In the survey of almost 2,000 ad executives, brand managers and academics by online magazine Brandchannel, Apple ousted search engine Google from last year’s top spot as the fifth most influential brand. However, Apple was not always a success though: MLAgazine have compiled 10 of the most notable products released by Apple or its comrades that failed.
i hate to sound like a jerk, but i will: that article had WAY too many typos. i mean, wuicktime? please. let’s use spellcheck.
aside from that, definitely interesting.
and the Powerbook replaced the Powerbook?
From TFA:
“pple ended up teaming up with Sony to create the PowerBooks, which solved all of the shortcomings of the PowerBook”
Huh?
Also the author is a tad uninformed, |D|I|G|I|T|A|L|’s PDP line never used the 68000 (at least as its main processor)
Other than that an interesting read….
The heading should have read “content” not “contect”
Whatever happened to the Apple III in the discussion? After all, if they could mention Lisa, why not the Apple III? Oh, wait: that was too successful!
And yes, as interesting as the article is, the spelling is atrocious, as are some of the gaffs of a more technical nature. And why couldn’t they specify how things were supposed to be ranked???
That’s not entirely fair. Yes, spelling errors are rampant, but the article does not carry the tone of a “jealous” Windows user. Rather, it’s a humorous look at some of Apple’s bombs over the years. Indeed, the “jealous Windows user” makes even less sense if you consider that he put MS Word 6.0 on the list for being too like Windows and not enough like a Mac.
Would that be considered a failure ? Especially the potential of the x86 version, which funnily enough I’ve just got hold of and intend to have a play with.
Rhapsody is just an early development release of OS X. A lot of OS X stuff isn’t in Rhapsody (notably, Aqua and Quartz), but in that way it’s not unlike some of the earlier Longhorn betas that lacked Avalon. So it’s not a failure, because it was never really a product.
Alright maybe I typed to far, but damn yo, when your site has MLA in the title atleast try to abide by the Modern Language Association standards.
I would have to concure on those damn puck sized apple mice, man I hated those. It was bad enough getting carpel-tunnel on the keyboard at home, but then to have it worsen by use of those damn things.
Dumping Dylan for Objective-C, but I guess users don’t care about that.
dude. give it a rest… Dylan as a language may be nice, but dumping it for Obj-C which allows the use of the awesome NS API library and the APIs built upon it are a great off set.
you think they should have spent 10 years reimplimenting an entire API just to use it with Dylan? if you had to make the decision, you really think that you would say:
” Hmm I have a great language here but the APIs for it are immature and not well implemented… I could dump it for Obj-C, of which I have a lot of new employees who have been working with it for years and I have just bought a wonderful OS with a great API implemented in Obj-C… ah screw it, I will go with Dylan.. it is just so cool and that Lumbergh fellow will like it a lot”
you think they should have spent 10 years reimplimenting an entire API just to use it with Dylan? if you had to make the decision, you really think that you would say:
Dylan had been worked on since the late 80s at Apple Cambridge. It was ready for primetime in 96 and Apple already had a Dylan IDE done….years before OSX was around, and probably still more advanced than most IDEs out there. Apple could have easily had a full API set that would have taken advantage of an arguably superior language by the time OSX came out.
What about the Apple Newton?
Actually this got me thinking of other complete and utter screwups in the IT industry.
Would be interesting to see like articles about IBM, DEC, SGI, Sun, HP, Netscape, AOL, Sierra, EA, M$, Novel, Sony, Nitendo, Sega, Commodore, Atari, Acorn (insert your favourite companies here)
Once we had them all in, we could debate endlessly about what were the all time top ten IT failures.
Unfortunately I only know about the setups I had direct contact with so I couldn’t objectively identify my personal top 10. I’m not sure any from apple would necessarily make it either.
They left out quite a few. Namely the G4 Cube, a marvel of design that nobody could afford. Also CyberDog, the OpenDoc based internet suite. OpenDoc itself was a good idea that was just too big to take on. Maybe they could pull off something like that in the near future though.
I think they included Copland because it drained so much money. It wasn’t really a public failure, but more of a private one. They spend a ton of time and money developing something that never made it to market. I think their biggest failure then was a major lack of direction. They had a lot of great ideas and amazing developers, but nothing was ever tied together, none of those ideas were fully realized.
What about the Cube? Don’t get me wrong I thought the Cube was cool but it did not sell well.
Odd how it wasn’t brought up during the merger nor post-merger. Of course maybe I missed all those secret meetings discussing the pro’s of Dylan over Objective-C.
