What's so fantastic about Apple?

[John Albert]

No they didn't. Mac have always been and remain different from non Macs.
Apple is selling a Computer designed by Apple, with it's own OS pre-installed, it's the only computer manufacturer that does that.

Apple is not the only company that designs its own hardware. Where did you ever get that impression? Nearly all computer companies do that.

Apple designs its own OS, and sells machines that only run that OS. That's the difference.

It's a USP. It's what distinguishes them from other computer manufacturers.

I understand that, but my point is that the hardware itself is the same as other companies' hardware. If it weren't, then no other OS would work on Apple computers and Mac OSX would not work on any other computers.

It was even more relevant when Apple ran the series of Mac v PC ads, because Macs were even more differenter than non Macs.

No they weren't.

Those ads started running in 2006, just after Apple dumped their old PPC processor platform and switched to the Intel x86 arch.

If Apple had simply ran ads that said "Buy an Apple computer" they would still have had to point out to people that Windows applications wouldn't run on it and I'm quite sure that some people would still be knocking them for that strategy too.

I think you're misinformed about that. Apple devised that campaign because the entire tech community was already abuzz about the fact that Apple had dumped their old RISC processor architecture that they'd always asserted was so much better, and switched over to use the exact same Intel x86 platform that IBM had started for the PC. Some hardcore Mac enthusiasts I knew at the time were disgusted by that news, and saw it as Apple "going over to the Dark Side."

So Apple started that ad campaign to convince everyone that "Mac" was still different from "PC," even though they were now practically now the exact same machine. They characterized all non-Apple PCs (regardless of what manufacturer made them or OS they were running) as the same, boring thing with lots of problems that Macs just didn't have. Most of it was pandering, disingenuous claptrap, but people ate it up.

But I'm not saying I agree that making out like your competition are crap is a good strategy BTW.

Well, it worked, and it really misinformed a lot of people at the same time.

Apple would have been more ethical if they had simply concentrated in their strengths instead of adding fuel to the fire that had already been burning for years before they caught up and joined in (god, weren't the Apple marketing dept. slow to move on that one).

Being "overly ethical" has never been one of Apple's big faults.

OK, let's refine the analogy a bit.

No, let's just drop it altogether, because it's not a good analogy in this context. The necessity of imagining an entirely hypothetical, non-existent automotive industry to compare with the computer industry sort of ruins the entire point of an "analogy" in the first place.

Well I've been in the advertising and marketing industry a long time and I say never believe anything that an advert says, be it implicit or explicit. They are nothing more than appeals to self authority.
As we both know, an advert is simply an anecdote and we both know that anecdotes are not evidence, they are just claims that need evidence to support them.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I'm sure you understand from all your experience that advertising can (and often does) present completely distorted and false representations of reality.

I mean, look at all those guys arguing so strongly against proven, empirical facts just because "the common vernacular" suggests something different.

 

[John Albert]

He wasn't "boasting", he was mentioning his own experience, if he had been "boasting" I doubt his next sentence would have been to tell everyone about his faulty DVD drive.

OK, point taken.

But you didn't make the point about parts being made by other companies.
I did.

I'd already made that exact same point at least 5 times before in this thread, but some people don't seem to hear, so I just keep repeating it.

Which was just you involved in one of those mythical Mac v PC competitions. Fast Eddie wasn't comparing his Mac to any other non Mac computer when he mentioned his non working DVD drive, he wasn't saying that Macs are betterer than non Macs or that non Macs are less reliable. He was simply talking in isolation about his Mac.

OK.

That reminds me, he had a few questions I forgot to address from before.

And we know that when those bits fail, it's apparently because they are in Apple computers.

Whilst the rest of the world just realises that stuff breaks with no regard for what badge is on box.

Oh come on, man. I didn't say that. What I was trying to do is dispel the idea that Macs are so much more reliable than other brands, when in fact they're not so very different at all from other brands.

 

[John Albert]

For a glimpse of that era and history, there's a decent little movie called "Pirates of Silicon Valley".

