Apple: revolutionary focus on user experience, good taste, ethical approach to biz.
Microsoft: same old American consumer-technology incompetence, focus on user torture, bad taste, bad ethics.
Samsung: bad taste, very bad ethics, focus on user distraction.
May I give readers a correct description of what I think Ethics and morals are?
Ethics applies to a group, like a business
For example a business can have an ethic in place which states "it's not okay to solicite kickbacks from a contractor in exchange for company business" and employes are fired if they are caught doing so. In some countries taking bribes is normal behavoir and ethically okay.
An ethic is an agreed upon correct behavoir by a group. Ethics can change and are dynamic. Ethos is a Greek word meaning "character" that is used to describe the guiding beliefs or ideals that characterize a community whereas Morals are based on the notion of a virtue. Morals are not as dynamic, they are Universal and tend to be more static over time like "It is wrong to murder another Human Being"
It may be business ethical to engage in certain practices, but it may be morally wrong!
A "Moral" is something that is either right or wrong. An "Ethic" is more like a rule. Some rules can be incorrect.
This history lesson makes it very clear that Steve Jobs and Apple go where the money is and will drop a great product if it isn't earning as much as they want it to earn. It's not about making great products and furthering technology. It's about going for the money and the technology is secondary.
This means that the 17" Mac Book Pro might not come back. The iMacs, Mini, and even the Mac Pro are doomed. Somewhere in Tim Cooks mind is a cutoff point where he will say that more resources need to be placed into iOS products and the Macs will be cut.
I read that OS X was supposed to last about fifteen years before needing new architecture. Of course that was an estimate but it's got just a couple more years left. That estimate might have been right. Since Apple is just now updating the Mac Pro, OS X might have a few more years left. I've also heard that X11 is just not cutting it these days. What is next?
Lots of companies have had wide ranging influences major CE devices over the years. This is what I mean by minimizing the contributions of others and viewing history through a narrow lens.
I can construct similar "Microsoft was behind everything" narratives if I want. For example, the GPU that makes the iPhone even possible can be traced directly back to Microsoft's investment into DirectX and the PC gaming market. SGI plays the role of Xerox here, creating OpenGL, but failing to make it relevant for everyday consumers. Enter the savior, Microsoft, rescuing the HW industry from the ineffective ARB, pushing forward a baseline spec that got better every 18 months, and enabling a competitive GPU market for the desktop that allowed other vendors to sell compatible hardware into a ready made market. This lead to an advancement in GPU capabilities that surpassed Moore's Law on CPUs.
PowerVR began as a desktop class GPU, but tile-based-deferred-renderers, designed for low memory bandwidth, could not compete on the desktop where immediate mode renderers were getting faster and faster GDDR coupled with ginormous 256, 384, and 512-bit memory busses. So PowerVR rescued their IP by pivoting to mobile, where tile-based-deferred-rendering shines, leading to the introduction of the series of GPUs that sit in mobile today.
No Microsoft investment in DirectX making the PC a competitive gaming market, and OpenGL would be stagnant, likely delaying the timeline of GPUs by years, and in 2007, the iPhone would have had a much less powerful graphics chip.
The most bizarre part of your post is the logical leap between Microsoft's DirectX and then, suddenly, PowerVR. Games wouldn't have existed without Microsoft?
DirectX was only an effort to tie PC games to Windows, so that the vibrant market for games (yes, before DirectX) working on DOS PCs would be forced to upgrade to each new version of Windows because Microsoft could control the release of new versions of DirectX. Killed competition among DOS vendors, killed competition between OpenGL/GPU vendors and made Windows the industry's bottleneck and Microsoft its toll booth with those 90% gross margins on software that was added to PCs like a tax you couldn't avoid in a market with no alternative products to choose between.
The only Microsoft graphics technology that's made its way into Apple's chips is the wasted space support for DirectX and WMV/VC1 that Apple leaves deactivated.
I think you don't know engineering or even capitalism. Just answer the question. Why Apple can keep iPhone market share near 50% but its market share in China dropped to 5% recently?
How does my post reflect ignorance in engineering or capitalism? I think Corrections answered your question quite well, so I'll leave it there.
This history lesson makes it very clear that Steve Jobs and Apple go where the money is and will drop a great product if it isn't earning as much as they want it to earn. It's not about making great products and furthering technology. It's about going for the money and the technology is secondary.
This means that the 17" Mac Book Pro might not come back. The iMacs, Mini, and even the Mac Pro are doomed. Somewhere in Tim Cooks mind is a cutoff point where he will say that more resources need to be placed into iOS products and the Macs will be cut.