Dylan had been worked on since the late 80s at Apple Cambridge. It was ready for primetime in 96 and Apple already had a Dylan IDE done….years before OSX was around, and probably still more advanced than most IDEs out there. Apple could have easily had a full API set that would have taken advantage of an arguably superior language by the time OSX came out.
How much experience do you have developing in NeXTSTEP or Openstep? Making a comment like Apple could easily switch from ObjC to Dylan as if it would make any sense really is interesting, so please enlighten us all.
Apple didn’t just buy an operating system, it bought 17 years of advanced technologies that no more than 1/3 was actually even released yet.
Regarding Rhapsody: Rhapsody was the codename for OS X before Steve became iCEO and eventually just canned the whole damn name. He couldn’t stand the name Gil gave. It was his way of describing it as better than Mozart (another codename).
Quartz did replace DPS for Openstep/Rhapsody but it built upon the decade plus of DPS at NeXT. Aqua is a nice way of giving a meta-label to a set of APIs on top of the BSD layer. For that matter we could have called NeXT’s Quartz layer aka NeXT DPS since Quartz is DisplayPDF (albeit a custom version of PDF primitives and add-ons by Apple).
Rhapsody was the early port of Openstep to Apple PowerPC architecture. Just as YellowBox was Openstep 4.2 for Windows.
Bottomline: NeXT has so much technology that was just lying around don’t be surprised if more and more continues to be rolled into OS X as new ‘features’ that have been modernized and expanded upon.
I can’t wait for Carbon to finally completely implode.
With all these years of advanced API refinement those who develop in Cocoa know how many of the features they had to once develop in-house now get ripped and replaced with freebies from within AppKit/Foundation, etc…
Take a look at Stone Design Create sometime.
Andrew knows quite well how his AppSuite just gets more and more refined with more code being reused from Apple allowing him to add new features rapidly, not to mention new applications, with only a few people working for him.
Go ahead and ask him.
http://www.stone.com/Create/Create.html
http://www.stone.com/NewDownload.html (All Cocoa Apps)
No I don’t think NeXTApple Engineering was going to blow up 17 years of R&D that is road tested and start from scratch.
Single most visible failure was using ObjectiveC/BSD Kernel instead of C++/Aqua on Linux kernel. With Linux kernel, most developers/geeks now using PC would use Mac instead becouse it will solve all hw problems they have. BFU wouldn’t even notice any change, if aqua remains the same. The biggest failure is they didn’t attract developers.
“Bottomline: NeXT has so much technology that was just lying around don’t be surprised if more and more continues to be rolled into OS X as new ‘features’ that have been modernized and expanded upon.
I can’t wait for Carbon to finally completely implode.”
I couldn’t agree more.
“Single most visible failure was using ObjectiveC/BSD Kernel instead of C++/Aqua on Linux kernel. With Linux kernel, most developers/geeks now using PC would use Mac instead becouse it will solve all hw problems they have. BFU wouldn’t even notice any change, if aqua remains the same. The biggest failure is they didn’t attract developers.”
There are so many flaws in that logic I don’t even know where to start.
Odd how it wasn’t brought up during the merger nor post-merger. Of course maybe I missed all those secret meetings discussing the pro’s of Dylan over Objective-C.
Yeah, I guessed you missed the “meetings” where the obvious advantages of Dylan over Objective-C were discussed.
http://www.wodeveloper.com/omniLists/macosx-dev/2000/December/msg00…
What’s really interesting is that despite this supposed superiority that the NeXT framework gives Apple, they still use KHTML for their browser, don’t have their own office suite, and is losing developers left and right. Before long, it’ll be only Apple employees that are using this “superior” framework.
Single most visible failure was using ObjectiveC/BSD Kernel instead of C++/Aqua on Linux kernel
I’m trying to remember the timeframe in which Torvalds was interviewed by Steve Jobs. Was this before the decision to use Mach/BSD was made?
With Linux kernel, most developers/geeks now using PC would use Mac instead becouse it will solve all hw problems they have.
What hardware problems are there now? The only hardware problems I see would be OSX on x86 and drivers.
“BOB”!
PDP computers have never used a 68000 CPU. In fact, such CPU hadn’t even been invented when the first PDP was made. He must have been thinking about old Sun and SGI boxes which did indeed use motorola CPUs before moving onto Sparc and MIPS.
