the same specifications... and while I agree that it works in a pinch, I still don't like it much. The people I know who bought net-books hate them. In the end, I personally think they are a rip-off; in my opinion they deliver less performance per dollar.
I also think net-books would be bad for Apple unless they can figure out how to squeeze a fatter margin out of one.
i fear that apple is actually more interested in generating money,
[/QUOTE]
you say that like every other company isn't.
also, keep in mind that Apple is funding more than just the production of their product with a markup. That extra money is what pays the wages for the workers in their retail stores. I'm talking the sales people, the genius staff, all of them. Apple Care fees and that training membership help but I doubt they cover all the wages even for just those two teams. And when you consider workshops, those 15 minute appointments and services like a free file transfer from your old to new computer, something has to pay for that time if you didn't get apple care.
that's what that so called 'apple tax' is including. so yeah, the prices aren't cheap. but they are worth it to a lot of folks. which is why Apple is still making a mark, and having their stock prices go up.
The reason that OS X is so well differentiated from everything else out there in terms of stability, reliability and ease of use is BECAUSE it is locked to specific hardware.
Apple's complete control over everything is the very reason they've achieved so much success in such a short time. There is simply no other way to ensure that a particular (in terms of quality) user experience is maintained across the board.
Quadra - I don't think this should turn into a thread about licensing the OS - We should stick to the market share debate....
.....but a well controlled licensing process would maintain the hardware / software connection that makes OSX so reliable. Lock OSX to machines which fully conform to Apple's HW standards.
There's this straw-man argument that if Apple sell the OS, they will have to copy all of Microsoft's errors and then OS X will get as bad as Windows. Apple can licence OS X without duplicating Microsoft's model.
It has been on these forums long enough to either A) understand all this and is choosing to troll, or he really doesn't understand after all this time and therefore you are just wasting your time.
In either event, trying to communicate with Teckstud just ......
Ah, solipsism, welcome to the club.
(Lately, he has begun to live off newbies, I've noticed; there seems to a regular fresh supply of those who feel their chains are being pulled by this guy and feel compelled to respond...... and, like Pavlov's puppy, off he goes again!).
Comments
I don't see how thinking that is "closed minded", it seems pretty logical to me.
Sure, selling the OS independently would add some sales. But it would also mean that quite a few sales of $2999 machines would be replaced by sales of a $199 (or whatever) OS disk. And I think the biggest threat is that many people would just pirate the OS - apple would be losing sales of machines and making nothing in return in those cases.
I'l guess we'll never know for now.
And that's all fine but can we then stop the whining about all of Microsoft's sales because they've follwed a different business model?
It's one business model vs the other. Both make money. Yet one's fans whine constantly about the other's share and product, constantly try to compare them to each other, etc, etc. It's so stupid.
The reason that OS X is so well differentiated from everything else out there in terms of stability, reliability and ease of use is BECAUSE it is locked to specific hardware.
Apple's complete control over everything is the very reason they've achieved so much success in such a short time. There is simply no other way to ensure that a particular (in terms of quality) user experience is maintained across the board.
It has been on these forums long enough to either A) understand all this and is choosing to troll, or he really doesn't understand after all this time and therefore you are just wasting your time.
In either event, trying to communicate with Teckstud just puts the posts I have ignored into my view since I have not ignored you. I implore you, please stop.
I don't see how thinking that is "closed minded", it seems pretty logical to me.
Sure, selling the OS independently would add some sales. But it would also mean that quite a few sales of $2999 machines would be replaced by sales of a $199 (or whatever) OS disk. And I think the biggest threat is that many people would just pirate the OS - apple would be losing sales of machines and making nothing in return in those cases.
By "freeing" the OS , Apple would essentially be giving away its core business.
As a stockholder, maybe. But as a user I'd strongly disagree - market share is a major factor in software support, and macs need decent third party apps available to remain a viable platform.
Thank you. And I might add that corporate America would finally have a choice as well. They just will not switch to Apple as long as they have to buy Apple machines.
And that's all fine but can we then stop the whining about all of Microsoft's sales because they've follwed a different business model?
I'm not the one doing that particular whining. If you're going to whine about it, could you do it in a response to somebody else's post?
It has been on these forums long enough to either A) understand all this and is choosing to troll, or he really doesn't understand after all this time and therefore you are just wasting your time.
In either event, trying to communicate with Teckstud just puts the posts I have ignored into my view since I have not ignored you. I implore you, please stop.
It's beginning to look like you're right.
Apple does want to increase market share. Any company wants it. But to make the iTablet a best-seller, it must be small (if possible, pocketable) and not more than 300 to 400 g or so.
