I know people who practiced similar behavior (metaphorically speaking) at my job. The reason they used to do it is that it annoyed management so much that the moment they actually crossed by even a hair they were jumped on and fired. I expect the same will happen to Apple. The moment they actually cross the line any leniency from the DoJ will be non-existent.
The fundamental difference is here is people (your example) vs massive corporation (Apple). Don't think they have a hoard of lawyers vetting every corporate decision to make sure it doesn't cross the line?
Greg
I know people who practiced similar behavior (metaphorically speaking) at my job. The reason they used to do it is that it annoyed management so much that the moment they actually crossed by even a hair they were jumped on and fired. I expect the same will happen to Apple. The moment they actually cross the line any leniency from the DoJ will be non-existent.The fundamental difference is here is people (your example) vs massive corporation (Apple). Don't think they have a hoard of lawyers vetting every corporate decision to make sure it doesn't cross the line?
Greg
Actually, the impression I have been getting lately is that even if they have a hoard of lawyers, Steve Jobs runs the show and he doesn't care what the lawyers say.
He has even been quoted (allegedly) admitting that one particular decision was done in a fit of anger. This was months after the decision, and the decision still stands, at least at the time of the article.
Actually, the impression I have been getting lately is that even if they have a hoard of lawyers, Steve Jobs runs the show and he doesn't care what the lawyers say.
He has even been quoted (allegedly) admitting that one particular decision was done in a fit of anger. This was months after the decision, and the decision still stands, at least at the time of the article.
This is the popular opinion, I agree. But I have never seen a single factual news article that says as much.
Jobs is nothing, if not smart. One may not like him, even insist he's a tyrant and egomaniac, but considering how far Apple has come since near extinction in the early 90s, it is absolutely clear he knows what he's doing. Under any other person, Apple would be dead right now. And that should say something especially considering they just surpassed Microsoft in market share (or whatever the term is).
And I'd bet that, if the notorious Apple legal team came to him and insisted that they were breaking the rules, he'd pull back. 'Cause he ain't that dumb.
But, regardless, this is all conjecture. None of us knows what goes on behind Apple's closed doors, and probably never will.
Greg
Apple fails to check the legality of using a name... Again.
iPhone, iPad, iAds.... The only name they haven't "stolen from someone else" has been iOS which they actually took the time to come to an agreement with... Sun, I think it was? I'd have to look it up.
Yeah, it sure looks like Apples' "hoard of lawyers" is really being listened to.
Not so much Apple as AT&T but they are joined at the hip.
AT&T's Gaping Hole Exposes 114,000 iPad 3G Buyers' Email Addresses
Oops! Early Apple adopters get shafted again.
Edit: Am I the only one that thinks a story that involves a group called "Goatse Security" should not have the words "Gaping Hole" in the title?
I am starting to feel sorry for Apple early adopters.
Mac OS X 10.6.4 update appears to have problems. This is apparently a trend with Apple?
Mac OS X 10.6.4 update appears to have problems. This is apparently a trend with Apple?
Given that almost all of the listed problems were experienced by one person only, and the rest have, at most, 2 people with the same poblem, Occam's Razor says the problem is with the installed system base, not the update itself. It's not that difficult to have installed 3rd party extenstions/software that can cause havok when a system update rolls out.
Now, when one particular issue becomes an across the board problem, then one can ascribe it to the operating system.
Apple may have <10% of the installed user base out there, but that still numbers in the millions.
Greg
iPhone, iPad, iAds.... The only name they haven't "stolen from someone else" has been iOS which they actually took the time to come to an agreement with... Sun, I think it was? I'd have to look it up.
Well, according to Wikipedia:
On July 1, 2007, it was reported that Apple paid at least US$1 million to Michael Kovatch for the transfer of the iphone.com domain name.
The bastards! That poor man only got $1million.
That's the most expensive "steal" in the history of stolen property.
:)
Greg
(For some reason the edit option for my pervious post is gone. Post too old?)
Interestingly, on the WIkipedia page for iPad it says:
Like the iPhone, the iPad shares its name with existing products.
Curiously, I can't find any mention of the other iPhones. Wikipedia says nothing (other than that quote). Anyone have a link? I'm curious.
By-the-by, the above linked page says that:
On March 17, 2010 the Fujitsu iPAD U.S. trademark was transferred to Apple.
Still don't think that constitutes "stealing" but YMMV.
Greg
iPhone, iPad, iAds.... The only name they haven't "stolen from someone else" has been iOS which they actually took the time to come to an agreement with... Sun, I think it was? I'd have to look it up.Well, according to Wikipedia:
On July 1, 2007, it was reported that Apple paid at least US$1 million to Michael Kovatch for the transfer of the iphone.com domain name.The bastards! That poor man only got $1million.