“Single most visible failure was using ObjectiveC/BSD Kernel instead of C++/Aqua on Linux kernel. With Linux kernel, most developers/geeks now using PC would use Mac instead becouse it will solve all hw problems they have. BFU wouldn’t even notice any change, if aqua remains the same. The biggest failure is they didn’t attract developers.”
Are you sure? 🙂
Read about the last two Apple World Wide Developers Conference. ;-D
“What hardware problems are there now? The only hardware problems I see would be OSX on x86 and drivers.”
I, for one, would by Apple/Linux becouse I see it as nice distro with nvidia, sw-suspend, Java, wireless, camera, … out of the box. As a developer I cannot buy Apple now becouse my customers have Windows or Linux, never Mac.
“Read about the last two Apple World Wide Developers Conference. ;-D”
I don’t need to. I know many developers around here, all of them can program in Windows, many moving to Linux right now, one has Mac, with gentoo on it.
I don’t think Mac is bad computer or OSX is bad OS. Actually I like Mac, as most people outthere. But, as developer, I want to use all C/C++ free libs outthere, community, free everything (well, except hw). Mac could provide all that with Aqua/Linux. It is not too late, it still might happen. Replacing BSD with Linux will be hardly detected by app writers or users. Opening Aqua desktop and bundled applications is be price Apple must pay for taking much larger piece of desktop cake. Reciepe is: put togather all coolness outthere (Aqua + Linux + PS3 + Java + Mac HW) into single computer. Nice HW and eye-candy is not enough for developers.
Pippin was only a failure because it was never released.
OpenDoc? Well, ok… But according to the Article, it wasn’t Apple who failed.
MacTV? It sold, didn’t it? I know a few people who had these and loved them. Hardly a failure. Not a success, maybe…
Like MANY Apple technologies (like the Newton), it was simply before it’s time, and not marketed whole-heartedly by Apple.
MacXL/Lisa? Not a failure. Just supplanted by the Macintosh. Had there been no Macintosh, we’d all be running PowerLisas today.
Microsoft Word 6.0? A) Not Apple. B) Not a failure. I used it, and it worked fine. No problems…
Copland? How can an OS never released be a failure?
eWorld? This was great. I used it until they wrapped it into AOL. All this was, was an Apple Private labeled version of AOL.
Puck Mouse/Kiddie Keyboard? While I hate the iMac Hockey Puck Mouse. I’d HARDLY call it a failure. I’m still using them in my office. They work fine. They just aren’t as nice as 2 button mice. Kiddie Keyboard? Not a failure. They work fine.
Flower Power/Blue Dalmatian iMac? How can these be failures? People bought them and liked them. Most are still in use today, and are capable and usable Macs.
Macintosh Portable? My first Portable computer. I *LOVED* it, and if I hadn’t had to give it back to my company, I’d still have it today. This unit was NOT a failure, as it presaged the Powerbook line (the PowerBook 100 being a Sony re-design of the Mac Portable into a smaller case).
This article is specious. Sure, most everything in this article was not successful, but that hardly makes them a “failure”.
We could find just as many, or more from Microsoft…
Microsoft Windows 1.0 – 3.0?
Microsoft Bob
Microsoft MultiPlan
Microsoft MSX Platform
Microsoft Live! Microphone
Microsoft USB Sound System
Microsoft Windows ME
Microsoft Windows NT for Alpha and PPC
And MANY more…
EVERY successful person or company has lots of failures along with the successes…
That’s what makes a company successfull… Trying over and over, missing sometimes and hitting big others…
Geez, Donald Trump must have made and lost his fortunes 5 times by now… I’d still like to be as business saavy and rich/powerful as he is.
What’s the point about this continuous Mac Bashing lately?
Has the G5 iMac, iPods, Apple’s record profits and the Mac Mini got all the PC Pundits scared???
When you innovate you take risks, some of them are bound to fail. However the contributions apple has made to the industry far outweigh the failures. They will surely have some flops again. But you can also bet they will put out some truely amazing products.
> What about the Apple Newton?
Apparently as part of ensuring the suplly chain for the Newton Apple bought a large chunk of ARM shares, when they sold them they made enough profit to pay for all the development costs etc of the Newton and make hundreds of millions of dollars profit. So actually hte Newton project was very successful, just not in the way anyone expected.
The ISA (Instruction Set Architecture) of the 68000 has been inspired by the VAX (aka PDP 11/*) ISA. That’s tho only link between those two processor families I know.
Carsten
“What’s really interesting is that despite this supposed superiority that the NeXT framework gives Apple, they still use KHTML for their browser, don’t have their own office suite, and is losing developers left and right. Before long, it’ll be only Apple employees that are using this “superior” framework.”
