sorry have to agree with joseph ross - Lion / Mountain Lion is "Vista for Mac", aka, 'attack of the hipsters'.
Cramming mobile UI elements into a desktop metaphor (grey UI icons replacing color, minimal scroll bars, really really shitty downgrade of AirPort Utility capabilities, replacing Software Update with Mac App Store, dumbing down most every UI element {thank god for Onyx™}, 'local' time machine backups, hiding 'SAVE AS', the list is endless) goes against 30 years of UI design principles.
Fortunately, I can run Snow Leopard in Mountain Lion pretty fast on a MBA, but there's no question Steve Jobs is dead: from "provide the best products for our users" to "maximize shareholder value"; from "respect your customer" to "cooperate with the NSA", we don't need another hero and we sure aren't going to get one from Apple anymore.
The anticompetitive practices you are referring to ended years ago.
The lack of widespread adoption is not for a lack of choice. It's a lack of demand.
That is what is going to keep Windows king of the PC until the platform dies.
The anticompetitive practices led to a MONOPOLY.
The existence of the MONOPOLY led to the demise of viable for-profit clone machine OS competitors (OS/2, BeOS, different variations of DOS, NextSTEP, etc.). This removed any choice the consumer would have with regards to operating systems. No supply = no demand. Even if there was demand, the MONOPOLY would ensure there was no supply. Therefore, the "lack of demand" is a mirage caused by the existence of a MONOPOLY.
The demise of viable clone machine OS competitors reduced the need for the anticompetitive practices. If IBM suddenly started to market a next-generation OS/2 for clone machines, you can bet dollars to donuts that the Microsoft anticompetitive practices will come back in full force.
The only area where Microsoft doesn't dominate is in servers where Linux is a serious competitor. Why is that? Because in the 1990s, servers were vertical products similar to Macs (i.e. Sun Microsystem, DEC, IBM, etc.) and used custom operating systems (Linux, AUX, HP-UX, Unix, etc.).
You should realize that 'TLDR' is shorthand for, "I'm too lazy to read something that looks to be against my preconceptions... I'll just write a long post myself based on the title."
shorthand for 'told lie; did read' - otherwise they would not have posted a response in the 1st place.
If the business models of microsoft and other companies have been "Proven" to fail time and time again, how do you justify the lack of marketshare on the part of Apple?
I would also be interested in how you're justifying locked down operating systems with no compatibility to similar hardware?
I suppose GNU/Linux is the devil to you, what with it being made to work on just about anything...
Since Apple make the majority of profits in all industries in which they compete, I guess their lesson for the world of tech is "less is more".
Basic economics: selling less widgets for more profit is better than selling more widgets for less profit. Apple is wiping the floor with their competitors' ignorance of this basic fact.
Don't get me wrong, I think they've peaked; once Steve's pipeline is empty and all we have left is hipsterProducts, adiOS Apple, but that makes me sad.
Too bad Steve didn't take his doctor's advice, but then he wasn't one to listen to anyone else, which was his undoing in the end.
That being said, I died laughing when I saw the $299 Samsung 'iWatch'. When Apple releases theirs, which will be (basically) a retina-touch-screen-band around your wrist, linked to your iStuff / OS Xstuff over the 'internet of things', well, someone at Samsung is going to get fired.
Used an iPhone for 6 years. Sold my iPhone 5 for an S4 Active. With the exception of the camera, which is still pretty solid but not consistently enough, I'm much happier with my S4. 5" screen. Water resistant. Notification light. Gmail app is excellent. Terrific Google Music app. Habit browser is smooth. Android has really surprised me in a good way. I still use and love my iPad Mini and iMac. But if you don't think Android has gotten awesome in recent years and that there are some excellent flagships right now being offered by several OEM'S, then you are out of your mind.
Oh, I'm one of those that believe that some Android devices are excelent.
But an s4, no matter the version and you sold your iphone 5? And you are happy?I feel sorry for you. Clearly it wasn't a rational thing to do. Was it the advertizing?
If the business models of microsoft and other companies have been "Proven" to fail time and time again, how do you justify the lack of marketshare on the part of Apple?
One word: MONOPOLY.
