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."
I really tried to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one. This has nothing to do with causality. You really like that word a lot, don't you? Also, why get insulting in your post and exclude me from your 700 million figure just because I think you're full of it? Causality, eh? If you got the impression I was asserting owning an iDevice either denotes or connotes affluence then you clearly misunderstood what I read. That doesn't surprise me though. According to the WHO 80% of the world lives on less than $10 a day. According to you the rest of the planet can afford an iPhone (the cheapest of which is $629) including one for spouses and kids. Just how naive are you? Apple's sales are limited because the world is comprised predominantly of people who can't afford iPhones. And let me tell you guy, I don't mean 9 in 10.
Microsoft's motivation is to sell software. Windows never offered users as good an experience as Apple. As somebody who uses both all the time I am constantly amazed and frustrated at how many faults and glitches there are in Windows, even after 30 years. Windows was succesful for one main reason, they successfully attracted developers so that most useful applications were on Windows. However, in mobile computing this advanatage is held by Apple, especially with the iPad and to a lesser extent Android smartphones. Microsoft tried unsuccessfully to pay and bribe developers to make Apps for Windows mobile, but this has failed.
<snip?
Hi there, by and large I agree with your post, however I would suggest that Microsoft's primary motivation is to prop up the share price. Microsoft don't SELL software, it is licensed, that's what the very small print states. The license restricts how and on what devices you can use the software.
I had a debate at work over software licensing - and numerous iOS developers would agree - better to make 10,000 sales at $5, or 1,000,000 sales at $1.49 than one sale at $1000... Microsoft have got themselves into a position where their O/S and Application suite are considered by the majority of businesses to be 'good enough' - which is why there is so little appetite for upgrading to Windows 8, 8.1 or Windows X, [sorry, the urge to pay homage to OS X was just too great ;-)].
The haemmorhaging of Windows PC sales under the combination of iPad, a recession and a product that is 'good enough' means that MS has had to find a new way of generating revenue - piloted by Xbox, the Xbox live account is a license to print money, in the UK the annual 'right to use' is about £40, that's about $60, roughly - multiply by the number of Xbox 360 sales because an Xbox is pretty useless without a live account and there you have a tidy revenue stream - $4.7bn at 78.2 million sales total (thanks Google and Wikipedia for providing the answer!) - in 2011 the actual online number was 30,000,000 - so the revenue drops to only $1.8bn, for running a few servers.
Microsoft have copied Google Docs by offering Office 365, online, on a subscription basis - this is the revenue stream that will prop up the share price indefinitely - ongoing, annual, repeatable licence fees delivered on a develop once, sell to millions. Its the model that is already active in the Gaming World, as my work colleague pointed out, its a model that solves loads of problems for software developers!, why not Microsoft...
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.
"Cheaper alternatives"? Google was/is paying good money to Apple to have their services defaulted on iOS.
But the Nexus line is far from being crap. It's awesome, actually.
Agreed, i had both the 2012 and current n7, the 2012 had
Some issues, the current one, we'll I have trouble deciding whether
I'm going to use it or my iPad. The new n7 is outstanding.
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.
There is no contradiction there. Apple tried to copy the exact model they despised, and had they succeeded the market would be in a lousy place and Apple would indeed be akin to Big Brother. DED is even going so far as to imply Apple 'invented' that model by saying everyone is trying to copy them into 'the Apple Era.' It is not a model Apple innovated, and as you pointed out, it is even one they failed at pulling off- mostly due to Android.
My argument is simply that consumers (whether Apple or Android) are better off for it. Apple fans get their tremendous highly integrated products- and yet still get the benefits of cost reductions because Apple can't simply raise prices as high as it likes.
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.
Interesting info on the subject (of which you're likely already aware, but others may not be):
I often view documents in Preview, and will rotate them for viewing purposes if they have the wrong orientation. Preview in OS X 10.8 immediately replaces the PDF or image on disk with the rotated version. It's annoying to watch the beach ball spin and wait for my hard drive to grind away when I quit Preview and elect to discard changes.
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.
There is no contradiction there. Apple tried to copy the exact model they despised, and had they succeeded the market would be in a lousy place and Apple would indeed be akin to Big Brother.
This is just PURE UNBRIDLED SPECULATION on your part. It is a fantasy to even think that Apple could have dominated market share in the same way as IBM or Microsoft if they had succeeded (and how exactly would you define success, anyway?). Your fantasy is the same canard pushed by Fandroids to justify "keeping Apple in check" advocating the copying of patented Apple technologies without permission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
It is not a model Apple innovated, and as you pointed out, it is even one they failed at pulling off- mostly due to Android.
