What's so fantastic about Apple?

[Dcdrac]

Apples are good compturs in general but no better than any others look a bit prettier but beyond that get what you need for the job if its an Apple so be it, if it is not so be it

 

[Chris L]

The whole tablet experience is what wins converts for Apple, and this is largely about the GUI, which Microsoft never really understood with Windows, nor now does Google with Icecream Sandwich.

Except that the whole tablet experience is unknown to people who haven't actually bought the tablet yet. To convince people your "user experience" is "insanely great" before they buy your product is what marketing is for. Now if the user experience isn't at least reasonable, then the marketing won't save you. I'm sure the iPad is a nice little machine that does what it's owners want it to do. That doesn't really mean it's Jobs' gift to computing.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I'm sure the iPad is a nice little machine that does what it's owners want it to do.

Exactly.

One of the tech show hosts said he became convinced of the form factor when he walked through an airport and saw iPads in the hands of both toddlers and the elderly, both using it with natural ease.

An intuitive interface puts computing power and online access into the hands of many who would simply not use a PC.

I'm not implying that any of this is Apple-specific, there are other tablets out there and I'm sure they're just fine. For now, though, Apple seems to have the lead in that market - for whatever reason.

 

[Zelenius]

Apple's marketing is so powerful, that even those who criticise its business practices praise the company's products: The Apple Connection

Apple’s products are top of the line, distinguished by their superior design, engineering, and personality or “soul.” But the company’s march to market supremacy has been accomplished at tremendous cost to both American and Chinese workers. The iPad and iPhone are engineering masterpieces. But these commodities are not simply material. They also incarnate the social relations of production. They are the expression of the marriage between a demanding enterprise that has become the cutting edge corporation of our time and what Slavoj Zizek has called today’s “ideal capitalist state”: China, with the freedom it offers capital along with its unparalleled capacity to discipline labor. One cannot but agree with Jared Bernstein, a former White House economic adviser, when he told the Times, “If it’s [the Apple system] the pinnacle of capitalism, we should be worried.”

The first part indicates that he falls for the Apple hype hook, line and sinker.

"Superior design" - Compared to what? I'll grant that Apple devices are on average "prettier" than those of their competitors, I even said so myself earlier in the thread. But prettier(which is a matter of opinion anyway) isn't the same thing as being "superior". Some of you may claim this really means Apple's products are more "intuitive", but this is also subjective. It depends on what you are used to, and other factors.

"Engineering" - You mean inside the fancy case they use all their own hardware that is far better than what their competition uses? No, they come from the same sources, although they use their own Unix-based OS. This just seems to be the author repeating how "pretty" Apple's devices are, but that isn't necessarily better engineering. Or maybe he means they last longer? I see no reason to believe this.

"Personality or “soul.” " - Again, compared to what? What is it that Android smartphones and tablets lack? Is there something Apple devices can do that their closest competitors can't do? I guess we should pity all those Android users with their "soulless" tablets and smartphones. The author goes on to call Apple's products "masterpieces". I could go on, but I don't want to belabor the point.

It's funny how pervasive the belief that "Apple's products are superior" is. Even those who criticise it still feel the need to praise its products. Now I won't argue with those who say they use Apple products because they are used to it or they like the design. But I will argue with those who claim their Apple devices are far "superior" to their competitors.

I admit this article was more about politics than technology, so he wasn't required to compare Apple's products with Samsung, or anyone else's. I wanted it to serve as an example of how so many people still buy into the Apple hype, even its critics.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You chose an article that wasn't really about the topic and tore apart some straw men. Congratulations. Way to go

 

[Chris L]

You chose an article that wasn't really about the topic and tore apart some straw men. Congratulations. Way to go

The article was about how un-fabulous Apple is in the manufacture of it's products. For a thread titled "What's so fabulous about Apple?", I'd say that was on topic.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The article was about how un-fabulous Apple is in the manufacture of it's products. For a thread titled "What's so fabulous about Apple?", I'd say that was on topic.

Apple's marketing is so powerful, that even those who criticise its business practices praise the company's products:
....

And then he went on to tackle a bunch of straw men basically unrelated to the article.

Perhaps the article itself does have some issues worth discussing - feel free.

