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.
On the contrary, one of my gripes was precisely that apps in 10.7+ will autosave changes that I *don't* want saved - such as rotating a pdf in Preview for viewing purposes - and that discarding changes is now an expensive process thanks to how OS X autosave is implemented.
I agree that autosave is supposed to act as a safety net and not as the primary means of version control. My issue was that apple's implementation of the safety net is rather frustrating to deal with at times. It's better in OS X 10.8 than it was in 10.7, but it's not optimal.
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.
Yet Android is thriving while Blackberry and MS are failing. I don't believe that the market would support 4-5 closed and vertical ecosystems.
sorry have to agree with joseph ross - Lion / Mountain Lion is "Vista for Mac", aka, 'attack of the hipsters'.
But that's wrong.
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.
And do you have any idea why they're doing that, or are you just going to assume they're all idiots?
…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.
Yeah, none of that is true, and there's zero reason for you to think it since none of it is reflected in what they've done in the past two years.
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'm saying anyone who wants to run Linux can. There are NO BARRIERS to that. Microsoft is not preventing you from installing Linux. Microsoft only took choice away from OEMs. They didn't take choice away from customers. So the measured customer adoption rate of Linux reflects actual real-world customer demand for it. That statement is practically a tautology. How can you disagree with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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.
Do you really believe customer don't think about whether their new PC can run Office or their favorite games? Do they just accept it when they can't? People used to buy computers to run specific programs. They know what OS they're getting. If customers were that accepting of whatever their computer came with, why didn't they accept Windows Vista? Why did they demand Windows XP downgrade rights? OEMs can't trick people into using Linux. That'll never work.
While I agree that this is a change for MS, I would hardly consider their Monopoly ended and I would certainly not be convinced that the Microsoft strategy failed. Windows is on 4 out of 5 computers in the world!
2. You honestly believe that Google made the wrong decision by backing Android at the expense of their relationship with Apple? You mentioned Google is paying a heavy price. Google's market cap around the time they announced Android and pissed off Apple was about 150 billion. Now Google's market cap is 292, virtually double what it was then. So in the time Android has been around Google has doubled in value. How are paying a price. Sure they've made some bad buys (Motorola comes to mind) but none of it holds a candle to the growth attributable to their newfound mobile empire. I think it's a safe bet that not a single Google shareholder regrets Android's inception. Sure, Apple has grown even more in the same time frame, but either way Google played it, that success wouldn't have boosted their own numbers, hence Android was the right move for Google.
As a Google share holder, I assure you I think Android has slowed down their growth and honestly believe the hostilities between Apple and Google has hurt Google's revenue, profit and share price. And Apples's as well but Google's more.
I'm saying anyone who wants to run Linux can. There are NO BARRIERS to that. Microsoft is not preventing you from installing Linux. Microsoft only took choice away from OEMs. They didn't take choice away from customers. So the measured customer adoption rate of Linux reflects actual real-world customer demand for it. That statement is practically a tautology. How can you disagree with that?
Do you really believe customer don't think about whether their new PC can run Office or their favorite games? Do they just accept it when they can't? People used to buy computers to run specific programs. They know what OS they're getting. If customers were that accepting of whatever their computer came with, why didn't they accept Windows Vista? Why did they demand Windows XP downgrade rights? OEMs can't trick people into using Linux. That'll never work.
Absolutely some people care whether what version OS they run. As long as its the newest I don't think MOST folks give it a second thought.
The Nexus 7, while not a blockbuster, was extremely popular. It sold more than any other Android tablet at the time. I'm not sure it can be accurately called a failure, since it did make a (tiny) profit.
But yes, just like Tim Cook said, even mine is not being used, and it's collecting dust in a cabinet somewhere. Android still hasn't gotten the tablet interface right and there are no apps built for the form factor. Plus, 16:9 is an *awful* resolution for a tablet. Much prefer my iPads.
