GWarner's question.

[Kuron]

I moved this to its own thread out of respect for Steve Jobs. I said: Steve did what nobody else has ever been able to do and that is dethrone Microsoft from the #1 position.

How do you figure that? Windows is still the dominant OS and IOS is loosing ground to both Windows Phone 7 and Android.

Apple dethroned Microsoft as the #1 tech company back in early 2010. It was literally on the front page, above fold in every paper. Apple has held on to that title. Last month, Apple briefly surpassed Exxon Mobil to become the #1 company in the world. Since being dethroned by Apple, Microsoft has fallen another position and is now the #3 tech company.

With WP7 sales being less than MS expected and MS losing its industry position, and the continued dissension in the ranks and people in senior positions leaving MS in record numbers, it will be interesting to see what MS even looks like ten years from now. Sadly, the only thing that may save Microsoft is the death of Steve Jobs. If history repeats itself and Apple crumbles now that Steve isn't involved, MS might be able to hold on if they can survive the financial losses coming over the next couple of years by trying to enter the tablet market 2-1/2 years too late. Microsoft may be relegated to just providing business solutions to companies in the future if they can't get their head out of their ass when it comes to the consumer market. Having the largest installed OS base on PCs doesn't mean crap when nobody is buying them.

[GWarner]

Difficult to see, always in motion is the future.

[Kuron]

They may have unseated Microsoft as the #1 tech company but that's only because of the initial success of the iPhones and iPads. But Apple tight fisted attempts to control consumer choice by limiting the carriers allowed to support their products will backfire on them

Luckily, Apple has done no such thing. When the iPhone was brought to market, Apple shopped it to carriers. AT&T was willing to bite on the new and unproven phone, but they wanted exclusive rights for x number of years. A very common practice. When the exclusivity expired, Verizon was willing to bite and Apple produced phones compatible with Verizon's network. Sprint was jealous of the sales AT&T and Verizon were getting, so now they signed on and Apple will be producing Sprint compatible iPhones.

and they will eventually lose as more and more consumers decide they want to have a choice and choose Android or Windows powered phones and tablets that are available from a much wider variety of carriers. In the end it will be Apple playing second fiddle to other companies.

Wider variety? There are three major nationwide carriers and the iPhone supports all three. You can't get wider than that. AT&T is in the process of trying to buy the fourth largest (T-Mobile) so T-Mobile isn't in a position to be signing new contracts with any phone manufacturer. Once you get smaller than T-Mobile, you are talking about companies who have users in the single digit millions, do not have nationwide coverage, and it is not cost effective for them to sign any contracts with Apple.

[MachineCode]

The reality of Steve is that he started off wanting to "break the clones" of suited people all walking the same, talking the same, doing the same thing, etc. Hence Apple's "Big Brother" ad. In the end, though, he turned out to be exactly what he originally despised. In other words, he's a hypocrite. The proof? Look at the following Apple staff. All clones, all applauding a device. A DEVICE! A piece of plastic and metal. Now THAT'S cause for a loss of words.



More of Steve's true self: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwYy8R87JMA

It's all good to praise the hell out of someone who just died, but why do people forget what he was truly like?

[Kuron]

It's all good to praise the hell out of someone who just died, but why do people forget what he was truly like?

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to bash Apple, but so many people prefer to make up things to bash Apple about. Apple is the new Microsoft when it comes to bashing.

[GWarner]

Luckily, Apple has done no such thing. When the iPhone was brought to market, Apple shopped it to carriers. AT&T was willing to bite on the new and unproven phone, but they wanted exclusive rights for x number of years. A very common practice. When the exclusivity expired, Verizon was willing to bite and Apple produced phones compatible with Verizon's network. Sprint was jealous of the sales AT&T and Verizon were getting, so now they signed on and Apple will be producing Sprint compatible iPhones.

That is complete crap! Many companies are creating new phones and these new phones are available from multiple carriers all at the same time. Just as they did in the 80s when they killed off the mail order business of selling Apple products limiting where consumers could by them, Apple again chose the wireless service consumers HAD to use to get an iPhone or iPad. The real reason we are now seeing them being offered by other carriers is most likely because Apple was under legal presure to make them available to other carriers or face anti-trust prosecution like Microsoft did.