I read that OS X was supposed to last about fifteen years before needing new architecture. Of course that was an estimate but it's got just a couple more years left. That estimate might have been right. Since Apple is just now updating the Mac Pro, OS X might have a few more years left. I've also heard that X11 is just not cutting it these days. What is next?
Great think about Capitalism is that people get to vote for which products stick around.
I got a 17" MPB, and it does have a nice screen. But it's super heavy and not very totable (I carried it around Europe for a month at one point, trust me). I now have a 13" MBA.
If you think Apple's Macs are nearly dead, you're not paying attention to the fact that OS X Mavericks got equal attention to iOS 7 at WWDC, despite iPhones and iPads making Apple more money than all of its Macs put together. The Mac business is still larger and much more profitable than any other PC maker, even those choosing to churn out a lot of cheap netbooks or basic boxes at near zero profit.
Again, that's some concern trolling you don't also focus on the industry outside of Apple, which faces the same issues but also a much more ugly one: Windows.
[B]@Smallwheels[/B], then again, you could say that where the users are, the money will be. Therefore, go for the users and the money will take care of itself.
Maybe they'll do a 17" portable when the screen, memory and battery tech allow it to be like an Air, with retina. Then it might find enough users.
The new Pro is clearly a fun new exercise in architecture for them. We'll see if it finds users, i.e., makes money.
It's still about the users. Believe it or not, those are the foundation ethics. You can trace them all the way back to Richard Alpert, Stewart Brand and Gregory Bateson, in the 60s and 70s.
This history lesson makes it very clear that Steve Jobs and Apple go where the money is and will drop a great product if it isn't earning as much as they want it to earn. It's not about making great products and furthering technology. It's about going for the money and the technology is secondary.
This means that the 17" Mac Book Pro might not come back. The iMacs, Mini, and even the Mac Pro are doomed. Somewhere in Tim Cooks mind is a cutoff point where he will say that more resources need to be placed into iOS products and the Macs will be cut.
I read that OS X was supposed to last about fifteen years before needing new architecture. Of course that was an estimate but it's got just a couple more years left. That estimate might have been right. Since Apple is just now updating the Mac Pro, OS X might have a few more years left. I've also heard that X11 is just not cutting it these days. What is next?
It is about making great products and furthering technology, however, when the people (money) don't support it, you must move on. If you don't stay profitable, you won't be around long enough to create the next great product.
Like his predecessors, one of which was jdnc123, I think his posts are being written with details supplied by a pool of "experts" who can supply him with inside jargon and industry facts in this or that area, so we get a wall of troll sound on virtually any subject. Organized anti-Apple black PR, in other words. But then i'm paranoid, as everyone here knows.
For me, one definition of paranoid is that you've been around long enough to see just how much treachery certain humans can come up with.
Like his predecessors, one of which was jdnc123, I think his posts are being written with details supplied by a pool of "experts" who can supply him with inside jargon and industry facts in this or that area, so we get a wall of troll sound on virtually any subject. Organized anti-Apple black PR, in other words. But then i'm paranoid, as everyone here knows.
For me, one definition of paranoid is that you've been around long enough to see just how much treachery certain humans can come up with.
But that isn't the only definition of paranoia, is it?
I swear there's a box in AI headquarters filled with DED essays that just spews out lengthy random combinations of passages on a vague subject any time a deadline for an "editorial" comes up. It also appears to have some kind of crossover error, when you end up with careless mistakes like this:
That wasn't a mistake. Motorola did do a port of Windows NT 3.5. Sames as Intergraph who made a port of Windows NT 3.5 to SPARC.
This history lesson makes it very clear that Steve Jobs and Apple go where the money is and will drop a great product if it isn't earning as much as they want it to earn. It's not about making great products and furthering technology. It's about going for the money and the technology is secondary. ...
If you think that, then you literally know nothing and understand nothing about Apple, and about Steve Jobs.
I think money is obviously *your* focus, and you are just looking through "money coloured glasses" at the world.
Comments
Apple: revolutionary focus on user experience, good taste, ethical approach to biz.
Microsoft: same old American consumer-technology incompetence, focus on user torture, bad taste, bad ethics.
Samsung: bad taste, very bad ethics, focus on user distraction.
May I give readers a correct description of what I think Ethics and morals are?Ethics applies to a group, like a business
For example a business can have an ethic in place which states "it's not okay to solicite kickbacks from a contractor in exchange for company business" and employes are fired if they are caught doing so. In some countries taking bribes is normal behavoir and ethically okay.
