“There can be no doubt that 2005 was a stellar year for Apple. From record-breaking quarterly financial reports and the release of Mac OS X Tiger to the announced transition of the Macintosh to the Intel platform and new iPods, Apple fired on all cylinders throughout much of the year, creating unprecedented demand for many of its products.” Update: Here are photos of the cooling system for the Quad-core PowerMac– one of those could counteract global warming. Seriously.
Thom was wasn’t my news about Apple posted? Just don’t tell me it’s not important…
</offtopic>
I’m curious…
was the news you submitted to Thom have anything to do with Apple gear being less expensive, or Macs growing faster than the industry average, did it have anything to do with Macs having better support or perhaps was it just a glowing report of an Apple product?
Thom won’t publish those.
Or I should say… Thom has traditionally opted to not published any article that I submitted that had subject matter of this lype.
I can only conclude that Thom would rather this information not be known.
I viewed a submitted piece this morning, that slated Intel CPU’s without providing evidence, i assume this is the piece you are refering too, I deemed it without substance, but when i deem a piece to lack evidence or substance i generally leave it to the other OSnews staff to review aswell, as they may see the piece in a different light.
I can only conclude that Thom would rather this information not be known.
Kelly McNeil, in case you want to know: it was news about Apple updates BREAKING RAM slots on 15″ PowerBooks.
Now you again, Kelly. I warn you, don’t fcuk with me.
Edited 2005-12-30 19:40
Ya, don’t fcuk with Thom.
He may look small, but he can… hmm… what can Thom do?
Whatever it is… Kelly… whoever you are… consider yourself warned.
Apple is one of the most efficient companies thier are, if not the most. What they are able to accomplish would take years, if even be possible for most companies.
Could Microsoft do major upgrades to Windows every 1.5 years, and support a PPC port of it as well?
Could Rio or Creative keep up with their MP3 player demand if it was as high as the iPod’s?
Could Dell open stores like Apple, and integrate them so well into the company business-wise like Apple has done?
Could Apple support 16 years’ worth of binaries?
Could Apple supply 90+% of the computing world with operating systems AND office solutions at the same time?
Could Apple succesfully enter the highly difficult console gaming market?
Etc.
You see my point. Apple is just a company, and by no means is it special. It does certain things well, and others, it doesn’t.
>Could Apple support 16 years’ worth of binaries?
This is just a joke. I have a hundred of softwares/games running on win 95, 98 that doesn’t run anymore with windows 2000 and XP.
>Could Apple supply 90+% of the computing world with operating systems AND office solutions at the same time?
Don’t see anything that will prevent them to do so. Supply 90+% of the computing world only means “prints more CD”…
>Could Apple succesfully enter the highly difficult console gaming market?
I agree with this, Microsoft should only make console as they are not able to do a good OS and as they have 90% of market share only due to games running on windows.
>Will Apple start to take customer support seriously..?
Humm, let’s see. I had the slow memory failure on my powerbook 15”.
Called Apple (I haven’t Applecare): two days laters I had my powerbook back at home repaired.
You are right, I think they didn’t take me seriously.
Edited 2005-12-30 16:10
This is just a joke.
There will always be exceptions. But I guess you are too busy hating Microsoft to admit that Windows has the best backwards compatibility in the industry.
Don’t see anything that will prevent them to do so.
Try talking to some real Apple resellers, which I do regurlarly. Supply is a major problem for Apple (iPod Nano, the 20″ iMac G5). Supply isn’t one of Apple’s strong points.
>But I guess you are too busy hating Microsoft to admit that Windows has the best backwards compatibility in the industry.
Don’t think so, I am using MSDOS/windows since 15 years.
>Supply is a major problem for Apple (iPod Nano, the 20″ iMac G5). >Supply isn’t one of Apple’s strong points.
You are talking about hardware, Microsoft only do software.
But I guess you are too busy hating Apple…
Edited 2005-12-30 16:14
But I guess you are too busy hating Apple…
Heh, guess I really suck at hating Apple then…
http://denux.org/thom/Stuff/IMGP0073.JPG [modem warning, 2.4mb]
Seriously now, the fact that Apple makes some great stuff doesn’t make me blind as to their shortcomings, nor does it make me blind to Microsoft’s achievements.
“Seriously now, the fact that Apple makes some great stuff doesn’t make me blind as to their shortcomings, nor does it make me blind to Microsoft’s achievements.”
Thom, I’m curious why you were so quick to make sure that everyone was aware that Apple had shortcomings yet you don’t do the same in articles relating to Microsoft.
Why not let the public decide if a company has shortcomings or not.
It ought not be your goal to make sure people know… and thus post news to reflect that personal stance.
Thom bought a Mac.
That makes everything he said Justified.
Thom bought a Mac. That makes everything he said Justified.
(*groan*)
No, but it proves he’s no Apple hater, as he was accused of being earlier.
Tell me, 1234, do you own a Mac or any Apple product?
“No, but it proves he’s no Apple hater”
Does it?
“as he was accused of being earlier.”
He was accused of it as a result of the comments he made.
“Tell me, 1234, do you own a Mac or any Apple product?”
Why should that matter?
Does it?
He’s unlikely to part with the cash to buy a system if he hates the company and/or it’s products, is he?
Why should that matter?
Because I’m curious if you got any practical experience using one or whether you’re just talking out of what you sit on? You’re the one telling us that Rosetta/Wine will be running Windows apps, although you don’t seem to have any evidence to back this up.
“He’s unlikely to part with the cash to buy a system if he hates the company and/or it’s products, is he?”
If I buy something, does that restrict me from making statements that might be considered hateful? Of course not. Yet, Thom’s comments were regarded as hateful.
“Because I’m curious if you got any practical experience using one or whether you’re just talking out of what you sit on?”
Whether I use one is besides the point. Why would experience preculde me from making such statements? If I say that I don’t have one, you’re saying that I’m talking out my rear end. And if I said I had one, you might just be inclined to call me a fanboy. It’s a response-trap I’d rather not fall in to. I’d rather not be labeled.
Let my comments stand on their own without you trying to pre-judge me.
“You’re the one telling us that Rosetta/Wine will be running Windows apps, although you don’t seem to have any evidence to back this up.”
I wasn’t telling you that. I said its my belief. Though the marketing terms later changed, back when Apple took over NeXT… (or the other way around depending on your perspective), the company utilized colored box naming conventions to describe the OS’s various means of compatibility.
“Blue Box” (for example) was the name given for what would become the pre OS X (OS 9 and before) compatibility layer and “Yellow Box” was the name given to describe the native operating environment. At the time, there were rumors suggesting that Apple was also creating another compatibility layer for Apple’s next generation OS.
This secretive compatibility layer (often referred to as Red Box) was said to give OS X, (then referred to as Rhapsody), full compatibility with Windows, whether it be the Intel version of Rhapsody or the one specific to PowerPC. (You may remember that Apple originally planned on releasing a version of their operating system for both PowerPC as well as x86.)
It wasn’t until later that Apple chose to abandon the x86 strategy and keep their next generation OS exclusive to PowerPC. Part of the reason for that is said to be because making Mac apps run on x86 was a major, (yet very doable) challenge. (This is now being shown with Apple’s Rosetta software.) Emulating Windows for PPC on the other hand, would cause too much of a performance hit. In the end, Apple opted to retain its PPC strategy to avoid complications.
Now that Apple’s OS plans are more mature, with the announcement that Apple plans to adopt Intel processors, one can’t help but consider the likelihood that part of the decision may be motivated by the company’s former (rumored) Red Box strategy.
Apple has gone on record to say that it will not stop consumers from installing Windows on Intel-based Macs. The more I think about this, the more I wonder if Apple may actually consider recommending it… though not as a dual boot option like some are saying. Rather, it would be as a layer that is fully compatible with Windows but visually and functionally indistinguishable to the Mac user.
Red Box was said to be a compatibility environment where Windows apps ran on the Macintosh but did so within a separate Windows installation. Apple doesn’t have to reverse engineer the Windows API (like WINE) to get this functionality and theoretically upset Microsoft. Rather, it could simply be based on a standard copy of Windows. Red Box would override Windows native interface when run on OS X and would incorporate OS X’s Aqua user Interface in the place of the Windows UI. The software would then make the two environments (Mac and Windows) functionally seamless with one another. Unlike a virtual environment, the end result would be full compatibility while retaining both visual as well as functional usability for the Mac user.
Apple’s strategy behind the move to Intel will enable the company to retain compatibility with native OS X applications, compatibility with *nix applications through x11 and (assuming they adopt the Red Box strategy), would also allow them to have full compatibility with the complete Windows software library. The strategy, would instantly entitle them to being regarded as the most compatible of any operating system.