My argument is simply that consumers (whether Apple or Android) are better off for it. Apple fans get their tremendous highly integrated products- and yet still get the benefits of cost reductions because Apple can't simply raise prices as high as it likes.
Android didn't exist in mid-1990s. What the heck are you talking about?? We have been discussing about the "Big Brother" ad and its relationship to IBM. Apple was never and will never be IBM not because of some stolen technologies but because they simply compete on basis of merits of their products, not by using anticompetitive tactics like Microsoft or IBM or using stolen technologies like Samsung or Motorola.
I would argue that very few companies can continue to operate not making money. Android may be winning the war, but will it will the battle?
Tech journalists are historically fond of calling the demise of technologies and companies, but few get it right. We will see how all this plays out.
I would also say that Google needs to be very careful. Microsoft demonstrably became the IBM of 1982 ... too fat, too slow, too much in its own way, and unable to innovate due to blinders so obvious, that I'm surprised Ballmer lasted this long.
I would argue that very few companies can continue to operate not making money. Android may be winning the war, but will it will the battle?
Tech journalists are historically fond of calling the demise of technologies and companies, but few get it right. We will see how all this plays out.
I would also say that Google needs to be very careful. Microsoft demonstrably became the IBM of 1982 ... too fat, too slow, too much in its own way, and unable to innovate due to blinders so obvious, that I'm surprised Ballmer lasted this long.
Google's making money it's most of the manufacturers that are losing.
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.
you have a very strange idea of history. When did Apple ever think that owning the hardware and the software was evil? From the very first Apple to the Apple II to the Mac to the Lisa to the iMac that every computer Apple makes they have always made the hardware and the software. The big brother commercial was about computing being dominated by IBM that's what big brother was about. The big brother metaphor came from people using IBM simply because they were computers they had to use at work not because they chose them as consumers. Apples choice to own the hardware and software is to give the consumer a better user experience. If Apple dominates in any hardware software device category because consumers choose to buy it because they like it better that's not a monopoly, that's good business and it certainly doesn't make them a big brother type company.
Slowly Microsoft will erode around from Viruses and Malware from websites in the next 19 years. Sadly because I really don't think they will ever give up on the "Windows Kernel."
Another thing to note is Microsoft people hate Apple products and some even Google products too that they will install their OS every 1-3 months after their whole hard drive gets "Contaminated." I mean seriously they have a windows recovery now on the tablets not really to mimic Apple's recovery. But for the plain and simple fact that when the system gets corrupt they can do re-installs of the OS in under 30 minutes. Which like I said they do every 1-3 months, on the advice of Tech Savvy support people.
I mean honestly, Mac people go alone year after year just upgrading on a somewhat yearly basis, upgrading their apps in addition, and working on projects and getting "More" done. Windows people browse the Web and use the works proprietary software and use it more like a database for tracking whatever products and inventory, or client tracking, not really innovating or coming up with something new for their company or workplace.
The sickest part of all of this is that there are probably, and this is an estimate, a 1/4 of the workplaces in the country that use Windows OS, and are NOT allowed to use the web, not because they are afraid of FaceBook and social media, but because they don't want to have to make the IT guy re-install the OS and proprietary Apps from the "Consultant" companies who rake them over the coals. So honestly? 2013 and you are not allowed to go on the Web at work if you use Windows?
Please! Stop just stop lying to yourself people. And this is the problem, they lie to themselves and will not admit failure. But this is LIFE. People have this problem admitting failure AND THEY WON'T and THEY NEVER WILL. But we DON'T get ANYTHING from it anyway what another Mac user, they are getting what they want, re-installs every 1-3 months, and they keep taking it. Over 5 years of this.
Mac users need to get over this and understand Macs won the OS war, but there are NO SPOILS. We get nothing from being RIGHT. Unless you revel in laughing at Windows users loosing all their files and photos, bookmarks, system settings etc. I don't though I just think it's sad, but it's what THEY WANT...
It’s never been about whether the vendor controls the hardware and the software, or just the software. It’s always been about whether the vendor has control, or the user.
IBM and AT&T (Bell), and GE were some of the first allowed to commercialize technology that was formerly the exclusive domain of the “intelligence community” (see “Collousus” ENIAC, etc.) They controlled everything. User’s could not even own the machines, but “leased” them.