Microsoft has enormous market share because it used anticompetitive and possibly illegal tactics to eliminate OS competitors for the PC clone machines. Because PC clone machines were much much cheaper than Apple products, more people bought PC clones than Macs. The correct way to talk about market share is that PC clones have 90-95% of the market shares and Apple Macs have 5-10% of the market share. It so happens that Windows is the OS on these PC clones not because people loved Windows but because Microsoft secured a monopoly.
If Microsoft Windows actually had to compete with other PC Clone operating systems like BeOS, OS/2, etc in the early days of the PC clone era without the benefit of anticompetitive tactics, do you really think that people would have chosen Windows over these operating systems? That's why the business model of Microsoft is a FAIL when it actually has to compete without the benefit of a MONOPOLY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natsuru
I would also be interested in how you're justifying locked down operating systems with no compatibility to similar hardware?
I suppose GNU/Linux is the devil to you, what with it being made to work on just about anything...
Consumers don't care about compatibility with similar hardware. They care about technology that "just works". Do you understand what "just works" mean? It means that it should be so easy to use, so functional, and so reliable that even your 80-year old grandma should be able to use it on an every-day basis without any assistance from you or any other tech-savvy person.
If the business models of microsoft and other companies have been "Proven" to fail time and time again, how do you justify the lack of marketshare on the part of Apple?
I would also be interested in how you're justifying locked down operating systems with no compatibility to similar hardware?
I suppose GNU/Linux is the devil to you, what with it being made to work on just about anything...
Apple's lack of market share can be attributed to the fact that they never bothered selling there products at a mid ranged price point.
That however will soon change, once they start entering lower price points with the iPhone 5C. It's this very fact that Apple can enter such segments that's forcing everyone to be vertically integrated to remain relevant.
If the business models of microsoft and other companies have been "Proven" to fail time and time again, how do you justify the lack of marketshare on the part of Apple?
I would also be interested in how you're justifying locked down operating systems with no compatibility to similar hardware?
I suppose GNU/Linux is the devil to you, what with it being made to work on just about anything...
It's not just the business model that's important, but the execution. Execution is what counts. Apple has their own business model that works because of their execution and continually improving it. Gateway had their own stores, but they failed at it because of execution. Microsoft has their own stores but they are failing due to execution.
The OEM of an OS works up to a certain point. I think Microsoft got too many people OEMing their OS, didn't pay attention to making it intuitive and just doing improvements rather than drastic changes. The OEMs are battling it out over market share instead of looking at maintaining quality, profit margins and spreading themselves too thin. Unfortunately those that buy $400 computers don't spend any money because they don't HAVE any money and they probably have just the most basic of needs to actually own a computer, but they many times just own one not to feel left out of society. I still run into people that don't own a computer and they don't have any interest in it. But they still manage. They just have other priorities on what and how they spend their time. Some get into collecting them and not using them for anything other than just knowing what they do. I run into a LOT of Android users that know every little nook and cranny of that OS, but they don't do anything with them other than basic things, but they want to own every flagship model just because they want to feel superior.
I'm wondering when there will be more fall out from the PC industry as shareholders scream about low profit margins. IF Apple was making 10% or less net profits, he'd be definitely on his way out. Well, why is it that every PC mfg is running at 10% or less net profits and they THINK they life is good?
In order for Microsoft to succeed in the hardware business, they basically have to take everyone that OEMs their OS out along the way.
Some of these PC companies do other things where they aren't 100% reliant on PCs. Sony, Toshiba are two examples of companies that could drop their PC lines and focus on another business that makes money. It's just whether they will wave the white flag. Some companies just shouldn't be in the business, but the reason is they have a desire to be a wannabe. Plenty of Android phone mfg that are wannabe's, it shows and they won't last long as people sense that.
I'm wondering what Windows 9 is going to look like and how much different it is to Windows 8.
The crazies here think I'm a troll. My cousin, who hates Apple, can't figure out why I love Apple so much. Guess that puts me somewhere near the very reasonable center.
For the record, I don't think you are a troll. I just think you listen to people like your cousin too much.
And your mind is screwed down a little too tight if you can't see that mhikl is playing around with words. You should try it sometime.
Microsoft's and Google's successes, whether by hook or by crook, also came to them in MASSIVELY expanding markets. First, the PC market expanded massively, to the point where the PC became a pervasive everywhere-technology. Then everyone had to upgrade, more than once, because their PC's rapidly became outdated. Then when everyone got on the internet, the advertising market expanded massively. Those markets are not growing like they used to.
