True. You don't even need a spec sheet: just read the stickers. What's even stranger is that if you buy one of these, the stickers are on the machines they put in the box, and not just the display models.
Yep I have it on my Toshiba Satelite machine. Which incidentally wasn't that bad of a machine until it got completely infected with viruses. Now that I have my iPad the only time I use it is when I rip videos off YouTube and put them on my IPad/iPhone.
Unless it runs OS X, I doubt Apple is losing any sleep over this development.
Once again, Apple creates the future. And then the industry follows.
And when you see what the industry creates, you gotta be a little glad they follow. They're not capable of innovating on their own and Apple is doing the Windows users a favor.
It's really laughable. All of these companies should just fire their R&D teams, and sit and wait for Apple to make another move. Sony, LG, and Sharp, sit back to see what Apple will come up with in a television set. Dell, Acer, and Toshiba, all sit back and see what Apple will do on the laptop front. Samsung, Google, and Motorola, all sit back and see what Apple will do on the iPad front. Microsoft copied Apple back in the 70's, and are in full swing to do it again with Windows 8.
Doesn't sound like product originality goes beyond that of Cupertino CA.
Yes, Apple has an R&D division but it didn't invent the gorilla glass that goes into the iPhone nor did it invent the manufacturing processes for making its A5 chip.
Yes, Apple has an R&D division but it didn't invent the gorilla glass that goes into the iPhone nor did it invent the manufacturing processes for making its A5 chip.
So?
Are you really incapable of understanding the difference between using a purchased component in phones that you design (as Apple does) and making as close a copy of a competitor's phone as you think you can get away with (as Samsung does)?
The problem with these computers is that they might undercut the Macbook Airs, but only $50 or $100 frankly isn't going to cut it. They forget the allure and "cool factor" of Macs. My college is pretty much full of Macs, and when kids don't have one they either hate OS X (probably because they only spent 10 min with it and didn't realize it's capabilities) or they couldn't get their parents to pay the extra few hundred dollars. When a kid is begging his parents for an Air, and the parents see that the competition is only $50 cheaper, they'll probably indulge their child. Obviously this will depend on a case by case basis, but I think they'd have to undercut Apple by $200-300 to have a real effect (which apparently isn't possible based on component parts).
Yes, Apple has an R&D division but it didn't invent the gorilla glass that goes into the iPhone nor did it invent the manufacturing processes for making its A5 chip.
Titbit from the biography: "Next was glass. ?After we did metal, I looked at Jony and said that we had to master glass,? said Jobs. For the Apple stores, they had created huge windowpanes and glass stairs. For the iPhone, the original plan was for it to have a plastic screen, like the iPod. But Jobs decided it would feel much more elegant and substantive if the screens were glass. So he set about finding a glass that would be strong and resistant to scratches.
The natural place to look was Asia, where the glass for the stores was being made. But Jobs?s friend John Seeley Brown, who was on the board of Corning Glass in Upstate New York, told him that he should talk to that company?s young and dynamic CEO, Wendell Weeks. So he dialed the main Corning switchboard number and asked to be put through to Weeks. He got an assistant, who offered to pass along the message. ?No, I?m Steve Jobs,? he replied. ?Put me through.? The assistant refused. Jobs called Brown and complained that he had been subjected to ?typical East Coast bullshit.? When Weeks heard that, he called the main Apple switchboard and asked to speak to Jobs. He was told to put his request in writing and send it in by fax. When Jobs was told what happened, he took a liking to Weeks and invited him to Cupertino.