As a Google share holder, I assure you I think Android has slowed down their growth and honestly believe the hostilities between Apple and Google has hurt Google's revenue, profit and share price. And Apples's as well but Google's more.
True but imagine the world of hurt Google would've found themselves in if Apple decided it no longer needed Google's services because they made their own, or found cheaper alternatives.
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?
Apple never insisted and was never in support of saying that owning both the hardware and software was evil. The "Big Brother" commercial was a response to the DOMINANT market share that IBM had at that time. IBM was the Microsoft of the early 1980s. If the "Big Brother" commercial was run in 1996, Microsoft would have been the target.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
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.
You are contradicting yourself multiple times in the above paragraph. If Apple can be avoided then why are you implying that it is similar to the "Big Brother" in the commercial? The "Big Brother" commercial was directed at IBM precisely because IBM could not be avoided at that time. A "Big Brother" commercial should have been created in mid-1990s for Microsoft.
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.
Let's not forget IBM's OS/2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
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.
You apparently don't understand Microsoft's anticompetitive practices. Of course nothing stopped consumers from installing Linux or OS/2 or PC-DOS or any other IBM clone OS on their computers. The key difference you failed to appreciate was that Microsoft ALREADY GOT ITS MONEY when the computer was sold to the consumer. This is called the MICROSOFT TOLL BRIDGE: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1012_3-5175536.html
So the consumer not only paid Microsoft for an operating system that the consumer did not want, the consumer also had to pay a different OS vendor (OS/2, Novell, PC-DOS, etc.) to install a different OS on their computer. Linux didn't exist in the public consciousness in 1995; at that time, the only viable operating systems that could be loaded on a PC was Novell, OS/2 and PC-DOS all of which weren't free.
So why would a consumer pay TWICE to get a different operating system? That how the PC clone market became a Wintel market. If Microsoft hadn't prevented OEMs from pre-installing different operating systems, the competitive landscape in the PC clone operating system would have been very different.
While I agree that this is a change for MS, I would hardly consider their Monopoly ended and I would certainly not be convinced that the Microsoft strategy failed. Windows is on 4 out of 5 computers in the world!
It could be in every computer in the world besides the one used by Steve Jobs and still be a failure if that particular computer had a stronger ecosystem, superior quality, superior UI and was more lucrative than all others combined.
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?
You are making a common mistake. You are comparing Apple computers to Windows computers. Apple does not, and never has, competed with Microsoft. They have targeted them in their ads, but it's not who they are competing against. Their competition is Dell. And HP. And even, back in the day, IBM (now Lenovo, of course).
Now, marketing against Microsoft is easier than trying to go after every two bit PC maker, since the key thing all those PC makers have in common is that they sell Windows PCs. The "superiority" of the Mac OS over Windows is a convenient selling point, nothing more. The actual competition for market share is against the hardware manufacturers.
The same applies now, where the iPhone is really competing against Samsung and HTC, not Google, but the key marketing factor is iOS versus Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
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.
That's kind of like saying "Sure he killed his brother and became king, but he only did it the once." The anti-competitive practices got MS to where they are, and they only stopped them when forced to by a number of legal actions by consumers who didn't want to pay for Windows when they were going to put Linux on the box anyway. The damage had already been done, though, and now Microsoft doesn't need to use it's anticompetitive practices to maintain its position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikilok
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.
Not at all true. Back in the 90s, they sold a range of computers at a variety of pricepoints, from really expensive top end workstations, down to entry-level. And they nearly went bankrupt around the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
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.
There was no demand for Linux because most users didn't even know it existed. The ones that did, thought it was a really technical thing that you needed a degree in Computer Science to understand.
How many big department stores had Linux running on the PCs on display? How many TV ads did PC manufacturers do demonstrating the advantages of Linux on their platform? No, they advertised Windows PCs, because all their PCs came with Windows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
I'm saying anyone who wants to run Linux can. There are NO BARRIERS to that. Microsoft is not preventing you from installing Linux. Microsoft only took choice away from OEMs. They didn't take choice away from customers. So the measured customer adoption rate of Linux reflects actual real-world customer demand for it. That statement is practically a tautology. How can you disagree with that?