That's the most expensive "steal" in the history of stolen property.
:)
Greg
Not the domain name.
The brand name owned by Cisco.
By-the-by, the above linked page says that:
On March 17, 2010 the Fujitsu iPAD U.S. trademark was transferred to Apple.Still don't think that constitutes "stealing" but YMMV.
Greg
If the RIAA and MPAA can call acquiring property without permission, even if you pay for it after the fact, theft - then I think I can as well.
iPhone jailbreaks might be excluded from the DMCA, but naturally Apple is fighting it.
I am not quite sure where they think they can govern what people do with their own, legally obtained, devices. But since Apple has attempted (at least) to patent finger gestures I am not surprised about the move.
Apple wants to know where and what your doing with their products at all times.
Don't particularly like this (although it doesn't apply to me - no iOS4 devices), but it should be noted that according to Gizmodo:
The other alternative is to disagree to the terms of service and not install iOS 4. Changing platforms is not an option, however, as Google and Android have exactly the same problem. In other words: Nowhere to run, baby.
So this is a general smartphone issue. In fact, it appears that Apple is playing catchup here...
Greg
On a slightly similar topic:
Updating the inclusionary rules after a developer has begun work may be frustrating, and even financially burdensome, but those are the breaks. Changing or updating developer submission and acceptance rules isn't necessarily an attack on (or turning on) any developers out of spite.
Those are the breaks - but it is a break in longstanding behavior, and that isn't comforting when you "partner" with them.
The timing of the change was a bit too coincidental with the release of CS 5. CS 5 was under development for a long time.
Thoughts on Flash very specifically spells out that SJ wants to cut out cross platform tools - it isn't just about Flash. He has very specific reasons for doing it. Also, when you read the details of the Adobe-Apple relationship in that text, it is very one sided about what Apple has done for Adobe, not the other way. Taken together with the timing - it looks spiteful.
This affects more than just Flash though - it affects all cross-platform tools, including REALbasic, Revolution and Director. There are also a host of other tools as well.
I am not arguing for the sake of argument. I have been in the Mac market for over 15 years, with an additional 5 years before that in the console game market. It is something I know about very well.
If Apple was completely opposed to cross platform applications, then I wouldn't be able to read and edit MS Office docs on my iPad, and I wouldn't be able to create iWork products and email them out as MS Office docs.
Documents have nothing to do with cross platform applications.
Documents are about data exchange. If the iPad could only use native iWork applications, then it would be a disqualifier to many business people. They have loads of documents in various MS formats, and there's no harm in supporting them.
It is an entirely different if there are cross platform applications - that is spelled out very clearly in Thoughts on Flash.
iPhone4 suffers some design issues. (The Register article on the same thing.)
It seems that having the antenna on the outside is a bad move for a device to be held in the hand.
How Apple affects other retailers. I won't claim conspiracy... But it does make me question if there might be one.
iPhone4 suffers some design issues. (The Register article on the same thing.)
It seems that having the antenna on the outside is a bad move for a device to be held in the hand.
To be clear, it seems to be a problem for people holding it in their left hand, when the palm rests against the corner of the device.
However, having said that, this does seem like a really, really bad oversight. If it is a consistent and repeatable problem, Apple'll take a beating in PR. And will probably be refunding a lot of dissatisfied customers (or at least giving out free bumpers!).
However, the jury's still out on this one. According to this, this may be a problem that has existed even as far back as 2008 (check out the last video in the piece), so it may not be an "antenna on the outside issue" but it may be getting more attention now due to the high profile-ness of the outside antennae.
How Apple affects other retailers. I won't claim conspiracy... But it does make me question if there might be one.
Puhhleaze. Every time Apple rolls out a new device, they sell more than they did with the previous one. So far, no one has been able to accurately estimate how many iPads or iPhone 4s they were going to sell. Sure it's a massive hype machine. But c'mon. There is only a finite number of items they can produce.
Not a conspiracy.
Greg
iPhone4 suffers some design issues. (The Register article on the same thing.)
It seems that having the antenna on the outside is a bad move for a device to be held in the hand.
BBC article on the same thing.
------------------------------------
Not a conspiracy.
Greg
Conspiracy? No. Not very nice to other sellers? Yes.
Here is the thing though.
Apple never hits their customers' demand at launch.
- A little hard to swallow... But buyable. I find it hard to believe they can't make enough supply for launch, but it could happen.
- Given that, why in the world did they open up iPhone4 launch to other sellers in the first place?
Hypothetical example: iPhone releases. Apple makes 500,000 (just making up numbers here), and can't make demand at launch.
iPhone 3G releases. Apple makes up, let's say 1,000,000, and can't make demand at launch.