I'm not sure I agree with this. The iPhone, as small as it is, already gets criticized for being too large to be 'pocketable', so the idea that a larger device could somehow be described in these terms seems unlikely to me. The original Newton was described as something you could put in your pocket, too. Yeah... if you had a reallllly big pocket.
I also think you are describing a very minor market. What you are essentially suggesting is that Apple ought to create a device that you can cart around to run presentations on. That's such a limited use (and hence limited market) that I doubt Apple would even be interested in exploring it. A device that is tailor-made to fit the requirements you mention would be useful for doing little else; too big to be a phone, too little to be useful for much.
There are many MANY uses for tablets if they are not monstrously large and if they have a touch interface that makes them actually usable and useful without additional input devices. The problem with tablets thus far have included the facts that they generally have very limited battery life, they are generally very heavy (too heavy for the roles they play), and they have an OS that is best described as an adaptation of a standard desktop OS rather than something customized for their use contexts. They are, in simple terms, just PC's with no keyboard and mouse. So, while they are intended to meet certain needs, they don't provide the affordances that are necessary to effectively perform in the roles they were intended to fill. In general they are too heavy and too hard to lug around for them to be seen as truly portable devices, they run out of power too fast for the benefit of any real portability to be truly seen, they are expensive and fragile, and their UI makes them cumbersome to use effectively.
There is a lot of potential in this space, but my opinion is that existing devices do not realize the promise or potential of a tablet device. Making a weird in-between device will not help this.
As a stockholder, maybe. But as a user I'd strongly disagree - market share is a major factor in software support, and macs need decent third party apps available to remain a viable platform.
Yes, I was thinking from a stockholder's PoV. However, There this isn't the 90s anymore. There are so many aspects of computing that are OS agnostic, there is Apple's well entrenched and developed SW that would still mature if their userbase increased and this would have some effect on 3rd-parties, too. But you're right, there would be some definite loss if Apple had an eighth of the marketshare they enjoy now, though I imagine this would be more true if that loss if from notebook and desktops and not from netbooks.
By "freeing" the OS , Apple would essentially be giving away its core business.
Exactly. They might as well stop selling hardware, and hardware is what makes their profits.
Thank you. And I might add that corporate America would finally have a choice as well. They just will not switch to Apple as long as they have to buy Apple machines.
I disagree. I think the barrier to switching is that apple generally doesn't offer machines that are price competitive enough and that they don't offer enough options of configurations. That could be solved by Apple without releasing the OS independently, although I'm not getting my hopes up.
Yes, I was thinking from a stockholder's PoV. However, There this isn't the 90s anymore. There are so many aspects of computing that are OS agnostic, there is Apple's well entrenched and developed SW that would still mature if their userbase increased and this would have some effect on 3rd-parties, too. But you're right, there would be some definite loss if Apple had an eighth of the marketshare they enjoy now, though I imagine this would be more true if that loss if from notebook and desktops and not from netbooks.
True, there is much more that is browser based etc, but real apps are still needed for many people. And based on what I've seen with FCS and Logic I'd hate to have to rely solely on Apple for apps.
It has been on these forums long enough to either A) understand all this and is choosing to troll, or he really doesn't understand after all this time and therefore you are just wasting your time.
In either event, trying to communicate with Teckstud just puts the posts I have ignored into my view since I have not ignored you. I implore you, please stop.
Talk about whining.
I completely understand all he's said. ANd looks who talkling - someone whot makes inane statements like "These latest MacBooks are the best Apple has ever produced." Why wouldn't they be?
I'm not the one doing that particular whining. If you're going to whine about it, could you do it in a response to somebody else's post?
No you're not- no offense intended. And I will bring this point up the next time I have to read the whines. I will, of course, be accused at that point of trolling by solipism and his ilk.
Some of the posters here that think that netbooks are not "real" computers obviously have not been shopping for them.
I don't deny that a net-book is a 'real' computer. In fact, I would wager that Jobs himself would not contest you on that point. The issue is that they are 'real junky' computers. They are trash, by today's standards. It's pointless to reference old hardware and say something like 'hey, these machines were actually far LESS powerful'. While true, it has no bearing, here. A commodore 64 was a 'real computer' too... but that doesn't mean selling one today with the same features and characteristics is a good idea.
Net-books average $300 to $400 dollars, and typically have about 1Gb RAM, no optical drive, and tend to have a 1.6 GHZ atom or equivalent. If you add an optical drive, then you might as well consider the range to be $350 - $450. So with the net-book you get a machine that fits basic productivity needs and which you can use to surf, and that is roughly it. On the other hand, laptops with core 2 duo or athlon X2 can be had starting around $520! So, for maybe $100 - $150 more you get 2 or 3GB RAM, a 2GHZ plus dual core processor, optical drive, larger screen... is there any need to continue?