Edited 2005-12-30 17:26
Uhm… the it would take quite alot of work to strip away the Native win32 GUI from windows apps, and Vista will bring WinFX (unless thats something else thats been stripped out with me noticing) which makes the workload larger.
This isnt X11 where you have an X server and X Client; you cant just switch DE’s when you change your mind, Windows GUI is tied to the API, the same is true of OS X,
Indistinguishable to the mac user? right again you ever used OS X? the menu’s are generally laid out differently, and in general OS X apps have a different UI style to Windows apps, just compare MS Office:mac 2004 and MS Office 2003, they look quite different.
How do they account for custom controls? and widgets? just leave them be and hope no one notices?
Also how do they account for Application behaviour? windows apps are generally developed so that they act and behave like windows apps, and OS X apps are generally developed to act and behave like OS X apps.
You maybe right.. I just can’t see it myself, although running Windows apps would be nice, and will be possible (Codeweavers Crossover-Office is going to be ported to OS X for Intel), I’m under no impression that Apple will make it possible, or will they look anywhere near to Native.
“Uhm… the it would take quite alot of work to strip away the Native win32 GUI from windows apps, and Vista will bring WinFX (unless thats something else thats been stripped out with me noticing) which makes the workload larger.”
Nothing that any skinning software hasn’t managed to do fairly easily.
“Indistinguishable to the mac user? right again you ever used OS X? the menu’s are generally laid out differently, and in general OS X apps have a different UI style to Windows apps, just compare MS Office:mac 2004 and MS Office 2003, they look quite different.”
Again… Nothing that any skinning software hasn’t managed to do fairly easily.
“How do they account for custom controls? and widgets? just leave them be and hope no one notices?”
They could just as easily behave like custom controls and widgets behave in OS X.
“Also how do they account for Application behaviour? windows apps are generally developed so that they act and behave like windows apps, and OS X apps are generally developed to act and behave like OS X apps.”
Such a project would most certinly go beyond creating a OS X styled theme for WIndows, but actually require creating some inteligent code. Its not an easy project, but is very feasable.
“I’m under no impression that Apple will make it possible, or will they look anywhere near to Native.”
There’s enough reason to think that its a strong posibility considering the history of this project… or at least rumored history.
Edited 2005-12-30 17:50
The best you could hope for while using Windows applications under OS X using a non-emulated Windows executable would involve running Windows in an environment where it has no clue that it’s being run in an environment, and instead, the drivers for the keyboard, mouse, display/video, fileystem, etc. are all OS X replacements that look like what Windows is looking for. Essentially, it would involve Apple writing their own NT Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) that hooks into a subsystem of OS X. However, if you wanted to maintain proper functioning of Windows applications, you *need* to retain the same semantics of Windows in terms of handling events and all other things. You simply won’t have Windows applications running under OS X that are indistinguishable from OS X native apps, because they will look and function in different manners; anything other than that will break them.
And to do all this, OS X would really need Virtual PC or Xen or (can’t think of the other one at the moment) and regardless of what virtualization is done, there will always be some sort of performance hit, which may be noticeable. It would be interesting if Apple did this without more than 1% performance hit, and even more interesting if they achieve this for any PC-compatible OS you could install and boot on a typical PC. Using two or more cores, it would be more probable that by dedicating one core to handling only the alternate OS (which would see a full CPU with almost no weird hiccups for such things as debug registers, etc. except for some unusually long, but not usually destructive pauses) and having the other cores process requests and do the interfacing to OS X and recognized devices, it would provide a smoother experience for both OS X and the secondary OS.
If Apple managed to do this, it would put them in the strange situation of both being a competitor to Windows and all other OS’s in terms of sales and mindshare, but not in a manner that’s overtly destructive to the sales of others, or destructive to the sales of OS X, because even if an Intel Mac user installs one copy of each alternate OS on a Mac, that requires first that they not only own the Mac hardware, but have one working copy of OS X: thus, Apple sells their OS not exactly at the expense of sales to the others, but because of the sales of others. To make all this work, regardless of the sale of OS X, they end up selling their hardware, assuming OS X and the hardware it runs on are strongly enough tied to each other. The net result is that Microsoft really shouldn’t be too unhappy, as people needing Windows software would still buy and install Windows on a machine that has a rather predictable support requirement (if they’d honor supporting Windows installed on a Mac in this way, I have no clue) as well as all their other software, and since OS X will (Apple hopes) not be easily enough used on other PC’s, they sell another box. As long as customers keep on buying Windows software and the OS, why should Microsoft really worry about which box it runs on? Of course, perhaps there’s the worry that customers will grow fond of OS X and stop worrying about using Windows and Windows software, but because there’s so much invested in Windows and the software and the time to learn it, etc. especially in business, people aren’t likely to stop using it. And of course, if Apple provided perfectly stable virtualized drivers/hooks/HAL for Windows (I know this is asking for a lot!) it could end up being in the ironic situation that the best platform to run Windows on is under OS X!
Jonathan Thompson
“it would involve Apple writing their own NT Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) that hooks into a subsystem of OS X.”
Sounds like the OS9 compatibility layer.
“You simply won’t have Windows applications running under OS X that are indistinguishable from OS X native apps, because they will look and function in different manners; anything other than that will break them.”
I would imagine that it would be not unlike the OS 9 compatibility layer. You know when you flip-flopped between the two, but it still all occured in the same space as far as the end user was concerned.
“And to do all this, OS X would really need Virtual PC or Xen or (can’t think of the other one at the moment) and regardless of what virtualization is done, there will always be some sort of performance hit, which may be noticeable.”
If they’re on x86, the performance hit will likely be there, but very insignificant.
“The net result is that Microsoft really shouldn’t be too unhappy”
Thats the beauty of it. Apple is taking a very significant aspect of control away from Microsoft, but not to the exclusion of their profitability.
“As long as customers keep on buying Windows software and the OS, why should Microsoft really worry about which box it runs on?”
Its a bit of a trojan hourse. If enough people bought these Windows/Mac hybrids to run their software, some may develop software exclusively within a hyothetical Apple push-button compile development enviornment that makes software compatible with both, but takes advantage of hypothetical strengths that this platform offers that a generic x86 PC would not.
>No, but it proves he’s no Apple hater, as he was accused of being earlier
Just as Thom accuse me to be a Microsoft hater …
You’re both losers. Shut up.
Humm, let’s see. I had the slow memory failure on my powerbook 15″.
Called Apple (I haven’t Applecare): two days laters I had my powerbook back at home repaired.
I’ve got an iBook at home. 2 months after the 1 year warranty expired the track pad stopped working. I rang Apple and the rep said they could fix it, but it would cost me £230, although he couldn’t give me an exact figure…
The AppleCare terms and conditions state the following:
In the event Apple repairs or replaces your Covered Equipment, you understand and agree that the replacement product and parts that Apple provides may be manufactured from new, refurbished, or serviceable used parts
So, if you’ve got a fault with one on their products they may replace it with a refurbished version. For a products that is under guarantee this is totally unexceptable. If there’s a fault it should be replaced with a brand new version.
In the UK, they only have to replace a failed component with one of similar value, it is perfectly acceptable in the UK to use refurbished parts that are of same value as the failed components.
Also you’d be suprised how many shops sell returned ‘used’ goods as new, there are quite a few that have been mentioned in Computer Magazines about people getting a supposedly New PC to find other people details on them and their personal documents.
It is against the UK Trade and Descriptions act to sell used goods as new yet people still do, atleast Apple is being honest about it, opposed to promising new components when there is a chance they may just be off another returned system that has something else wrong with it.
Don’t see anything that will prevent them to do so. Supply 90+% of the computing world only means “prints more CD”…
Um, hardly! It means supporting 90% of the world’s weird software, outdated hardware, and freakish use-cases. Printing CDs is the least of Microsoft’s troubles.
>Humm, let’s see. I had the slow memory failure on my powerbook 15″.
Called Apple (I haven’t Applecare): two days laters I had my powerbook back at home repaired.[/i]
My reaction to Apple’s support is mixed. When I broke my iPod while installing a firmware update (I have no idea how…), I went to the Apple Store, and they gave me a new one free of charge. On the other hand, they accidentally shipped my PowerMac with a Spanish-language keyboard, and I still haven’t gotten a replacement more than a month later. Dell’s support has been uniformly excellent, on both machines I’ve bought from them.
>Um, hardly! It means supporting 90% of the world’s weird software, outdated hardware, and freakish use-cases. Printing CDs is the least of Microsoft’s troubles.
Since when Microsoft are supporting all hardware ? They just made a generic OS, hardware manufacturers provide the drivers.
Stop the FUD.
“Could Apple support 16 years’ worth of binaries?