So far, alright. Plausible.
iPad releases. Apple makes, let's say 1.5 million, and can't make demand at launch.
I'll buy that.
Now iPhone4 releases, Apple makes 2 million (still making up numbers), and allows other vendors to advertise availability at opening day.
Are you trying to tell me the Apple is that dumb, that they accidentally repeat history? And set themselves up to do it at the same time?
That is real hard to believe. I mean, I hear about how brilliant and smart Steve Jobs is (and I am not saying he isn't), and the same people try and tell me that he can't predict this outcome. I can't accept both at the same time.
iPhone4 suffers some design issues. (The Register article on the same thing.)
It seems that having the antenna on the outside is a bad move for a device to be held in the hand.
And it turns out other phones suffer the same problem.
This may be much ado about nothing...
Greg
|
iPhone 4 uses a steel-encased ceramic antenna with a higher than usual frequency (2100/1900) range. The current software may show less or even no signal strength, but that doesn't mean there's actually no or a weak signal. Additionally, ceramic antennas in the 2100 MHz range don't react well around solar, atomic, or some far-station receiver wristwatches (like Casio's Pathfinder atomic watches), so holding the new iPhone or another model using a ceramic high band antenna in the left hand will probably result in connection issues.
|
Are you trying to tell me the Apple is that dumb, that they accidentally repeat history? And set themselves up to do it at the same time?
That is real hard to believe. I mean, I hear about how brilliant and smart Steve Jobs is (and I am not saying he isn't), and the same people try and tell me that he can't predict this outcome. I can't accept both at the same time.
I don't think Apple is deliberately trying to screw their resellers, the fact that they told resellers they would be getting product and didn't ship it is pretty lame. Why they did it is anyone's guess.
|
About the reception issue. I tested it with my phone yesterday (Yes, I was crazy enough to reserve it, and yes I was naive to think there wouldn't be 2000 people with reservations to pick it up on a Thursday). If I held the phone just right I could simulate the signal degradation and "force" the signal to near to nothing. I didn't empirically test whether this was an actual signal error or a true loss of reception, however when my other half tried to do it she wasn't ever able to repeat it on my phone. This probably has something to do with how "electrostatic" someone is. I know that on many other "touch" devices she sometimes has problems pushing the buttons (like on a fancy expresso machine that has an electronic button). So while the issue does exist, it may just be more apparent now with the new design.
Personally I haven't had too many issues with it and only may need to be more cautious if it actually makes me lose a signal.
iPhone4 suffers some design issues. (The Register article on the same thing.)
It seems that having the antenna on the outside is a bad move for a device to be held in the hand.BBC article on the same thing.
------------------------------------
Not a conspiracy.
Greg
Conspiracy? No. Not very nice to other sellers? Yes.Here is the thing though.
Apple never hits their customers' demand at launch.
This thread needs a little levity: Penny Arcade
:)
Greg
Just a short time after Apple's PR team responded to our previous story on Apple's iPhone 4 antenna issue, Apple chief executive Steve Jobs responded to an Engadget reader with much the same advice.
"I love my new iPhone 4 (nice work) but when I put my hand on the steel bands I lose all reception," an emailer with an Arizona State University account emailed to Jobs. "It appears to be a common issue. Any plans to fix this?"
Jobs' response: "Just avoid holding it in that way."
Arrogance thy name is Steve Jobs.
Here is the thing though.
Apple never hits their customers' demand at launch.
I would posit that it is almost impossible to "hit" the customer's demand. Either you produce too much or too little. But that's probably nitpicking.
- A little hard to swallow... But buyable. I find it hard to believe they can't make enough supply for launch, but it could happen.
- Given that, why in the world did they open up iPhone4 launch to other sellers in the first place?
Contractual obligations? Maybe the contracts that Apple has with other sellers is that they are obliged to "open up the launch" because of the existing contracts they have in place?
Hypothetical example: iPhone releases. Apple makes 500,000 (just making up numbers here), and can't make demand at launch.
iPhone 3G releases. Apple makes up, let's say 1,000,000, and can't make demand at launch.
So far, alright. Plausible.
iPad releases. Apple makes, let's say 1.5 million, and can't make demand at launch.
I'll buy that.
Now iPhone4 releases, Apple makes 2 million (still making up numbers), and allows other vendors to advertise availability at opening day.
Are you trying to tell me the Apple is that dumb, that they accidentally repeat history? And set themselves up to do it at the same time?
That is real hard to believe. I mean, I hear about how brilliant and smart Steve Jobs is (and I am not saying he isn't), and the same people try and tell me that he can't predict this outcome. I can't accept both at the same time.
Well, brilliance != prophecy (although some people are wiling to believe that Jobs is a tech prophet of some sort. Or the anti-Christ...)