Huh? What’s wrong with KHTML? They don’t have an Office suite because they signed a 5 years contract with MS that ended about a year ago. And how the hell do you figure that they are losing developer? The OS X development community is growing by leaps and bounds.
“I don’t think Mac is bad computer or OSX is bad OS. Actually I like Mac, as most people outthere. But, as developer, I want to use all C/C++ free libs outthere, community, free everything (well, except hw).”
If Apple used the Linux kernel, nothing would be free that isn’t free on OS X now. And btw, nothing is stopping you from developing in C/C++ on OS X.
“Mac could provide all that with Aqua/Linux. It is not too late, it still might happen. Replacing BSD with Linux will be hardly detected by app writers or users.”
Except for all those apps that would have to be rewritten.
“Opening Aqua desktop and bundled applications is be price Apple must pay for taking much larger piece of desktop cake.”
No, it’s really not. Why would Apple open up it’s most valuable possession?
“Reciepe is: put togather all coolness outthere (Aqua + Linux + PS3 + Java + Mac HW) into single computer. Nice HW and eye-candy is not enough for developers.”
So either run X11 or load a PPC Linux. There is absolutely no reason OS X should be running on top of Linux.
if the article was focused on apple. Half of that stuff was completely superfluous — Office 6.0? How the fsck does that reflect badly on apple? That’s like saying windows sucks because Quicktime for Windows is a POS. Also, at what point did Apple’s users love, cherish and respect Microsoft???
The few things in the article which were apple-centric and actually relevant were interesting though.
OpenDoc… sounds just like the all-in-one interface that GoBeProductive uses. Of course, GP was created by the folks who originally developed ClarisWorks.
I agree totally (it wasn’t relevant to apple). However, MS Word 6.0 (which was part of Office 4.2 for Macintosh) was a peice of s**t compared to MS Word 5. Actually Word 6.0 on Windows was also garbage. Then, once Word 97 came out… Mac users were out in the cold for a while (file converters sucked).
<grin>
Now, Multiplan 1.0 vs. Excel… hmmmm!!!
Although OSX is highly praised, a lot of the resentment is based on the fact that “no matter how good the OS is” the claims made by Apple always seem to be a lot bigger.
For example, the ad campaign that attacked windows for the “Blue screen of death” and claimed that MacOS “Never crashes” (this were broadcast circa 10.2.1! 10.3 *still* crashes!) are bound to lead to disillusionment for puny users.
Re: the MS-Word connundrum (etc.) –the fact is that Apple has claimed to be the replacement for MS-Win in all ways (etc.), and there wasn’t a fully functional office suite for it until MS got around to writing it. Most importantly, the Word Processor(s) that come with the OS (which is what I’d judge them on) are completely inadequate to this day.
It’s kind of wierd that, given the claims made by apple, you’re getting a better and more stable office suite when you run OOo on Gnome than on your $5000 Mac hardware. I’m not flaming Apple; everyone loves Aqua, etc. etc., but they have made claims above and beyond what they’ve delivered in more ways than one.
Ktoggerax, the thing is, Apple isn’t making those claims. I agree that those are often the expectations, but Apple isn’t the one setting those expectations. They have pushed MS Office a lot, and it is in fact the number one selling software for OS X that isn’t made by Apple. Notice the iWork pages on their website, they never once take aim at MS Office. They push the fact that the things you do in iWork will look really really good, which is true (I’ve yet to see a Powerpoint presentation that looked even remotely decent). iWork isn’t really set up for use in a large coporate environment (not yet anyway). Notice that with the old ‘switch’ campaign, they never said they were the be all end all of platforms, just that they were the better platform. They’ve never said that OS X never crashes, just that it’s got the stability of unix behind it (the same claim made by Linux distros everywhere), in fact, they hardly ever even advertise OS X (which they really should start doing). And throughout all the recent virus and malware problems Windows has been having, have you heard one work from Apple about OS X’s complete lack of viruses? No. But you hear these things constantly in the hype surrounding Apples products. It’s not Apple making these claims, it’s everyone else.
“As a developer I want to use all free C/C++ libs out there”
ObjC stops you from doing this how? They’re not incompatible languages.
OS X crashed for you? That is very strange. I have never had OS X Jaguar or Panther crash on me ever. I have had apps crash, yes, but not the OS. I have had to force quit programs from time to time. But I have never had a system side freeze or had to reboot or do a hard reset or anything like that. In fact, I don’t know if I have ever heard any of my Mac friends say that OS X has crashed on them.