Could Apple supply 90+% of the computing world with operating systems AND office solutions at the same time? Could Apple succesfully enter the highly difficult console gaming market? “
Ya. I don’t see why not.
“You see my point.”
No. You didn’t really make one.
“Apple is just a company, and by no means is it special.”
I think the point of the article was to show that in fact they are special and that they have a nack for doing things well.
If the goal of your response was to make sure that everyone knew that Apple is not magical. Thank you. now we all know.
What is your point. What is the difference between supplying 90% or 4% when it comes to shrink-wrapped software?
Apple could do everything else you mention with ease and better than MS, and you know it.
When you work in Apple Engineering, then ask yourself about that “special” comment. Until then I really would wager you have never worked for a company deserved of such a title as “special.”
Will Apples move to x86 really encourage people to switch from Windows to OSX..?
Will Apples growing monopoly in the music download business start to be questioned..?
Will the build quality of Apple products improve..?
Will Apple start to take customer support seriously..?
I think more to the point would be….. Apple is on an incredible streak. But they are a business like any business. There are peaks and valleys. They do things good and at some point they will screw up. Par for the course I think.
I think its foolish to say Apple has a monopoly on anything in the big picture. They may lead in market share for downloadable music, but in order to be a monopoly they would have to lead in market share for all forms of music purchase. In the grand scheme, iTunes just made the top 10 list in over all music sales, but at 10 they are WAY far from the numbers of CD sales. iPod may lead all other players, but it supports multiple formats (mp3 on top of ITMS stuff) and they aren’t doing anything to lock competitors out of that market.
“Will Apples move to x86 really encourage people to switch from Windows to OSX..? “
Judging by the response I’ve seen from several forums… the response is an overwhelming yes.
“Will Apples growing monopoly in the music download business start to be questioned..? “
Not unless they do anything illegal. You see… having a monopoly is not illegal. I know there are several of you that think that Microsoft was punished because it was sucessful, but no. It was sucessful because it broke the law… multiple times… and to a very significant degree. Microsoft has been doing this from its inception, yet Apple has been playing by the books pretty steadily throughout its history. Theres no reason to think that this will change.
“Will the build quality of Apple products improve..? “
It would be spectacular if they did as the build quality is already very high.
“Will Apple start to take customer support seriously..?”
Start? Considering the fact that Apple’s customer support is regarded as the best inthe industry… i dont know what you mean.
Judging by the response I’ve seen from several forums… the response is an overwhelming yes.
But think about it, why does running on x86 make OSX more appealing? It’s not like you can switch from Windows and take your applications with you, is it? Although it’ll probably be easier to write device driver for the platform there’s probably not going to be a mad rush to do so. What’s the big advantage to running on x86 instead of PPC for the average end user?
Will the build quality of Apple products improve..?
You’re kidding, right? Pretty much everyone I know that got an Apple product (and that included some real die-hard Mac boys) think that the build quality is poor? My own experience with an Apple iBook is that the quality is distictly average.
Considering the fact that Apple’s customer support is regarded as the best inthe industry… i dont know what you mean
If that’s the case then gawd help us!
“But think about it, why does running on x86 make OSX more appealing? It’s not like you can switch from Windows and take your applications with you, is it?”
Why not. You can run Windows on the same machine. I have a strong feeling that one of the functions of rosetta will be something akin to Wine… but for OS X…. Which will make the transition seamless for switchers.
“Although it’ll probably be easier to write device driver for the platform there’s probably not going to be a mad rush to do so”
Software follows install base. Apple will probably increase its install base and so the software will inevitably follow. If they actually make the aforementioned WINE-like solution I mentioned… then even the device drivers will be a non-issue.
“You’re kidding, right? Pretty much everyone I know that got an Apple product (and that included some real die-hard Mac boys) think that the build quality is poor? “
And yet practically every review ever given of Apple hardware says that the build-quality is incredible. There seems to be a discrepancy with the rest of the world and your friends.
“If that’s the case then gawd help us!”
[roll eyes]
Edited 2005-12-30 16:39
WINE is an implementation of the Win32 API for UNIX Like systems
Rosetta is an emulation layer providing PPC to x86 emulation for PPC Binaries, Rosetta doesnt understand what Cocoa is, all Rosetta does is allow the PPC Binaries to be run on x86, then OS X handles the actual execution of the binaries.
“all Rosetta does is allow the PPC Binaries to be run on x86, then OS X handles the actual execution of the binaries.”
I know that.
I was saying that I believe Rosetta will gain additional functionality. that will allow it to do wine-like funtions with WIndows.
I have a strong feeling that one of the functions of rosetta will be something akin to Wine… but for OS X…. Which will make the transition seamless for switchers.
Wine and seemless, I don’t think so. If Rosetta were to do this then I don’t think Microsoft would carry on developing Mac Office…
And yet practically every review ever given of Apple hardware says that the build-quality is incredible. There seems to be a discrepancy with the rest of the world and your friends.
Not at all. There’s a big difference between reviewing a product and using it on a daily basis. Look at the fiasco over the iPod battery reliablilty that we had at the beginning of the year… Apple products are designed to look good, they’re not designed to last…
“Wine and seemless, I don’t think so. If Rosetta were to do this then I don’t think Microsoft would carry on developing Mac Office… “
It probably wouldn’t be Wine.
In fact, it would just as easily be a genuine installation of WInodws… no need to reverse engineer the Windows API.
If they discontinued Mac Office, they would have some serious explaining to do to their share holders as Microsoft has repeatedly gone on record to say that Mac Office is extremely profitable. A publicly traded company is not allowed to discontinue products because they happen to conflict with corporate rivalries.
“Not at all. There’s a big difference between reviewing a product and using it on a daily basis.”
Well, on that note, you could find just as many people that use Apple products on a daily basis that will be happy to go on and on about the good build quality in Apple hardware.
“Apple products are designed to look good, they’re not designed to last…”
Apple is often being questioned by their share holders why the replacement cycles of Mac users hardware isn’t equal to that of the PC world which allows these other companies to benefit from a new PC being sold to the same individual every 3-4 years. And Apple could only say that their customers are known for using their hardware in excess of 6-7 years.
Hardware not designed to laugh? Pahleaze. THAT is why there is such a disproportion to Apple’s install base (which gauges actual number’s of hardware in use ) to market share (which gauges products sold).
You’re WAY off on this one here bud.
“Wine and seemless, I don’t think so.”
That is correct in the case of an ordinarily compiled or packaged wine, but if done right it could be almost seamless. The problem is that wine is hit-and-miss with windows software, whether it works or not depends on the age of the software and how much of the Windows api is implemented in a reliable fashion.
Apple could certainly improve wine. It would continue to be imperfect, and no doubt there would be a performance hit on the emulated software; however, considering the capabilities of Apple as a company with money at their disposal I think they could get a lot of Windows software running in Mac OS X. If Cadega can run some Windows games in Linux then no doubt Apple can make more Windows games run in OS X, and if games can be made to work, then why not other software too.
“And yet practically every review ever given of Apple hardware says that the build-quality is incredible. There seems to be a discrepancy with the rest of the world and your friends.”
From Apple fansites, maybe. Those of us in the real world have seen the near-lawsuit over shoddy iBook build quality (logic board and screen failures), PowerBook heating issues, Nano battery problems, and much more. Here’s a clue: who makes Apple notebooks? That’s right, th same ODMs that make laptops for Sony, HP, and loads of others. Read up on AlphaTop and Quanta etc.
IBM-built ThinkPads are significantly better when it comes to part sourcing, component quality and rigid build structure. Sure, Apple stuff is inevitabl better than eMachines junk, but it’s still middle of the road today (much better in the mid-90s).
Facts, eh? 🙂
>>”shoddy iBook build quality”
I live in the real world, own an ibook and have bought 2 more for others and no of no such build quality problems nor have I heard anything that wasn’t quickly fixed by the company.
>>”logic board and screen failures”
You find failures with any company. Apple hasn’t been immune to some failed products, but their failure rate is below the average. I remember reading that in consumer reports.
>>”PowerBook heating issues”
see above response
>>”Nano battery problems”
Few and far between
>>”Here’s a clue: who makes Apple notebooks? That’s right, th same ODMs that make laptops for Sony, HP, and loads of others.”[/i]
I know someone that bought a ford festiva and another that bought a Ford mustang. They came from the same manufacturer, yet the build quality was differen’t. It appears as if the company bought a differen’t level of build quality for one product as compared to another. It would seem the same is true for Apple is the afformentioned companies.
>>”IBM-built ThinkPads are significantly better when it comes to part sourcing, component quality and rigid build structure.”
Of all the reviews that I’ve read, the two are on par with one another.