 

[Zelenius]

You chose an article that wasn't really about the topic and tore apart some straw men. Congratulations. Way to go

I think the article was very relevant to this discussion. Even a person criticising the company's business practices seems to think their products are "top of the line" and "masterpieces". This article, among so many others also exposes their ugly, behind the scenes business practices, for all those who think the company is "fantastic" or "different". Their competitors though are not any better in this regard.

However, none of their competitors used a "Think Different" or anti-Big Brother ad campaign to play up a quasi-counter-cultural public image to differentiate themselves. This is why they end up looking worse than their competitors when it's revealed that their products are manufactured in factories with near-slave labor like conditions. They are just like every other tech company(who use the same factories), but have this pretence of being "different" or "better". They are not.

I didn't tear apart any strawmen. I quoted exactly what he said, and criticised it. So many other Apple customers and defenders think similarly, to the best of my knowledge, though not necessarily all Apple customers.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I think the article was very relevant to this discussion. Even a person criticising the company's business practices seems to think their products are "top of the line" and "masterpieces". This article, among so many others also exposes their ugly, behind the scenes business practices, for all those who think the company is "fantastic" or "different". Their competitors though are not any better in this regard.

Here is part of the problem. You have not demonstrated apple products are not top of the line or masterpieces. You simply assert they are not.

Then it is up up to the 'fanboy' to somehow prove they are.

I provide statistics of sales, ratings by independent third parties, price comparisons etc, and it is all magically dismissed by hand waving as 'marketing.'

In fact, anything positive gets dismissed as marketing. Marketing is powerful woo you get to keep throwing around. It absolves you from having to actually prove anything.

They are just like every other tech company(who use the same factories), but have this pretence of being "different" or "better". They are not.

Again, you haven't demonstrated they are not better. You know why ? It's hard to prove a negative. So you assert they aren't better, and then suddenly, it's the crazy apple 'fanboy' who has to come in and demonstrate that apple products are, for example environmentally safer than other comparable products. Or corporate benefits. Or whatever. There are a myriad of factors that can, in fact, make apple a better company than other companies. But you ignore them.

I didn't tear apart any strawmen. I quoted exactly what he said, and criticised it. So many other Apple customers and defenders think similarly , to the best of my knowledge, though not necessarily all Apple customers.

Evidence ? Or did you just make that up ? Again, I love that the fact that so many people think apple has a superior design, it couldn't be because they , you know, actually do, but has to be 'marketing' and an argument ad populum.

"Superior design" - Compared to what? I'll grant that Apple devices are on average "prettier" than those of their competitors, I even said so myself earlier in the thread. But prettier(which is a matter of opinion anyway) isn't the same thing as being "superior". Some of you may claim this really means Apple's products are more "intuitive", but this is also subjective. It depends on what you are used to, and other factors.

You conflated superior design and 'pretty', then attack pretty. Design has to do with more factors than 'pretty'

"Engineering" - You mean inside the fancy case they use all their own hardware that is far better than what their competition uses? No, they come from the same sources, although they use their own Unix-based OS. This just seems to be the author repeating how "pretty" Apple's devices are, but that isn't necessarily better engineering. Or maybe he means they last longer? I see no reason to believe this.

No, no straw men there ... You know, those off the shelf logic boards just magically fit all the components inside the case. No engineering required. Etc.

 

[John Albert]

And neither did I say you'd said that.

So you found it ironic that Fast Eddie applauded Apple hardware then mentioned that some non Apple hardware had failed... And all because you have some non Apple hardware that hasn't failed.

OK, cool.

Maybe this will help you to understand my point: please define "Apple hardware."

 

[John Albert]

I am amazed no has posted this yet.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant

(NSFW language in link)

It's about time someone did. Thanks!

 

[John Albert]

I agree with you somewhat on this issue John, but you have that one completely wrong.

Consumer Reports does their own testing on almost everything. They basically never get their data from consumers.

When they occasionally get data from consumers it's only for things that require it, mostly health topics.

OK, point taken.

But the other thing I was going to mention in that post, but neglected due to time constraints:

What was the topic of discussion that led TheL8Elvis to post the link to that Consumer Reports article? Reliability.

Here's the context of the conversation:

That's why I find it so ironic when people talk like Apple's stuff is so much better, more reliable, etc. than any other computer, when all their stuff is made by the same manufacturers in the same factories right alongside the parts that go into all the other companies' computers.