When the reality of the potential to home-build the hardware came about in the 1970’s, the quick-fix that allowed control to be maintained was to make the software “proprietary.” IBM was secure, UNIX was quickly “fixed,” and Microsoft emerged to fill the temporary niche formed by the flood of junky consumer hardware. Technically, the code was secret, and legally it was proprietary and could only be used under license terms. Effectively, you were not in control.
Perhaps even more importantly, the interconnects or “internet” of the computers was locked up. If you want to interconnect, you have to have one of “their” addresses. If you want a connection, you’re restricted to approved middle-men that enforce the handling your traffic and profit from their exclusive rights to it (eg. peddling the metadata).
Look for the technology that actually allows you to shut-out the middleman and take control of your own computing. The most significant functions are flat-out illegal. But the few potential alternatives that do exist are often just lost to the overwhelming success of the winners that are chosen and financed because they do in fact contribute to the “surveillance engine” paradigm. That term is not quite accurate because surveillance is only part of the intention that doesn’t fully describe the control and manipulation that is done in a way that makes you think that what you know is all there is.
Your disputation of my claim has no standing. You cited examples of computers that could be purchased with OS/2, BeOS, and NextSTEP loaded. However, your examples contradict the very argument you are attempting to make. BeOS is a Be Inc. product available on Be, Inc. computers ONLY and Be doesn't sell Wintel computers. NextSTEP is a Next Inc. product available on Next workstations ONLY and Next doesn't sell Wintel computers. The MacOS is an Apple product available on Apple computers ONLY and Apple doesn't sell Wintel computers. Do you see where I am going with this? OS/2 was an IBM product available on IBM-branded PCs ONLY but because IBM also sold Wintel PCs, it was forced to drop OS/2 due to pressure from Microsoft. Not because of any lack of consumer demand
That's not quite true. Be and NeXT both failed selling their own hardware, and transitioned to selling their OSes to run on "Wintel" hardware, where they eventually died. (Until Apple bought NeXT, of course.) This in spite of being popular with the tech community (or at least segments of it), and attempting both the "Apple way" and then the "Microsoft way". Their real problem was not being able to get their products (hardware or software) into the places where ordinary people might buy them. Even if they had, they would have needed the support of the sales staff. (Here in Australia, the tendency of department store staff to discourage people from buying Macs is legendary.)
Yes that was the period, Apple's product line was confusing and had little to almost no innovation in them. It's a very different Apple today
In fairness, that wasn't the only reason they were going bankrupt, but it was a big one. Anyway, my point was that their "low" marketshare wasn't due to not selling computers at a particular pricepoint. The real "problem" with Apple's marketshare is that people continue to compare it to all Windows PCs sold, rather than to each PC manufacturer's sales. Compared to the sales at Dell, Asus, etc they're competitive.
That's not quite true. Be and NeXT both failed selling their own hardware, and transitioned to selling their OSes to run on "Wintel" hardware, where they eventually died. (Until Apple bought NeXT, of course.) This in spite of being popular with the tech community (or at least segments of it), and attempting both the "Apple way" and then the "Microsoft way". Their real problem was not being able to get their products (hardware or software) into the places where ordinary people might buy them. Even if they had, they would have needed the support of the sales staff. (Here in Australia, the tendency of department store staff to discourage people from buying Macs is legendary.)
Envision this happening in 1995:
Dell, Compaq, HP, Packard Bell, Gateway, etc all decide that they want to expand their product lines by offering similar computers with different operating system. They would purchase operating systems from Be, NeXT, IBM, etc. at wholesale volume discounts, pre-load them on their computers, market these computers through their distribution channels, and let the consumers select the computers based on the merits of the Operating System alone (since computers with different OSes would be configured the same hardware-wise in each product line).
This is what a competitive OS marketplace means. Not only do the hardware companies compete on basis of their hardware, they also let the consumers choose the operating system.
Why wasn't this choice available to consumers from the big Wintel computer manufacturers? Why weren't Be, IBM, NexT able to get their operating system pre-loaded on the PC clone makers' computers? It can't be because they were charging too much for the operating systems. . they were small enough to be able to undercut Microsoft in the OS pricing.
Slowly Microsoft will erode around from Viruses and Malware from websites in the next 19 years. Sadly because I really don't think they will ever give up on the "Windows Kernel."