The punch mouse was my favorite when i was in the 6th grade. I loved using it. My friends also liked to use them. Even now when i visit my old school the little kids there like to use them.
oops i mean puck mouse ;-p
same here, never a crash….18 months now
Many folks that I know actually tried to get a “downgrade” copy (to version 5) from MicroSoft. They claimed that 6 was sluggish (in comparison) and the interface was so different that they could not find out how to do things that were commonly done in vers. 5 and older.
Of course, this was not an Apple failure. It was a MicroSoft failure. The program appeared to be a recompilation of the Windows code on the surface, with certain modifications. That means that big chunks of code were just in the way of effecient running.
I’ve had it crash once and I’ve been using OS X since 10.2, I was doing a *very* large integration in Maxima on OpenMCL and after three days with the processor maxed out it froze (not that that effected using it for day to day things whilst that was running). But since this is a 6 year old baddly maintained machine it could be a hardware problem.
…I’m not flaming Apple; everyone loves Aqua, etc. etc., but they have made claims above and beyond what they’ve delivered in more ways than one…
Perhaps but that is nowhere near the claims versus reality from Microsoft. Just look at the laughable claims Mr. Ballmer makes about compatibility between versions of Microsoft Software (most amazingly the complete incompatibility between Visual Basic 6.0 and Visual Basic.Net that Ballmer loves to ignore/forget).
If Mr. Jobs lives in a reality distortion field, then Mr. Ballmer lives in a reality distortion universe.
I was surprised to not see the Newton make the list.
The first PDA that went down in flames.
It was supposed to be a wonderful device but never got traction?
Anyone remember this?
holy crap I am old 🙁 I was in college when I was using that thing.
did not mention newton.
i think they included some stuff like microsoft works that shouldnt have been in there…
Yes, but everyone has made the PDA mistake now, and once again the fad (that grew much bigger this time as they were affordable) has dwindled closer and closer to the actual usefulness of a PDA.
OS News why don’t you just merge with Paul Thurott. Your lame Mac-bashing is out of control.
The worst thing that Apple could do is to take on MS Office. Like it or not, MS Office is used virtually everywhere, and the possibility of using macs in offices would completely die if MS Office disappeared. And the only way to EVER be 100% compatible with MS Office is to……..use MS Office.
If Apple tried to REALLY complete with MS Office, Microsoft would probably trounce them by pulling the mac version of office, just like they pulled Internet Explorer, siting Safari as the reason.
Some people (most businesses, for example) will never even consider using a platform for which no version of MS Office exists.
Steve needs to be EXTREMELY careful that no office product created by Apple can ever seriously take on MS Office. That would probably have more potential for killing the mac as a serious platform than anything else.
And the lack of MS Office on Linux is a good share of the reason why linux will not succeed in any broad way on the business desktop.
“Steve needs to be EXTREMELY careful that no office product created by Apple can ever seriously take on MS Office. That would probably have more potential for killing the mac as a serious platform than anything else.”
I disagree, Apple needs to not take on MS directly, but rather slowly. Do what they are doing with iWork, and slowy add until it creeps into MS Office market.
You do know that word for the mac was out before MS Word for the Intel Plattform, do You? Office 2004 is the most recent version of Office and has anything Office 2003 has and some more and in opposite to the Ooo stuff it is a real Mac Software developed with the Mac in mind. Ooo on the Mac is fdar behind MS Office 2004!
Um… I’m guessing PDR didn’t actually read my message before replying to it. What I wrote was:
“–the fact is that Apple has claimed to be the replacement for MS-Win in all ways (etc.), and there wasn’t a fully functional office suite for it until MS got around to writing it…”
That final sentence quoted does indeed state that MS ‘got around to writing’ an office suite. I don’t think anyone who read my message could think I was unaware of MS-Office –and I don’t think anyone would think I was a “fan” of running OOo on the Mac, either. What I compared was the Word Processing (etc.) that comes *included with the OS* (important distinction) to what you can get bundled with Linux OS. And yeah, I would say that OOo on Linux is more impressive than everything Apple bundled with 10.3. For instance, OOo includes such advanced features as INSERTING PAGE NUMBERS! Can you believe it’s 2005?
In reply to some other posted comments:
Yes, there really was a televised ad campaign in which Apple attacked the “Blue Screen of Death” on PCs, and in which they claimed this never happened with a Mac. Well, the screen doesn’t turn blue when it happens, but yes Macs do crash.