You try to paint Apple as squeaky clean but in truth they are for more anti-competitive than Microsoft ever was. Want proof? Just look at the EULAs for their operating systems. As long as you have a valid license, Microsoft doesn't care what you run Windows on, but Apple says you can only run their operating system on their hardware. If that isn't being anti-competitive I don't know what is. Here's more, Windows does not actively attack or limit your ability to run any 3rd party software, but Apple's Lion won't allow Adobe's Flash to run nor will Apple allow Flash on IOS devices.

Wider variety? There are three major nationwide carriers and the iPhone supports all three. You can't get wider than that. AT&T is in the process of trying to buy the fourth largest (T-Mobile) so T-Mobile isn't in a position to be signing new contracts with any phone manufacturer. Once you get smaller than T-Mobile, you are talking about companies who have users in the single digit millions, do not have nationwide coverage, and it is not cost effective for them to sign any contracts with Apple.

The size of the carrier doesn't matter, what matters is that Apple continues, as it has always tried to do, to dictate to consumers what they are allowed to choose and what they are not. I know lots of people that while they really like Apple products and would love to get them, they refuse to because they do not agree with Apple's attempts to control and dictate their choices. Eventually that practice will cost them, big time.

Apple won't last, the tide is already turning against them. In another forum I frequent a question was raised asking, "If you could kill off any company, what company would you choose?" In that thread, I would say that 80 to 90 percent of the replies said Apple.

[Zach]

I would like to point out one thing.


Making the most money does not make you the #1 in anything, except sales.

Which I could give fuck all about. I don't like apple because of some of the reasons outlined already by other posters. But more because of the image they portray about themselves as being the savior of technology (T.V ads come to mind), making it "fit" for use by "the common person" : translated - high-brow artsy-fartsy decidedly liberal (looking) douchebags. Who are Arteeeests who are too important to learn how to actually use something with more than 2 buttons.

Apple IS the status quo, in a social/fashion sense. Which is fine, because that's about the level of shallowness you see in those kinds of circles. So they fit nicely together

Their fanboys don't do them any favor either.. I rank them as more annoying than linux fanboys, which oddly enough are only a third more annoying than Microsoft fanboys.

[PMV]

Their fanboys don't do them any favor either.. I rank them as more annoying than linux fanboys, which oddly enough are only a third more annoying than Microsoft fanboys.

There are real microsoft fanboys?
I'm shocked. I thought there are only Apple fanboys and Linux fanboys out there


ah, ... and anyone is a windows user.

[Kuron]

Many companies are creating new phones and these new phones are available from multiple carriers all at the same time.

This is not truthful as you wrote it, is it? Here it is corrected. Many companies who are well established in the cell phone market are creating new phones and these new phones are available from multiple carriers all at the same time.

When any company is entering the market for the first time, their phone is only going to be available from one carrier as it is very hard to find a carrier willing to invest their money and infrastructure on an unproven phone produced by a company with zero experience in the market. Once a company has proven itself, other carriers will be interested in their phone.

For AT&T the risk they took on Apple and their iPhone paid off. For Verizon, the risk they took on Microsoft and their Kin phones didn't pay off and Verizon lost millions from taking a risk on a company that had unproven phones and an unproven track record in the cell phone market.

Apple again chose the wireless service consumers HAD to use to get an iPhone or iPad.

LOL, Apple can't put a gun to a company's head and force them to carry their phone. The carrier makes the choice of what phones they want to license and carry. Apple's phone are available on every major carrier in the USA, where is this supposed lack of choice?

The real reason we are now seeing them being offered by other carriers is most likely because Apple was under legal presure to make them available to other carriers or face anti-trust prosecution like Microsoft did.

How could Apple face anti-trust prosecution here in the USA? Do you understand that in order to abuse a monopoly, you first have to actually have a monopoly? Apple has a monopoly in nothing here in the USA.

You try to paint Apple as squeaky clean but in truth they are for more anti-competitive than Microsoft ever was.