Another thing to note is Microsoft people hate Apple products and some even Google products too that they will install their OS every 1-3 months after their whole hard drive gets "Contaminated." I mean seriously they have a windows recovery now on the tablets not really to mimic Apple's recovery. But for the plain and simple fact that when the system gets corrupt they can do re-installs of the OS in under 30 minutes. Which like I said they do every 1-3 months, on the advice of Tech Savvy support people.
I mean honestly, Mac people go alone year after year just upgrading on a somewhat yearly basis, upgrading their apps in addition, and working on projects and getting "More" done. Windows people browse the Web and use the works proprietary software and use it more like a database for tracking whatever products and inventory, or client tracking, not really innovating or coming up with something new for their company or workplace.
The sickest part of all of this is that there are probably, and this is an estimate, a 1/4 of the workplaces in the country that use Windows OS, and are NOT allowed to use the web, not because they are afraid of FaceBook and social media, but because they don't want to have to make the IT guy re-install the OS and proprietary Apps from the "Consultant" companies who rake them over the coals. So honestly? 2013 and you are not allowed to go on the Web at work if you use Windows?
Please! Stop just stop lying to yourself people. And this is the problem, they lie to themselves and will not admit failure. But this is LIFE. People have this problem admitting failure AND THEY WON'T and THEY NEVER WILL. But we DON'T get ANYTHING from it anyway what another Mac user, they are getting what they want, re-installs every 1-3 months, and they keep taking it. Over 5 years of this.
Mac users need to get over this and understand Macs won the OS war, but there are NO SPOILS. We get nothing from being RIGHT. Unless you revel in laughing at Windows users loosing all their files and photos, bookmarks, system settings etc. I don't though I just think it's sad, but it's what THEY WANT...
Why wasn't this choice available to consumers from the big Wintel computer manufacturers? Why weren't Be, IBM, NexT able to get their operating system pre-loaded on the PC clone makers' computers? It can't be because they were charging too much for the operating systems. . they were small enough to be able to undercut Microsoft in the OS pricing.
Basically, MS's anti-competitive practices again. Be tried to get deals with PC manufacturers, but they claim MS directly intervened to stop them going through.
NeXTStep was sold mainly to enterprise, and had some success, but that came to an end with the Apple deal (which also pretty much destroyed Be's last chance at survival).
Comments
I really tried to give you the benefit of the doubt on that one. This has nothing to do with causality. You really like that word a lot, don't you? Also, why get insulting in your post and exclude me from your 700 million figure just because I think you're full of it? Causality, eh? If you got the impression I was asserting owning an iDevice either denotes or connotes affluence then you clearly misunderstood what I read. That doesn't surprise me though. According to the WHO 80% of the world lives on less than $10 a day. According to you the rest of the planet can afford an iPhone (the cheapest of which is $629) including one for spouses and kids. Just how naive are you? Apple's sales are limited because the world is comprised predominantly of people who can't afford iPhones. And let me tell you guy, I don't mean 9 in 10.
<snip>Microsoft's motivation is to sell software. Windows never offered users as good an experience as Apple. As somebody who uses both all the time I am constantly amazed and frustrated at how many faults and glitches there are in Windows, even after 30 years. Windows was succesful for one main reason, they successfully attracted developers so that most useful applications were on Windows. However, in mobile computing this advanatage is held by Apple, especially with the iPad and to a lesser extent Android smartphones. Microsoft tried unsuccessfully to pay and bribe developers to make Apps for Windows mobile, but this has failed.
<snip?Hi there, by and large I agree with your post, however I would suggest that Microsoft's primary motivation is to prop up the share price. Microsoft don't SELL software, it is licensed, that's what the very small print states. The license restricts how and on what devices you can use the software.
I had a debate at work over software licensing - and numerous iOS developers would agree - better to make 10,000 sales at $5, or 1,000,000 sales at $1.49 than one sale at $1000... Microsoft have got themselves into a position where their O/S and Application suite are considered by the majority of businesses to be 'good enough' - which is why there is so little appetite for upgrading to Windows 8, 8.1 or Windows X, [sorry, the urge to pay homage to OS X was just too great ;-)].
The haemmorhaging of Windows PC sales under the combination of iPad, a recession and a product that is 'good enough' means that MS has had to find a new way of generating revenue - piloted by Xbox, the Xbox live account is a license to print money, in the UK the annual 'right to use' is about £40, that's about $60, roughly - multiply by the number of Xbox 360 sales because an Xbox is pretty useless without a live account and there you have a tidy revenue stream - $4.7bn at 78.2 million sales total (thanks Google and Wikipedia for providing the answer!) - in 2011 the actual online number was 30,000,000 - so the revenue drops to only $1.8bn, for running a few servers.