Let me pose it a different way. Lets say you were the CEO of AT&T. Jobs gets on the phone to you and says, "Hey, listen. We've got a new iPhone coming out. It's got x y z of awesomeness and we are going sell a ton."
You say "Great! When's it coming out? We want to be a big part of this roll-out!"
Would you rather hear Jobs say "Sorry dude, but we'll only have 2 million units available worldwide and we're saving them all for Apple stores" or would you rather he say "Great, listen, we'll only have 2 million units available worldwide and obviously we are going to sell most of them through our own outlets, but we can make sure you guy get a few".
Neither is great to hear if you're on the other line, but at least with option 2, you're still part of the roll-out and get all the PR.
Also, remember, that AT&T was still taking on-line pre-orders so it may be the AT&T actually decided themselves that the vast majority of their stock would be sold over the internet rather than at the stores. (Ummm, just a thought, does AT&T have stores? I'm Canadian, so I don't know. Our cell carriers do, so I assume AT&T does. Oh well.)
Not saying the situation is great for the partners, but if your choice was to be shut out completely or just play a small part, which would you take?
If it were me, I'd want to have whatever piece of the pie I could get.
And this probably goes for all the big box stores, too. We don't know how that went down either, but it may be that the head offices new full well the limited amount of stock that they would be getting and they decided to go ahead and advertise opening day availability even though they had very little to sell. Y'know, get them in the door and all that.
I'm just having a real hard time ascribing this sort of Machiavellian/Anti-Christ/Big Brother aspect to Apple/Jobs. They are a tech company that is interested in building gadgets and making money. I know it's de rigueur to see Jobs as the "antithesis of all that is good", but I just don't buy it. He's a CEO of a massive corporation and as such I put him in line with all the other CEO's of massive corporations, including Google. Not evil, not saintly. Just trying to make his company successful by selling as much product as possible.
Greg
|
|
The Apple business model?
I've been using my 15" MacBook Pro for just around two and a half hours now, rummaging the internet over WiFi, and running off the battery bank. My battery indicator reads 7:43.
That's right, I've been using it nonstop for over two hours and I have almost eight hours of battery left before I'll have to plug in.
This notebook has never crashed. No application on this notebook has ever crashed.
This notebook has never locked up or froze, requiring a hard restart.
This notebook is fast. It's very close to my iMac in speed and processing.
This notebook is built--there are no cheap parts on it, nothing has that 'I'm gonna break off in a week' feel. Everything is solid, everything is measured, everything is visibly precise, inside and out. Even the stuff I'm not supposed to see, like the closed-in guts of the machine, are painstakingly laid out.
This notebook is good looking--just holding it you can tell someone put a lot of thought and care into it; and like they say in the commercials, that translates into an idea that someone put a lot of thought and care into me, the consumer.
I don't worry about this notebook, which means I actually fully enjoy everything I do on it.
Build the best possible product--that's Apple's business model.
|
|
I doubt you will find even the most rabid Apple-hater try to say the products aren't anything short of amazing. Most others don't even come close. The part that gets to a lot of people (I know it bothers me) is that Apple also governs the use of the product in a much, much, tighter way than just about any other company. I personally feel that I would never own the products I could buy from Apple. Despite paying a purchase price, I would merely be renting them. Until that changes, my business will always go elsewhere.
I hear this a lot, and it usually boils down to two things--1) the people who say this tend to have very little to no individual experience with, say, an iMac. 2) the people who say this usually are speaking idealistically, and can't point to any non enterprise examples of how the OS or the hardware have let them down.
No Flash on an iPad is a weak example--in my opinion, at least; and except for not being able to watch hulu videos, it hasn't affected me.
The difficulty of exchanging HDDs in an iMac is likewise weak-- how many computer users actually do this anyway?
The near-impossibility (certainly, it's impractical) of exchanging batteries in new MacBooks or iPads is not a strong argument, either, considering a ten hour battery life.
I think you might find that the supposed strictures an Apple user assumes when they buy and utilize a device are largely nonexistent.
I doubt you will find even the most rabid Apple-hater try to say the products aren't anything short of amazing. Most others don't even come close.
You need to hang out a the Engadget or Gizmodo comments sections more. :)
The part that gets to a lot of people (I know it bothers me) is that Apple also governs the use of the product in a much, much, tighter way than just about any other company. I personally feel that I would never own the products I could buy from Apple. Despite paying a purchase price, I would merely be renting them. Until that changes, my business will always go elsewhere.
Here I think you need to make a clear distinction between their "traditional computer" devices and their "mobile" devices.
