freeper

crowley said:

A shame. Seemed like good tech.

It wasn't. Canonical is the Ubuntu/Debian version of Red Hat I suppose. The problem is that as most enterprise Linux users prefer Red Hat, Canonical chose to focus on consumer users ... while still using Red Hat's open source business model. So while enterprise users are perfectly willing to pay huge amounts of money for what is essentially a free and community supported OS for support reasons, consumers had no reason to do the same. Ubuntu's first strategy was to try to get consumers, small businesses, schools etc. to switch from Windows to Ubuntu for PCs. There was a little avenue there, because Ubuntu still runs great on older hardware that performed poorly on Windows 7, and Ubuntu lacked the virus problems that Windows had before they started putting security tools in the base software. 

But after Apple created the iPhone and iPad, they shifted from trying to get PC users to switch - again  where they were making slow but steady progress - to trying to take on Apple and Android in mobile. Like Ballmer, they had the great idea to try to use the same UI for their mobile, desktop and server versions of the software. Well the mobile version had no chance of succeeding. They lacked the money that Apple, Microsoft and even Google had to get their products out to people. They also had no apps. Like Microsoft is currently pushing with Windows 10 and Continuum (Ubuntu had this idea first) they felt that they could close the app gap with Android because their desktop applications could also run on phones and tablets because Ubuntu really only needs 1 GB of RAM. Had no chance of working because Ubuntu applications were not designed or optimized for small touch screens, and there was absolutely no developer interest in adapting them because there was no money in it. Ubuntu also tried to come up with a new, innovative UX/UI to differentiate themselves from iOS (and Android), and also to provide people with a practical way to use desktop application on a mobile interface, but it was unusable.

The worst part was that where the previous Ubuntu interface - a ripoff of Windows XP - was outstanding, and in fact better than Windows XP in many ways, Unity - a lesser ripoff of iOS I suppose - made everything more difficult on a non-touchscreen desktop. As a result, the slow momentum that Ubuntu had in getting Windows users to switch came to a standstill and was reversed. Ubuntu couldn't even take advantage of the mess that was Windows 8 because their desktop was actually even worse. So scores of former Ubuntu users ultimately switched to Fedora, which is Red Hat's desktop competitor to Ubuntu. This despite Ubuntu having much more software available for desktop users due to being the Linux desktop of choice for ages. 

It is not an exaggeration to say that Canonical ruined Ubuntu when they took control of the formerly open source community led effort and tried to make money off it. Thanks to their failed meddling, lots of even the Ubuntu diehards switched to Debian (on which Ubuntu is based). Even if Ubuntu had come out with good tech and a good product - and they did neither - they didn't have the billions of capital that it took to compete in this space anyway. Had they stuck with getting schools, techies and small businesses to switch from Windows PCs as well as doing a better job of competing with Red Hat and the other enterprise-focused distros in the server market, they would have done a lot better for themselves.

brif said:

I am happy to hear Mac Mini is still alive. It is, IMO, stuck in a vicious cycle of being underrated and underpowered, one the result of the other. Personally, I wonder why Apple doesn't tout it like the ultimate small business machine: I cannot help but think that many smaller companies would be better off buying it instead of buying low-spec'd PCs and then spending a fortune on maintenance.

Pardon me, but this mentality is precisely why Mac Minis never caught on. Rather than make a legitimate attempt to compete for market share in the PC market, Apple chose to play to the idea that people chose Windows devices over Macs merely because they are cheap, so they threw a bare bones low spec device at people and claimed "here Windows cheapskates now you have no excuse for avoiding our superior brand and tech!" Please. First off, no one is buying desktops anymore. Everyone buys laptops. Which puts a device with no display, keyboard, trackpad/mouse functionality or battery/mobility at a huge disadvantage. For goodness sakes, a company - no matter the size - would have more use for an iPad than an underpowered desktop. And that is another thing: it is underpowered. People do pay attention to specs, even the ignorant, unwashed cheap Microsoft consumers. Virtually no one is going to buy something with 4 GB of RAM and a middling CPU ... basically the same specs that even Chromebooks have these days. A device with so little power can't be used to do much in the way of actual work, even if it does come with macOS, and everyone knows it. Yes, there are bargain basement Windows laptops with 4 GB of RAM and i3 or i5 processors and 100 Mbit Ethernet and/or 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi being sold, but not very many, and nearly all of them are being bought by consumers, not businesses, small or otherwise. Apple is perfectly capable of making laptops that can actually compete with, say, a Dell XPS on specs while costs just a little bit more while still giving a good margin. Just as they were able to sell an iPad for $299 and eventually finally gave in and started selling iPhones for $399 (albeit years too late for it to matter). Why don't they? The same reason why they didn't make iPhones with screens bigger than 4 inches until 4-5 years after it was obvious that such devices were useful and popular: stubbornness and pride.