Microsoft have copied Google Docs by offering Office 365, online, on a subscription basis - this is the revenue stream that will prop up the share price indefinitely - ongoing, annual, repeatable licence fees delivered on a develop once, sell to millions. Its the model that is already active in the Gaming World, as my work colleague pointed out, its a model that solves loads of problems for software developers!, why not Microsoft...
Agreed, i had both the 2012 and current n7, the 2012 had
Some issues, the current one, we'll I have trouble deciding whether
I'm going to use it or my iPad. The new n7 is outstanding.
Question is how much more were they making in return? I'm sure it was a handsome sum. Money at one point Apple might very have wanted for themselves.
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.
There is no contradiction there. Apple tried to copy the exact model they despised, and had they succeeded the market would be in a lousy place and Apple would indeed be akin to Big Brother. DED is even going so far as to imply Apple 'invented' that model by saying everyone is trying to copy them into 'the Apple Era.' It is not a model Apple innovated, and as you pointed out, it is even one they failed at pulling off- mostly due to Android.
My argument is simply that consumers (whether Apple or Android) are better off for it. Apple fans get their tremendous highly integrated products- and yet still get the benefits of cost reductions because Apple can't simply raise prices as high as it likes.
Great article!
"iPod stomped PlaysForSure into the horse manure." should read "... into horse manure."
I would've also mentioned how SGI replaced their IRIX OS with Windows NT and instantly lost their 3D and video customers to Microsoft.
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.
Interesting info on the subject (of which you're likely already aware, but others may not be):
http://osxdaily.com/2012/08/22/turn-off-auto-save-os-x/
http://tidbits.com/article/13187
So it's a design point heh?
The iPhone is great, isn't it?
Hard drive? That is soooo 1954
This is all Greek to me.
There is no contradiction there. Apple tried to copy the exact model they despised, and had they succeeded the market would be in a lousy place and Apple would indeed be akin to Big Brother.
This is just PURE UNBRIDLED SPECULATION on your part. It is a fantasy to even think that Apple could have dominated market share in the same way as IBM or Microsoft if they had succeeded (and how exactly would you define success, anyway?). Your fantasy is the same canard pushed by Fandroids to justify "keeping Apple in check" advocating the copying of patented Apple technologies without permission.
It is not a model Apple innovated, and as you pointed out, it is even one they failed at pulling off- mostly due to Android.
My argument is simply that consumers (whether Apple or Android) are better off for it. Apple fans get their tremendous highly integrated products- and yet still get the benefits of cost reductions because Apple can't simply raise prices as high as it likes.
Android didn't exist in mid-1990s. What the heck are you talking about?? We have been discussing about the "Big Brother" ad and its relationship to IBM. Apple was never and will never be IBM not because of some stolen technologies but because they simply compete on basis of merits of their products, not by using anticompetitive tactics like Microsoft or IBM or using stolen technologies like Samsung or Motorola.
Tech journalists are historically fond of calling the demise of technologies and companies, but few get it right. We will see how all this plays out.
I would also say that Google needs to be very careful. Microsoft demonstrably became the IBM of 1982 ... too fat, too slow, too much in its own way, and unable to innovate due to blinders so obvious, that I'm surprised Ballmer lasted this long.
Google's making money it's most of the manufacturers that are losing.
you have a very strange idea of history. When did Apple ever think that owning the hardware and the software was evil? From the very first Apple to the Apple II to the Mac to the Lisa to the iMac that every computer Apple makes they have always made the hardware and the software. The big brother commercial was about computing being dominated by IBM that's what big brother was about. The big brother metaphor came from people using IBM simply because they were computers they had to use at work not because they chose them as consumers. Apples choice to own the hardware and software is to give the consumer a better user experience. If Apple dominates in any hardware software device category because consumers choose to buy it because they like it better that's not a monopoly, that's good business and it certainly doesn't make them a big brother type company.
Another thing to note is Microsoft people hate Apple products and some even Google products too that they will install their OS every 1-3 months after their whole hard drive gets "Contaminated." I mean seriously they have a windows recovery now on the tablets not really to mimic Apple's recovery. But for the plain and simple fact that when the system gets corrupt they can do re-installs of the OS in under 30 minutes. Which like I said they do every 1-3 months, on the advice of Tech Savvy support people.