I've owned 3 computers in my life (4 if you count my wife's laptop). They have all been Macs: Macintosh IIsi, G4 533, and now an iMac 2.66GHz. (Plus my wife's 13" macbook.) I have always been able to do everything I wanted with them, and feel that I "own" them completely. Aside from writing the OS, Apple has no say over what I put on or do with my computer. In fact, with Boot Camp and VMware Fusion, I can also boot to XP and Ubuntu if I want to. (I don't usually, but have both at the ready if I want). So Apple controls nothing with respect to that.
(Just saw Andrew's repsonse: yeah I'm restricted in hardware upgradability. But my G4 533 was infinitely upgradable, and in the 7 years I used it regularly, I only upgraded the graphics card. So not a big deal for me. And an iMac is just a desktop "laptop". And most people can't upgrade their laptops either. Don't hear much complaining about that.)
Now, the mobile market. Yes Apple controls the App Store and without jailbraking, you have no other option for binary apps. (This doesn't count web apps, which are free game and can be run from mobile Safari without Apple approval. But lets not go there for now.) The question everyone seems to want to know is "why"? There are those that think its Orwellian. I happen to think its more capitalistic than that. It's about their "Name Brand". They don't want certain things that have bad connotations, like porn, associated with "Apple Inc". They don't want to become "smut pedlars". This is the same reason why you can't by Playboy at a 7-11. It's about them protecting their brand. They obviously don't feel that "fart apps" hurt their brand, and I think thats because for the most part, fart apps are seen as stupid at the worst, and humourous at the best. But porn is toxic. Just ask the movie theatres. Some refuse to even show NC-17 rated movies, even though the NC-17 rating was supposed to separate out the legitimate "adult" movies from porn.
Now, why did "Ulysses" get canned, and then instated? Probably because there are bunch of low-level grunts who run the day-to-day approval of apps. And they probably have a list that says, among other things, "no nudity". So it gets canned, probably because the guy who has the first say has never heard of James Joyce or Ulysses. It gets press, the higher ups hear about it, it gets reinstated. Again, they probably feel that a few mis-steps like this is better on their brand than being looser with the guidelines.
So, when it comes to mobile platforms, its obviously your choice. But one should realise, that no one is saintly in this regard. Heck, even Google is acting a little oddly. I'm not sure I'd be thrilled to see apps remotely removed from my device without my prior consent. Even if it was "in my best interest". I know Apple has the same kill switch, but they've never actually executed it.
Greg
|
This notebook is built--there are no cheap parts on it, nothing has that 'I'm gonna break off in a week' feel. Everything is solid, everything is measured, everything is visibly precise, inside and out. Even the stuff I'm not supposed to see, like the closed-in guts of the machine, are painstakingly laid out.
Not to sound trite or anything, but if you actually opened one up you'd find the same Western Digital hard-drive as a Dell, HP or Acer. You'd also find that the memory modules are generally Kingston off the shelf re-branded, much like you can buy at any local computer retailer. The firewire used to be Texas Instruments like a dozen of other manufacturers. The video adapter may or may not still be ATI...
Apple makes pretty, and durable gear, but the parts inside are the same ones in dozens of other manufactured machines.
I can't even count how many service calls I've had on failed Hard Drives in Apple products, alongside shocked owners who figured it shouldn't fail because it's "Apple Hardware".
I can't even count how many service calls I've had on failed Hard Drives in Apple products, alongside shocked owners who figured it shouldn't fail because it's "Apple Hardware".
Yeah, that's part of the hype machine. Hardware is hardware. My last two computer each had a very, very early problem. The G4 blew the harddrive within a month of purchase, and the iMac's airport card went in the first week. Both were replaced under warranty, and no problems since.
I also had to return a 2 TB drive a few month ago (LaCie) after it started making "clucking" noises after about a week. Didn't want to take a chance, and got it replaced.
Having said that, my Mac IIsi never had a problem and worked for ~10yrs. It was slow as hell, (compared to what was the standard was in 2001) but it was still working when I gave it to my cousin. She turned around and gave it to charity when she was done with it.
Greg
I hear this a lot, and it usually boils down to two things--1) the people who say this tend to have very little to no individual experience with, say, an iMac. 2) the people who say this usually are speaking idealistically, and can't point to any non enterprise examples of how the OS or the hardware have let them down.
No Flash on an iPad is a weak example--in my opinion, at least; and except for not being able to watch hulu videos, it hasn't affected me.
The difficulty of exchanging HDDs in an iMac is likewise weak-- how many computer users actually do this anyway?
The near-impossibility (certainly, it's impractical) of exchanging batteries in new MacBooks or iPads is not a strong argument, either, considering a ten hour battery life.
I think you might find that the supposed strictures an Apple user assumes when they buy and utilize a device are largely nonexistent.
