• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

What's so fantastic about Apple?

If you love your flash don't upgrade to whatever comes after Ice Cream Sandwich. Because it won't support it either.


Evidence?


I remember when Apple stopped shipping Macs without floppy drives.

Many people still had programs and backups on floppies and lost their minds.

Now the same seems to be happening with optical drives.

Someone has to make the first step away from obsolete technology


Optical drives are not obsolete technology just because Apple says they are.

Why don't you take a moment and try to think critically about why Apple might have a vested interest in promoting the abandonment of optical media, and get back to me on that.
 
Last edited:
We all use the tools that best fit our wants and needs. Not every tool is right for every person. Just because a tool fits your wants and needs, that doesn't mean it's really the greatest tool ever made. Some of us are just a little bothered by the almost religious devotion others have for their tools.
↑
This​


RANT! Its that strange losing grasp of reality that often happens with products. The reason originally why reviewers made a big deal about the weight and size of mobiles is that they were bloody huge, heavy and cumbersome when they were first released so size and weight were real considerations back then. Unfortunately that understanding has been lost and today reviewers are still using criteria that were suitable for phones 5, 10 years ago, not phones today!!!!

So reviewer after reviewer will go on about a phone being the thinnest phone ever "The new phone is 0.005 slimmer than last years slimist ever phone!!!!!" and then moan on about the battery life! If the idiots in marketing didn't keep telling us and the reviewers that thinner is better we could have much better battery life and phones with much better ergonomic designs.
↑
Also this​

Also, love the "rant" tag. I didn't even know that existed. Maybe I ought to start using that, so people won't keep getting the mistaken impression that I'm always pissed-off and about to blow a head gasket about everything.
 
Last edited:
That business model was deliberately designed to shoehorn iPod users into relying on iTunes (and its embedded marketing apparatus) for management of their media, and then maneuver Apple into a position to market corporate media to them through ads.

I don't think you are correct here. They did this so the record labels would feel comfortable letting their music go through a digital download service. Perhaps you do not recall what the legal download scene was like before Apple showed up with the iPod.
 
Dunno about dangerous, but it's certainly laughable.

It's a great object-lesson about the power of marketing though, isn't it?






There is no "Mac vs. PC." There are no "two camps."

"Mac vs. PC" has been a thoroughly outdated concept ever since 2001 when Apple switched away from its PPC processor platform over to Intel x86.

The perpetuation of the "Mac vs. PC" war is a false duality created through Apple's marketing.

There is in fact one platform, the Intel-based x86 "PC," which has a variety of operating systems that can run on it. Microsoft and Apple just happen to be the two largest corporations that manufacture operating systems and hardware on that single platform.

You don't know what "platform" means. If you have to do programming to get a particular program to run on one system or another, then they are different platforms.

Android is a platform, because an Android app will run on all Android devices (barring outdated hardware or OS version issues).

PS3 is a platform, because all PS3 games run on all PS3s.

Try telling Mac owners who want to play Rift that Mac and PC aren't different platforms.
 
But that's kind of what Apple preys on. People who don't know/care to learn what the different specs are and how far from the top tier Apple's selected components actually are.

I know the differences. I find Mac OS easier to use, so I buy a Mac. The fastest hardware is not the most important thing to me.
 
I don't think you are correct here. They did this so the record labels would feel comfortable letting their music go through a digital download service. Perhaps you do not recall what the legal download scene was like before Apple showed up with the iPod.

Nope. According to Steve Job's official biography (Steve Jobs, by Walter Isaacson), the iTunes/iPod paradigm was actually a product of Jobs needing to control every aspect of the "user experience". This stemmed from (more like was exacerbated by) his run in with Adobe over wanting iMac versions of their movie and photo editing software. When they turned him down, he decided to produce his own. iTunes was the natural evolution of that idea, which has nothing to do with pleasing record companies (remember, the original slogan for iTunes was "rip, mix, burn"). Making the iPod a slave to iTunes was just an extension of that philosophy.
 
Can I just add what I think is a crucial two words: "We all use the tools that we believe best fit our wants and needs."

It's that bit that makes all of us vulnerable to marketing, peer pressure and the like.

Let me take that a step further:

"We all use the tools that we CHOOSE TO believe best fit our wants and needs."