Net-books are, in my opinion, an atrocious rip-off for consumers.
True, there is much more that is browser based etc, but real apps are still needed for many people. And based on what I've seen with FCS and Logic I'd hate to have to rely solely on Apple for apps.
My <1% comment was hyperbolic to relay a point and had the PoV of stockholder, but even if Apple does continue to loss a little marketshare when you include netbooks I see no reason why 3rd-party developers would pull out as Apple would probably still be adding marketshare if netbooks were excluded from the segment. There just isn't much room for 3rd-parties to sell the cheap PCs, especially ones running on Atom CPUs. It's the mid and high-end that the real sales are made, and Apple holds about 70% of that segment in the consumer space.
Are you the director/spin doctor of Apple publicity? How many posters have stated they hate high glossy screens esoecially on the iMAc? I was in the Apple store 5th Ave yesterday and they still teach Apple class on the last matte cinema display. Why> so everbody can view it. It's clearly the best display in the whole store out of close to 100 perhaps?
To be honest, you are the primary person around here yelling about glossy. I happen to love my glossy display. It's not the issue you make it out to be.
I don't deny that a net-book is a 'real' computer. In fact, I would wager that Jobs himself would not contest you on that point. The issue is that they are 'real junky' computers. They are trash, by today's standards.
Have you actually used one? If they do everything a user wants to do, then they aren't really "trash" are they? Obviously they aren't as good as a desktop or pricier laptop, but that's the whole point - those other machines are overkill for what many people are doing, and they don't want the extra cost or weight.
So with the net-book you get a machine that fits basic productivity needs and which you can use to surf, and that is roughly it.
And that's roughly all many people need to do. If it meets someone's needs, why pay 50% more just for better specs?
To be honest, you are the primary person around here yelling about glossy. I happen to love my glossy display. It's not the issue you make it out to be.
The machines with the glossy screens are obviously selling. If they were such a debacle and actually hurt sales, don't you think the numbers would bear that out? And that apple would figure it out and stop selling them?
The machines with the glossy screens are obviously selling. If they were such a debacle and actually hurt sales, don't you think the numbers would bear that out? And that apple would figure it out and stop selling them?
I agree with you on the glossy displays, obviously. I think we need to agree to disagree on net-books. I admit I don't have a net-book, and I know few people that have them. I have a laptop, though, with a Celeron in it and about the same specifications... and while I agree that it works in a pinch, I still don't like it much. The people I know who bought net-books hate them. In the end, I personally think they are a rip-off; in my opinion they deliver less performance per dollar.
I also think net-books would be bad for Apple unless they can figure out how to squeeze a fatter margin out of one.
i fear that apple is actually more interested in generating money,
[/QUOTE]
you say that like every other company isn't.
also, keep in mind that Apple is funding more than just the production of their product with a markup. That extra money is what pays the wages for the workers in their retail stores. I'm talking the sales people, the genius staff, all of them. Apple Care fees and that training membership help but I doubt they cover all the wages even for just those two teams. And when you consider workshops, those 15 minute appointments and services like a free file transfer from your old to new computer, something has to pay for that time if you didn't get apple care.
that's what that so called 'apple tax' is including. so yeah, the prices aren't cheap. but they are worth it to a lot of folks. which is why Apple is still making a mark, and having their stock prices go up.
The reason that OS X is so well differentiated from everything else out there in terms of stability, reliability and ease of use is BECAUSE it is locked to specific hardware.
Apple's complete control over everything is the very reason they've achieved so much success in such a short time. There is simply no other way to ensure that a particular (in terms of quality) user experience is maintained across the board.
Quadra - I don't think this should turn into a thread about licensing the OS - We should stick to the market share debate....
.....but a well controlled licensing process would maintain the hardware / software connection that makes OSX so reliable. Lock OSX to machines which fully conform to Apple's HW standards.
There's this straw-man argument that if Apple sell the OS, they will have to copy all of Microsoft's errors and then OS X will get as bad as Windows. Apple can licence OS X without duplicating Microsoft's model.
C.
It has been on these forums long enough to either A) understand all this and is choosing to troll, or he really doesn't understand after all this time and therefore you are just wasting your time.
In either event, trying to communicate with Teckstud just ......
Ah, solipsism, welcome to the club.
(Lately, he has begun to live off newbies, I've noticed; there seems to a regular fresh supply of those who feel their chains are being pulled by this guy and feel compelled to respond...... and, like Pavlov's puppy, off he goes again!).