First of all, it's vital to differentiate between an OS X device and an iOS device.
OS X devices (Macbooks, iMacs, etc.) are strikingly beautiful machines. I can tell you from personal experience that they're painful to work on, and they have all sorts of enterprise issues, but for a home user, getting everything from one vendor is an advantage. Does that advantage justify the premium? Clearly, the value (or at least he perceived value) is enough to justify higher prices for some people, but not for others. It's just a choice, and I have no problem with this aspect of their business.
iOS devices, on the other hand, are designed to supplant the open model which the PC created. One can only install Apple approved applications, which can only be purchased from Apple. This situation I have huge problems with, because the network effect means you could end up with a market that is effectively closed to the competition, and that's just bad for consumers. Further, I think many more technically saavy folks have come to resent (fairly or not) what they feel is shortsightness on the part of supporters of the iOS model. I have to agree that at least some of those supporters don't stop to fully consider the implications of Apple succeeding in their quest to displace open platforms. I, for one, hope they fail miserably.
|
|
I agree, the Mac line of products isn't what we're really talking about here. It's the iPhone/ iPad side of things where Apple has been getting 'creative' with business practices. I love my iMac and would like an iPad but their total control approach bugs me.
On the other hand, I really think HTML 5, CSS, and Javascript are the future of computing. I would probably just use the iPad is as a mobile web platform. Probably my biggest gripe is lack of SD or USB so I can't use it with my camera without a dongle.
|
|
The Apple business model?
I've been using my 15" MacBook Pro for just around two and a half hours now, rummaging the internet over WiFi, and running off the battery bank. My battery indicator reads 7:43.
That's right, I've been using it nonstop for over two hours and I have almost eight hours of battery left before I'll have to plug in.
This notebook has never crashed. No application on this notebook has ever crashed.
This notebook has never locked up or froze, requiring a hard restart.
This notebook is fast. It's very close to my iMac in speed and processing.
This notebook is built--there are no cheap parts on it, nothing has that 'I'm gonna break off in a week' feel. Everything is solid, everything is measured, everything is visibly precise, inside and out. Even the stuff I'm not supposed to see, like the closed-in guts of the machine, are painstakingly laid out.
This notebook is good looking--just holding it you can tell someone put a lot of thought and care into it; and like they say in the commercials, that translates into an idea that someone put a lot of thought and care into me, the consumer.
I don't worry about this notebook, which means I actually fully enjoy everything I do on it.
Build the best possible product--that's Apple's business model.
Oddly enough, I had to replace my 13" Macbook pro twice because once the HD fried, another time the processor fried, I am on my third one, thank god for a warranty..
|
|
Well, when you read the original post, the discussion is about the business model and how all Apple's platforms support that model. It's only in the last few posts that we've been talking almost exclusively about the iPhone or the iOS.
Also, it goes without saying, my comments are based on my personal experience with Apple devices and my use of the OS. I'm either very fortunate, or you who've had issues are very unlucky--but the hype has panned out for me.
As to the inner workings of any Apple device, it's absolutely true that the hardware in a Mac is no different from the hardware in a Dell, but when you peel off the bottom of a Dell laptop and place it beside the open case of a MacBook, [hyperbole]one was built by kindergartners and the other by Atlanteans[/hyperbole].
As to the iOS and App Store issue, until the iPhone is the majority market device, the very notion of a monopoly is, in my nonlegal opinion, silly. If you don't like the system used by Apple, buy a Droid; speak with your wallet.
Why is the iPhone a 'walled garden' with a SINCGARS entry gate? One answer is money and making lots of it; the other answer is it's the only 99% viable way to ensure a repeatable and broad spectrum User Experience in line with what people expect to have with an Apple product.
No Flash on an iPad is a weak example--in my opinion, at least; and except for not being able to watch hulu videos, it hasn't affected me.
The biggest problem with no Flash on the iPad, isn't the lack of Flash - oddly enough.
For me, and I suspect most people who "feel" the excluding Flash was a mistake (not just repeating what they hear others say), the exclusion of Flash is an insult to what I want from computer technology.
I don't really care what OS you (generic) prefer. I don't care what hardware people use. I don't care what company people love, or hate. What ever floats your boat. And if you "pitch" your favorites when someone asks for opinions, I also don't care about that.
I want to reach a point, or come as close as possible to it as we reasonably can, where people can write an application that can be run on any machine - barring hardware requirements.
Right now, that is Flash. There are other ways, but they are a bit limited. And with the way Apple builds their policy, those ways aren't allowed on iOS devices either. (Possibly allowed, with previous written permission first.)
It is the line in the sand Apple draws that says "you will play with our toys our way, or you won't play with them at all." Huh. It is kind of funny when I put it that way. It is as if as adults we are allowing the very actions we wouldn't take from kids on the playground...