I don't like Apple, so you won't see me trying to paint them in a positive light. But, just because I dislike Apple, doesn't mean I have to be dishonest in my criticisms of Apple.

Want proof? Just look at the EULAs for their operating systems. As long as you have a valid license, Microsoft doesn't care what you run Windows on, but Apple says you can only run their operating system on their hardware.

You do realize that Microsoft is a software company and does not make computers, so your argument is flawed from the onset? You also realize that OS X is not even compatible with off the shelf PC systems due to the grossly outdated BIOS that is still being used?

Are you wanting Apple to knowingly sell an operating system to people that will not work on non-Apple systems because the PC market as a whole refuses to step out of the stone age and get rid of the BIOS*? Apple higher ups would be arrested and prosecuted for fraud and numerous other charges just as anybody else would who knowingly sells a product that does not work. It is against state and federal laws to do so. No legitimate company would risk their existence to pull a scam like this.

In spite of your flawed argument, thousands upon thousands of users run the latest version of OS X on non-Apple hardware by hacking it to run on BIOS-based systems. Apple has never sued any of these users. Apple has never sued any of the web sites hosting the hacked versions of OS X or the instructions. Major computer tech sites host instructions on the hackintosh and they don't get sued. The only people Apple have sued are start-up companies who try and provide Apple clone systems.

* Microsoft is forcing PC manufacturers to get rid of the BIOS with Windows 8. Although 8 will still boot with BIOS, manufacturers are scrambling to produce BIOS-free systems for the release of Windows 8.

Windows does not actively attack or limit your ability to run any 3rd party software, but Apple's Lion won't allow Adobe's Flash to run nor will Apple allow Flash on IOS devices.

How is not allowing Flash a bad thing? Security should be a top priority for any OS. Flash should not be allowed on any platform. If Microsoft stopped allowing Flash, Shockwave, Adobe Reader and stopped allowing Java, the majority of Window's security issues would disappear over night. Hell, with the exception of Adobe, nobody likes Adobe's shoddy products. Adobe is a pariah in the industry for a well deserved reason.

Microsoft is taking a step in the right direction. Windows 8 has PDF support built in. This will eliminate the need for Adobe Reader which has been a major security issue for Windows. Of course, OS X has had native support for PDF for years.

The size of the carrier doesn't matter, what matters is that Apple continues, as it has always tried to do, to dictate to consumers what they are allowed to choose and what they are not.

This sentence really shows that not only do you not understand what you are trying to discuss, but it shows that you do not understand business in general and have no understanding of the technology involved.

The size of the carrier does matter. How can a mom and pop regional carrier that only has a user base in the single digit millions even afford the money necessary to pay Apple to provide iPhones for their customers? If Apple decided to provide the iPhones to the mom and pop regional carrier free of charge with no cost to the carrier or their customers, what would happen? The carrier would be out of business within a matter of days because being a small regional carrier, they simply do not have the bandwidth capacity necessary to support the iPhone.

How is any of this Apple's fault? Is Apple supposed to invest billions of dollars into every mom and pop regional carrier there is so they can build up their infrastructure and be competitive with the three major carriers?

You seem to forget you live in the USA. There are only three major nationwide carriers. There used to be four, but since the fourth one is in the process of being bought, they aren't going to be entering into many new contracts. The iPhone is available on all three major nationwide carriers. Where is this lack of choice in carriers? These are the only three carriers people actually use, and the iPhone is available on all three.

I know lots of people that while they really like Apple products and would love to get them, they refuse to because they do not agree with Apple's attempts to control and dictate their choices. Eventually that practice will cost them, big time.

I am very interested to know what control and dictating of choices you are talking about. So far, you are either wanting to blame Apple for decisions carriers are making that Apple has no control over, or you are making up things that simply do not exist to bash Apple over.

Apple won't last, the tide is already turning against them. In another forum I frequent a question was raised asking, "If you could kill off any company, what company would you choose?" In that thread, I would say that 80 to 90 percent of the replies said Apple.