jkichline said:

When you're giving away devices and an OS for negative profit whilst stealing personal information and giving it to the government, you're sure to dominate marketshare. Sadly, you're not going to dominate profits not have any cash to do anything else.

And who does this exactly? Google makes billions per year on Android and so does Samsung. Google most certainly dominates their category - web search, services and advertising - in profits to the point where numerous entities have sued them for being a monopoly. Samsung meanwhile is #2 in mobile profits. Google came up with a successful strategy to defeat Microsoft in mobile and search, and did so against some pretty tall odds. Samsung also emerged from the pack against a bunch of companies that were better known and had much bigger market share and credibility as high tech companies and mobile companies (think HTC, Motorola, Nokia, Sony) to get where they are and stay there. This endless grumbling over the fact that Apple is not the only company on the planet succeeding and making money makes no sense and quite frankly does not project a good image for Apple fandom.

Instead of bedgrudging Samsung and Google for having their piece of the pie, you should be more concerned about this: "while macOS/OS X took just 5.17" and "while Mac numbers have fallen slightly." As Google and Samsung do not compete with Mac OS X - Chrome OS and Samsung being a very minor maker of Windows laptops far behind Lenovo, Dell, HP and even Toshiba notwithstanding - Apple has other problems to worry about. Apple failed to translate and leverage the massive success of their mobile devices, iPod and iPhone as well as the somewhat lesser success of the iPad, into an increased marketshare for other devices or to increase their footholds in other businesses. All the talk 5 or even 3 years ago about how Apple was going to kill off Microsoft and Windows for consumers and even in the enterprise turned out to be precisely that, and Apple is even pulling back, focusing less emphasis on enterprise efforts and selling fewer devices blatantly aimed at tempting Windows users to switch. Add to to that the fact that the Windows PC free fall seems to have stabilized ... things are never going back to the Wintel heyday of the 00s on one hand, but on the other hand it is clear that when people and enterprises need a main or work computing device they are going to get a laptop - as opposed to a smartphone or tablet - and 9 times out of 10 that laptop is going to run Windows as opposed to Mac OS X , just as things were before the iPad boom.

Apple won the mobile wars, but Google and Samsung did a good job for themselves in carving out a very lucrative second place. What needs to be mentioned now is A) Apple failed to parlay their victory in mobile into increased market share anywhere else and it is now time to let the mobile wars go and transition to the next battle with new products. Wearables failed to take off, so has VR, so what is next? (Although it is curious that no one has really tried to add smart functionality to an existing product that already sells well ... smart headphones with VR/AR goggles attached anyone? Beats could release those at any time.)

dbeats said:

Where's the outrage now? Also, doesn't this just prove the Consumer Reports cannot be trusted with any claims anymore?

No, absolutely not. Despite Apple's PR spin and the same by Apple promoters and apologists, THE CONSUMER REPORTS TEST FOUND A BUG IN THE OPERATING SYSTEM. Let me repeat. There was a bug in the operating system that Apple did not know about. This bug in the operating system was found only because of Consumer Reports' test. As a result of Consumer Reports' test - and not anything in Apple's software or QA efforts - Apple identified the bug and released a fix.

