koop

bulldogs said:

It is not a "race to the bottom" and Cook knows it. ChromeOS is not Windows or even Android. It is the Chrome browser and just enough of an OS to run it. That means that you can not only make a very good product by putting ChromeOS on outdated or low performance hardware i.e. Intel Celeron CPUs that were powering Windows XP PCs 10-15 years ago or Chinese ARM chips that are used to make throwaway Android phones, but make a decent profit on each device while doing so. The manufacturers are lining up to make these things because they are an excellent way to move parts that they would have to otherwise dispose of (i.e. pieces from all those Windows 8 devices that they never sold) or can get real cheap from suppliers looking to dump old inventory. 

I think that a lot of Apple fans have forgotten that being able to come up with good, inexpensive solutions to problems has always been a goal of engineering and product design. And as a Chromebook is A) cheaper than a comparable Windows PC and actually has a large enough screen, keyboard/mouse etc. to provide a good UI/UX for people who lack tech experience and expertise (which would by definition include most elementary and middle school kids as well as most high school kids in areas that aren't economically advantaged) as well as the management tools and products and services designed for educational environments that Apple lacks and most school districts do not have the resources or expertise to develop themselves, ChromeOS is precisely that: a success in engineering and product design that solves its problem in a cost effective way. Cook knows this, which is why he plays the "race to the bottom" canard and then tries to change the subject to the need to get kids to code. Never mind that it is almost certainly easier for your average 7th grader to learn to code on a Chromebook than a device with a 7.9 inch screen that has no keyboard or mouse.

It is almost as if certain people want everyone to use Apple hardware that the exclusion of everything else, and to spare no expense or resource in the pursuit of doing so. It would be far better to expect Apple to either provide products that actually do a better job of meeting real market needs - and yes cost is a legitimate need - or to simply stay out of markets when they cannot or do not want to do so. If you are someone who thinks that kids need to just learn how to use iPads, schools need to restructure their curriculums around them, and districts who can't afford them just need to raise taxes ... you are doing a great job of advocating for Apple but terrible when it comes to considering how technology is actually supposed to be used, which is to solve as many problems for as many people as possible, not merely to provide maximum benefit for a single company or that company's loyal consumers. 

simbalion said:

coolfactor said:

simbalion said:

rogifan_old said:

simbalion said:

Seriously. 9 months...of...Apple...Music. I'm sure the employees are jumping for joy. Seriously, why not make it a year? Or just give people access while they are employees? 9 months just seems like you're nickel and diming.

Are you not aware of the free three month trial? Tack nine months onto that and you get your year.

That just adds to the impression of nickel and diming.  EVERYONE gets a free three month trial.

I know the old saying "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" but these kinds of "gifts" from big corps to low level employees are met with more cynicism than you might think and I am of the mindset they don't create any goodwill.

Then I would be inclined to think that it's safer for the big corps to not give anything at all. They choose to give something and it backfires on them because the gift is not "good enough"? That fits in perfectly with the entitlement society we have come to know all too well.

Yep, unfortunately, that's what I've seen in working with/managing folks.  It's a sad sign of the times we live in.  It's really tough to balance the perception of things even as generous as "gifts."