It is en vogue to hate whoever is on top and Apple is on top right now. When Microsoft was on top, people hated Microsoft and said Microsoft won't last even though they have been going strong since 1975. Now that Apple is on top, people hate Apple and say Apple won't last even though they have been chugging along since 1976. Nintendo came out with the Wii and for a while dominated the console market like they did the handheld market and people said that Nintendo wouldn't last even though Nintendo has been around since 1889. People hate and bash what is popular.

[GWarner]

All I will say is that you have your opinion that you are entitled to and I have mine that I'm entitled to...
So all we can do is agree to disagree...
I'm out of here...

[Kuron]

Making the most money does not make you the #1 in anything, except sales.

Which is the measuring stick used for the success of a business in an industry.

I don't like apple because of some of the reasons outlined already by other posters.

I am not overly fond of Apple, myself. There are many things I do not like about Apple, however I will always be honest about my dislike for Apple or any other company/product. I had very bad luck with my last Apple computer, a PPC laptop that was bought brand new from Apple. There was a flaw with the logic board (aka motherboard) in that model. During the warranty period, my logic board was replaced three times. When it came time for it to be replaced the fourth time, the warranty was up and it was not cost effective to replace the logic board.

Things I do not like about Apple's computers:

1. Cost. Even taking into account the improved engineering over competing computers, the price of Apple's computers are high for the hardware specs you are actually getting.

2. The lack of desktop computers. With the exception of the Mac Pro, every other computer is a laptop-based system. The Mini and the iMac use laptop chips.

I can't and don't play most 3D games, but with all OS's now having GPU accelerated GUIs, you need some power for the OS to operate smoothly. Otherwise, as long as I can play 2D games and videos, okay, I am content. CPU power can be an issue though. Laptop CPUs are simply not as powerful as the desktop equivalents and I use my computer for some very CPU intensive tasks. That said, I am also in a position as a disabled vet where money is extremely tight and power consumption is a deciding factor when purchasing a new system.

3. Upgrading. I have serviced a lot of Apple computers over the past few years since they switched to x86, doing upgrades for people or replacing dead drives, etc. As somebody who loves electronics and building my own gadgets, gaming systems, etc., I have a lot of respect for the engineering aspect of Apple's computers.

Because of the engineering, it can be hard to service Apple's computers. Also because of the designs, Apple's computers can be prone to certain thermal failures. To combat some of the thermal issues, Apple has improved design of hardware components, including hard drives in the current line of computers. Unfortunately, this means that if you want to replace a bad hard drive or upgrade one, you can't simply swap out drives anymore.

Upgrading in general is pretty limited with Apple's computers. Other than memory, there is not much else you can do and often not room to do it even if you could. Thunderbolt will change this a bit as there is finally an interface available for external peripherals that is fast enough to use for almost anything.

4. OS X. Overall, I love the operating system. It is a dream to use and work with and very affordable. Unfortunately, it is not hard to run into limitations of the Mach kernel derivative that OS X uses.

5. Development and distribution. I do like that Apple has very good development tools, and I like the "App Stores". Unfortunately, I do not like the costs involved even if you only want to release Freeware. Granted, you can still release software for OS X without using the App Store, but because of the years of iPhone use, OS X users will flock to the OS X app store and soon it will be hard to get people to download something that isn't in the App Store.


I came very close to buying a new Mac Mini earlier this year and making the leap to start supporting OS X. However, the new mac Minis were due soon. Then the reports started leaking that Apple was considering ARMs for future desktops and laptops. I do not want to invest time in trying to support OS X if the whole underlying architecture I am supporting will be irrelevant in a year or so. Then Steve Job's health issues worsened. Although history does not always repeat itself, Apple really floundered without Steve at the helm in the past. I do not want to invest time in supporting OS X, if the market is going to disintegrate and implode in the near future.

On the other hand, Windows has become a money pit. The OS is very expensive, and the new version just after a couple of years is a nightmare to deal with when you can't afford it. With Windows, since the hardware varies so much, you need a couple of different systems to test on, which means you have to buy an expensive OS for each system. You can't get by with just one Windows system like you can with one Apple system.

The last computer system I had zero complaints about was my TI-99/4A, which might be why there are two sitting on my desk.