Easy, like this: The average PC buyer wants to buy a computer with as little hassle as possible. They have no idea that they have a choice to install a different OS to the one it comes with, and if they did they'd wonder why they should bother, since they've already paid for Windows.
The average PC buyer is not making an informed choice of OS, they are making a mildly informed choice of hardware. They are relying on someone else to tell them what OS to go with, and usually that person is the one trying to sell them the PC. If department stores sold computers running Linux, more people would be running Linux at home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Do you really believe customer don't think about whether their new PC can run Office or their favorite games? Do they just accept it when they can't? People used to buy computers to run specific programs. They know what OS they're getting. If customers were that accepting of whatever their computer came with, why didn't they accept Windows Vista? Why did they demand Windows XP downgrade rights? OEMs can't trick people into using Linux. That'll never work.
Customers do think about that. But, then again, they rely on other people to tell them what is possible, and even what is desirable. Vista was a special case, since it was so horrible. Even so, a large number of users didn't downgrade to XP. There are machines out there, still running Vista in some form, because the people who bought them didn't notice any problems, or didn't care.
Your basic problem seems to be that you think that everyone knows the same things you do. That is not so. People can't make an informed choice if they don't have all the information. And most people don't even know where to start getting all this information from.
Think thread got lost a while ago. The original response I made was to a comment made to the effect that all iTunes (not iDevice) account holders were affluent. That's just not true. On the other hand Apple users in general (according to every study I've ever seen published) are more affluent, educated, travel more, etc. I don't disagree with that at all. I simply disagreed with an earlier post about there being 700 million affluent people in the world. If you look at the global distribution of wealth and compare it to iTunes account holders, you'll find far more iTunes patrons than affluent people, assuming reasonable standard for what's to be considered affluent. That was all. Nothing more, nothing less.
You were previously advised by other posters to improve on your reading and comprehension skills and that you had confused causal effects. You do it again here.
Firstly, you have totally misquoted me. I never said "all" iTunes account holders were affluent. What I actually said was " with the advantage of Apple having over 700 million loyal, affluent iOS users locked into their eco-system." "ALL" is YOUR INVENTION AND MISREPRESENTATION. It goes without saying (except in your case) that amongst the 700 million iOS users there would be a huge rage of actual wealth or disposable income.
In your reply you said "700 million affluent iOS users? There aren't 700 million affluent people on the planet Earth, using this, that, or the other. That one blew my mind."
mhiki in post #37 explained to you how you had misunderstood and misinterpreted what I had said "1. 700 million is roughly 1/10 the worlds population. Affluence is a relative word. At least 1/10 of the world could afford a top line mobile device. (1/10 would include breadwinner(s) spouse & children with at least 1 quality device.)"
The key point is that in this context "Affluent" is a relative term, not an absolute term as you are misinterpreting it.
In my post #50 I also confirmed that I was using "Affluent" as a relative term when I replied to you saying:"Every survey I have seen seen has found that iOS users are better educated, more affluent, travel more, user the internet more and buy more on the internet than Android users."You actually say you agree with my statement clarifying what I said, but you also misquote by inserting the word "ALL" into what I originally said, which gives a totally different meaning to what I originally said.
Regarding the relative affluence of Apple users it is interesting to read a cnbc report about one of these surveys profiling Apple users:
"Apples Are Growing in American Homes"
"That’s more than 55 million homes with at least one iPhone, iPad, iPod or Mac computer. And one-in-10 homes that aren’t currently in that group plan to join it in the next year.
But Apple doesn’t have to worry about brand saturation any time soon. Americans don’t stop with just one device. Homes that own least one Apple, own an average of three. Overall, the average household has 1.6 Apple devices, with almost one-quarter planning to buy at least one more in the next year.