So, if we choose to believe that only by having the fastest processor and latest graphics card that the computer is worthy of our needs, then that will be the focus. It's not rational, but belief never is....
 
Let me take that a step further:

"We all use the tools that we CHOOSE TO believe best fit our wants and needs."

So, if we choose to believe that only by having the fastest processor and latest graphics card that the computer is worthy of our needs, then that will be the focus. It's not rational, but belief never is....

It's rational if you actually need a computer with the fastest processor and latest graphics card. I personally don't need those things, but I can think of a number of applications where having such a machine would make a lot of sense.
 
It's rational if you actually need a computer with the fastest processor and latest graphics card. I personally don't need those things, but I can think of a number of applications where having such a machine would make a lot of sense.

agree - sometimes the chosen belief aligns with the rational choice. Other times... well I know a couple of people who bought high-powered machines so that they could browse the web....

Just thinking about it, buying a new car is probably a better example of where "choose to believe" is most easily witnessed.
 
Nope. According to Steve Job's official biography (Steve Jobs, by Walter Isaacson), the iTunes/iPod paradigm was actually a product of Jobs needing to control every aspect of the "user experience". This stemmed from (more like was exacerbated by) his run in with Adobe over wanting iMac versions of their movie and photo editing software. When they turned him down, he decided to produce his own. iTunes was the natural evolution of that idea, which has nothing to do with pleasing record companies (remember, the original slogan for iTunes was "rip, mix, burn"). Making the iPod a slave to iTunes was just an extension of that philosophy.

You know, it is possible for the answer to be 'both.' Jobs obviously wanted to control the end user experience. And there was a DRM requirement form the labels. Play for sure and the zune pass were not drag and drop, and both required software to manipulate the DRM'ed files. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, but leaning towards controlling the user experience being the paramount reason.
 
I know the differences. I find Mac OS easier to use, so I buy a Mac. The fastest hardware is not the most important thing to me.

Ahhh, but I was the same way once. Back when I was first switching to "the dark side". Now, I prefer Windows to Mac OS - but that's because that's just what I use.

As I've already stated, I can see how Mac OS is "easier" for programming just because Apple is so strict about what form factor/peripherals/components are allowed. Far easier to program for than an OS that is all-encompasing. What's interesting to me is that the very reason you like Apple (it's restrictive) is the very reason so many don't.
 
You know, it is possible for the answer to be 'both.' Jobs obviously wanted to control the end user experience. And there was a DRM requirement form the labels. Play for sure and the zune pass were not drag and drop, and both required software to manipulate the DRM'ed files. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, but leaning towards controlling the user experience being the paramount reason.
I would also guess (and I admit it is a guess), that Jobs was also very aware of the music industry's corporate power having had a law case against Apple Macintosh by the similarly titled Beatles record label years earlier for infringement of copyright on the name. I believe that Apple Macintosh gave the defence they were not in the music industry, so there could be no 'passing off' as a record label. I also seem to remember reading that Apple had to give some written assurance to that effect.
 
I would also guess (and I admit it is a guess), that Jobs was also very aware of the music industry's corporate power having had a law case against Apple Macintosh by the similarly titled Beatles record label years earlier for infringement of copyright on the name. I believe that Apple Macintosh gave the defence they were not in the music industry, so there could be no 'passing off' as a record label. I also seem to remember reading that Apple had to give some written assurance to that effect.

Until Apple opened the iTunes Store, they weren't doing DRM. The iTunes/iPod connection (along with the digital hub concept they sprang from) predate that.

As an aside, even when Apple did do DRM, Job's heart wasn't really into it. iTunes always had a feature that allowed you to "back up" your music on audio CD's (at some audio quality loss) that could be later (if you were so inclined) ripped into DRM free MP3 files.
 
You don't know what "platform" means.


I was using the word to mean the hardware architecture, not the OS.


I don't think you are correct here. They did this so the record labels would feel comfortable letting their music go through a digital download service. Perhaps you do not recall what the legal download scene was like before Apple showed up with the iPod.


The two are not mutually exclusive. I'm saying they chose that approach for both reasons: to set up a partnership with the record companies and to move into a new market as a content provider. They made that decision at the expense of their customers' freedom of choice.

I resent companies that deliberately connive to restrict my freedom of choice. My freedom is my freedom, and I don't give it away willingly.
 
Last edited:
Let me take that a step further:

"We all use the tools that we CHOOSE TO believe best fit our wants and needs."