Jobs described the type of glass Apple wanted for the iPhone, and Weeks told him that Corning had developed a chemical exchange process in the 1960s that led to what they dubbed ?gorilla glass.? It was incredibly strong, but it had never found a market, so Corning quit making it. Jobs said he doubted it was good enough, and he started explaining to Weeks how glass was made. This amused Weeks, who of course knew more than Jobs about that topic. ?Can you shut up,? Weeks interjected, ?and let me teach you some science?? Jobs was taken aback and fell silent. Weeks went to the whiteboard and gave a tutorial on the chemistry, which involved an ion-exchange process that produced a compression layer on the surface of the glass. This turned Jobs around, and he said he wanted as much gorilla glass as Corning could make within six months. ?We don?t have the capacity,? Weeks replied. ?None of our plants make the glass now.?incredibly strong, but it had never found a market, so Corning quit making it. Jobs said he doubted it was good enough, and he started explaining to Weeks how glass was made. This amused Weeks, who of course knew more than Jobs about that topic. ?Can you shut up,? Weeks interjected, ?and let me teach you some science?? Jobs was taken aback and fell silent. Weeks went to the whiteboard and gave a tutorial on the chemistry, which involved an ion-exchange process that produced a compression layer on the surface of the glass. This turned Jobs around, and he said he wanted as much gorilla glass as Corning could make within six months. ?We don?t have the capacity,? Weeks replied. ?None of our plants make the glass now.?
?Don?t be afraid,? Jobs replied. This stunned Weeks, who was good-humored and confident but not used to Jobs?s reality distortion field. He tried to explain that a false sense of confidence would not overcome engineering challenges, but that was a premise that Jobs had repeatedly shown he didn?t accept. He stared at Weeks unblinking. ?Yes, you can do it,? he said. ?Get your mind around it. You can do it.?
As Weeks retold this story, he shook his head in astonishment. ?We did it in under six months,? he said. ?We produced a glass that had never been made.? Corning?s facility in Harrisburg, Kentucky, which had been making LCD displays, was converted almost overnight to make gorilla glass full-time. ?We put our best scientists and engineers on it, and we just made it work.? In his airy office, Weeks has just one framed memento on display. It?s a message Jobs sent the day the iPhone came out: ?We couldn?t have done it without you.?
No he did not. Edison was a businessman not an inventor:
"On July 24, 1874, a Canadian patent was filed by Henry Woodward and Mathew Evans for a lamp consisting of carbon rods mounted in a nitrogen-filled glass cylinder. They were unsuccessful at commercializing their lamp, and sold rights to their patent (U.S. Patent 0,181,613) to Thomas Edison in 1879"
Are you really incapable of understanding the difference between using a purchased component in phones that you design (as Apple does) and making as close a copy of a competitor's phone as you think you can get away with (as Samsung does)?
He's making the point that it's ridiculous to keep touting the notion that only Apple innovates. I know you didn't write that (or hope so, for your sake), but he was simply refuting that notion with examples.
My first impressions exactly. Clean lines, thin, wedgey shape. Deeply radiused corners. Oh look, the touchpad is a large, single "buttonless" design. Even the half-height arrow keys. Or the section carved out of the bottom, under the trackpad to open the lid, which appears to be held closed without latches. Where do they get such a clean design??? It doesn't even have those obnoxious "Intel Inside" and "Designed for Windows 7" stickers! What manufacturer doesn't slather their notebooks in co-branding stickers? So un-Windows like. So very MacBook like.
Yes, but if Apple is smart (and they usually are), they'll significantly change the design of the next round of MacBook Airs, so that all of these copycats will look like they've copied an outdated machine.
Some other posters have pointed out specific items that aren't like Apple's, like the hinge, but that doesn't matter. It's clear that the intent is to make the machine look like a MacBook Air just as it's clear that most of the manufacturers make Smart Phones that look like very much like the iPhone and tablets that appear to look like the iPad. All this does is reinforce the notion in consumer's minds that everyone copies Apple, which makes every copycat an advertisement for Apple.
The only thing these machines might have going for them is price (although not necessarily price/performance). And Apple doesn't want the low end of the market anyway. They don't want to be Dell. But there are people who only want to spend about $400 on a computer and for those people, especially those who don't do much more than use iTunes, surf the web, tweet, use Facebook and check email, these machines will probably work quite well, although that's the same audience who can use an iPad.
He's making the point that it's ridiculous to keep touting the notion that only Apple innovates. I know you didn't write that (or hope so, for your sake), but he was simply refuting that notion with examples.
What he did was post a straw man argument.
No one said that Apple was the only innovator on the entire planet. Obviously, Apple is not innovating in fast food or Formula 1 cars.
What has been claimed is that Apple is the main innovator in designing new computer/smartphone products. And none of his examples are relevant to that issue; thus, his argument is a straw man argument.
Comments
True. You don't even need a spec sheet: just read the stickers. What's even stranger is that if you buy one of these, the stickers are on the machines they put in the box, and not just the display models.
Yep I have it on my Toshiba Satelite machine. Which incidentally wasn't that bad of a machine until it got completely infected with viruses. Now that I have my iPad the only time I use it is when I rip videos off YouTube and put them on my IPad/iPhone.
Unless it runs OS X, I doubt Apple is losing any sleep over this development.
Once again, Apple creates the future. And then the industry follows.
And when you see what the industry creates, you gotta be a little glad they follow. They're not capable of innovating on their own and Apple is doing the Windows users a favor.
It's really laughable. All of these companies should just fire their R&D teams, and sit and wait for Apple to make another move. Sony, LG, and Sharp, sit back to see what Apple will come up with in a television set. Dell, Acer, and Toshiba, all sit back and see what Apple will do on the laptop front. Samsung, Google, and Motorola, all sit back and see what Apple will do on the iPad front. Microsoft copied Apple back in the 70's, and are in full swing to do it again with Windows 8.
Doesn't sound like product originality goes beyond that of Cupertino CA.
Yes, Apple has an R&D division but it didn't invent the gorilla glass that goes into the iPhone nor did it invent the manufacturing processes for making its A5 chip.
Yes, Apple has an R&D division but it didn't invent the gorilla glass that goes into the iPhone nor did it invent the manufacturing processes for making its A5 chip.
So?
Are you really incapable of understanding the difference between using a purchased component in phones that you design (as Apple does) and making as close a copy of a competitor's phone as you think you can get away with (as Samsung does)?
Yes, Apple has an R&D division but it didn't invent the gorilla glass that goes into the iPhone nor did it invent the manufacturing processes for making its A5 chip.
Titbit from the biography: "Next was glass. ?After we did metal, I looked at Jony and said that we had to master glass,? said Jobs. For the Apple stores, they had created huge windowpanes and glass stairs. For the iPhone, the original plan was for it to have a plastic screen, like the iPod. But Jobs decided it would feel much more elegant and substantive if the screens were glass. So he set about finding a glass that would be strong and resistant to scratches.
The natural place to look was Asia, where the glass for the stores was being made. But Jobs?s friend John Seeley Brown, who was on the board of Corning Glass in Upstate New York, told him that he should talk to that company?s young and dynamic CEO, Wendell Weeks. So he dialed the main Corning switchboard number and asked to be put through to Weeks. He got an assistant, who offered to pass along the message. ?No, I?m Steve Jobs,? he replied. ?Put me through.? The assistant refused. Jobs called Brown and complained that he had been subjected to ?typical East Coast bullshit.? When Weeks heard that, he called the main Apple switchboard and asked to speak to Jobs. He was told to put his request in writing and send it in by fax. When Jobs was told what happened, he took a liking to Weeks and invited him to Cupertino.
Jobs described the type of glass Apple wanted for the iPhone, and Weeks told him that Corning had developed a chemical exchange process in the 1960s that led to what they dubbed ?gorilla glass.? It was incredibly strong, but it had never found a market, so Corning quit making it. Jobs said he doubted it was good enough, and he started explaining to Weeks how glass was made. This amused Weeks, who of course knew more than Jobs about that topic. ?Can you shut up,? Weeks interjected, ?and let me teach you some science?? Jobs was taken aback and fell silent. Weeks went to the whiteboard and gave a tutorial on the chemistry, which involved an ion-exchange process that produced a compression layer on the surface of the glass. This turned Jobs around, and he said he wanted as much gorilla glass as Corning could make within six months. ?We don?t have the capacity,? Weeks replied. ?None of our plants make the glass now.?incredibly strong, but it had never found a market, so Corning quit making it. Jobs said he doubted it was good enough, and he started explaining to Weeks how glass was made. This amused Weeks, who of course knew more than Jobs about that topic. ?Can you shut up,? Weeks interjected, ?and let me teach you some science?? Jobs was taken aback and fell silent. Weeks went to the whiteboard and gave a tutorial on the chemistry, which involved an ion-exchange process that produced a compression layer on the surface of the glass. This turned Jobs around, and he said he wanted as much gorilla glass as Corning could make within six months. ?We don?t have the capacity,? Weeks replied. ?None of our plants make the glass now.?
?Don?t be afraid,? Jobs replied. This stunned Weeks, who was good-humored and confident but not used to Jobs?s reality distortion field. He tried to explain that a false sense of confidence would not overcome engineering challenges, but that was a premise that Jobs had repeatedly shown he didn?t accept. He stared at Weeks unblinking. ?Yes, you can do it,? he said. ?Get your mind around it. You can do it.?
As Weeks retold this story, he shook his head in astonishment. ?We did it in under six months,? he said. ?We produced a glass that had never been made.? Corning?s facility in Harrisburg, Kentucky, which had been making LCD displays, was converted almost overnight to make gorilla glass full-time. ?We put our best scientists and engineers on it, and we just made it work.? In his airy office, Weeks has just one framed memento on display. It?s a message Jobs sent the day the iPhone came out: ?We couldn?t have done it without you.?
Thomas Edison invented the light bulb.
No he did not. Edison was a businessman not an inventor:
"On July 24, 1874, a Canadian patent was filed by Henry Woodward and Mathew Evans for a lamp consisting of carbon rods mounted in a nitrogen-filled glass cylinder. They were unsuccessful at commercializing their lamp, and sold rights to their patent (U.S. Patent 0,181,613) to Thomas Edison in 1879"
So?
Are you really incapable of understanding the difference between using a purchased component in phones that you design (as Apple does) and making as close a copy of a competitor's phone as you think you can get away with (as Samsung does)?
He's making the point that it's ridiculous to keep touting the notion that only Apple innovates. I know you didn't write that (or hope so, for your sake), but he was simply refuting that notion with examples.
My first impressions exactly. Clean lines, thin, wedgey shape. Deeply radiused corners. Oh look, the touchpad is a large, single "buttonless" design. Even the half-height arrow keys. Or the section carved out of the bottom, under the trackpad to open the lid, which appears to be held closed without latches. Where do they get such a clean design??? It doesn't even have those obnoxious "Intel Inside" and "Designed for Windows 7" stickers! What manufacturer doesn't slather their notebooks in co-branding stickers? So un-Windows like. So very MacBook like.
Yes, but if Apple is smart (and they usually are), they'll significantly change the design of the next round of MacBook Airs, so that all of these copycats will look like they've copied an outdated machine.
Some other posters have pointed out specific items that aren't like Apple's, like the hinge, but that doesn't matter. It's clear that the intent is to make the machine look like a MacBook Air just as it's clear that most of the manufacturers make Smart Phones that look like very much like the iPhone and tablets that appear to look like the iPad. All this does is reinforce the notion in consumer's minds that everyone copies Apple, which makes every copycat an advertisement for Apple.
The only thing these machines might have going for them is price (although not necessarily price/performance). And Apple doesn't want the low end of the market anyway. They don't want to be Dell. But there are people who only want to spend about $400 on a computer and for those people, especially those who don't do much more than use iTunes, surf the web, tweet, use Facebook and check email, these machines will probably work quite well, although that's the same audience who can use an iPad.
He's making the point that it's ridiculous to keep touting the notion that only Apple innovates. I know you didn't write that (or hope so, for your sake), but he was simply refuting that notion with examples.
What he did was post a straw man argument.
No one said that Apple was the only innovator on the entire planet. Obviously, Apple is not innovating in fast food or Formula 1 cars.
What has been claimed is that Apple is the main innovator in designing new computer/smartphone products. And none of his examples are relevant to that issue; thus, his argument is a straw man argument.