What's so fantastic about Apple?

[TheL8Elvis]

Feel free to show Apple is actually doing something beyond writing a letter.

No, my goal posts have always been "fantastic". I just don't see a PR campaign as qualifying.

 

[Woolgatherer]

My initial point was that Apple's marketing strategy of calling all non-Apple computers "PCs"

I think it's that way because when purchasing software you'd need to be aware of what OS it runs on. Just look on the boxes and you'd look for one or both of these icons:

 

[Chris L]

Let me try to help you here. If the conditions are not changing and Apple is STILL making their products there, that is not "fantastic". Fantastic would be actually changing the conditions or moving the production to another place where conditions are better. Apple is doing neither, therefore we are still in "not fanasticland". For some of us, not sucking any worse than the other guy is not fantastic. That may be because we see these products as tools and not some iCons of reverence promoted by a marketing department.

 

[John Albert]

I think it's that way because when purchasing software you'd need to be aware of what OS it runs on. Just look on the boxes and you'd look for one or both of these icons:

I've said it numerous times already, but I can see I have to say it again because some of you are unable or unwilling to understand:

My initial point was not about whether the "PC vs. Mac" meme exists. I know it exists.

My point, that I've been restating all along, is that despite all the marketing, Macs are physically the same thing as PCs, except that they run a different OS, come in a fancier box, and cost a lot more.

Geez, arguing with you people reminds me of this:

 

[TheL8Elvis]

nowhere near the point where it should significantly affect your battery life.

First of all, I never said that Flash has nothing to do with battery life. That's a strawman argument.

no significant effect is close enough to no effect, but I should have quoted you more accurately.

I noticed how you did a quick cursory search for a phrase like "battery life" and then posited that as proof of your point, when that sentence does not in fact support your position that Flash is a battery hog in and of itself.

No, it supports the fact that flash can significantly affect battery life, especially when not optimized for mobile.

So it's not a question of "if" optimizing one's code conserves processing power and therefore extends battery life. There's no question that well-optimized code can use a lot less processing power than inept code. What I was addressing was a question of to what extent does it affect battery life?

Agreed. And your answer was no significant effect.

Nothing like real tests to demonstrate that's wrong though

You're misrepresenting information about the former as evidence to support a preconception about the latter, and I'm saying that's disingenuous. Anybody who's tech-savvy enough to know the difference will be able to spot the red herring for what it is.

No red herrings. Flash is, generally speaking, a battery hog. One of the reasons adobe has killed mobile flash.

 

[Chris L]

no significant effect is close enough to no effect, but I should have quoted you more accurately.



No, it supports the fact that flash can significantly affect battery life, especially when not optimized for mobile.



Agreed. And your answer was no significant effect.

Nothing like real tests to demonstrate that's wrong though



No red herrings. Flash is, generally speaking, a battery hog. One of the reasons adobe has killed mobile flash.

While there are some technical points for and against Flash, the reason iPad doesn't support it has little to do with them. Adobe screwed Jobs over when it wouldn't write an iMac version of it's two most popular software titles. Jobs took that as a personal insult (as he should have) as Apple was responsible for making Adobe a major player. Therefore, the decision to ban Flash was a no brainer. Jobs was just getting Adobe back for their betrayal.

What banning Flash does for the user is not allow them to view a lot of the current video content of the Web on their iPad. That will change over time, as HTML 5.0 gains better acceptance, but for now, Apple is again setting limits to what can be done with its products.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Let me try to help you here. If the conditions are not changing and Apple is STILL making their products there, that is not "fantastic". Fantastic would be actually changing the conditions

OK, but according to what the links I posted they are changing. Examples were given.

or moving the production to another place where conditions are better. Apple is doing neither, therefore we are still in "not fanasticland". For some of us, not sucking any worse than the other guy is not fantastic. That may be because we see these products as tools and not some iCons of reverence promoted by a marketing department.

This has nothing to do with products. This has to do with apple clearly making an effort to address criticisms/problems of the working conditions of its suppliers. I honestly think any other company taking these same steps would be lauded, but because it's apple, you refuse to credit them.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

My point, that I've been restating all along, is that despite all the marketing, Macs are physically the same thing as PCs, except that it runs a different OS, comes in a fancier box, and costs a lot more. [/B]

So they are exactly the same, except where they are different.

And again, the 'outrageously high price' has already been refuted as well.

BTW, still waiting for that Macbook pro equiv with 1920x1200 resolution, etc. for < 2500.

 

[John Albert]

no significant effect is close enough to no effect, but I should have quoted you more accurately.

No. You're making a strawman argument.

I'm saying it's a questionable matter of degree, as opposed to an absolute binary statement like you're misrepresenting it to be.

Quit lying.

No, it supports the fact that flash can significantly affect battery life, especially when not optimized for mobile.

ANY program that is not properly optimized will be an undue drag on resources. As I said before, it's not necessarily the fault of the platform.

The mobile Flash plugin does not automatically run all Flash content on page load. It places an icon that allows the user to choose whether or not to show the Flash. There's no reason the same functionality could not have been implemented for the iOS version.

Agreed. And your answer was no significant effect.

I said it should not have any significant effect. You're misquoting me again.

Nothing like real tests to demonstrate that's wrong though

Those results were obtained from observations of one single device, the MacBook AIR. That article ran a year ago, and was cited by lots of blogs at the time, but to this date I have yet to see those results reproduced elsewhere.

I've been using Flash on and off on my phone for almost 2 years now, and have noticed no significant battery drain. I also use it on my netbook, and I can get 8 hours of battery life, even with Flash installed.

No red herrings. Flash is, generally speaking, a battery hog. One of the reasons adobe has killed mobile flash.

No, Flash has been shown in one test to be a battery drain on the MacBook AIR specifically.