Blaming Consumer Reports for having what the writer claims is an obscure setting is totally wrong. First off, it is not obscure AT ALL. It is the equivalent of setting "private browsing", and also QA testers, programmers and others NEED and REGULARLY USE that setting. Second, it is a feature that Apple chooses to provide. Consumer Reports did not create their own hack or load their own codes or scripts. It is a setting that APPLE PROVIDES in the browser, is listed BY APPLE as a setting/menu option, and IT IS APPLE'S JOB TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WORKS, even if it is obscure (which it isn't). Finally, CONSUMER REPORTS HAD USED THAT SAME SETTING IN THE PAST. Let me restate. CONSUMER REPORTS USED THAT SAME "DEVELOPER SETTING" FOR THEIR PAST TESTS FOR MACS IN YEARS PAST AND THEY PERFORMED FINE. Why? Because the bug in Apple's OS didn't exist in the past. It was only when the bug was present that it was a problem. When Apple's bug in Apple's operating system caused a problem in Apple's browser, they fixed it. Consumer Reports didn't change squat. Apple did, and the good results were reached as a result.

Oh yes, another thing: those "developer settings" are used when Consumer Reports tests other computers too. When they test computers by Lenovo, HP, Dell, Asus etc. in those charts up there, they use those same "developer settings" because running the sort of tests that they do without those settings is ridiculous. They ran those same tests using Chrome, Edge, Firefox, IE etc. browsers with the same "obscure settings" and had no problems. Why? Because the bug was not in Windows, only macOS. Had it been in Windows, Microsoft would have released a fix just like Apple did.

Bottom line: quit blaming Consumer Reports for Apple's bug. Unless you are one of those people who claims that Consumer Reports shouldn't have released the review in the first place without giving Apple time to fix their product flaws first. Sorry, but Consumer Reports is not Apple's PR department. Apple's PR department did their job when they (falsely) claimed that Consumer Reports' test was wrong. Even though Consumer Reports RAN THE EXACT SAME TEST AGAINST THE EXACT SAME HARDWARE AFTER APPLE FIXED THE BUG AND GOT THE DESIRED RESULTS.

tzeshan said:

This is not a full screen touch smartphone.  Many pixels around the edges are insensitive to touch.  With more than 2 to 1 ration the screen area of the 5.8 inches S8 is not much bigger than iPhone 7 Plus.  This is a trick TV makers have been used to fool consumers for years.  

I have used the 5.7' Galaxy Note, the 5.7' Galaxy Edge+ and the "Plus" iPhones. The 5.7' Samsung phones are indeed noticeably bigger. And the S8 is bigger than the 5.7 inch phones. And the S8+ is bigger still. But the fact that we are having this argument in the first place is sufficient enough. As recently as summer 2015, iPhone advocates - such as those on this blog - insisted that 4' screens were the perfect size, and that the larger screened Android phones were gimmicks, bad design, bad UI/UX and proof that Android was incapable of matching Apple's sophistication and expertise. Similar to above, you can include the mocking - a good bit of it from Apple's upper echelon designers and executives themselves - of OLED screens, multi-window apps, stylus support, having more than 1 GB of RAM ... you name it. The iPhone 7 is a lot more similar to the Galaxy S line than it is the iPhone 5, and with the iPhone 8, Apple will have entirely abandoned their own design language - the one that they spent years suing Samsung for infringing - in favor of designs and features that were used as iOS differentiators by Samsung, HTC and other Android OEMs for years.

Feel free to retort that the Google Pixel is an iPhone 7 clone (physical home button excluded of course) as many do. But even there ... the Pixel didn't emulate the iPhone 4 or iPhone 5, merely the iPhones that were changed to look and function more like Android phones in the first place.

Fair is fair, guys. There is no more real competition - as Windows Mobile and Blackberry are dead - and the failed lawsuit/patent strategy has been abandoned so smartphones are now converging in look, feel and function. This has been going on since at least 2015, so continuing to claim that Android is copying Apple is silly. Especially since Force Touch (or was it 3D Touch) - the last major "new" feature introduced by Apple that wasn't on a Samsung or LG device first - has been ignored by Samsung, LG, HTC and Google to this point and is neither in stock Android or in TouchWiz, Sense or the other major skins, and it isn't in any of the community Android ROMs like Paranoid Android or LineageOS either.