What's so fantastic about Apple?

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

Q-tips used be called baby gays. I think the marketing dept. made a wise move

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I was going to ask John for a Kleenex next...

...but I've reconsidered!

 

[kajata]

I wonder if he calls Americans "USAians"?

I'm pretty sure marketing people came up with the term "Americans".

 

[John Albert]

Nice strawman there. As usual, you guys are totally unable to actually refute my argument with facts, so you simply misrepresent it.

I didn't say that "Mac vs. PC" was not a common meme, that most people recognize. I said that it's a misconception promoted by Apple, because there's no fundamental difference. Macs are the same hardware, made by the very same companies that Apple competes against, just packaged in a fancier box and running a different OS, with an outrageously high price tag.

 

[Mumbles]

What's really funny about all of this is that pretty much every Mac (yes, you could count their servers as an exception) has been a PC. The idea that the term depends on a particular chipset is risible as the acronym simply means "Personal Computer" which even the original 68000-based Macintosh obviously was. But the term "PC" was used to mean "IBM Compatible Personal Computer" even in the Windows 3.1 days, so I have no idea how Apple is somehow responsible for it's continued usage.

(hint: most people don't care about chipsets, motherboards, and the like)

And by the way, the actual capacitors, memory, GPU, Bluetooth chip, and on and on and on, depend on the manufacturer. And yes, these do matter as far as reliability goes.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

For a hoot, Google "original IBM PC", and then search images.

Memories...

 

[quadraginta]

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.

In other words, you made a ridiculous analogy that was fundamentally flawed. And knowing that it was you intentionally constructed it so that you could fall back to defending a technicality instead of addressing the real weakness of your comparison if someone happened to call you on it.

Cute. It ain't gonna fool anybody with more than two brain cells hooked up together, but still ... cute.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

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.

Er... you do know that Windows XP was released over 10 years ago so it hardly seems to be a fair comparison. Would you expect your Mac laptop to have this multi-touch if you were running whatever version of Mac OS was current 10 years ago?

 

[Stray Cat]

In other words, you made a ridiculous analogy that was fundamentally flawed.

So fundamentally flawed in fact that the best you could do was to show some stuff I hadn't used as part of my analogy in a silly attempt to somehow show that my analogy was fundamentally flawed... great tactic.

And knowing that it was you intentionally constructed it so that you could fall back to defending a technicality instead of addressing the real weakness of your comparison if someone happened to call you on it.

Lolz!

Not at all. That different motor companies have certain deals with certain engine manufacturers is not in dispute. The point being made was that if a motor company doesn't have a deal with an engine manufacturer, you won't find for sale a motor car from that manufacturer containing an engine from that engine manufacturer the motor car company doesn't have a deal with. In the same way that you won't legitimately find an Apple computer for sale with a non Apple OS installed or a Non Apple computer for sale with an Apple OS pre-installed. Non Apple computers can be bought with a selection of (non Apple) OS's pre-installed because Apple doean't have an agreement with any other computer manufacturer in the same way that Ford doesn't have an agreement with Toyota.

Cute. It ain't gonna fool anybody with more than two brain cells hooked up together, but still ... cute.

Well you're half way there then.

 

[quadraginta]

So fundamentally flawed in fact that the best you could do was to show some stuff I hadn't used as part of my analogy in a silly attempt to somehow show that my analogy was fundamentally flawed... great tactic.


Lolz!

Not at all. That different motor companies have certain deals with certain engine manufacturers is not in dispute. The point being made was that if a motor company doesn't have a deal with an engine manufacturer, you won't find for sale a motor car from that manufacturer containing an engine from that engine manufacturer the motor car company doesn't have a deal with. In the same way that you won't legitimately find an Apple computer for sale with a non Apple OS installed or a Non Apple computer for sale with an Apple OS pre-installed. Non Apple computers can be bought with a selection of (non Apple) OS's pre-installed because Apple doean't have an agreement with any other computer manufacturer in the same way that Ford doesn't have an agreement with Toyota.

Parts come from manufacturers. The manufacturer may offer a product under their own brand.

Sometimes other brands choose to use the same parts. The form factor, e.g.; make and model of car, is part of the branding, not necessarily the supply chain.

That's the point John Albert has been making re. the parts in a Mac. You just reinforced it with your inept analogy. Ford, Chevy, etc. buy the best parts they can get for the best cost. Sometimes they might make them themselves, often they don't.

About the only thing you can be confident was made by Ford if you choose to buy one of their vehicles is the price sticker, and there's a good chance the paper for that came from offshore. Not unlike Apple products.

A transparent attempt to obfuscate your own analogy doesn't change that.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Er... you do know that Windows XP was released over 10 years ago so it hardly seems to be a fair comparison. Would you expect your Mac laptop to have this multi-touch if you were running whatever version of Mac OS was current 10 years ago?

Ummm...

...wasn't it clear that that was the reason I was asking?

 

[Stray Cat]

Parts come from manufacturers. The manufacturer may offer a product under their own brand.

Sometimes other brands choose to use the same parts. The form factor, e.g.; make and model of car, is part of the branding, not necessarily the supply chain.

That's the point John Albert has been making re. the parts in a Mac. You just reinforced it with your inept analogy. Ford, Chevy, etc. buy the best parts they can get for the best cost. Sometimes they might make them themselves, often they don't.