“It's a fantastic business model — the more of our products you own, the more likely you are to buy more,” says Jay Campbell, a vice president of Hart Research Associates, which conducts the CNBC survey along with Bill McInturff. “Planned obsolescence has always been a part of the technology industries sales model, but Apple has taken it to a whole new level.”
Our survey shows Apple buyers tend to be male, college-educated, and younger. They’re just as likely to own a home as not. Not surprisingly, the more money you earn, the more Apple products you’re likely to own.
Just 28 percent of those making less than $30,000 a year own at least one, compared with 77 percent of those making more than $75,000. Those on the higher end of the income scale own an average of about three Apple devices, compared with 0.6 for lower-income homes."
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...
How is Microsoft anything but a "locked down operating system?"
And with Microsoft's business model, the only company making money is Microsoft. The OEMs have been robbed of the ability to differentiate their system in any way other than price, forcing them to fight over table scraps.
In the business world, success or failure is measured by profits. That's what helps a business pay its employees, fund R&D on the next product, and most importantly, keep the lights on at the office. The OEMs are part of the huge marketshare for Windows, but they don't have much to show for it. Profit is important for customers too. If a product line is profitable, the business is likely to continue to support that particular product line with solid investments in R&D and the like. IMO, you don't want to be buying products from a manufacturer that doesn't care about the products it is making.
You get what you pay for. GNU/Linux if open source and free, but you're on your own when you download the software. If you have a problem, you have to read through pages and pages of comments on a forum. A business user will likely not be interested in that stuff. What you call a "locked down closed operating system" is an out-of-box solution that is ready for use. It's all a matter of values.
As for having no compatibility to similar hardware, can you give me an example?
You were previously advised by other posters to improve on your reading and comprehension skills and that you had confused causal effects. You do it again here.
Firstly, you have totally misquoted me. I never said "all" iTunes account holders were affluent. What I actually said was " with the advantage of Apple having over 700 million loyal, affluent iOS users locked into their eco-system." "ALL" is YOUR INVENTION AND MISREPRESENTATION. It goes without saying (except in your case) that amongst the 700 million iOS users there would be a huge rage of actual wealth or disposable income.
In your reply you said "700 million affluent iOS users? There aren't 700 million affluent people on the planet Earth, using this, that, or the other. That one blew my mind."
mhiki in post #37 explained to you how you had misunderstood and misinterpreted what I had said "1. 700 million is roughly 1/10 the worlds population. Affluence is a relative word. At least 1/10 of the world could afford a top line mobile device. (1/10 would include breadwinner(s) spouse & children with at least 1 quality device.)"
The key point is that in this context "Affluent" is a relative term, not an absolute term as you are misinterpreting it.
In my post #50 I also confirmed that I was using "Affluent" as a relative term when I replied to you saying:"Every survey I have seen seen has found that iOS users are better educated, more affluent, travel more, user the internet more and buy more on the internet than Android users."You actually say you agree with my statement clarifying what I said, but you also misquote by inserting the word "ALL" into what I originally said, which gives a totally different meaning to what I originally said.
Regarding the relative affluence of Apple users it is interesting to read a cnbc report about one of these surveys profiling Apple users:
"Apples Are Growing in American Homes"
"That’s more than 55 million homes with at least one iPhone, iPad, iPod or Mac computer. And one-in-10 homes that aren’t currently in that group plan to join it in the next year.
But Apple doesn’t have to worry about brand saturation any time soon. Americans don’t stop with just one device. Homes that own least one Apple, own an average of three. Overall, the average [URL=]household has 1.6 Apple devices[/URL], with almost one-quarter planning to buy at least one more in the next year.
“It's a fantastic business model — the more of our products you own, the more likely you are to buy more,” says Jay Campbell, a vice president of Hart Research Associates, which conducts the CNBC survey along with Bill McInturff. “Planned obsolescence has always been a part of the technology industries sales model, but Apple has taken it to a whole new level.”