Not to mention the Nano screen problems, the PowerMac G5 PSU buzzing/humming, the PowerMac USB HDD performance issues, the ATA controller issues with certain Rev A PowerMacs, etc. Indeed, a several people on the MacRumors forums reacted to the “Intel will build PowerMac motherboards” news by saying “yay, now maybe we won’t have to deal with the Rev A issues Apple usually has with new machines”.
Perhaps its a matter of “you only hear the problems, never the good things”, but I wouldn’t say that Apple’s build quality is near the top. They are very good (like Dell used to be), but there are a few notches in the ladder above them.
[“Not to mention the Nano screen problem”]
There is no nanno screen problem. The nano uses the same screen as the full size iPod. The nano is just smaller… and thus more prone to be placed in a pocket where it can be scratched.
[“the PowerMac G5 PSU buzzing/humming”]
It has a large fan. Its going to make noise when it runs.
[“ATA controller issues with certain Rev A PowerMacs”]
any issues were fixed under warrenty.
[“Indeed, a several people on the MacRumors forums reacted to the “Intel will build PowerMac motherboards” news by saying “yay, now maybe we won’t have to deal with the Rev A issues Apple usually has with new machines”.]
I don’t know how using a new processor would preclude Apple from having revision A isses that are common when any company releases a new product.
[“I wouldn’t say that Apple’s build quality is near the top.”]
I read several reports that would suggest otherwise. I remember reading a recent report from consumer reports reiterating this.
Well, it happens to be the case that “it’s the case” so, please almighty, do help us. But first, start with the others !!!
Could Microsoft do major upgrades to Windows every 1.5 years, and support a PPC port of it as well?
Erm, they may do upgrades every 1.5 years, but they also charge you for them. The last OSX upgrade I bought cost be £120. If Microsoft did this there’d be a lynch mob marching to Redmond…!
“Erm, they may do upgrades every 1.5 years, but they also charge you for them. The last OSX upgrade I bought cost be £120. If Microsoft did this there’d be a lynch mob marching to Redmond…!”
The reason is because if Microsoft followed the trend of software upgrades that they make every 1.5 years… and charged for those then the lynch mob would be justified.
On the other hand, if Microsoft made genuine improvements to the operating system that didn’t just include security fixes… (like Apple does) then they too would be highly praised… as they should be in that instance.
On the other hand, if Microsoft made genuine improvements to the operating system that didn’t just include security fixes… (like Apple does) then they too would be highly praised… as they should be in that instance.
The early versions of OSX were full of issues that only got addressed it later OSX upgrades, which you had to pay for. Making something I’ve paid for usable doesn’t doesn’t come under my definition of “genuine improvements”. In effect they’re charging me twice for them to get it right.
The reason is because if Microsoft followed the trend of software upgrades that they make every 1.5 years… and charged for those then the lynch mob would be justified.
Erm, yes it would be. But they don’t charge whilst Apple does. That’s the point I was making.
I agree with you about security fixes, but OSX has more than its fair share of those as well. I can honestly say I’ve installed more patches to OSX than I have to WinXP.
Edited 2005-12-30 16:59
“The early versions of OSX were full of issues that only got addressed it later OSX upgrades, which you had to pay for.”
People were SO desperate for this OS back then… they would have happily paid for software which wasn’t quite ready for prime time. This is just supply and demand here. (This is also why they made OS 9 the default OS on 9 hardware at the time. OS X was somewhat regarded as an OS preview… for free when buing new hardware. People didn’t have to buy boxed copies of OS X at the time… but it was nice that were were given that option. Capitalism at work.
“Making something I’ve paid for usable doesn’t doesn’t come under my definition of “genuine improvements”.”
But Apple didn’t JUST make the product usable with each sucessive upgrade that wasn’t ready for prime time, but instead added very genuine features that help with productivity.
“In effect they’re charging me twice for them to get it right.”
You would have a point if the only thing they changed was the usability… but they added so much more. Again, supply and demand.
“Erm, yes it would be. But they don’t charge whilst Apple does. That’s the point I was making. “
Apple does NOT chanrge for bug fixes. They release these for free through software update..,.. hence my reason for saying you don’t have a point.
“I agree with you about security fixes, but OSX has more than its fair share of those as well.”
And they release these for free.
“I can honestly say I’ve installed more patches to OSX than I have to WinXP.”
Sign of a good software company is one that continually supports their product even after the sale.
“Apple does NOT chanrge for bug fixes. They release these for free through software update..,.. hence my reason for saying you don’t have a point”
What?! Sure they do — how many free bug fixes are you seeing released for 10.0? That’s right: none. To get fixes you have to buy a newer OS X.
I’m not sure why I’m arguing with someone who’s completely wrong, but maybe it’ll alert others to actual sense and facts instead of rose-tinted nonsense 🙂
The traditional Windows release cycle was every 2 years, Vista broke this but that seems to be an exception much like when Apple kept people waiting a long time for OS X 10.0.
2 years isn’t that far off from 1.5 years, and Windows isn’t cheap where I live. Plus it usually comes with an upgrade requirement.
As I understand it people claim they can comfortably run OS X on older computers along the lines of 300 Mhz. I don’t know how accurate that is, but I do know that Windows XP brings a Celeron 466 to it’s knees from the second it boots, and chances are that computer won’t even run Vista. I’m not saying the need to upgrade is Windows’ fault, after all we can’t run antiques forever, but knowing this does make that gap look a lot smaller doesn’t it.
You also have to consider the fact that Apple is a much smaller company than Microsoft or Dell. They have many more customers and many more users to support. Their size gives them certain advantages, but also means that they are not as agile as a small company like Apple.
Consider an even smaller company, like Be. They created an entirely new OS in the same amount of time Apple spent creating a bunch of failed ones (Copland, etc), all with a fraction of the developer resources Apple had.
“Consider an even smaller company, like Be. They created an entirely new OS in the same amount of time Apple spent creating a bunch of failed ones (Copland, etc), all with a fraction of the developer resources Apple had.”
But Apple and Microsoft both have more legacy software/hardware to support. THAT has always been the element that has held next generation OSes from being released in a timely fashion. Though Be’s efforts ought not be undermined, its much easier to develop a next generation operating system when you’re building it from scratch or if you have the opportunity break compatibility.
The reason why Microsoft is lumbering along right now with their next gen OS efforts is because their monopoly is deeply nested in making sure that legacy is maintained.
Apple was able to break that compatibility and more forward as quickly as they are now because they made somewhat cumbersome compatibility environments that made the transition possible. Now that they’ve broken free from the <OS9 code base, they’ve managed to make advancements by leaps and bounds rather than small baby steps.
Microsoft is making much larger leaps with its older code base simply by way of sheer man power. Even despite this brute force, they are still having problems excelerating at the same pace that Apple is… now that they’ve broken free of it.
Apple is too big and old to have the advantages you’re talking about.
They’ve been spending the last, probably, year developing a technology (Rosetta) for their entrenched customer base. If they were small and agile they’d have been able to get OS X tested on intel before they even made the announcement and then started shipping 4 months later when the hardware was ready and testing was done.
Apple is more gutsy than Dell. They take bigger risks. Develop their own products before that type of product is a money-maker (iPod, Mini).
As far as comparing them to Microsoft. Well, they’re probably just a little smarter about what to get into than Microsoft is. Microsoft is always trying something new, and hence is losing a lot of money trying new things. Which is fine, especially considering how much they have to lose before they break a sweat.
I’m sure Apple is plenty big enough to be bureacratic and ignore the little entry-level guys who suddenly get a great idea. Advantage in size: Low.
>>”Apple is too big and old to have the advantages you’re talking about. “[/i]
Oh this is rich. Apple is to small to be of any significant… and now their too big to be able to respond quickly to the industry. You guys never cease to amaze me.
>>”If they were small and agile they’d have been able to get OS X tested on intel before they even made the announcement and then started shipping 4 months later when the hardware was ready and testing was done.”
The OS started on x86. They’ve been spending this time to develop solutions that make the transition of PPC user to x86 seamless. The transition to x86 code base, was for the most part already done.
Windows 95 .. 95a….
Windows 98 .. 98SE .. ME
Windows 2000 .. XP .. XPSP2
They’ve slowed down a bit now, but they’re plenty capable of an upgrade every couple of years. .Net alone is much bigger than all the things you got in OS X 10.4 over 10.3. But it’s not for users, so there’d be no point trying to sell it to people!
There are a lot of companies with much more feature packed players than iPod. Apple is probably doing well on iPod because of three things:
1.) It’s slow to change, and only changes in the right ways.
2.) It’s pretty, and has good ui (which hasn’t changed).
3.) It’s reliable.