It's a fascinating story of risk-taking, vision and bravado, chronicling the beginnings of Apple and Microsoft.

Worth a viewing, IMHO.

Yeah, I've seen it. Pretty entertaining.

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 at all. Blu-Ray, for example, is a pretty strong brand at the moment.

It's just that Apple's business model as a content provider would benefit greatly from their users being convinced that optical media are "obsolete," and believing that the only "futuristic" way to obtain content is to download it through the Apple Store.

Isn't it true that Flash is a resource and energy hog? Serious question, I think I heard it was, but it's outside of my field of expertise.

No, not really. At least, nowhere near the point where it should significantly affect your battery life.

The whole Adobe-Apple Flash debacle came about because the original iPhones were far too underpowered (processor-wise) to support it, so it was deprioritized. Same thing went for the early Android handsets, but eventually Google realized they could get a leg-up on the iPhone by working with Adobe to provide Flash support for their platform, so they did. In the long run, I don't think it had the earth-shattering market impact that Google had anticipated.

There also may have been some points of contention between Jobs and Adobe's Shantanu Narayen about the licensing for Flash on the iPhone. Either way, Jobs clearly became annoyed that Flash support was turning into such an issue with the iPhone. I'm guessing that with HTML5 just around the corner, he figured he could further his "forward-thinking" reputation by just burying Flash instead of dealing with the licensing and developing for it. So he embarked on the legendary smear campaign against it.

I'm not a huge fan of Flash, as a Web technology at least. Flash on a phone seems kind of pointless, but I think it's silly that a device like the iPad cannot support it. I can't help but to regard it as another typical case of Apple being jerks about restricting their customers' freedom of choice.

 

[Stomatopoda]

To be fair, optical drives are pretty close to obsolete for a good number of people. I haven't used mine in years, since everything these days is available trough digital distribution or .iso, and USB drives are more convenient. Even "high quality" burnable discs seem to decay just sitting on the shelf. That's one of the last things I would criticize Apple for.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

As you pointed out, the CD/DVD drive that busted on Fast Eddie's MacBook Pro was not even made by Apple. Nor was the CD/DVD burner drive on my 7-year-old Dell laptop made by Dell. But mine is still working fine, and his is busted.

What does that say about Apple's reliability? It's not better than that of some other manufacturers.

I can name that logical fallacy!

Hasty Generalization!

What do I win?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Back to the Mac vs. PC definitional debate:

1) Here's the definition of a word...

adj.
Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a xxx attention to details.

Who can guess the word? (if you were fast enough you got a HUGE hint!)

2) Fictional dialog at John Albert's:

Me - Hey, John, I have something in my ear. You have a Q-Tip?

John - Well, Eddie, technically no, I don't. That's a brand name foisted on us by marketing shills to get us to buy their product, which is no better, and in some cases worse than competing brands. I do, however, have some generic cotton swabs - would you like to rid yourself of your corporate brainwashing and use one of those instead?

Me - Never mind.

 

[quadraginta]

Not really.
If a company has a USP, they will promote it as such.
The Mac was and remains different from non Mac computers despite the fact that they have become essentially the same. That's why you can't buy a Mac case with Windows pre-installed.
That's why you can't buy a Ford with a Toyota engine pre-installed.
<snip>

You're right!

You'd have to settle for a Nissan or Mazda engine.

For a Toyota engine you'd have to buy a Chevy.

 

[quadraginta]

Hardly when they were nearly going bankrupt was it?

That was the launch.

I see. "There wasn't any marketing"

... except for when there was.

Got it.

(N.B.; the Newsweek stunt was nearly a year after the launch.)

 

[Mumbles]

Except that the whole tablet experience is unknown to people who haven't actually bought the tablet yet.