My mac has crashed 6 times in the last 2 months, in every case during normal word processing (with iTunes running) –*not* running some exotic resource-hogging program.
In the last few months of running 10.2.8 (i.e., before I upgraded to 10.3) the Mac was similarly unstable. I’m sort of wincing until 10.4 comes out, at which time I will wipe the hard drive clean and re-install everything … just like Windows users do when their systems become unstable. I’m in the same trap that the rest of the world is, except I have a more expensive than average upgrade cost between me and the solution. Guess what: just like windows, the MacOS become unreliable when you run it for about a year without re-formatting your hard drive and re-installing everything. The Mac is no less susceptible to “age” in this respect, in my experience (and yes, I do regularly run utility scripts to clean up the HD, etc.). I literally do not use my Mac to surf the web, so there isn’t even a Malware possibility involved here.
In any case, the claim that any OS “never crashes” is pretty much absurd; in the case of QNX, it might be a bit different as “parts” crash rather than the whole … but I’ll believe it when I see it.
with regard to your crashes i’d suspect itunes, as it has hooks deep into the system.
with regard to osx ageing, thats not what i’ve expernced i have a old imac that has gone from 10.1/10.2/10.3 just upgrades and no slow down or getting unstable, its yet to crash in 10.3, and powerbook hasn’t slowed in the 2 years i’ve had it, it will infact manage uptimes of months if no updates come from apple.
other folks i know with macs seem to keep there macs running with out having to wipe there dives every year or so.
Well, you did not understand me correctly. The impression I got from your post was that MS wrote an the Office suite because there was none avaliable. I just wanted to say that sure in the very early days there were only very few proigrams availiable. But Apple alway had a wordprocessor and there was aslo WordPerfect at that time etc. MS provieded the Office suite about the same time for the Mac Plattform as for the Windows Platform. StarDivision on the other side wanted to make there Office Suite available for Apple as well but there failed miserably to do this in the same way as Ooo is failing. But this is not Apples fault. By the way what do you mean with bundling? Linux does not bundle anything, that is just a kernal. If you mean all the distributions? That is not the same. Apple bundles Works which includes a Wordprocessor, Database etc. If you need more you can buy MS Office or get Ragtime or what so ever. I don’t get your point.
“Yes, there really was a televised ad campaign in which Apple attacked the “Blue Screen of Death” on PCs, and in which they claimed this never happened with a Mac. Well, the screen doesn’t turn blue when it happens, but yes Macs do crash.”
Hehe some of you gauys are such a hoot.
I would say that during this thread 90% of people keep it sane and relatively balanced: “Sure i love Apple/Mac but they make mistakes just like EVERY sinlge company out there”
But for some reason any article sismilar to this also draws out the Defensive Nutters (Tm. Apple Corp) 🙂
They just can NOT resist defending whatever has been done under the Apple name, it has to be perfect since it has been touched by the Ambrosia That Flows From The Hands Of Our Leaders…
I can think of similar cockups form the other big players, and sometimes the mistakes or failures are later reused as parts of other projects the company will do other times its just not part of what the ocmpany should do and hence they quit that market (Intels Mp3 players anyone)
Just Chill people, not everyone who brings up something about Apple not being perfect is an Antimacite
“Yes, there really was a televised ad campaign in which Apple attacked the “Blue Screen of Death” on PCs, and in which they claimed this never happened with a Mac. Well, the screen doesn’t turn blue when it happens, but yes Macs do crash.”
The only ‘It doesn’t crash’ from Apple I could find was this…
‘Are you just a tad too well acquainted with the notorious “blue screen of death?” Bid it a fond farewell. With Mac OS X, you’ll become accustomed instead to industry-leading stability. In this elegant new operating system, memory is fully protected and applications can’t conflict with the OS or one another. And, oh yes, Mac OS X is built on the industrial strength of UNIX. Most Fortune 500 companies, governments and universities rely on UNIX for their mission-critical applications. And now, so can you.’
Which is very true. Now don’t get me wrong here, I’m not saying OS X will never crash. I’ve had it crash myself, albeit not anytime recently. I’m just saying it’s not Apple that’s building up all these expectations.
“Geez, Donald Trump must have made and lost his fortunes 5 times by now… I’d still like to be as business saavy and rich/powerful as he is. ”
He may be rich and (unfortunately) powerful, but I wouldnt say Trump is all that savvy when it comes to business. Put him on the other side of the table in his show and he would crumble.