If Apple were being nimble with iPod they’d probably kill it!
Why couldn’t Dell? Gateway did it, bigger than Apple. Gateway closed them all up because they weren’t selling things and were too expensive. Here in Des Moines (the capital city of Iowa, with a population of around a half million metropolitan) it took Apple until last year to get a store here. Before we only had a crumby little section in CompUSA.
Also, Dell has roughly the same hardware support model as Apple. Except, I think Dell actually has more support shops.
I don’t know how efficient Apple is, but they’re not performing miracles; let’s not get too excited
. They decided to make quality PC oriented stuff, and it turns out a lot of people wanted that: Is anyone surprised?
“There are a lot of companies with much more feature packed players than iPod.”
Adding features isn’t always a good thing as it complicates a product which should be simple. Adding features that most people want… is whats important… and thats one of the primary reasons why the iPod is sucessful.
“Apple is probably doing well on iPod because of three things:
1.) It’s slow to change, and only changes in the right ways.”
Wow, I can’t believe you said that. They’ve updated the iPod line so quickly, I can’t believe they have managed to maintain the pace they’ve set for themselves. Apple is many things. slow to change is not one of them.
_Adding features isn’t always a good thing as it complicates a product which should be simple. Adding features that most people want… is whats important… and thats one of the primary reasons why the iPod is sucessful._
The iPod is successful because people are lemmings. It’s overpriced and under spec’d relative to nearly every one of its competitors. People buy the iPod for the cool factor. So they too can be cool. Stupid and cool perhaps, but cool nonetheless.
And, yes, it has a nice UI and that “oh so cool” Apple industrial design. Which, as far as I’m concerned, can’t even begin to justify the 20% premium Apple is getting for the iPod. My iRiver H300 has a downright awful interface, but it has far more functionality than the iPods, doesn’t force unfriendly DRM schemes down my throat, cost significantly less than comparable iPods, and after a couple of days of use even that awful iRiver interface ceased to be an issue at all (I can queue up songs just as quickly as the all the iPod fanboys and fangirls).
[“The iPod is successful because people are lemmings.”]
If that were true then highly regarded hardware reviewers like walt mosberg wouldn’t be giving it such hi ratings. People may be lemmings… but in this case, they’re buying the product in drives to copy other people for a product that is actually worthy of the growth.
[It’s overpriced and under spec’d relative to nearly every one of its competitors.]
Thats funny, because the ipod costs less those most players of similar specs.
Some players give you a radio. Some give you voice recording. Some give you radio recording. Some may give you all three. And some of those records that add such features are adding unnecessary complication to a product that should be more simple. In a product category like this, easy of use trumps a larger number of features. Apple ads a lot of features, but omits those that are necessary. These other player manufacturers don’t get that.
[“People buy the iPod for the cool factor.”]
I’m sure thats one of the reasons… yes. But don’t kid yourself by thinking that this is somehow the primary reason.
[“And, yes, it has a nice UI and that “oh so cool” Apple industrial design. Which, as far as I’m concerned, can’t even begin to justify the 20% premium Apple is getting for the iPod.”]
Apple isn’t charging any such premium.
[My iRiver H300 has a downright awful interface]
One of the most of not the most important features. That’s too bad for you.
[but it has far more functionality than the iPods]
Hence the bad interface.
[doesn’t force unfriendly DRM schemes down my throat]
Nor does Apple. You can play the same file formats
[cost significantly less than comparable iPods]
Maybe if you’re only comparing the features that matter to you.
[and after a couple of days of use even that awful iRiver interface ceased to be an issue at all]
Glad you are able to get past the iRiver’s faults.
People may be lemmings… but in this case, they’re buying the product in drives to copy other people for a product that is actually worthy of the growth.
The iPod isn’t worth it. Better players are available at a cheaper price.
Thats funny, because the ipod costs less those most players of similar specs.
On the off chance that things had changed over the last year, I just visited Amazon to compare prices between hard disk media players. Nothing has changed. Apple is getting around a 20% premium with fewer features.
These other player manufacturers don’t get that.
And thus those manufacturer’s who don’t “get it” will continue to get my money while Apple will not.
One of the most of not the most important features. That’s too bad for you.
No. A bad UI ceases to be problem once you adjust yourself to it and conquer the learning curve. Futzing about with the iRiver UI for a couple of days while I got used to it was one of the trade offs for saving more than $100. Quite reasonable to my mind and a trade off I would happily make again.
Nor does Apple. You can play the same file formats
Rubbish! In the first place Apple cannot play the same formats as the the iRiver (e.g., ogg, flac, and wma). And Apple most certainly does shove half baked DRM schemes down their user’s throats. With an iPod I must transfer my music using Apple’s software since it mangles the filenames when they are stored on the player. This “function” doesn’t empower the user in any way, it is there soley to make it painful for the user to remove their music files from the device.
“The iPod isn’t worth it. Better players are available at a cheaper price.”
If by better you mean adding a radio to the exclusion of other benefits for example… then you might have a point. Other wise, the iPod is price comperably to the rest of the industry and (depending on the iPod) priced less the competition.
“On the off chance that things had changed over the last year, I just visited Amazon to compare prices between hard disk media players. Nothing has changed.”
If you’re comparing last yours iPod to today’s MP3 players, no wonder your thinking is so out of whack. The iPod has gone through 3 revisons since then.
“And thus those manufacturer’s who don’t “get it” will continue to get my money while Apple will not.”
While everybody else will give their money to the company who does “get it” but as long as you’re happy. Be my gues. That’s why compeition works. But something tells me a great deal of your decision to buy your MP3 player had much to do with not wanting to buy an APple product because its an Apple product. In that case you’re seeling yourself short without reason.
“No. A bad UI ceases to be problem once you adjust yourself to it and conquer the learning curve.”
No, A bad UI is a bad UI is a Bad UI. Accomidating the bad you doesn’t make you more efficient than what you would be were you to use a good UI, it just makes you less efficient than whan you started with the bad UI.
“Futzing about with the iRiver UI for a couple of days while I got used to it was one of the trade offs for saving more than $100.”
If you saved $100, you did so for buying the features that meant the most to you. You didn’t buy more and pay less like you’re implying. A valid justification for a purchase indeed. But don’t make it out to be like those that bought the iPod because they believe its features are better are somehow lemmings for having made that decision.
“Rubbish! In the first place Apple cannot play the same formats as the the iRiver (e.g., ogg, flac, and wma).”
The iPod does play WMA just not protected WMA. The iPod does play a version of Flac. You’re right about Ogg however. Let all the Ogg users unit and buy an iRiver.
[i]”And Apple most certainly does shove half baked DRM schemes down their user’s throats.”
If you’re going to make that argument then you must also attribute the same characteristic to the WM DRM laden stores that are compatible with your iRiver… DRM that I might add which is more restrictive than Apple’s AAC DRM.
“With an iPod I must transfer my music using Apple’s software since it mangles the filenames when they are stored on the player.”
The iPod doesn’t mangle any file names when stored onthe device. They are identical to the way you stored them on your personal hard drive.
“This “function” doesn’t empower the user in any way, it is there soley to make it painful for the user to remove their music files from the device.”
Sounds like you’ve gone out of your way to try and find something negative false though it may be to help you justify your iRiver purchase. You don’t need to justify it to anyone here. It sounds as if you’re happy. Stay that way and stop trying to influence other with comments that aren’t true.
You are right on the price issue with the iPod. The price of that thing is pretty comparable to its competition.
My personal issue with the iPod is that unusable click-wheel. It is way too sensitive, and provides no tactile feedback, meaning you cannot use the iPod without looking at the display/device; contrary to my HiMD recorder/player [1] which you can use blindly because that little wheel clicks for each item you pass (and HiMD discs store 1GB of data, more than enough).
[1] http://www.minidisc.org/part_Sony_MZ-NH600D.html
If you’re comparing last yours iPod to today’s MP3 players, no wonder your thinking is so out of whack. The iPod has gone through 3 revisons since then.
No. Brand new iPod vs. new Rios, Creatives, Panasonics, iRivers, etc…
But something tells me a great deal of your decision to buy your MP3 player had much to do with not wanting to buy an APple product because its an Apple product. In that case you’re seeling yourself short without reason.
Actually, there were two factors guiding my purchasing decision: 1) ogg support was an absolute must, and 2) I will not pay money for DRM hobbled hardware which interferes with my using my hardware and my data as I see fit. The iRiver’s recording functionality coupled with an acceptable quality line in jack was icing on the cake.
As for selling myself short, I’ll happily admit that I consider the Apple image an immediate negative factor. It was probably that nauseating “The Computer for the Rest of Us” marketing campaign of the 90’s which did it for me. I’m quite obviously not a part of the demographic Apple is aiming for, which I’m persoanlly inclined to view as a positive mark of character.