I bought a Performa in the mid-90's and I thought it was a fine integrated device. I loved it dearly.
It's the way saving should have always been, from the start in the '70s.
I don't have a problem with the general idea of autosave, but I've just given several specific reasons why I dislike Apple's implementation in 10.7+ (no highlighting of diffs, apps now take a long time compared to before to discard changes). It works for simple documents but not so well when the document gets more complex.
When I want version control I'll use something like git which admittedly has a small learning curve but avoids the technical shortcomings of OS X Autosave/Versions. Otherwise, for casual workflows like viewing PDFs and previewing photos there's no real reason to overwrite the document with every change, and apple's implementation of autosave/versions can get in the way as I explained in my previous post.
OT: Is the iPhone forum making webkit browsers crash? Both chrome and safari crash for me when I visit that forum, so I'm composing this post in firefox.
OT: Is the iPhone forum making webkit browsers crash? Both chrome and safari crash for me when I visit that forum, so I'm composing this post in firefox.
Yes, a smart-aleck posted the dumb Arabic character set that crashes Safari. There's apparently a few different combos that will cause it, tho they all seem to be Arabic so far.
Whatever happened to the days when Apple insisted and was all in support of saying owning both the hardware and software was evil and gave a company *way* too much market power? Remember the 'Big Brother' commercial?
IBM didn't give their software away, they were essentially forced to. They had just come off several decades of antitrust lawsuits and did not want to go through the same with their PC business. The DoJ pushed by companies like Apple claimed IBM owning both the hardware and software let them dictate everything and didn't allow others to compete. Now Apple has the shoe on the other foot and its all good. They own both the hardware and software and can extort 30% from anyone who touches their system. I'm okay with it because Apple can be easily avoided. If they actually had more market share that would be a terrible thing for everyone (except Apple), and Apple would be in a position to abuse their clout much more than they currently do. Watching that 'Big Brother' commercial is a little creepy now because maybe it was just Apple prophesizing what it would become with its followers Steve was pretty brilliant that way.
To me, things are pretty good as they are. Android is walloping Apple in global market share and keeps Apple from really putting the screws to people doing business through them. Apple fans are happy because they have Apple. Its all good. Corporations do want profits, so it is no surprise everyone is going to chase the 'closed' model. I think most of them will fail. Samsung might be big enough to pull it off and it will be logical for them to try. My guess is they introduce a 'Tizen' phone alongside their Android and Windows offerings, and that they find it doesn't do very well. Others aren't big enough to pull it off. Having 50 different closed ecosystems out their all trying desperately not to work well with the other ecosystems just doesn't work. Having ONE ecosystem would work, but give that company a monopoly. Having an open system that everyone can use and fork off gives one system that works, but doesn't give a monopoly. We have the best of both worlds.
I did get a chuckle out of 'Apple Era' though. DED is obviously a little bit delusional (but I think it is deliberate) and over the top, but he is pretty darn good.
This article presents a very interesting perspective on the history of computing, the rise and fall of Microsoft, and the ascent of Apple and Android, although even I find its dismissive attitude towards Android, which presently dominates the market share of smartphones and is rapidly growing its share in the tablet market as well, to be somewhat naive and revisionist. Since Steve Jobs died, Apple has been failing to innovate and lead in the industry as forcefully as it once did. The preview of iOS 7 demonstrates that quite clearly%u2014Apple is incorporating a number of features that Android has already pioneered, which is a reversal of how things were in the iPhone's heyday.
I will personally never be an Android user, because I find its interface to be disorganized and user-hostile in comparison to the sleek, simple, and clean feeling of using an Apple device. But it's hard to deny that right now devices like the Samsung Galaxy S 4 have a much greater "cool" factor to them, and nobody that I know of is really all that excited about the iPhone 5S or certainly the 5c (although I will get a 5S, simply because I want a new phone now that my contract is expired and the slightly bigger screen and faster processor appeal to me).
I don't have a problem with the general idea of autosave, but I've just given several specific reasons why I dislike Apple's implementation in 10.7+ (no highlighting of diffs, apps now take a long time compared to before to discard changes). It works for simple documents but not so well when the document gets more complex.