It's also been shown to be a negligible issue on Android. I don't know from Windows, but it appears to be a non-issue on Firefox under Linux as well.

So maybe it's an issue with Mac OSX implementation of Flash? Or maybe it's a peccadillo of the way Mac OSX runs on the MacBook AIR?

 

[John Albert]

BTW, still waiting for that Macbook pro equiv with 1920x1200 resolution, etc. for < 2500.

Why are you so hung up on the 1920x1200 resolution? Why isn't the standard 16:9 1920x1080 HD format good enough?

Are you insisting on that particular screen res because you know that all other manufacturers but Apple dropped that display size last year because sales were far too low to justify adding $500-1000 to the purchase price just for a measly ¾" of vertical screen size?

Why would you need that extra ¾" of vertical screen size on a laptop anyway? Just to have ⅜" of black letterboxing on the top and bottom of the screen when watching a movie in full 1080p HD? Talk about your pointless pissing contest.

Anyway, you can get a Lenovo T520 or a Dell XPS 15 with the same or better specs—except a 1920x1080 display—for $1000 less than the MacBook Pro. That's a 40% savings, for ¾" less vertical screen size.

You can also get an HP Envy with far better specs, in an all-aluminum case, for $1200 less than the MacBook Pro. That's almost a 50% savings for the same ¾" smaller vertical screen size.

I'm sure other manufacturers have some even better deals (haven't checked ASUS or Alienware).

 

[TheL8Elvis]

ANY program that is not properly optimized will be an undue drag on resources. As I said before, it's not necessarily the fault of the platform.

If flash is requires optimization to not be a drain on mobile battery life, it's clearly an issue with flash.

As lack of flash didn't appear to harm iOS device sales to any significant degree, and mobile flash is dead, it really doesn't matter.

 

[John Albert]

If flash is requires optimization to not be a drain on mobile battery life, it's clearly an issue with flash.

Wrong.

Any programming that is poorly coded and improperly optimized will create a drain on resources, period. If you're arguing otherwise, then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

As lack of flash didn't appear to harm iOS device sales to any significant degree, and mobile flash is dead, it really doesn't matter.

Again, you're quoting irrelevant marketing stats to support an argument about functionality. The argument is not about whether Apple products sell better. It's about whether their sales and hype are warranted by the actual qualities of their products.

 

[kajata]

So what does the person who gets the last word in win?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Why are you so hung up on the 1920x1200 resolution? Why isn't the standard 16:9 1920x1080 HD format good enough?

It wasn't my request, initially, it was a different posters. You never answered it, and I was curious as to why.

Are you insisting on that particular screen res because you know that all other manufacturers but Apple dropped that display size last year because sales were far too low to justify adding $500-1000 to the purchase price just for a measly ½" of vertical resolution?

IDK, you seem to be the one all about specs. Except you seem to pick and choose the ones you personally find important and ignore others.

You have a link for the sales figures for 'all other manufacturers' , or did you just make that up ?

Anyway, you can get a Lenovo T520 or a

That's a smaller and lower resolution display. Not very equivalent. And of course, the macbook ships next day, not in a month. That might be important to some people. A quick google shows the battery life isn't as good even with the smaller display. Again, that may matter to some people.

All go to the point of demonstrating you cherry pick what you think is important and ignore other features and call machines 'equivalent'.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So what does the person who gets the last word in win?

IDK, we are still working on that

 

[John Albert]

IDK, you seem to be the one all about specs. Except you seem to pick and choose the ones you personally find important and ignore others.

I'm talking about all the performance specs, every single one.

You have a link for the sales figures for 'all other manufacturers' , or did you just make that up ?

NO, it's just a generalization. There might be some manufacturers that still market laptops with a 1900x1200 display, but most of them dropped that display size a year ago because it's simply not practical nor economical to pay so much extra for a custom size display screen that's a weird aspect ratio, only 120 pixels taller than the HD standard of 1080.

That's a smaller and lower resolution display. Not very equivalent.

As I pointed out, it's a single spec, and the ¾" of vertical screen size difference is negligible for the saving almost half on the price.

And of course, the macbook ships next day, not in a month.

Where do you get the "in a month" thing? I've bought laptops online and never had to wait for a month. A week or 10 days tops, and that's without overnight shipping.

A quick google shows the battery life isn't as good even with the smaller display.

Then I assume you can show some evidence that all the machines I cited have significantly less battery life?

All go to the point of demonstrating you cherry pick what you think is important and ignore other features and call machines 'equivalent'.

The machines I posted are superior in nearly every measurable spec except the Mac OS. And all major computer manufacturers sell comparable machines.

I'm sorry, but there's just nothing objective that's so special about the Macs that warrant a 200% price increase.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Last word.


What do I win?

 

[kajata]

Last word.


What do I win?

An iPad.

 

[JohnnyG]

Why are you so hung up on the 1920x1200 resolution? Why isn't the standard 16:9 1920x1080 HD format good enough?

We don't watch movies on our laptops. We do data processing/visualization and programming with Visual Studio. The extra pixels make a significant difference for us.

This resolution used to be available on 15" laptops, now it's not even available on the 17"+ models. It is very disappointing to see laptops limited to the same resolution as my TV.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Where do you get the "in a month" thing?

Playing around with the config it said 'ships in 4 weeks'

Then I assume you can show some evidence that all the machines I cited have significantly less battery life?

Nope, I didn't bother looking at all of them.

The machines I posted are superior in nearly every measurable spec except the Mac OS. And all major computer manufacturers sell comparable machines.

I'm repeating myself ... but you think it's all about checking boxes on a technical spec sheet. I disagree.

I'm sorry, but there's just nothing objective that's so special about the Macs that warrant a 200% price increase.

No need to apologize for your opinion.