An ethic is an agreed upon correct behavoir by a group. Ethics can change and are dynamic. Ethos is a Greek word meaning "character" that is used to describe the guiding beliefs or ideals that characterize a community whereas Morals are based on the notion of a virtue. Morals are not as dynamic, they are Universal and tend to be more static over time like "It is wrong to murder another Human Being"
It may be business ethical to engage in certain practices, but it may be morally wrong!
A "Moral" is something that is either right or wrong. An "Ethic" is more like a rule. Some rules can be incorrect.
But we lost rjc999. I keep losing my punching bags.
This means that the 17" Mac Book Pro might not come back. The iMacs, Mini, and even the Mac Pro are doomed. Somewhere in Tim Cooks mind is a cutoff point where he will say that more resources need to be placed into iOS products and the Macs will be cut.
I read that OS X was supposed to last about fifteen years before needing new architecture. Of course that was an estimate but it's got just a couple more years left. That estimate might have been right. Since Apple is just now updating the Mac Pro, OS X might have a few more years left. I've also heard that X11 is just not cutting it these days. What is next?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999
Lots of companies have had wide ranging influences major CE devices over the years. This is what I mean by minimizing the contributions of others and viewing history through a narrow lens.
I can construct similar "Microsoft was behind everything" narratives if I want. For example, the GPU that makes the iPhone even possible can be traced directly back to Microsoft's investment into DirectX and the PC gaming market. SGI plays the role of Xerox here, creating OpenGL, but failing to make it relevant for everyday consumers. Enter the savior, Microsoft, rescuing the HW industry from the ineffective ARB, pushing forward a baseline spec that got better every 18 months, and enabling a competitive GPU market for the desktop that allowed other vendors to sell compatible hardware into a ready made market. This lead to an advancement in GPU capabilities that surpassed Moore's Law on CPUs.
PowerVR began as a desktop class GPU, but tile-based-deferred-renderers, designed for low memory bandwidth, could not compete on the desktop where immediate mode renderers were getting faster and faster GDDR coupled with ginormous 256, 384, and 512-bit memory busses. So PowerVR rescued their IP by pivoting to mobile, where tile-based-deferred-rendering shines, leading to the introduction of the series of GPUs that sit in mobile today.
No Microsoft investment in DirectX making the PC a competitive gaming market, and OpenGL would be stagnant, likely delaying the timeline of GPUs by years, and in 2007, the iPhone would have had a much less powerful graphics chip.
The most bizarre part of your post is the logical leap between Microsoft's DirectX and then, suddenly, PowerVR. Games wouldn't have existed without Microsoft?
DirectX was only an effort to tie PC games to Windows, so that the vibrant market for games (yes, before DirectX) working on DOS PCs would be forced to upgrade to each new version of Windows because Microsoft could control the release of new versions of DirectX. Killed competition among DOS vendors, killed competition between OpenGL/GPU vendors and made Windows the industry's bottleneck and Microsoft its toll booth with those 90% gross margins on software that was added to PCs like a tax you couldn't avoid in a market with no alternative products to choose between.
The only Microsoft graphics technology that's made its way into Apple's chips is the wasted space support for DirectX and WMV/VC1 that Apple leaves deactivated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
I think you don't know engineering or even capitalism. Just answer the question. Why Apple can keep iPhone market share near 50% but its market share in China dropped to 5% recently?
How does my post reflect ignorance in engineering or capitalism? I think Corrections answered your question quite well, so I'll leave it there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels
This history lesson makes it very clear that Steve Jobs and Apple go where the money is and will drop a great product if it isn't earning as much as they want it to earn. It's not about making great products and furthering technology. It's about going for the money and the technology is secondary.
This means that the 17" Mac Book Pro might not come back. The iMacs, Mini, and even the Mac Pro are doomed. Somewhere in Tim Cooks mind is a cutoff point where he will say that more resources need to be placed into iOS products and the Macs will be cut.
I read that OS X was supposed to last about fifteen years before needing new architecture. Of course that was an estimate but it's got just a couple more years left. That estimate might have been right. Since Apple is just now updating the Mac Pro, OS X might have a few more years left. I've also heard that X11 is just not cutting it these days. What is next?
Great think about Capitalism is that people get to vote for which products stick around.
I got a 17" MPB, and it does have a nice screen. But it's super heavy and not very totable (I carried it around Europe for a month at one point, trust me). I now have a 13" MBA.