Our survey shows Apple buyers tend to be male, college-educated, and younger. They’re just as likely to own a home as not. Not surprisingly, the more money you earn, the more Apple products you’re likely to own.
Just 28 percent of those making less than $30,000 a year own at least one, compared with 77 percent of those making more than $75,000. Those on the higher end of the income scale own an average of about three Apple devices, compared with 0.6 for lower-income homes."
You didn't have to say ALL since as of June 2013, the iTunes Store possesses 575 million active user accounts, and serves over 315 million mobile devices, including iPods, iPhones and iPads, so over 700 million is ALL and then some.
You apparently don't understand Microsoft's anticompetitive practices. Of course nothing stopped consumers from installing Linux or OS/2 or PC-DOS or any other IBM clone OS on their computers. The key difference you failed to appreciate was that Microsoft ALREADY GOT ITS MONEY when the computer was sold to the consumer. This is called the MICROSOFT TOLL BRIDGE: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1012_3-5175536.html
So the consumer not only paid Microsoft for an operating system that the consumer did not want, the consumer also had to pay a different OS vendor (OS/2, Novell, PC-DOS, etc.) to install a different OS on their computer. Linux didn't exist in the public consciousness in 1995; at that time, the only viable operating systems that could be loaded on a PC was Novell, OS/2 and PC-DOS all of which weren't free.
So why would a consumer pay TWICE to get a different operating system? That how the PC clone market became a Wintel market. If Microsoft hadn't prevented OEMs from pre-installing different operating systems, the competitive landscape in the PC clone operating system would have been very different.
I am not disputing that Microsoft's licensing practices were anticompetitive.
I am disputing the claim that (and I am quoting your previous post): "If it wasn't for these illegal Microsoft business practices, we would be seeing successful OSes on the market such as OS/2, BeOS, NEXTStep, etc."
The problem to adoption isn't this Microsoft "toll bridge". The problem is lack of broad consumer demand. Remember: OS/2, BeOS, and NextStep were preloaded on machines that weren't subject to Microsoft's "toll bridge": IBM-branded PCs could be purchased with OS/2, BeOS preloaded on every Be box, and NextStep preloaded on the NeXT workstations. These operating systems failed to reach critical mass without Microsoft's help.
Comments
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.
On the contrary, one of my gripes was precisely that apps in 10.7+ will autosave changes that I *don't* want saved - such as rotating a pdf in Preview for viewing purposes - and that discarding changes is now an expensive process thanks to how OS X autosave is implemented.
I agree that autosave is supposed to act as a safety net and not as the primary means of version control. My issue was that apple's implementation of the safety net is rather frustrating to deal with at times. It's better in OS X 10.8 than it was in 10.7, but it's not optimal.
Yet Android is thriving while Blackberry and MS are failing. I don't believe that the market would support 4-5 closed and vertical ecosystems.
sorry have to agree with joseph ross - Lion / Mountain Lion is "Vista for Mac", aka, 'attack of the hipsters'.
But that's wrong.
And do you have any idea why they're doing that, or are you just going to assume they're all idiots?
Yeah, none of that is true, and there's zero reason for you to think it since none of it is reflected in what they've done in the past two years.
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'm saying anyone who wants to run Linux can. There are NO BARRIERS to that. Microsoft is not preventing you from installing Linux. Microsoft only took choice away from OEMs. They didn't take choice away from customers. So the measured customer adoption rate of Linux reflects actual real-world customer demand for it. That statement is practically a tautology. How can you disagree with that?
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.
Do you really believe customer don't think about whether their new PC can run Office or their favorite games? Do they just accept it when they can't? People used to buy computers to run specific programs. They know what OS they're getting. If customers were that accepting of whatever their computer came with, why didn't they accept Windows Vista? Why did they demand Windows XP downgrade rights? OEMs can't trick people into using Linux. That'll never work.
While I agree that this is a change for MS, I would hardly consider their Monopoly ended and I would certainly not be convinced that the Microsoft strategy failed. Windows is on 4 out of 5 computers in the world!