Apple makes some really nice hardware. Not nice enough, in my view, to justify their premium over a white box from the local screwdriver shop, but nice nonetheless. The classic MacOS was a worthless piece of crap, but OS X is pretty damned nice. That said, although I can easily afford a Mac and I do like OS X (some irritations notwithstanding), I genuinely prefer Linux and KDE over the other available options. My decision to not buy Apple stuff is hardly irrational, my descision is based on the fact that other alternatives meet my needs far better. On the other hand, I routinely recommend Macs and not Linux to non-technical users looking for an MS alternative. But I would never recommend an iPod to anyone who didn’t already have large investment locked up in Apple’s locked down AAC encoded files.
No, A bad UI is a bad UI is a Bad UI. Accomidating the bad you doesn’t make you more efficient than what you would be were you to use a good UI, it just makes you less efficient than whan you started with the bad UI.
Nonsense. A bad UI <>can represent an ongoing productivity penalty, but it rarely does so in practice once the intial learning curve is surmounted. Take Emacs for instance. By almost all accounts it is an awful interface with an unnecessarily steep learning curve, but it is an extremely powerful and flexible program. I’ve never bothered to pick it up, but I certainly know people who are far more productive with Emacs than they could ever hope to be with Visual Studio, Xcode, or CodeWarrior.
If you’re going to make that argument then you must also attribute the same characteristic to the WM DRM laden stores that are compatible with your iRiver… DRM that I might add which is more restrictive than Apple’s AAC DRM
Thus I don’t have any WMA encoded files either.
The iPod doesn’t mangle any file names when stored onthe device. They are identical to the way you stored them on your personal hard drive.
Bulls**t! It most certainly does obsfucate filenames and paths when audio files are transferred to the iPod. Hence the popularity of work around utilities such as MyTunes and Hymn.
[No. Brand new iPod vs. new Rios, Creatives, Panasonics, iRivers, etc… ]
You said that you were making your comparisons against what you remember from a comparison from Amazon you made last year.
[“ogg support was an absolute must”]
A valid reason.
[“I will not pay money for DRM hobbled hardware which interferes with my using my hardware and my data as I see fit.”]
The hardware has absolutely no DRM in it whatsoever nor does placing music on the iPod cause it to have DRM within it.
[“The iRiver’s recording functionality coupled with an acceptable quality line in jack was icing on the cake.”]
features which causes the iRiver to be unnecessarily complicated. If you don’t mind sacrificing usability for a couple infrequently used features, it sounds as if you found the player thats right for you.
[“As for selling myself short, I’ll happily admit that I consider the Apple image an immediate negative factor.”]
And you’re doing yourself a disservice for that way of thinking.
[“It was probably that nauseating “The Computer for the Rest of Us” marketing campaign of the 90’s which did it for me.”]
Too bad you didn’t consider that they might have been right back then, but instead follow the PC party line. Had you considered that they in fact may have offered you a better solution, you might be better off now. I know I feel better off for having been open minded about it.
[“Apple makes some really nice hardware. Not nice enough, in my view, to justify their premium over a white box from the local screwdriver shop, but nice nonetheless.”]
That comment is especially interesting because Apple doesn’t charge a premium for their hardware as compared to a white box from a local screwdriver shop. I think you’re confusing Apple’s inability to buy less and spend less like you can with a PC with a perception that Apple’s prices are somehow out of sync with the rest of the industry. Apple’s prices are more often than not less expensive than comparably equipped PCs when you equip that PC with the exact same components in hardware software and operating system (or as close as possible without substitutions).
[“The classic MacOS was a worthless piece of crap, but OS X is pretty damned nice.”]
For some functions I would agree with you, but for most… I disagree.
[“My decision to not buy Apple stuff is hardly irrational, my descision is based on the fact that other alternatives meet my needs far better.”]
What a second, you just got done saying that you don’t want to by a Mac because you simply don’t like it because its an Apple product. That is a very irrational reason.
[“my descision is based on the fact that other alternatives meet my needs far better”]
Perhaps, but it sounds as if you didn’t give the Mac a fair shot because of those unjustified reasons which bar you from buying a Mac because it is an Apple product.
[“On the other hand, I routinely recommend Macs and not Linux to non-technical users looking for an MS alternative.”]
And yet you would be just as suited in recommending Macs to a tech savvy person as well.
[“But I would never recommend an iPod to anyone who didn’t already have large investment locked up in Apple’s locked down AAC encoded files.”]
And yet you would more likely than not being doing them a disservice. Apple’s hardware is no different than iRiver (for example) as far as DRM is concerned.
[“Nonsense. A bad UI <>can represent an ongoing productivity penalty, but it rarely does so in practice once the intial learning curve is surmounted.”]
Not true. Something that takes 5 steps as opposed to 2 steps will typically be more efficiently accomplished if done in 2 steps rather than 5. You may become more efficient at completing those 5 steps over time, but the same is so with a 2 step process had you started with that.
[“Take Emacs for instance. By almost all accounts it is an awful interface with an unnecessarily steep learning curve, but it is an extremely powerful and flexible program.”]
If another piece of software was created to do the same tasks as eMacs and had a more efficient interface, when two people that have the same level of experience are put in front of the two apps and learn progressively over time… the one with the better interface will cause the person to be more efficient.
[“I’ve never bothered to pick it up, but I certainly know people who are far more productive with Emacs than they could ever hope to be with Visual Studio, Xcode, or CodeWarrior.”]
Perhaps these applications aren’t as well designed as you assume they are.
[“Thus I don’t have any WMA encoded files either.”]
Then you wouldn’t be hindered by using an Ipod as it does not incorporate DRM into music it imports.
[“Bulls**t! It most certainly does obsfucate filenames and paths when audio files are transferred to the iPod.”]
I’m able to take files of my ipod, and all the file names are COMPLETELY in tact.
[“Hence the popularity of work around utilities such as MyTunes and Hymn.”]
These applications are used to remove DRM from files… not alter the file names. You really are confused about the iPod. No wonder you have such a dislike for it. Your overt dislike for Apple has caused you to believe nonsensical comments that probably originated from sites like this one.
I’m able to take files of my ipod, and all the file names are COMPLETELY in tact.
Then you don’t have an iPod. Or you are a flat out liar. Music files which can be played on the iPod are stored in a hidden folder and randomly sorted into folders /F01 – /F19 (iirc) with the filenames changed. The ID3 tags remain intact though, which is how the third party utilities are able to sort and rename them.
Your claims about hardware costs are simply and incontestably false. Apple hardware is a better value prosposition than it used to be, but they are not on parity with PC makers. For a $1000 I can get a PC which, when compared to a Mac, will have a faster processor, more memory (of an equal or higher quality), a larger harddrive, and a better video card. And, yes, it’ll be in an ass-ugly, generic, plain-jane, whitebox case. Slap Debian or Ubuntu on there for no additional cost and the result will be superior to what your $1000 will get you over in Macsville. The results will be even more dramatic at the $500 price point. And $3500 spent with Alienware will get you a nicer box than if you spent that money with Apple.
Ignoring the ass-ugly factor, of course (the Alienware alternative excluded). Oh…and on the understanding that any qualitive judgments with respect to the relative merits of Linux and OS X are heavily dependent upon qualities unique to the user.
“Seriously now, the fact that Apple makes some great stuff doesn’t make me blind as to their shortcomings, nor does it make me blind to Microsoft’s achievements.”
And it shouldn’t.
But still supplying hardware and supplying software are two entirely different things, so your point is still false.
But I guess you were to busy flaming to see this…
‘Erm, they may do upgrades every 1.5 years, but they also charge you for them. The last OSX upgrade I bought cost be £120. If Microsoft did this there’d be a lynch mob marching to Redmond…!’
Value represents price, so I understand most Mac users, Windows users as well….
It certainly was a good year for Apple the company, and for its shareholders, but for a slightly different take on the computer part of it, look at
http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=14528&hed=Apple%E2~*~@…
The bottom line, really: this was a good year, but one in which the company started to diversify out of its core business into the consumer electronics business. It was the year in which, having turned around the computer product line, it started to treat it as a cash cow to fund diversification. This may well be the right strategy. It was certainly one of the two or three one would have had to look at.
Whether, over time, the combination of this strategy, commoditizing the hardware, and keeping the OS locked is going to fill its computer customers with joy, I doubt. But we’ll see.
“commoditizing the hardware”
Its important that we not see this transition as a commotization. Using the same parts that most of the rest of the industry doesn’t deem a product a commodity.
Commodities are a bad thing. It means that the company has stopped innovating. Switching to a different processor will not stop Apple’s innovation roots.