If you think Apple's Macs are nearly dead, you're not paying attention to the fact that OS X Mavericks got equal attention to iOS 7 at WWDC, despite iPhones and iPads making Apple more money than all of its Macs put together. The Mac business is still larger and much more profitable than any other PC maker, even those choosing to churn out a lot of cheap netbooks or basic boxes at near zero profit.
Again, that's some concern trolling you don't also focus on the industry outside of Apple, which faces the same issues but also a much more ugly one: Windows.
Why was rjc999 banned?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
How does my post reflect ignorance in engineering or capitalism? I think Corrections answered your question quite well, so I'll leave it there.
Because you think innovation is such an easy thing that Apple can easily use it to crush copycats.
Maybe they'll do a 17" portable when the screen, memory and battery tech allow it to be like an Air, with retina. Then it might find enough users.
The new Pro is clearly a fun new exercise in architecture for them. We'll see if it finds users, i.e., makes money.
It's still about the users. Believe it or not, those are the foundation ethics. You can trace them all the way back to Richard Alpert, Stewart Brand and Gregory Bateson, in the 60s and 70s.
Edit: Anticipated by [B]Corrections[/B] above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
Because you think innovation is such an easy thing that Apple can easily use it to crush copycats.
Really? I said that? Please, please show me where I said that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels
This history lesson makes it very clear that Steve Jobs and Apple go where the money is and will drop a great product if it isn't earning as much as they want it to earn. It's not about making great products and furthering technology. It's about going for the money and the technology is secondary.
This means that the 17" Mac Book Pro might not come back. The iMacs, Mini, and even the Mac Pro are doomed. Somewhere in Tim Cooks mind is a cutoff point where he will say that more resources need to be placed into iOS products and the Macs will be cut.
I read that OS X was supposed to last about fifteen years before needing new architecture. Of course that was an estimate but it's got just a couple more years left. That estimate might have been right. Since Apple is just now updating the Mac Pro, OS X might have a few more years left. I've also heard that X11 is just not cutting it these days. What is next?
It is about making great products and furthering technology, however, when the people (money) don't support it, you must move on. If you don't stay profitable, you won't be around long enough to create the next great product.
I doubt they'll give it away.
Like his predecessors, one of which was jdnc123, I think his posts are being written with details supplied by a pool of "experts" who can supply him with inside jargon and industry facts in this or that area, so we get a wall of troll sound on virtually any subject. Organized anti-Apple black PR, in other words. But then i'm paranoid, as everyone here knows.
For me, one definition of paranoid is that you've been around long enough to see just how much treachery certain humans can come up with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
I doubt they'll give it away.
Like his predecessors, one of which was jdnc123, I think his posts are being written with details supplied by a pool of "experts" who can supply him with inside jargon and industry facts in this or that area, so we get a wall of troll sound on virtually any subject. Organized anti-Apple black PR, in other words. But then i'm paranoid, as everyone here knows.
For me, one definition of paranoid is that you've been around long enough to see just how much treachery certain humans can come up with.
But that isn't the only definition of paranoia, is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
Really? I said that? Please, please show me where I said that.
Read your post #9 carefully.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
I swear there's a box in AI headquarters filled with DED essays that just spews out lengthy random combinations of passages on a vague subject any time a deadline for an "editorial" comes up. It also appears to have some kind of crossover error, when you end up with careless mistakes like this:
That wasn't a mistake. Motorola did do a port of Windows NT 3.5. Sames as Intergraph who made a port of Windows NT 3.5 to SPARC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
Why was rjc999 banned?
They weren't. That's an avatar picture they've been using for quite some time.
Originally Posted by MikeJones
They weren't. That's an avatar picture they've been using for quite some time.
Not sure if serious, given that you can't do that…
Well I've seen it under their name for a while now when they've posted. Maybe some sort of Huddler glitch?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
Perhaps the assumption was made that readers would recall events and therefore the line would not be controversial. See also:
MOTOROLA PORTS WINDOWS NT 3.5 TO POWERPC(TM) SYSTEMS - Free Online Library (Sept 1994)
Duly burned. Apologies, I didn't know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels
This history lesson makes it very clear that Steve Jobs and Apple go where the money is and will drop a great product if it isn't earning as much as they want it to earn. It's not about making great products and furthering technology. It's about going for the money and the technology is secondary. ...
If you think that, then you literally know nothing and understand nothing about Apple, and about Steve Jobs.
I think money is obviously *your* focus, and you are just looking through "money coloured glasses" at the world.