I would like to comment but can't write while laughing! sorry ;-)
I would like to comment but can't write while laughing! sorry ;-)
As a Google share holder, I assure you I think Android has slowed down their growth and honestly believe the hostilities between Apple and Google has hurt Google's revenue, profit and share price. And Apples's as well but Google's more.
But yes, just like Tim Cook said, even mine is not being used, and it's collecting dust in a cabinet somewhere. Android still hasn't gotten the tablet interface right and there are no apps built for the form factor. Plus, 16:9 is an *awful* resolution for a tablet. Much prefer my iPads.
True but imagine the world of hurt Google would've found themselves in if Apple decided it no longer needed Google's services because they made their own, or found cheaper alternatives.
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?
Apple never insisted and was never in support of saying that owning both the hardware and software was evil. The "Big Brother" commercial was a response to the DOMINANT market share that IBM had at that time. IBM was the Microsoft of the early 1980s. If the "Big Brother" commercial was run in 1996, Microsoft would have been the target.
Quote:
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.
You are contradicting yourself multiple times in the above paragraph. If Apple can be avoided then why are you implying that it is similar to the "Big Brother" in the commercial? The "Big Brother" commercial was directed at IBM precisely because IBM could not be avoided at that time. A "Big Brother" commercial should have been created in mid-1990s for Microsoft.
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.
Let's not forget IBM's OS/2.
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.
You apparently don't understand Microsoft's anticompetitive practices. Of course nothing stopped consumers from installing Linux or OS/2 or PC-DOS or any other IBM clone OS on their computers. The key difference you failed to appreciate was that Microsoft ALREADY GOT ITS MONEY when the computer was sold to the consumer. This is called the MICROSOFT TOLL BRIDGE: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1012_3-5175536.html
So the consumer not only paid Microsoft for an operating system that the consumer did not want, the consumer also had to pay a different OS vendor (OS/2, Novell, PC-DOS, etc.) to install a different OS on their computer. Linux didn't exist in the public consciousness in 1995; at that time, the only viable operating systems that could be loaded on a PC was Novell, OS/2 and PC-DOS all of which weren't free.
So why would a consumer pay TWICE to get a different operating system? That how the PC clone market became a Wintel market. If Microsoft hadn't prevented OEMs from pre-installing different operating systems, the competitive landscape in the PC clone operating system would have been very different.
While I agree that this is a change for MS, I would hardly consider their Monopoly ended and I would certainly not be convinced that the Microsoft strategy failed. Windows is on 4 out of 5 computers in the world!
It could be in every computer in the world besides the one used by Steve Jobs and still be a failure if that particular computer had a stronger ecosystem, superior quality, superior UI and was more lucrative than all others combined.
Like the Mac.
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?
You are making a common mistake. You are comparing Apple computers to Windows computers. Apple does not, and never has, competed with Microsoft. They have targeted them in their ads, but it's not who they are competing against. Their competition is Dell. And HP. And even, back in the day, IBM (now Lenovo, of course).
Now, marketing against Microsoft is easier than trying to go after every two bit PC maker, since the key thing all those PC makers have in common is that they sell Windows PCs. The "superiority" of the Mac OS over Windows is a convenient selling point, nothing more. The actual competition for market share is against the hardware manufacturers.
The same applies now, where the iPhone is really competing against Samsung and HTC, not Google, but the key marketing factor is iOS versus Android.
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.
That's kind of like saying "Sure he killed his brother and became king, but he only did it the once." The anti-competitive practices got MS to where they are, and they only stopped them when forced to by a number of legal actions by consumers who didn't want to pay for Windows when they were going to put Linux on the box anyway. The damage had already been done, though, and now Microsoft doesn't need to use it's anticompetitive practices to maintain its position.
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.
Not at all true. Back in the 90s, they sold a range of computers at a variety of pricepoints, from really expensive top end workstations, down to entry-level. And they nearly went bankrupt around the same time.
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.