Exactly.

Some people will even choose less useful, less powerful and less versatile tools under the FALSE belief that they're better, even despite objective evidence that they aren't better, for superficial reasons like how the tool looks and how smugly the marketers and salesmen aggrandize the tool.


So, if we choose to believe that only by having the fastest processor and latest graphics card that the computer is worthy of our needs, then that will be the focus. It's not rational, but belief never is....


In all cases, more raw processing power is a definite benefit over not having enough. Having more processing power can objectively accomplish more in a smaller time frame. Having more processing power reduces latency and makes the user experience smoother. Having more raw processing power extends the computer's useful life span as software becomes progressively more complex and resource-demanding over time.

If you really believe otherwise, then go ahead and try to make the case for spending significantly more money to buy less usability and service life.
 
Last edited:
Until Apple opened the iTunes Store, they weren't doing DRM. The iTunes/iPod connection (along with the digital hub concept they sprang from) predate that.


This is wrong. Even before Apple introduced the FairPlay DRM scheme, iTunes never allowed simple drag-and-drop functionality to transfer music to iPods, and iTunes always scrambled the filenames of the audio files that it placed on the iPod.


As an aside, even when Apple did do DRM, Job's heart wasn't really into it.


:boggled:

What a goofy special pleading that statement is.


iTunes always had a feature that allowed you to "back up" your music on audio CD's (at some audio quality loss) that could be later (if you were so inclined) ripped into DRM free MP3 files.


"Always had"?

Apparently not anymore.

I simply cannot understand why anybody would waste their money on a computer device that is specifically designed to prevent them from using their own data however they please. It's like buying a car that will only take you to places where the car manufacturer wants to allow you to go. Totally asinine.
 
Last edited:
In all cases, more raw processing power is a definite benefit over not having enough. Having more processing power can objectively accomplish more in a smaller time frame. Having more processing power reduces latency and makes the user experience smoother. Having more raw processing power extends the computer's useful life span as software becomes progressively more complex and resource-demanding.

If you really believe otherwise, then go ahead and try to make the case for spending significantly more money to get less usability and service life.

That would depend on the cost of all that extra computing power and what it's going to be used for. If all Aunt Martha wants to do is look at pictures of the grand kids on Face Book, having her spend another $1000 dollars on a screaming fast gamer machine would be silly. If the system is going to one of Aunt Martha's hard core gamer grand kids, then the extra grand is well worth it.

One of the things I like about non-Apple x86 systems is that I can build the system to fit the needs of the person using it. I can also easily upgrade the system with commodity parts as the needs of that person change. I can also put whatever OS is best suited to the applications being run without voiding any warranty. Not everyone needs that kind of flexibility of course, but I do.
 
I remember when Apple stopped shipping Macs without floppy drives.

Many people still had programs and backups on floppies and lost their minds.

Now the same seems to be happening with optical drives.

Someone has to make the first step away from obsolete technology.

You can buy floppy and optical drives that plug into your computer. But I doubt that optical drives are going to become obsolete in the near future... except on notebooks too small to fit them in.

BTW, I sometimes miss Flash on my iPad. Then again, I do like the really, really long battery life. Isn't it true that Flash is a resource and energy hog?

As far as I'm aware, even if it is an energy and resource hog, it wouldn't use any energy or resources except when being used. So unless you started viewing lots of flash files, simply having it available on your iPad wouldn't have any noticeable effect on your battery life.
 
That would depend on the cost of all that extra computing power and what it's going to be used for.


But that's not what we were talking about, is it? I'm talking about paying more money for less computing power, like you get when you buy an Apple computer.



If all Aunt Martha wants to do is look at pictures of the grand kids on Face Book, having her spend another $1000 dollars on a screaming fast gamer machine would be silly.


A top-of-the-line video card would probably be a waste, but in terms of basic processing power, you can never have too much.

You're also completely sidestepping my point that Apples cost more than even computers with far better specs.


One of the things I like about non-Apple x86 systems is that I can build the system to fit the needs of the person using it. I can also easily upgrade the system with commodity parts as the needs of that person change.


I 100% agree.


I can also put whatever OS is best suited to the applications being run without voiding any warranty.


Including Apple Mac OSX.

Well, to be fair, you'd probably void the terms of service of the Mac OSX license.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom