robbyx

palomine said:

Database software is absolutely CRITICAL for business. I hope they are improving the advanced side of this app. Companies run Windows databases because FileMaker hasn't been adequate. Last time I looked it was still hard to do a basic table layout and joins. Apple could jump into the enterprise right now if this software is up to the task. The same goes for the other usual office applications. Maybe IBM will fill the gap?

I'm not saying this to be a jerk, but you clearly don't understand Filemaker.  Filemaker is extremely popular on Windows.  Table layouts are standard and joins are effortless.  When was the last time you used Filemaker?  I'd suggest downloading the trial and giving it a spin.  It's every bit as powerful as Access and far easier from a development standpoint, not to mention cross-platform, supports iOS beautifully, and allows you to deploy your custom app on the web with a single click. I've been working with it since version 2.

jmgregory1 said:

I would go a step further and suggest that in the case of many, if not most, universities and large businesses, the reason why there is a continuation of the MS based PC hardware and software is the fact that the very people who direct and work in the IT departments:
1. are MS die-hard fans / users
2. need to justify their existence
3. buy into the "low" cost hardware available

Sure, there can be issues with software that doesn't have a Mac alternative, but given the fact that Apple addressed that years ago with Bootcamp making the MacBook Pro what used to be considered the best PC you could buy, suggests that's not a good excuse.

#3 for the win.  I disagree with your Bootcamp argument and think software availability is a key factor. There are many industry-specific applications that aren't available for Mac.  No business is going to spend a premium on Mac hardware just to run Windows.  And users aren't going to reboot to jump between MacOS and Windows multiple times a day.  Plus Bootcamp requires the purchase of a Windows license, which makes it even more expensive (and pointless) to buy a Mac if you need a Windows application.  It's really just about hardware cost and software availability.  Most businesses don't care about the overall ownership cost either. They just care about what it costs today.

Rayz2016 said:

SpamSandwich said:

jonagold said:

As a long time shareholder I'm sure glad to see my shares being diluted by this guy. What has he done for the company?  You'd a thought he would have used his valuable political pull to open up repatriation or something...looks like Trump might be giving us that free of charge.  And who made this jetsetter the environmental expert?  I'm sure his 2¢ on the matter don't add up to half of one. 

I agree. If Apple wants to have itself marginally insulated from getting shafted in Washington, they need to face the music and get away from their one-sided political views. About half of the US disagrees with the progressive political views of their board. It's unwise to be tunnel visioned.

Maybe they're focussing on the progressive half that can adapt to change and so earns the most money. 

This. All of those angry red state people in trailer parks, living off liberal California and New York money as they wait for their coal jobs to come back...aren't exactly Apple's customers. 

To all the people freaked out about "privacy", seriously, what has Google or Facebook done that is so worrisome?  They collect information to help give you more of what you want. How is that bad?  I see people on forums screaming bloody murder over Google "stealing" their private info, and I just have to laugh at the histrionics.  I see no evidence of Google or Facebook doing anything other than providing more focused and relevant information to their users. 

ttollerton said:

That just looks boring and uninspired.  Christmas is a season of celebration and joy (and this is explicitly called the Claridge CHRISTMAS tree installation).  

There is nothing about that setup that makes me feel joyful.  Complete fail by Ive.  Ive is usually really good about tying function and design, but this just looks like some shallow attempt to produce something "chic."

I find this installation very interesting, not for what it fails to accomplish, but rather the bold statement it makes about the future. I agree that it lacks a holiday feel, but I don't agree that it is without joy. It feels like a magical forest to me, like something out of a fairy tale.

The one thing that is completely missing, however, is Christmas.  No symbolism. No signs of religion. They say they want to respect tradition (the magical winter glade), but are excited about the future (the brightly lit lone tree, unadorned, unshackled from the old ways). What future do they see?  The one free of religion?  That's what I see here and I applaud them for their bold interpretation.