Yeah, what a bunch of BS....
https://www.rescuecom.com/2010-annual-computer-reliability-report.html

On Monday, Rescuecom released its 2010 computer reliability report, with Apple winning the top spot in the survey. The company also led the pack in Rescuecom's last quarterly survey.

For the third year in a row

Well, 3 years of number 1 is worth something.

Saw this, too, from may:

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/05/25/consumer-reports-hearts-apples-macbooks/

Consumer Reports doesn't always love Apple's (AAPL) products. It still doesn't recommend the iPhone 4 because of problems its testing lab had with the external antenna. But in its survey of the current crop of notebook computers released Tuesday, the magazine gave the MacBook line its highest ratings in every category in which Apple competes, from the 11-inch MacBook Air to the 17-inch MacBook Pro.

But what did the Consumer Reports article he posted actually have to say about Apple's reliability?

The review team's one complaint: reliability. Apple scored a 17, better than Toshiba and Acer (15 each), below Sony (18), HP (19) and Dell (20).

And while Consumer Reports might love everything Apple puts out, lots of other reviewers panned the MacBook AIR for offering far too little for too high a price.

 

[John Albert]

And there is no such thing as Mac versus PC. Good times

You're still denying that the "Mac versus PC" thing is total BS?

Then why don't you give us your definition for what a "PC" is.

 

[kajata]

And while Consumer Reports might love everything Apple puts out, lots of other reviewers panned the MacBook AIR for offering far too little for too high a price.

dueling reviews!

http://reviews.cnet.com/best-laptops/

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2369981,00.asp

http://www.laptopmag.com/mobile-life/best-brands-overall-verdict-2011.aspx

http://www.businessinsider.com/best-laptop-2012-1 (though to be fair this review is titled "the best laptops you can buy that aren't made by Apple" because they haven't tested an ultrabook that beat the MacBook Air

http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/30/engadgets-holiday-gift-guide-2011-laptops/

http://gizmodo.com/5870943/the-best-ultraportable-laptop

 

[John Albert]

See, that's my point.

Reviews represent opinions. There are both good and bad reviews. Posting reviews doesn't prove anything.

 

[kajata]

You're still denying that the "Mac versus PC" thing is total BS?

Then why don't you give us your definition for what a "PC" is.

Yes, we know a Mac is a personal computer but "PC" is a word that many people use when referring to a non-Mac PC especially one running Windows. It's pretty entrenched out there even if you want to be semantic about it.

 

[John Albert]

Yes, we know a Mac is a personal computer but "PC" is a word that many people use when referring to a non-Mac PC especially one running Windows. It's pretty entrenched out there even if you want to be semantic about it.

I didn't ask you what a "PC" is not. I asked TheL8Elvis to define what a "PC" is.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You're still denying that the "Mac versus PC" thing is total BS?

Then why don't you give us your definition for what a "PC" is.

In the vernacular, I would say a PC is a desktop or notebook computer running windows.

PC has become synonymous with 'personal computer running windows.'

I understand and acknowledge, in the interest of saving time and typing, that apple computers are technically 'personal computers'. Hell, my smartphone or tablet is probably a 'personal computer'. But that's why the context of the usage matters. Once you take it out of context, meh. It get's to be a less useful term.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

See, that's my point.

Reviews represent opinions. There are both good and bad reviews. Posting reviews doesn't prove anything.

Are reviews 100% opinion ? Or do they consist of a mix of some proportion of subjective and non-subjective criteria ?

You keep falling back on these absolute positions. The issue is not nearly as cut and dried.

If one HDD manufacturer got consistently poor reviews, and one got consistently glowing reviews, do you still posit the reviews would prove nothing ? Aren't some ... hardware manufactures for example - empirically better than others ? Longer life, lower return rate, etc. ? Things we can objectively measure ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I think you missed some of the details.

It seems that according to the Apple iBook Author EULA, if you use their (free ) software to compose your work, you wouldn't be allowed to sell it on Amazon. You could give it away anywhere you wanted, but you could only sell it through Apple, and only if they agreed to let you sell it. Under their terms.

This is a snippet from JOAT's link above.


And this.



[boldface emphasis by Apple, Inc.]

Just to keep things up to date, apple is restricting the formatting, not the content. of a book.

The new EULA, however, specifically applies the iBookstore distribution limitation to the interactive e-book saved in .ibooks format. It is now clear that the content itself, including the text, images, or any custom code, can be distributed in other forms and formats without restriction