You can walk into any Apple Store, Best Buy, or wherever, and try one out. In fact, the local Apple store is constantly clogged with people doing exactly this. And I'm actually glad to see that the Android tablet makers are following this example - the non-Apple phones and MP3 player floor models in most electronics stores have usually been either uncharged, or shells with a cheap printout of a screenshot in them. This is one marketing area where I'll say that Apple definitely beat their competitors, although it's hardly underhanded or related to some religious feeling or whatever.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So then, what is the definition of "personal computer"?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personal+computer​

personal computer 
noun
a microcomputer designed for individual use, as by a person in an office or at home or school, for such applications as word processing, data management, financial analysis, or computer games. Abbreviation: PC

Your tablet not a PC, nor is your phone, nor your ebook reader.

Seriously - how do you post that definition and then a few posts later claim that it does not apply to my phone or tablet when it clearly does ???

ETA - and my ebook reader, which is android based

My game consoles are personal computers, too ! The term game 'game console' is just some marketing BS designed to confuse consumers that the xbox is actually a general purpose PC with the same exact hardware as my computer.

 

[Stray Cat]

I see. "There wasn't any marketing"

... except for when there was.

Got it.

(N.B.; the Newsweek stunt was nearly a year after the launch.)

Cool, now go back and read what I actually wrote.
Especially the part about when Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy (that's neither the year they launched nor the year after).

That's when there wasn't much marketing, wasn't much of anything Apple for a while. Their successful marketing didn't begin until the release of the first iMacs, until that point, Apple Macintosh were really the skint underdog against multi-billionaire Gates who looked to everyone like he was going to get a complete monopoly, to the extent that the US government hauled him in and he agreed to help Apple to compete against him. Nice man.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Coincidentally, I'm catching up on some Tech News Today video podcasts.

I just watched a segment where the discussion was whether tablets should be counted as PC's in surveys. If you do, Apple has moved into first place in the "PC" market. If you don't, then they haven't.

Sarah Lane made the point that once tablets got to the point where you could rely on them nearly totally for your normal computing needs, they deserved to be thought of as PC's.

I guess my point is the definitions are fluid for now, depending on the context.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Well I personally wouldn't consider as tablet one, unless it's built on the x86 platform, can run a full-fledged OS

Is that the John Albert marketing dept. definition or something ?

Do you see the irony of you criticizing someone differentiating a dell/lenovo/sony/samsung/fujitsu from an apple computer using the term mac or pc yet ????

I naturally assumed he was talking about an iPad.

You know what they say about assumptions...

 

[Stray Cat]

You're right!

You'd have to settle for a Nissan or Mazda engine.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...50px-96-98_Mercury_Villager_--_12-26-2009.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped.../250px-Ford_Escort_LX_sedan_--_11-24-2009.jpg


For a Toyota engine you'd have to buy a Chevy.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...k.jpg/250px-1986_Chevrolet_Nova_Hatchback.jpg

Yes, it's almost as if I knew that you couldn't buy a Ford with a pre-installed Toyota engine isn't it? ... Go figure.

But much like your examples of Apple running adverts to show that they ran adverts at times when I didn't say they didn't run adverts... Thanks for now showing some examples of some engines I didn't mention in some cars I never said didn't have those engines and a car I didn't mention with an engine I never said wasn't fitted in that car... well done.

 

[OCaptain]

Yes, I understand that.

Macs used to be based on the Motorola 68000 series CPUs, then they switched over to PowerPC processors in the late '90s.





Yep. Apple switched again in 2002 to the same exact x86 architecture as the "PCs" that Apple always claimed superiority over.





Which is what I'm saying is a false dichotomy. It covers up the fact that the two machines are basically the same thing. Apples are made of the same hardware with the same technology, by the same manufacturers that make all the same hardware for the other PC manufacturers.

Apple's "Mac vs. PC" ad campaign was based on a disingenuous duplicity, and it reinforced the misconception that Macs are fundamentally different, when in fact they are not.





But it's wrong for any arguments of relative merit. The only appreciable distinction is between the operating systems.

It also fails to consider that there are other operating systems besides Windows and Mac OSX that run on that same platform. All non-Apple PCs do not run Windows, and therefore they do not all share the same traits.

Apple Macs can run Windows too, and non-Apple PCs can also run OSX, rendering the comparison doubly pointless.

