So should we consider Apple a cult yet?

[Rat]

Dude, PCs do crash more than Macs. That's a fact.

What have I been doing to my computer? Well, I'll tell you what I've been doing to my computers: exactly the same thing. I haven't changed anything in my daily computer activities. And yet my PCs crashed all the times and my Mac rarely ever crashes. So it's not what I do, it's the computer.

I'm sorry, I thought I was on the JREF forum, where asserting facts on one's own authority would be frowned upon.

Your PCs crashed all the time, and your Mac rarely crashes. There's a reason we frown upon anecdotes when they're used as evidence. In this case, I use PCs most of the time, and Macs sometimes. My PCs don't crash all the time, which makes your conclusion unwarranted. If we're going to do anecdotes, though, let's try this: your PC crashed all the time and mine don't; therefore, you are causing the PC to crash. Man, this is easy.

 

[fls]

It is telling that Apple has come to depend on glitzy consumer products, mostly repackaging established but not quite yet mainstream ideas with slick wrappers and claiming that they are 'new', to make money, while MS is still selling software and software alone, just like they started out doing more than thirty years ago, and are still managing to do quite profitably.

The only person I've heard quoting this piece of misinformation is you. Is it possible you have tagged the wrong group as misinformed?

Linda

 

[Rat]

The only person I've heard quoting this piece of misinformation is you. Is it possible you have tagged the wrong group as misinformed?

Linda

Well, Apple routinely claim that their stuff is revolutionary and the like, but then they're a company selling stuff, so that's normal. I only object when people take those claims seriously. An awful lot of people believe that Apple invented the mp3 player, for example, to the extent that I've had people ask me what make my iPod is, if it's not an Apple one.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I'm sorry, I thought I was on the JREF forum, where asserting facts on one's own authority would be frowned upon.

Your PCs crashed all the time, and your Mac rarely crashes. There's a reason we frown upon anecdotes when they're used as evidence. In this case, I use PCs most of the time, and Macs sometimes. My PCs don't crash all the time, which makes your conclusion unwarranted. If we're going to do anecdotes, though, let's try this: your PC crashed all the time and mine don't; therefore, you are causing the PC to crash. Man, this is easy.

You should maybe read the other post where I explain it's not just my PC but most of the PC's I've used.
Granted, most of the PC's I've used are a bit on the old side. But I've used old Macs too and they have never behaved as erratically as old PC's.

So yes, this is my personal experience, but it's not limited to one PC and one Mac, but rather my overall experience with PC's and Macs (and other people I know echo my experience as well)

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Or the iPad, for example. In fact, Fujitsu has had stylus tablets running full OS's for over a decade. The iPad is nothing new, not at all - it was just better advertised/popularized due to it's similarities to the iPhone (which is just an iPod with the ability to get a cell signal).

 

[tesscaline]

Or the iPad, for example. In fact, Fujitsu has had stylus tablets running full OS's for over a decade. The iPad is nothing new, not at all - it was just better advertised/popularized due to it's similarities to the iPhone (which is just an iPod with the ability to get a cell signal).

The iPad is not a stylus tablet. It's not even actually a tablet.

 

[Rat]

You should maybe read the other post where I explain it's not just my PC but most of the PC's I've used.
Granted, most of the PC's I've used are a bit on the old side. But I've used old Macs too and they have never behaved as erratically as old PC's.

So yes, this is my personal experience, but it's not limited to one PC and one Mac, but rather my overall experience with PC's and Macs (and other people I know echo my experience as well)

Indeed, but it doesn't happen with the PCs I use. At least not significantly more than it happens with the Macs I use. So the conclusion is still flawed.

 

[Rat]

The iPad is not a stylus tablet. It's not even actually a tablet.

Well, it is a tablet, unless you want to play semantic games. Wikipedia says:

A tablet computer, or simply tablet, is a complete mobile computer, larger than a mobile phone or personal digital assistant, integrated into a flat touch screen and primarily operated by touching the screen. It often uses an onscreen virtual keyboard or a digital pen rather than a physical keyboard.