When I want version control I'll use something like git which admittedly has a small learning curve but lacks the technical compromises of OS X Autosave/Versions. Otherwise, for casual workflows like viewing PDFs and previewing photos there's no real reason to overwrite the document with every change, and apple's implementation of autosave/versions can get in the way as I explained in my previous post.
OT: Is the iPhone forum making webkit browsers crash? Both chrome and safari crash for me when I visit that forum, so I'm composing this post in firefox.
Why are you relying on autosave so much though, just hit Cmd+S every few minutes or every time you made a change you'd like to keep, what can be simpler, I treat autosave like a safety net, same with Versions, works better that way, auto backups for when I f**k up.
If something is important enough that you want separate versions, duplicate and save as a new document. You could also mark stuff yourself, put a comment down in a special searchable text "tag", when you are done, search and clear it.
The existence of the MONOPOLY led to the demise of viable for-profit clone machine OS competitors (OS/2, BeOS, different variations of DOS, NextSTEP, etc.). This removed any choice the consumer would have with regards to operating systems. No supply = no demand. Even if there was demand, the MONOPOLY would ensure there was no supply. Therefore, the "lack of demand" is a mirage caused by the existence of a MONOPOLY.
The demise of viable clone machine OS competitors reduced the need for the anticompetitive practices. If IBM suddenly started to market a next-generation OS/2 for clone machines, you can bet dollars to donuts that the Microsoft anticompetitive practices will come back in full force.
The only area where Microsoft doesn't dominate is in servers where Linux is a serious competitor. Why is that? Because in the 1990s, servers were vertical products similar to Macs (i.e. Sun Microsystem, DEC, IBM, etc.) and used custom operating systems (Linux, AUX, HP-UX, Unix, etc.).
The only real competitor who fell victim to those practices was Novell and DR-DOS. It kept them off the PC. DR-DOS was a MS-DOS clone.
What you're arguing is that "if only Microsoft wasn't anticompetitive in the past, they wouldn't be on some 95% of x86 PCs today." The flaw in that argument is that Microsoft's practices only prevented OEMs from pre-installing Linux on PCs; nothing stopped customers who wanted Linux (or BSD or NextStep) from installing them onto PCs. That has always been the case (I installed my first distro from floppy disks borrowed from a friend). So the actual adoption rate of Linux on the PC reflects true consumer demand. It's a fantasy to believe that Linux would be everywhere if Microsoft wasn't evil. Installing it is not a barrier to adoption. And if it sounds like I'm defending Microsoft, I am not. I have Yellow Dog Linux installed on my first PS3 and I refuse to upgrade the firmware because Sony turned their back on Linux for PS3. I ended up buying a second PS3 for games. I don't hate Linux. I'm just saying that Linux fans overstate the effect of anticompetitive behavior and don't accept how little real demand there is for Linux.
I think the success of a business model largely depends on how well it is executed and how nimble it is to change under competition. The fact is, broadly licensed platforms are hard to get right and are not as nimble to change under competition as Apple's model.
Really? Buyers of the only two OS's pre-installed on pc's (for the most part) don't install Linux after-the-fact proves no one would want to use it? I think it only shows that users just accept whatever the computer came with as a rule as well as an acknowledgement that no major OEM ever took up the Linux banner.
The vast majority of home buyers aren't looking for a specific OS anyway IMHO whether it's for desktop, laptop or mobile device. Other factors are equally or more important for most, with price often the deciding one.
Comments
Utter nonsense.
sorry have to agree with joseph ross - Lion / Mountain Lion is "Vista for Mac", aka, 'attack of the hipsters'.
Cramming mobile UI elements into a desktop metaphor (grey UI icons replacing color, minimal scroll bars, really really shitty downgrade of AirPort Utility capabilities, replacing Software Update with Mac App Store, dumbing down most every UI element {thank god for Onyx™}, 'local' time machine backups, hiding 'SAVE AS', the list is endless) goes against 30 years of UI design principles.
Fortunately, I can run Snow Leopard in Mountain Lion pretty fast on a MBA, but there's no question Steve Jobs is dead: from "provide the best products for our users" to "maximize shareholder value"; from "respect your customer" to "cooperate with the NSA", we don't need another hero and we sure aren't going to get one from Apple anymore.
IMHO...
The anticompetitive practices you are referring to ended years ago.
The lack of widespread adoption is not for a lack of choice. It's a lack of demand.
That is what is going to keep Windows king of the PC until the platform dies.