“keeping the OS locked is going to fill its computer customers with joy, I doubt.”
Keeping the OS specific to the platform it was intended is a good thing. Its this asset which allows Apple to profit to such a degree that it can keep its OS innovations ahead of Windows. Take that away and you will see the innovation stop.
“Keeping the OS specific to the platform it was intended is a good thing. Its this asset which allows Apple to profit to such a degree that it can keep its OS innovations ahead of Windows. Take that away and you will see the innovation stop.”
Yes. What platform would that be, exactly? A standard processor, a standard hard drive, memory, opticals. It would be the main board? Designed by Intel, probably adapted in form factor from the standard stuff with the standard chip set.
OK, it would be characterised by restrictions. It would only run with three or four graphics cards? Why exactly will that prompt innovation? In iPods maybe, since it will be less work?
I’ve never understood the argument. Just like I’ve never understood the argument about the Apple hardware being an essential part of the whole experience. Or the boxes not being beige, which back when I first used them, they were, anyway. I never used to run Apple screens, and the base unit has always been under my desk. I didn’t ever look at it. Was I having the whole experience or not? If it had been one of the new pretty alloy cases, would that be more of an experience?
As soon as you start to think clearly about this it just dissolves into….Cupertino marketing talk! I understand why Cupertino comes out with it, but why anyone listens, that’s the mystery.
>>”I’ve never understood the argument. Just like I’ve never understood the argument about the Apple hardware being an essential part of the whole experience.”
Apple can assure that there will never be bad components sold with their gear and thus diminish the end-user experience.
>>”Or the boxes not being beige”
The visual aifference causes you consider that there are in fact things which set this computer appart from the rest. Though there are many that think that difference is skin deep and that the only difference is the case, that has not been true.
>>”which back when I first used them, they were, anyway.”
And back during those times, the average PC cause was a perfect rectangle with crsews in the back to gain access to the internals. Apple has traditionally incorporated extra R&D dollars to make their cases visually differen’t. When more PC manufacturers designed better looking beige cases… Apple took their visual appeal a step further.
>>”I never used to run Apple screens, and the base unit has always been under my desk. I didn’t ever look at it. Was I having the whole experience or not?”
If the aesthetics of the case is not important to you, then p[robably not. As far as the displays are concerned, Apple’s displays are traditionally of better quality than those shipped by most PC manufacturers. You pay for that better quality, and yes you can get equal quality for a similar price, but I would suspect that if you just got an average display, then in this instance you didn’t get the full experience.
>>”As soon as you start to think clearly about this it just dissolves into….Cupertino marketing talk!”
You mean… when you talk about it the way yopu are with a negative spin… it might appear as Cupertino marketing talk
>>”I understand why Cupertino comes out with it, but why anyone listens, that’s the mystery.”
Because more often than not, the comments they make are justified.
“Actually, in most instances Apple gear is less expensive.”
“Apple can assure that there will never be bad components sold with their gear and thus diminish the end-user experience.”
Advice: need to be a bit more subtle about it. Its getting a bit obvious.
In 1956 the Soviet Union forces were after all invited in to liberate the heroic Hungarian proletariat from the forces of counter-revolution. They were reluctant, but it was a solemn duty of solidarity with their comrades.
I don’t see anything he said that was incorrect.
What are you saying?
Well how fitting that you’ve switched accounts to attempt to lend credibility to yourself.
by bad components… I meant incompatible… or less than fully compatible.
It’s always been obvious because of the tendency to “stay on message.” It’s the drilling-by-repetition of the marketing that is meant to create a “truth.” It also stands out like a giant oozing sore in a web forum.
If Apple would only be cost-competitive, they can actually give MS a run for their money. Currently, owning a Mac is still too expensive and money can be better spent on other things, like the upcoming PS3?
>>”If Apple would only be cost-competitive”
Actually, in most instances Apple gear is less expensive. Apple offers you fewer options to buy less and spend less, but that doesn’t mean their more expensive. Actually, when compared against a PC of the exact sampe components in hardware and software, (or as close as possible.. with no exceptions) Macs will typically be less expensive. (Current powerbooks excluded)
>>”they can actually give MS a run for their money.”
They already are. OS X is already more advanced than Windows, and the retail price for both shows OS X being much less expensive.
>>”Currently, owning a Mac is still too expensive”
You mean… more money than you have. Expensive implies that you don’t get what you pay for in comparison to what others are charging. That’s not true.
BS.
Ok I’m no guru but I can do all basic operations in Windows, MacOS, Linux, etc. by myself.
I’ve been a Windows user since Win3.1 and recently I have bought an Apple iBook G4… and I am REALLY loving it. Actually I was waiting for an Intel Mac but the waiting drove me crazy and I just decided PowerPC was just as great as an Intel chip, I just wanted to try OSX.
I’m sick and tired of these Apple haters that just come here and talk trash.
Will I buy another PC ? Maybe. Would I buy another Mac? YES, for sure! Am I happy with the quality of the materials? QUITE IMPRESSED! Am I a switcher? YES!
I switched and I am loving it. What is wrong with that??
What’s Thom going to do. Ban me?
I’m already banned from commenting.
I don’t even know WTF you’re talking about…
– Kelly
You want to know what I’m talking about, Kelly? I’m talking about your ongoing smear-campaign against my character. Why don’t you try to run your own site properly, instead of worrying about me?
You really fell through the floor in this thread, my friend. Claiming I would’ve turned down that item because you were sure it was positive about Apple… While in fact, the story I turned down, was this one:
http://www.engadget.com/2005/12/28/mac-os-x-updates-disable-and-or-…
And here is the proof (I archive each and every submission via email):
http://img435.imageshack.us/img435/854/proof9cn.png
—
It is not my problem that your site is a miserable failure, Kelly McNeil. Your jealousy over OSNews’s success is so blatantly obvious, it’s just laughable, really.
http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/12/explanation/
“You want to know what I’m talking about, Kelly? I’m talking about your ongoing smear-campaign against my character. “
Thom I have done no such thing. You on the other hand went out of your way to post several false things about me in your personal blog then advertise it on this site. You’re the LAST person that should talk.
“It is not my problem that your site is a miserable failure, Kelly McNeil.”
Oh you’re funny. I bet you actually have convinced yourself that my site is somehow a failure too.
“Your jealousy over OSNews’s success is so blatantly obvious, it’s just laughable, really. “
jealousy is not the right word. I’m indifferent about another site’s success. I am however upset when another individual uses a large platform such as this to promote his personal agenda then get upset when others point out the holes in his argument.
I’m sorry if you’re so upset that I (among others) keep exposeing your agenda. Feel free to atribute any instance when I do it to me, but I ask that you not censor me for doing so… no matter how upset it may make you.
—
Kelly
And you again very handy refuse to address the real issue– namely your false accusation in this thread.
Pathetic.
Edited 2005-12-30 20:37
But I didn’t acuse you of anything that was false? I simply pointed out a trend in the articles you choose not to publish.
You need to not be so concerned about what I think. Instead you should be concerned about fair reporting.
If you insist on cherry picking news articles rather than letting your readers send them to you, at least let the news you report not reflect your personal opinions of a company or product but let them miror the opinions of the computing industry.
You really should drop this, as you are making this thread off topic…
If you want to continue… I will, but don’t cut me off saying that the thread is going off topic in an effort to get the last word in.
—
Kelly
I said everything I want about this in my blog, Kelly.
http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/09/12/explanation/
And other than that, might I remind you of the fact why you got your first warning? What was that again? Oh yeah, you created multiple accounts (kellym1, kellym2, etc) in order to get more votes and mod your own comments up.
That really gave you a lot of credibility.
Edited 2005-12-30 20:50
[I said everything I want about this in my blog, Kelly. ]
See… you say several false things about me… and Advertise it here. You are the last person that sghould talk about disparagment. As a matter of fact, one could say that I have a few free Thom disparaging credits that I’ve earned as a result of your actions.
Keep it up and I might START disparaging you.
[might I remind you of the fact why you got your first warning?]
No, I had multiple accounts use people were unnecesserally modding me down. If I was trying to hide it, you think I would have used my own name? At the time, David agreed with me, and combined all my credits into one account… until Eugenia got upset for re-posting a disparaging comment she made to me and took my 30+ mod points away that I earned.
—
Kelly
“Eugenia got upset for re-posting a disparaging comment she made to me and took my 30+ mod points away that I earned.”
Ahh yes, the biggest troll on OSNews strikes again. Unfortunately this one has access to the ban button.
This comment is why OSN staff shouldn’t have a vote exception.
Your post is clearly insulting to another poster: Kelly.