The difficulty of exchanging HDDs in an iMac is likewise weak-- how many computer users actually do this anyway?
More than you care to ever consider. Much more than needed Floppies less than a year ago, and you remember how that discussion went between us.
Again, it comes back to I don't care if excluding something doesn't affect some people - if including the same something doesn't hinder anyone, and actually benefits others.
The actual act of designing Apple products to allow simple end user hardware maintenance won't hurt your experience with Apple products Andrew Turner. The only way it will impact you is if it affects their appearance. So why do you oppose the idea so much?
The near-impossibility (certainly, it's impractical) of exchanging batteries in new MacBooks or iPads is not a strong argument, either, considering a ten hour battery life.
You have never had batteries die on you. It does happen. My laptops' (granted, I bought it six years ago and it wasn't a "fresh off the lines" model then) original battery has a life of a whole 5 minutes. I like the fact that I can easily swap it any time I need with a battery that actually lasts several hours. (7, for those that care.)
I like the ability to extend the life of my devices for pennies on the dollar by upgrading components when needed/possible rather than having to plunk down the full asking price on a new model every time something relatively simple breaks down.
I suspect if one car manufacturer was gaining followers and their product plan required buying a whole new car every time your spark plugs need to be replaced, you might start to get a little concerned yourself. (Feel free to replace that example with any you prefer.)
Why is the iPhone a 'walled garden' with a SINCGARS entry gate? One answer is money and making lots of it; the other answer is it's the only 99% viable way to ensure a repeatable and broad spectrum User Experience in line with what people expect to have with an Apple product.
And what many people don't take the time to think about is how that "walled garden" actually harms them. Not directly of course. But that level of overspecialization breeds in weakness. If Apple doesn't allow users to legitimately try anything they want, how is Apple going to learn to "harden" their system against problems, exploitable and otherwise?
If Microsoft had taken such a stand with Windows, does anyone believe Windows 7 would be as good as it is?
I fear that the current model of "walled garden" is going to leave Apple fans open to serious problems in the future.
------------------------------
Claims that the 'retina display' of the iPhone4 might not be inflated. (I said I would post more favorable articles if I came across them, and here it is. Don't expect anymore. :-P)
I want to reach a point, or come as close as possible to it as we reasonably can, where people can write an application that can be run on any machine - barring hardware requirements.
That's exactly it - Thoughts on Flash did talk about Flash, but if you read carefully SJ specifically targets cross platform tools.
One alternative I am very familiar with is Revolution, which is basically the descendant of HyperCard, except that it offers modern conventions + real cross platform (Mac, Windows, Linux). Check it out here:
http://www.mirye.net/overview-revolution-4
They had RevMobile under development, which would have allowed compilation for the iPhone - I should say - it did and it worked.
SJ directly rejected it. There are other tools out there too, but many of the vendors are simply afraid to ask.
Before I got into the computer market, I was involved in the console games market. They have very restrictive terms there. It would not have bothered me if SJ had but these terms into effect when Apple started to make the iPhone SDK available.
What bothers me is that this was done mid-stream, contrary to accepted practice, in the computer market. Along with other moves this should make you think very, very carefully about developing for Apple products.
I'm not sure it's been brought up, but it is terribly easy for a user to fully customize an iPhone, iPod touch, or iPad using 3rd party software.
Now using software to open up these possibilities is certainly not supported by Apple, but they are there if you want to do that.
They aren't saying, "you can't do this ever" they are saying, "you can't do this with our support."
It is insane how many people call the Applecare line wanting assistance with third-party software or devices even now.
Right, you totally invalidate everything by doing it, because according to their policy they will not support doing that. Totally true. That does not mean you can't do it though. Apple wants nothing to do with a product that they don't support anymore in this manner.
They can't prosecute you for doing whatever you want with the software on the device you own. Look at the backlash that happened when they started bricking them.
They aren't saying, "you can't do this ever" they are saying, "you can't do this with our support."
It is insane how many people call the Applecare line wanting assistance with third-party software or devices even now.
That's always been the case with Macs and certainly one motive in dealing with the mobile market. With apps generally so cheap, one support call can cost more than the original cost of the app.
With Macs, Apple receives calls about issues that are related to third party software. Conversely, many third party vendors get called about issues created by Apple changing something. In the end, Apple just blames the third party vendor. That was a major problem especially after OS 10.X had its first iterations, .1, .2, .3 etc, because the "guts" underlying the OS changed a lot more than the actual interface.
My suggested solution is simple - make third party apps run in a kind of sandbox space that you can reset with a simple key combination. That way, a "soft" reset will dump the offending apps and restore the phone to an "in warranty" state.