There was no demand for Linux because most users didn't even know it existed. The ones that did, thought it was a really technical thing that you needed a degree in Computer Science to understand.
How many big department stores had Linux running on the PCs on display? How many TV ads did PC manufacturers do demonstrating the advantages of Linux on their platform? No, they advertised Windows PCs, because all their PCs came with Windows.
I'm saying anyone who wants to run Linux can. There are NO BARRIERS to that. Microsoft is not preventing you from installing Linux. Microsoft only took choice away from OEMs. They didn't take choice away from customers. So the measured customer adoption rate of Linux reflects actual real-world customer demand for it. That statement is practically a tautology. How can you disagree with that?
Easy, like this: The average PC buyer wants to buy a computer with as little hassle as possible. They have no idea that they have a choice to install a different OS to the one it comes with, and if they did they'd wonder why they should bother, since they've already paid for Windows.
The average PC buyer is not making an informed choice of OS, they are making a mildly informed choice of hardware. They are relying on someone else to tell them what OS to go with, and usually that person is the one trying to sell them the PC. If department stores sold computers running Linux, more people would be running Linux at home.
Do you really believe customer don't think about whether their new PC can run Office or their favorite games? Do they just accept it when they can't? People used to buy computers to run specific programs. They know what OS they're getting. If customers were that accepting of whatever their computer came with, why didn't they accept Windows Vista? Why did they demand Windows XP downgrade rights? OEMs can't trick people into using Linux. That'll never work.
Customers do think about that. But, then again, they rely on other people to tell them what is possible, and even what is desirable. Vista was a special case, since it was so horrible. Even so, a large number of users didn't downgrade to XP. There are machines out there, still running Vista in some form, because the people who bought them didn't notice any problems, or didn't care.
Your basic problem seems to be that you think that everyone knows the same things you do. That is not so. People can't make an informed choice if they don't have all the information. And most people don't even know where to start getting all this information from.
Think thread got lost a while ago. The original response I made was to a comment made to the effect that all iTunes (not iDevice) account holders were affluent. That's just not true. On the other hand Apple users in general (according to every study I've ever seen published) are more affluent, educated, travel more, etc. I don't disagree with that at all. I simply disagreed with an earlier post about there being 700 million affluent people in the world. If you look at the global distribution of wealth and compare it to iTunes account holders, you'll find far more iTunes patrons than affluent people, assuming reasonable standard for what's to be considered affluent. That was all. Nothing more, nothing less.
You were previously advised by other posters to improve on your reading and comprehension skills and that you had confused causal effects. You do it again here.
Firstly, you have totally misquoted me. I never said "all" iTunes account holders were affluent. What I actually said was " with the advantage of Apple having over 700 million loyal, affluent iOS users locked into their eco-system." "ALL" is YOUR INVENTION AND MISREPRESENTATION. It goes without saying (except in your case) that amongst the 700 million iOS users there would be a huge rage of actual wealth or disposable income.
In your reply you said "700 million affluent iOS users? There aren't 700 million affluent people on the planet Earth, using this, that, or the other. That one blew my mind."
mhiki in post #37 explained to you how you had misunderstood and misinterpreted what I had said "1. 700 million is roughly 1/10 the worlds population. Affluence is a relative word. At least 1/10 of the world could afford a top line mobile device. (1/10 would include breadwinner(s) spouse & children with at least 1 quality device.)"
The key point is that in this context "Affluent" is a relative term, not an absolute term as you are misinterpreting it.
In my post #50 I also confirmed that I was using "Affluent" as a relative term when I replied to you saying: "Every survey I have seen seen has found that iOS users are better educated, more affluent, travel more, user the internet more and buy more on the internet than Android users." You actually say you agree with my statement clarifying what I said, but you also misquote by inserting the word "ALL" into what I originally said, which gives a totally different meaning to what I originally said.