Honestly, I don’t know why you’d ban him from posting (although I don’t know that you have, only an anonymous post posing as him and that’s not worth much).
Frankly, there are a lot more disruptive users on this forum than I ever remember seeing Kelly be.
But seriously, your last remark was uncalled for. As someone with admin functions you have a duty to be above responding to flamebait with flames.
I don’t think this site has had a pro-Apple slant. However, I’ve not noticed a post about the unfixed Windows WMF flaw that’s been on slashdot a couple times already. Seriously, where ya been on that one? Or maybe I just missed it.
Just to be clear. I’m not accusing you of slant, but I am calling you on insulting Kelly.
When I try to post I get:
“Your account is currently prohibited from posting. Please contact [email protected] if you have any questions.”
Unfortunately, its the “osnews-crew” that wishes to sensor me. So I guess I have to post anon.
Its amazing how the admins here REALLY don’t want anyone to show opposition to their agenda.
—
Kelly
It’s been that way for years, why do you think I (and many others surely) have decided to remain anonymous?
I didn’t used to be 😉
Well, its excellent that OSViews exists. It is a most encouraging development. What we must all now hope is that it succeeds beyond the wildest dreams of its editor. Any help we can give, we should.
We should try to set up a similar site for the Gnome guy as well. Perhaps DTEViews?
No, this is not ironically posted. It is, very very sincerely, probably the only way to solve this particular problem.
osViews exists by way of news and editorial contributions.
Unlike this site which is the product of a handful of editors cherry picking news pieces that suit their personal biases… My philosophy for osViews is that the general computing populace should dictate the news that is posted.
If you see any any major difference in the content this site and osViews publishes, its because osViews is a barometer of the opinions of the computing industry… and osNews is a barometer of… well, Thom’s opinions.
If you would like to help the cause… please submit news links that you believe should be known… and submit original editorial content. osViews currently receives 30k – 40k page views per day. That should be more than enough to make it worth your while.
I’m also open to any suggestions you might have for the site.
Thanks for your support.
—
Kelly
If you were to average out submitted pieces posted against Editor selected pieces posted, you’d see that submitted pieces far out weigh those that an editor picks that they consider to be of general interest to readers.
And in terms of osViews being a barometer of the opinions in the computer industry… how can you call a sample size of just 30k-40k the opinions of an entire industry? that sample size is far to small to be of any analytical merit as showing the wider views of the entire computer industry.
Osnews is the same we dont have nearly enough visitors to call our self an indicator of what the computer industry thinks is worth reading about.
Kelly might have more success on his own forum. Its not working very well here. But on OSViews, he can set the tone, he can decide what’s representative and what’s important, if people don’t like what he posts, tough. And no-one can stop him posting!
All in all, it seems the most constructive resolution of what has become a rather difficult situation. Difficult for other members, as well as for Kelly. And of course particularly for the editors, who have been having a rather hard time on lots of issues in recent months. Lets hope we can avoid a lot of the long repetitive stuff next year with a simple post to the effect that material with a different point of view will be found on…for anyone who wants it.
Anyway, Happy New Year to you all, and to the editors, thanks. You will never have unanimous approval, but you’re trying your best to run things properly. Good luck in the New Year.
Anyway, Happy New Year to you all, and to the editors, thanks. You will never have unanimous approval, but you’re trying your best to run things properly. Good luck in the New Year.
Muchos gracias. Have a nice evening, and a happy new year.
I see this as sweet revenge for Apple. For years windows beat them in the OS market with a lower quality product. Now Apple is making a killing with their expensive low quality MP3 players. The ipod is nowhere near one of the best MP3 players on the market, but they look cool and everyone else has one. Apple has finally been the benefactor of unjustified marketshare leaning in their direction. They shouldn’t complain about how sub-par windows is unless they are willing to admit the arena they are most known for (ipod) is mediocore at best.
[“I see this as sweet revenge for Apple. For years windows beat them in the OS market with a lower quality product. Now Apple is making a killing with their expensive low quality MP3 players.”]
Expensive, but cost-comperable to the rest of the industry. The iPod is hardly low-quality.
[“The ipod is nowhere near one of the best MP3 players on the market”]
You understand that most would disagree with you right?
[“but they look cool and everyone else has one. “]
Because they are such a great product… which resulted in the public beying them en mass… which resulted in those individuals buying them because of the me2 factor.
[They shouldn’t complain about how sub-par windows is unless they are willing to admit the arena they are most known for (ipod) is mediocore at best.]
I don’t see why they would need to make an incorrect statement such as that.
Because they are such a great product… which resulted in the public beying them en mass… which resulted in those individuals buying them because of the me2 factor.
What a stupid comment. If this is true then windows must be a far better operating system than anything Apple has ever offered. That would also make the pet rock of the best toys ever made.
Expensive, but cost-comperable to the rest of the industry. The iPod is hardly low-quality.
I’m not sure which reviews you are reading, but from the ones I have read as well as from my own experience using my Girlfriends ipod mini, the battery life is poor and the sound quality is average at best, but it looks cool.
[“What a stupid comment. If this is true then windows must be a far better operating system than anything Apple has ever offered.]
Differen’t situation. Windows and Microsoft road the coat tails of IBM, while Apple achieved sucess by simply offering a better product.
[That would also make the pet rock of the best toys ever made.]
It sold well because it was funny.
[the battery life is poor]
The iPod mini’s battery life was average for similar hard drive-based MP3 players.
[and the sound quality is average at best, but it looks cool.]
You’re right only if you’re referring to Apple’s headphones. Their headphones aren’t anything spectacular, but the sound quality that comes from the device is very good.
I guess it all depends on what you think makes something better. Maybe the iPod doesn’t wipe your a** for you or do the dishes, or give you a stupid FM tuner (I’ll never understand the appeal of that lame request) but it provides (in conjuction with iTMS and iTunes) THE absolute BEST user experience. Period.
Walt Mosberg is a self-gloried Apple fanboy. I’ll make my tech decisions based on something other than the Wall Street Journal, thank you.
Funny how people supported walts opinion when it compliments their own. But now that it it doesn’t… the guy must be a hack.
[“Then you don’t have an iPod. Or you are a flat out liar. Music files which can be played on the iPod are stored in a hidden folder and randomly sorted into folders /F01 – /F19 (iirc) with the filenames changed. “]
There is software which allows you to extra music loaded on the ipod. All the song file names DO NOT CHANGE.
[“Your claims about hardware costs are simply and incontestably false.”]
That’s simply not true.
[“For a $1000 I can get a PC which, when compared to a Mac, will have a faster processor, more memory (of an equal or higher quality), a larger harddrive, and a better video card.”]
I’m not saying you can’t. I’ll say it again. If you match a PC’s specs EXACTLY (or as close as possible) to that of a Mac in hardware, software and OS the PC will cost more. I know you can build a PC with the components you want for less, thats a strength of the PC to by infinitely configured. In essence, it allows you to buy less and spend less… or buy different and spend less. At issue here is if Apple’s products are out of sync with the rest of the industry. The answer to that question is no. Apple’s PC prices are typically less expensive than a PC of the same (or as close as possible) components in hardware, software and OS.
[“And, yes, it’ll be in an ass-ugly, generic, plain-jane, whitebox case.”]
Thats a valid point to make. The Mac will be less expensive, AND more attractive. It won’t however allow you to not buy the things you’re not interested in.
[“Slap Debian or Ubuntu on there for no additional cost and the result will be superior to what your $1000 will get you over in Macsville.”]
Assuming were to make an exact hardware comparison, Debian would be a comparable OS to OS X, it wouldn’t allow you to match the bundled software that comes with OS X. Yes there are similar products, but they aren’t quite equal. Windows has comparable applications to those that come with OS X for free… though not bundled with Windows for free.
[“The results will be even more dramatic at the $500 price point.”]
My last side by side DIY PC comparison had the PC being $300 more.
[“And $3500 spent with Alienware will get you a nicer box than if you spent that money with Apple.”]
Nicer… only if you buy the things that are of interest to you… in effect buying less and spending less or spending different at possible paying less. That’s not what is at issue here… its whether or not Apple computer hardware is priced out of sync with the rest of the industry. To do that you would need to build a PC to the exact (or as close as possible) same components in hardware, bundled software and operating system. When you do this, the PC almost always comes out more.
Absolutely amazing, this. I don’t know which to be more amazed at, that it was necessary to go to these lengths for a 2.5G processor, even two of them, or that, having decided that it was, they went for it in a fairly mass market product.
But surely the conclusion must be (a) they would not have done it without very good reasons (b) it must mean the end of the road for the processor. If this is what it takes, it must be a dead end. So we can see why x86 was the only way to go. Or will they do this with x86 as well?