The anticompetitive practices led to a MONOPOLY.
The existence of the MONOPOLY led to the demise of viable for-profit clone machine OS competitors (OS/2, BeOS, different variations of DOS, NextSTEP, etc.). This removed any choice the consumer would have with regards to operating systems. No supply = no demand. Even if there was demand, the MONOPOLY would ensure there was no supply. Therefore, the "lack of demand" is a mirage caused by the existence of a MONOPOLY.
The demise of viable clone machine OS competitors reduced the need for the anticompetitive practices. If IBM suddenly started to market a next-generation OS/2 for clone machines, you can bet dollars to donuts that the Microsoft anticompetitive practices will come back in full force.
The only area where Microsoft doesn't dominate is in servers where Linux is a serious competitor. Why is that? Because in the 1990s, servers were vertical products similar to Macs (i.e. Sun Microsystem, DEC, IBM, etc.) and used custom operating systems (Linux, AUX, HP-UX, Unix, etc.).
You should realize that 'TLDR' is shorthand for, "I'm too lazy to read something that looks to be against my preconceptions... I'll just write a long post myself based on the title."
shorthand for 'told lie; did read' - otherwise they would not have posted a response in the 1st place.
If the business models of microsoft and other companies have been "Proven" to fail time and time again, how do you justify the lack of marketshare on the part of Apple?
I would also be interested in how you're justifying locked down operating systems with no compatibility to similar hardware?
I suppose GNU/Linux is the devil to you, what with it being made to work on just about anything...
Since Apple make the majority of profits in all industries in which they compete, I guess their lesson for the world of tech is "less is more".
Basic economics: selling less widgets for more profit is better than selling more widgets for less profit. Apple is wiping the floor with their competitors' ignorance of this basic fact.
Don't get me wrong, I think they've peaked; once Steve's pipeline is empty and all we have left is hipsterProducts, adiOS Apple, but that makes me sad.
Too bad Steve didn't take his doctor's advice, but then he wasn't one to listen to anyone else, which was his undoing in the end.
That being said, I died laughing when I saw the $299 Samsung 'iWatch'. When Apple releases theirs, which will be (basically) a retina-touch-screen-band around your wrist, linked to your iStuff / OS Xstuff over the 'internet of things', well, someone at Samsung is going to get fired.
Used an iPhone for 6 years. Sold my iPhone 5 for an S4 Active. With the exception of the camera, which is still pretty solid but not consistently enough, I'm much happier with my S4. 5" screen. Water resistant. Notification light. Gmail app is excellent. Terrific Google Music app. Habit browser is smooth. Android has really surprised me in a good way. I still use and love my iPad Mini and iMac. But if you don't think Android has gotten awesome in recent years and that there are some excellent flagships right now being offered by several OEM'S, then you are out of your mind.
Oh, I'm one of those that believe that some Android devices are excelent.
But an s4, no matter the version and you sold your iphone 5? And you are happy?I feel sorry for you. Clearly it wasn't a rational thing to do. Was it the advertizing?
If the business models of microsoft and other companies have been "Proven" to fail time and time again, how do you justify the lack of marketshare on the part of Apple?
One word: MONOPOLY.
Microsoft has enormous market share because it used anticompetitive and possibly illegal tactics to eliminate OS competitors for the PC clone machines. Because PC clone machines were much much cheaper than Apple products, more people bought PC clones than Macs. The correct way to talk about market share is that PC clones have 90-95% of the market shares and Apple Macs have 5-10% of the market share. It so happens that Windows is the OS on these PC clones not because people loved Windows but because Microsoft secured a monopoly.
If Microsoft Windows actually had to compete with other PC Clone operating systems like BeOS, OS/2, etc in the early days of the PC clone era without the benefit of anticompetitive tactics, do you really think that people would have chosen Windows over these operating systems? That's why the business model of Microsoft is a FAIL when it actually has to compete without the benefit of a MONOPOLY.
I would also be interested in how you're justifying locked down operating systems with no compatibility to similar hardware?
I suppose GNU/Linux is the devil to you, what with it being made to work on just about anything...
Consumers don't care about compatibility with similar hardware. They care about technology that "just works". Do you understand what "just works" mean? It means that it should be so easy to use, so functional, and so reliable that even your 80-year old grandma should be able to use it on an every-day basis without any assistance from you or any other tech-savvy person.