Regarding the relative affluence of Apple users it is interesting to read a cnbc report about one of these surveys profiling Apple users:
"Apples Are Growing in American Homes"
"That’s more than 55 million homes with at least one iPhone, iPad, iPod or Mac computer. And one-in-10 homes that aren’t currently in that group plan to join it in the next year.
But Apple doesn’t have to worry about brand saturation any time soon. Americans don’t stop with just one device. Homes that own least one Apple, own an average of three. Overall, the average household has 1.6 Apple devices, with almost one-quarter planning to buy at least one more in the next year.
“It's a fantastic business model — the more of our products you own, the more likely you are to buy more,” says Jay Campbell, a vice president of Hart Research Associates, which conducts the CNBC survey along with Bill McInturff. “Planned obsolescence has always been a part of the technology industries sales model, but Apple has taken it to a whole new level.”
Our survey shows Apple buyers tend to be male, college-educated, and younger. They’re just as likely to own a home as not. Not surprisingly, the more money you earn, the more Apple products you’re likely to own.
Just 28 percent of those making less than $30,000 a year own at least one, compared with 77 percent of those making more than $75,000. Those on the higher end of the income scale own an average of about three Apple devices, compared with 0.6 for lower-income homes."
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...
How is Microsoft anything but a "locked down operating system?"
And with Microsoft's business model, the only company making money is Microsoft. The OEMs have been robbed of the ability to differentiate their system in any way other than price, forcing them to fight over table scraps.
In the business world, success or failure is measured by profits. That's what helps a business pay its employees, fund R&D on the next product, and most importantly, keep the lights on at the office. The OEMs are part of the huge marketshare for Windows, but they don't have much to show for it. Profit is important for customers too. If a product line is profitable, the business is likely to continue to support that particular product line with solid investments in R&D and the like. IMO, you don't want to be buying products from a manufacturer that doesn't care about the products it is making.
You get what you pay for. GNU/Linux if open source and free, but you're on your own when you download the software. If you have a problem, you have to read through pages and pages of comments on a forum. A business user will likely not be interested in that stuff. What you call a "locked down closed operating system" is an out-of-box solution that is ready for use. It's all a matter of values.
As for having no compatibility to similar hardware, can you give me an example?
You didn't have to say ALL since as of June 2013, the iTunes Store possesses 575 million active user accounts, and serves over 315 million mobile devices, including iPods, iPhones and iPads, so over 700 million is ALL and then some.
You apparently don't understand Microsoft's anticompetitive practices. Of course nothing stopped consumers from installing Linux or OS/2 or PC-DOS or any other IBM clone OS on their computers. The key difference you failed to appreciate was that Microsoft ALREADY GOT ITS MONEY when the computer was sold to the consumer. This is called the MICROSOFT TOLL BRIDGE: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1012_3-5175536.html
So the consumer not only paid Microsoft for an operating system that the consumer did not want, the consumer also had to pay a different OS vendor (OS/2, Novell, PC-DOS, etc.) to install a different OS on their computer. Linux didn't exist in the public consciousness in 1995; at that time, the only viable operating systems that could be loaded on a PC was Novell, OS/2 and PC-DOS all of which weren't free.
So why would a consumer pay TWICE to get a different operating system? That how the PC clone market became a Wintel market. If Microsoft hadn't prevented OEMs from pre-installing different operating systems, the competitive landscape in the PC clone operating system would have been very different.
I am not disputing that Microsoft's licensing practices were anticompetitive.
I am disputing the claim that (and I am quoting your previous post): "If it wasn't for these illegal Microsoft business practices, we would be seeing successful OSes on the market such as OS/2, BeOS, NEXTStep, etc."
The problem to adoption isn't this Microsoft "toll bridge". The problem is lack of broad consumer demand. Remember: OS/2, BeOS, and NextStep were preloaded on machines that weren't subject to Microsoft's "toll bridge": IBM-branded PCs could be purchased with OS/2, BeOS preloaded on every Be box, and NextStep preloaded on the NeXT workstations. These operating systems failed to reach critical mass without Microsoft's help.