That's always been the case with Macs and certainly one motive in dealing with the mobile market. With apps generally so cheap, one support call can cost more than the original cost of the app.
Since I'm not at work now I can actually say, I work for Apple doing tech support for Applecare. I have supported every product except the iPhone. Yes a single call can cost $49 but only if you haven't bothered to buy the AppleCare Protection Plan, which really isn't that expensive compared to what it gives you.
Almost every single company in the world charges for tech support and there are very few that offer two to three year unlimited technical phone support agreements. It's just a fact of life. If you want support for a product you have to pay for it. It's true with cars, phones, houses, iPods, everything.
Third-party software causing conflicts on the OS is one of the most common calls short of How To questions. It is a companies responsibility to provide timely updates for their software if they want to run it on an OS. If this does not happen and they neglect their customers than the OS provider, be it Apple, Microsoft, or Linux will take the blunt of the blame. Which makes no sense at all. There's simply no way for an OS provider to know how it will affect the literally thousands of applications that exist.
Example;With the latest Safari 5 updated we've been getting barraged with calls because Safari won't open, runs sluggish, or crashes constantly. Do you know why? Cause a ton of people have mindlessly installed toolbars into Safari. Not even good useful ones, we're talking about adware that poorly designed websites prompt you to install for malware purposes. The second we remove the software it works 100% of the time. Is this a problem with Safari 5? No, not at all, how could it possibly be.
With Macs, Apple receives calls about issues that are related to third party software. Conversely, many third party vendors get called about issues created by Apple changing something. In the end, Apple just blames the third party vendor. That was a major problem especially after OS 10.X had its first iterations, .1, .2, .3 etc, because the "guts" underlying the OS changed a lot more than the actual interface.
This is correct. If the OS changes, they need to update their program. No two ways about it. If they don't provide an update that is no fault of the OS provider that their program is no longer compatible. If the company refuses to update they're basically telling their customers, "Sorry! We don't care about you anymore, feel free to take your business elsewhere."
My suggested solution is simple - make third party apps run in a kind of sandbox space that you can reset with a simple key combination. That way, a "soft" reset will dump the offending apps and restore the phone to an "in warranty" state.
You can already do this. Install whatever you like. If you fry the iPhone/iMac/iPad and it refuses to boot, do a restore or reinstall the OS. But don't go crying that you broke your toy and the only option to fix it is to completely reinstall everything.
Unless you've somehow managed to cause accidental damage to the device, if you've restored/reinstalled the OS it'll still be in support (assuming of course you had it to begin with).
I'm not arguing that everything Apple does is awesome. These are just some thoughts from the guy people call to fix these things. Don't get me started on Windows customers wanting us to support them joining a simple WPA network > _ > I'm glad that year long stint in Wireless is over.
|
|
Well, when you read the original post, the discussion is about the business model and how all Apple's platforms support that model. It's only in the last few posts that we've been talking almost exclusively about the iPhone or the iOS.
I don't think many people have issues with Apple's business practices on the Mac product line though. Maybe someone does. I certainly don't the way I have issues with the Phone/ Pad side.
Since I'm not at work now I can actually say, I work for Apple doing tech support for Applecare. I have supported every product except the iPhone. Yes a single call can cost $49 but only if you haven't bothered to buy the AppleCare Protection Plan, which really isn't that expensive compared to what it gives you.
Right, I wasn't talking about the end user cost, but the overall costs (including "touch costs") that affect a vendors (Apple's or whomever) bottom line. The cost to the vendor for a mobile app has a different dynamic than a desktop app. I am not saying its bad and agree its a fact of life.
Third-party software causing conflicts on the OS is one of the most common calls short of How To questions. It is a companies responsibility to provide timely updates for their software if they want to run it on an OS.
Normally I agree with you (I own a software publisher), and I realize this is getting way, way off topic as its straying into early Mac OS X releases. An OS vendor also has some responsibilities to keep a stable platform. If your solution patches the OS in some way - any little update is going to mess things up.
On the other hand, the world of computing isn't only about OS vendors and software vendors, but internal and independent solution providers.
Organizations that deploy a vertical solution shouldn't have the same sort of worries that you and I do - if you make them worry, they disqualify your use in the enterprise. I think this is one (but not the only) disqualifier of Macs in organizations.
You can already do this. Install whatever you like. If you fry the iPhone/iMac/iPad and it refuses to boot, do a restore or reinstall the OS. But don't go crying that you broke your toy and the only option to fix it is to completely reinstall everything.
Right! Now give me a reset button to do that AND the ability to deploy applications into that sandbox without going through the monopoly App Store. Such a reset would eliminate many of the issues Apple would have if developers were not forced to use the App Store.