If the business models of microsoft and other companies have been "Proven" to fail time and time again, how do you justify the lack of marketshare on the part of Apple?
I would also be interested in how you're justifying locked down operating systems with no compatibility to similar hardware?
I suppose GNU/Linux is the devil to you, what with it being made to work on just about anything...
Apple's lack of market share can be attributed to the fact that they never bothered selling there products at a mid ranged price point.
That however will soon change, once they start entering lower price points with the iPhone 5C. It's this very fact that Apple can enter such segments that's forcing everyone to be vertically integrated to remain relevant.
If the business models of microsoft and other companies have been "Proven" to fail time and time again, how do you justify the lack of marketshare on the part of Apple?
I would also be interested in how you're justifying locked down operating systems with no compatibility to similar hardware?
I suppose GNU/Linux is the devil to you, what with it being made to work on just about anything...
It's not just the business model that's important, but the execution. Execution is what counts. Apple has their own business model that works because of their execution and continually improving it. Gateway had their own stores, but they failed at it because of execution. Microsoft has their own stores but they are failing due to execution.
The OEM of an OS works up to a certain point. I think Microsoft got too many people OEMing their OS, didn't pay attention to making it intuitive and just doing improvements rather than drastic changes. The OEMs are battling it out over market share instead of looking at maintaining quality, profit margins and spreading themselves too thin. Unfortunately those that buy $400 computers don't spend any money because they don't HAVE any money and they probably have just the most basic of needs to actually own a computer, but they many times just own one not to feel left out of society. I still run into people that don't own a computer and they don't have any interest in it. But they still manage. They just have other priorities on what and how they spend their time. Some get into collecting them and not using them for anything other than just knowing what they do. I run into a LOT of Android users that know every little nook and cranny of that OS, but they don't do anything with them other than basic things, but they want to own every flagship model just because they want to feel superior.
I'm wondering when there will be more fall out from the PC industry as shareholders scream about low profit margins. IF Apple was making 10% or less net profits, he'd be definitely on his way out. Well, why is it that every PC mfg is running at 10% or less net profits and they THINK they life is good?
In order for Microsoft to succeed in the hardware business, they basically have to take everyone that OEMs their OS out along the way.
Some of these PC companies do other things where they aren't 100% reliant on PCs. Sony, Toshiba are two examples of companies that could drop their PC lines and focus on another business that makes money. It's just whether they will wave the white flag. Some companies just shouldn't be in the business, but the reason is they have a desire to be a wannabe. Plenty of Android phone mfg that are wannabe's, it shows and they won't last long as people sense that.
I'm wondering what Windows 9 is going to look like and how much different it is to Windows 8.
For the record, I don't think you are a troll. I just think you listen to people like your cousin too much.
And your mind is screwed down a little too tight if you can't see that mhikl is playing around with words. You should try it sometime.
I bought a Performa in the mid-90's and I thought it was a fine integrated device. I loved it dearly.
It's the way saving should have always been, from the start in the '70s.
I don't have a problem with the general idea of autosave, but I've just given several specific reasons why I dislike Apple's implementation in 10.7+ (no highlighting of diffs, apps now take a long time compared to before to discard changes). It works for simple documents but not so well when the document gets more complex.
When I want version control I'll use something like git which admittedly has a small learning curve but avoids the technical shortcomings of OS X Autosave/Versions. Otherwise, for casual workflows like viewing PDFs and previewing photos there's no real reason to overwrite the document with every change, and apple's implementation of autosave/versions can get in the way as I explained in my previous post.
OT: Is the iPhone forum making webkit browsers crash? Both chrome and safari crash for me when I visit that forum, so I'm composing this post in firefox.
Yes, a smart-aleck posted the dumb Arabic character set that crashes Safari. There's apparently a few different combos that will cause it, tho they all seem to be Arabic so far.
Whatever happened to the days when Apple insisted and was all in support of saying owning both the hardware and software was evil and gave a company *way* too much market power? Remember the 'Big Brother' commercial?