You've lost the debate, but you're still arguing.

:yawn:

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The price comparisons were proven wrong by examining the specs.

You cherry picked only certain specs. You didn't examine weight, battery life, size, form factor, number of ports, ease of purchase, ease of return, resale value, etc.

Of course, when it was pointed out to you that your comparisons were unfair, you were the one who invoked marketing-speak ("Ultrabooks") to defend Apple.

Or perhaps to show that you were comparing two entirely different notebooks based on cpu speed and pretty much nothing else.

But it's not worth rehashing, I'll stick with what I wrote, and the masochists who slogged their way through that earlier part can make whatever determination they want about it.

I would like to see your response to this , though:

Challenge: Find a laptop cheaper than a Macbook Pro 17 ($2,500) with comparable specs, including screen resolution (1920x1200).

 

[OCaptain]

o noes! beat me, whip me. pardon the shorthand in my quoted posts - I should have referred to "IBM PC compatibles running Windows"

Now that we've got that out of the way, repeating the same thing over an over again isn't making it any more true. Common usage distinguishes Apple Macs from IBM compatible PCs, made by various manunfacturers, running windows, by their short descriptor Mac and PC respectively.

Having just worked with an organisation where they bought Macbooks for the hardware and installed Windows on them to the tune of several thousand units, every single person refers to their laptop as a Mac, as a matter of course. Some caveat it by saying "but we're running Windows on it".

Dude, his irrational insistence on presenting himself as the only one who has a clue about PCs, Macs and personal technology just shows that he has a severe hate-on for Apple.

Notice how he keeps coming back to his insistence that the terms we use are "false" and "misnomers". Only his choice of terminology is correct. He's either very young or VERY self-centered.

Not sure which is worse. At least if he's young, he could grow out of it. No easy fix for old guys who think the universe revolves around them.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

One thing I love about my MacBook Pro is the "multi-touch" trackpad.

Scrolling and going forward and back browser pages and "right-clicking" and zooming and rotating photos are all highly intuitive.

Do Windows laptops have similar functionality? I know when I try to use Karen's Sony Vaio (still running Windows XP) I get frustrated with what appears to be limited functionality.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Isn't it true that Flash is a resource and energy hog? Serious question, I think I heard it was, but it's outside of my field of expertise.

No, not really. At least, nowhere near the point where it should significantly affect your battery life.

Sure. I'll let adobe address that directly.

The whole Adobe-Apple Flash debacle came about because the original iPhones were far too underpowered (processor-wise) to support it,

http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/tech-specs.html

Yes, adobe could not optimize flash enough to actually run on an ARMv6 instruction set. 'Far too underpowered' is an exaggeration because it actually does run on that chipset now, after 5 years of optimization of the flash code. So was the processor underpowered, or mobile flash code a bloated mess ?

I'm not a huge fan of Flash, as a Web technology at least. Flash on a phone seems kind of pointless, but I think it's silly that a device like the iPad cannot support it. I can't help but to regard it as another typical case of Apple being jerks about restricting their customers' freedom of choice.

Save flash versus no-flash for a different thread

 

[Mumbles]

One thing I love about my MacBook Pro is the "multi-touch" trackpad.

Scrolling and going forward and back browser pages and "right-clicking" and zooming and rotating photos are all highly intuitive.

Do Windows laptops have similar functionality? I know when I try to use Karen's Sony Vaio (still running Windows XP) I get frustrated with what appears to be limited functionality.

That's actually another one of those "works for me, YMMV" topics. I love multitouch on my Mac mini, but I got rid of my mouse because I set the Mac as an HTPC, and didn't want a mousepad or to rub a mouse into the coffee table constantly

This is also one complaint for me - I really preferred the zoom function in the previous OSX, which just enlarged text and pictures, to the one now, which is a full zoom. The latter means that I need to constantly scroll left and right if I'm actually reading a web site on my Mac while zoomed in, while in the former, everything stayed within the window, so you just had to scroll by page.