About the only thing you can be confident was made by Ford if you choose to buy one of their vehicles is the price sticker, and there's a good chance the paper for that came from offshore. Not unlike Apple products.

A transparent attempt to obfuscate your own analogy doesn't change that.

Nice stawman there.

I'm not and have never disputed that Mac computers are made up of parts that are available in other computers, do try and keep up. What they do have that other computers don't have (pre-installed) is the Mac OS (that'll be the UPS I was talking about).
My whole point that you have either deliberately missed or simply overlooked in your rush to show how wrong I am, is that I was talking about the relationship between the OS and the computer and relating that to the engine and the car respectively.

If you would like me to put it in pictures for you I can... I'll even draw pictures that illustrate my point instead of posting unrelated ones from Wiki.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

My whole point that you have either deliberately missed or simply overlooked in your rush to show how wrong I am, is that I was talking about the relationship between the OS and the computer and relating that to the engine and the car respectively.

<snip>

And you did a piss-poor job of it. Probably because the relationship between the OS and the computer components in this instance is no more meaningful than the relationship between car and engine you tried to make.

You chose a bad example to defend a questionable assertion. That's okay. We all slip up from time to time.

 

[Rat]

I'm not and have never disputed that Mac computers are made up of parts that are available in other computers, do try and keep up. What they do have that other computers don't have (pre-installed) is the Mac OS (that'll be the UPS I was talking about).

Macs all come with a UPS now?

 

[Stray Cat]

And you did a piss-poor job of it. Probably because the relationship between the OS and the computer components in this instance is no more meaningful than the relationship between car and engine you tried to make.

Still trying to knock that strawman over then?

I'll try once more in words before I resort to diagrams
I wasn't talking about computer components.
Hope this helps.

So actually, my example (which you'll notice wasn't the same as your incorrect pictures posted because you weren't paying attention) was accurate in that Apple don't sell computers with Windows pre-installed and Ford don't sell cars with Toyota engines in them.

You chose a bad example to defend a questionable assertion.

My "assertion" was that Apple don't sell computers with any other OS except their own pre-installed. What exactly is "questionable" about that?

Another "assertion" I made was that Apple are unique in this respect. What is questionable about that?

The only other thing I may have asserted is that Ford don't sell cars with Toyota engines pre-installed in them... What's questionable about that?

That's okay. We all slip up from time to time.

Evidently.

 

[Stray Cat]

Macs all come with a UPS now?

Oooops Thanks Rat.

It was supposed to be USP.

See, we all slip up from time to time.

 

[Chris L]

And by the way, the actual capacitors, memory, GPU, Bluetooth chip, and on and on and on, depend on the manufacturer. And yes, these do matter as far as reliability goes.

Are you claiming that the actual components used are technically superior in Apple machines?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Still trying to knock that strawman over then?

I'll try once more in words before I resort to diagrams
I wasn't talking about computer components.
Hope this helps.

So actually, my example (which you'll notice wasn't the same as your incorrect pictures posted because you weren't paying attention) was accurate in that Apple don't sell computers with Windows pre-installed and Ford don't sell cars with Toyota engines in them.


My "assertion" was that Apple don't sell computers with any other OS except their own pre-installed. What exactly is "questionable" about that?

Another "assertion" I made was that Apple are unique in this respect. What is questionable about that?

The only other thing I may have asserted is that Ford don't sell cars with Toyota engines pre-installed in them... What's questionable about that?


Evidently.

The problem with your analogy is thus:

Ford doesn't use the same parts as Toyota and then claim that what Ford is selling isn't a car because it has Ford's Sync system integrated.

It's still a car (or truck, as the case may be), and Ford markets it as such. That marketing includes the performance specs (horsepower, features, etc), but they don't say "buy our Focus because it's a Ford, not a car".

That's why your analogy is flawed. Mac vs PC is doing precisely that. The internal components are exactly the same as many Windows or Linux boxes out there. So how is the Mac not a PC?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I think that if you're going to compare the two using cars as an analogy it's better to compare them as left handed vs right handed steering wheels or front wheel vs rear wheel vs 4wd/awd.

The difference is how they do things at the users end and how they can be expected to perform in certain situations. Internally the latest generations are both pretty much the same as far as parts go, it's the user interface and experience that makes them different.

That and how Apple makes it very difficult to do things the way that you want to do them. At least with Microsoft you can change things around to where you can do things differently than what the marketing dept. decided made their product look the best regardless of whether or not it made the machine run at its best. With Apple you are subject to the whims of their marketing dept. and there's not a lot that you can do about it.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I think that if you're going to compare the two using cars as an analogy it's better to compare them as left handed vs right handed steering wheels or front wheel vs rear wheel vs 4wd/awd.

The difference is how they do things at the users end and how they can be expected to perform in certain situations. Internally the latest generations are both pretty much the same as far as parts go, it's the user interface and experience that makes them different.

That and how Apple makes it very difficult to do things the way that you want to do them. At least with Microsoft you can change things around to where you can do things differently than what the marketing dept. decided made their product look the best regardless of whether or not it made the machine run at its best. With Apple you are subject to the whims of their marketing dept. and there's not a lot that you can do about it.

Stockholm syndrome?