IBM didn't give their software away, they were essentially forced to. They had just come off several decades of antitrust lawsuits and did not want to go through the same with their PC business. The DoJ pushed by companies like Apple claimed IBM owning both the hardware and software let them dictate everything and didn't allow others to compete. Now Apple has the shoe on the other foot and its all good. They own both the hardware and software and can extort 30% from anyone who touches their system. I'm okay with it because Apple can be easily avoided. If they actually had more market share that would be a terrible thing for everyone (except Apple), and Apple would be in a position to abuse their clout much more than they currently do. Watching that 'Big Brother' commercial is a little creepy now because maybe it was just Apple prophesizing what it would become with its followers
Steve was pretty brilliant that way.
To me, things are pretty good as they are. Android is walloping Apple in global market share and keeps Apple from really putting the screws to people doing business through them. Apple fans are happy because they have Apple. Its all good. Corporations do want profits, so it is no surprise everyone is going to chase the 'closed' model. I think most of them will fail. Samsung might be big enough to pull it off and it will be logical for them to try. My guess is they introduce a 'Tizen' phone alongside their Android and Windows offerings, and that they find it doesn't do very well. Others aren't big enough to pull it off. Having 50 different closed ecosystems out their all trying desperately not to work well with the other ecosystems just doesn't work. Having ONE ecosystem would work, but give that company a monopoly. Having an open system that everyone can use and fork off gives one system that works, but doesn't give a monopoly. We have the best of both worlds.
I did get a chuckle out of 'Apple Era' though. DED is obviously a little bit delusional (but I think it is deliberate) and over the top, but he is pretty darn good.
I will personally never be an Android user, because I find its interface to be disorganized and user-hostile in comparison to the sleek, simple, and clean feeling of using an Apple device. But it's hard to deny that right now devices like the Samsung Galaxy S 4 have a much greater "cool" factor to them, and nobody that I know of is really all that excited about the iPhone 5S or certainly the 5c (although I will get a 5S, simply because I want a new phone now that my contract is expired and the slightly bigger screen and faster processor appeal to me).
.
iPhone - capacitive touch screen and snappy performance coupled with an ingenious interface and the first mobile browser that actually worked.
Opera's excellent mobile browser predates the iphone. It supported tap to zoom, tabs and was vastly customisable
I don't have a problem with the general idea of autosave, but I've just given several specific reasons why I dislike Apple's implementation in 10.7+ (no highlighting of diffs, apps now take a long time compared to before to discard changes). It works for simple documents but not so well when the document gets more complex.
When I want version control I'll use something like git which admittedly has a small learning curve but lacks the technical compromises of OS X Autosave/Versions. Otherwise, for casual workflows like viewing PDFs and previewing photos there's no real reason to overwrite the document with every change, and apple's implementation of autosave/versions can get in the way as I explained in my previous post.
OT: Is the iPhone forum making webkit browsers crash? Both chrome and safari crash for me when I visit that forum, so I'm composing this post in firefox.
Why are you relying on autosave so much though, just hit Cmd+S every few minutes or every time you made a change you'd like to keep, what can be simpler, I treat autosave like a safety net, same with Versions, works better that way, auto backups for when I f**k up.
If something is important enough that you want separate versions, duplicate and save as a new document. You could also mark stuff yourself, put a comment down in a special searchable text "tag", when you are done, search and clear it.
The only real competitor who fell victim to those practices was Novell and DR-DOS. It kept them off the PC. DR-DOS was a MS-DOS clone.
What you're arguing is that "if only Microsoft wasn't anticompetitive in the past, they wouldn't be on some 95% of x86 PCs today." The flaw in that argument is that Microsoft's practices only prevented OEMs from pre-installing Linux on PCs; nothing stopped customers who wanted Linux (or BSD or NextStep) from installing them onto PCs. That has always been the case (I installed my first distro from floppy disks borrowed from a friend). So the actual adoption rate of Linux on the PC reflects true consumer demand. It's a fantasy to believe that Linux would be everywhere if Microsoft wasn't evil. Installing it is not a barrier to adoption. And if it sounds like I'm defending Microsoft, I am not. I have Yellow Dog Linux installed on my first PS3 and I refuse to upgrade the firmware because Sony turned their back on Linux for PS3. I ended up buying a second PS3 for games. I don't hate Linux. I'm just saying that Linux fans overstate the effect of anticompetitive behavior and don't accept how little real demand there is for Linux.
The vast majority of home buyers aren't looking for a specific OS anyway IMHO whether it's for desktop, laptop or mobile device. Other factors are equally or more important for most, with price often the deciding one.