I mean honestly, Mac people go alone year after year just upgrading on a somewhat yearly basis, upgrading their apps in addition, and working on projects and getting "More" done. Windows people browse the Web and use the works proprietary software and use it more like a database for tracking whatever products and inventory, or client tracking, not really innovating or coming up with something new for their company or workplace.
The sickest part of all of this is that there are probably, and this is an estimate, a 1/4 of the workplaces in the country that use Windows OS, and are NOT allowed to use the web, not because they are afraid of FaceBook and social media, but because they don't want to have to make the IT guy re-install the OS and proprietary Apps from the "Consultant" companies who rake them over the coals. So honestly? 2013 and you are not allowed to go on the Web at work if you use Windows?
Please! Stop just stop lying to yourself people. And this is the problem, they lie to themselves and will not admit failure. But this is LIFE. People have this problem admitting failure AND THEY WON'T and THEY NEVER WILL. But we DON'T get ANYTHING from it anyway what another Mac user, they are getting what they want, re-installs every 1-3 months, and they keep taking it. Over 5 years of this.
Mac users need to get over this and understand Macs won the OS war, but there are NO SPOILS. We get nothing from being RIGHT. Unless you revel in laughing at Windows users loosing all their files and photos, bookmarks, system settings etc. I don't though I just think it's sad, but it's what THEY WANT...
IBM and AT&T (Bell), and GE were some of the first allowed to commercialize technology that was formerly the exclusive domain of the “intelligence community” (see “Collousus” ENIAC, etc.) They controlled everything. User’s could not even own the machines, but “leased” them.
When the reality of the potential to home-build the hardware came about in the 1970’s, the quick-fix that allowed control to be maintained was to make the software “proprietary.” IBM was secure, UNIX was quickly “fixed,” and Microsoft emerged to fill the temporary niche formed by the flood of junky consumer hardware. Technically, the code was secret, and legally it was proprietary and could only be used under license terms. Effectively, you were not in control.
Perhaps even more importantly, the interconnects or “internet” of the computers was locked up. If you want to interconnect, you have to have one of “their” addresses. If you want a connection, you’re restricted to approved middle-men that enforce the handling your traffic and profit from their exclusive rights to it (eg. peddling the metadata).
Look for the technology that actually allows you to shut-out the middleman and take control of your own computing. The most significant functions are flat-out illegal. But the few potential alternatives that do exist are often just lost to the overwhelming success of the winners that are chosen and financed because they do in fact contribute to the “surveillance engine” paradigm. That term is not quite accurate because surveillance is only part of the intention that doesn’t fully describe the control and manipulation that is done in a way that makes you think that what you know is all there is.
In fairness, that wasn't the only reason they were going bankrupt, but it was a big one. Anyway, my point was that their "low" marketshare wasn't due to not selling computers at a particular pricepoint. The real "problem" with Apple's marketshare is that people continue to compare it to all Windows PCs sold, rather than to each PC manufacturer's sales. Compared to the sales at Dell, Asus, etc they're competitive.
That's not quite true. Be and NeXT both failed selling their own hardware, and transitioned to selling their OSes to run on "Wintel" hardware, where they eventually died. (Until Apple bought NeXT, of course.) This in spite of being popular with the tech community (or at least segments of it), and attempting both the "Apple way" and then the "Microsoft way". Their real problem was not being able to get their products (hardware or software) into the places where ordinary people might buy them. Even if they had, they would have needed the support of the sales staff. (Here in Australia, the tendency of department store staff to discourage people from buying Macs is legendary.)
Envision this happening in 1995:
Dell, Compaq, HP, Packard Bell, Gateway, etc all decide that they want to expand their product lines by offering similar computers with different operating system. They would purchase operating systems from Be, NeXT, IBM, etc. at wholesale volume discounts, pre-load them on their computers, market these computers through their distribution channels, and let the consumers select the computers based on the merits of the Operating System alone (since computers with different OSes would be configured the same hardware-wise in each product line).
This is what a competitive OS marketplace means. Not only do the hardware companies compete on basis of their hardware, they also let the consumers choose the operating system.
Why wasn't this choice available to consumers from the big Wintel computer manufacturers? Why weren't Be, IBM, NexT able to get their operating system pre-loaded on the PC clone makers' computers? It can't be because they were charging too much for the operating systems. . they were small enough to be able to undercut Microsoft in the OS pricing.
(Is this one for real..?)
NeXTStep was sold mainly to enterprise, and had some success, but that came to an end with the Apple deal (which also pretty much destroyed Be's last chance at survival).