Anyway, the point is really that it's not new or revolutionary. It's a tablet PC that popularized finger input for those devices. I don't know how good it is at what it does, since I've not used them very much, but I have no doubt that even if it actually is the best out there, it's still not very dissimilar to lots of others that are about. I also know that the people I know who use them and tell me that they are the best around have not in fact ever used a different one.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The iPad is not a stylus tablet. It's not even actually a tablet.

http://store.shopfujitsu.com/fpc/Ecommerce/tabletpcs-and-notebooks.jsp

That's the latest version of the tablet PC Fujitsu has had out for at least a decade.

The iPad is absolutely nothing new, unless you consider an oversized, under-capable tablet a "new" thing. It's marketing that drove the iPad to it's popularity.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

The iPad is absolutely nothing new, unless you consider an oversized, under-capable tablet a "new" thing. It's marketing that drove the iPad to it's popularity.

That explanation is too simple. If marketing is all it comes down to, why are Windows tablets lagging behind given that Dell - one single Windows reseller - has a larger advertising budget than Apple does? Not to mention all the other producers of Windows tablets, and Microsoft itself.

You may not like the iPad, and you may even be correct that no single component of it had never been seen before in a tablet. But with the iPad, as with the many Jobs + Ive products before it, Apple was best-in-class with something that traditionally has less appeal with tech geeks and engineers. That something is user-centered design, and it's made Apple a very profitable company.

 

[not daSkeptic]

... oversized, under-capable ... It's marketing that drove the iPad to it's popularity.

I spilled some orange juice on the kitchen counter, and my roll of plastic sheeting was too-large and under-capable to soak it up.

 

[fls]

That explanation is too simple. If marketing is all it comes down to, why are Windows tablets lagging behind given that Dell - one single Windows reseller - has a larger advertising budget than Apple does? Not to mention all the other producers of Windows tablets, and Microsoft itself.

You may not like the iPad, and you may even be correct that no single component of it had never been seen before in a tablet. But with the iPad, as with the many Jobs + Ive products before it, Apple was best-in-class with something that traditionally has less appeal with tech geeks and engineers. That something is user-centered design, and it's made Apple a very profitable company.

Yeah, that's my favorite part of the story - identical devices were already available, just unable to be hyped. And once Apple created the hype for them, instead of taking advantage of their headstart, they waited until almost a year later to begin offering iPad-like devices. It couldn't possibly be the case that Apple actually offered something different in terms of usability and affordability which other companies are now competing on.

Linda

 

[Ysidro]

Oooh, are we still using anecdotes? How about my fiancee's best friend's husband got malware on his Mac the other day. Am I allowed to be immature and giggle?

Eh, truthfully I don't care. Apple's products are ok. I don't like them, other people do. Now let's all make fun of Tandy!

 

[rustypouch]

If we're going my anecdotes, here's one.

I've had my laptop for almost a year and a half. Dell XPS 16, running Win 7.

Used it almost everyday, to/from work/school, and traveling around Europe.

Almost never a problem. After I put itunes on it, it started acting flaky. Uninstalled itunes, and things were good again.

And it was about 2/3rds the price of an similarly equipped mac.

 

[Kid Eager]

oh! sir! sir! I have an anecdote too!

When it came to replacing my home-built PC with a new one, I considered what route to take - buy or build. I decided to include the iMac in my buy option considerations, initially as a joke because as every fule knoe Macs are overpriced.

Anyhow, I specced up my home-build, a good COTS Windows machine, and the current iMac. All costs included, the iMac was $70-ish more expensive. Dang... that can't be right - except when you stop listening and start measuring.

I decided to try an iMac and was most impressed with the OS and overall polish, so ended up buying one. That was 3 years ago. I still use and support Windows machines at work, but my next PC with also be a Mac.

I don't have an iPad because that's an answer to a question that I haven't yet asked, but here's where a lot of people have got it wrong about an iPad:

it sufficiently answers the questions that lots of people HAVE asked, without getting locked into technical masturbation over the specification. It succeeds because the outcome it delivers is what people are prepared to pay for.

Sure, people throw poop at the iPad because it doesn't have <insert feature here>, but it does what it does so well despite that alleged limitation, that customers willingly buy all available stock, and competitors fall short in creating a competing value proposition.

Apart from that, your anecdotes are too short.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

^^If you say so.

 

[quadraginta]

The only person I've heard quoting this piece of misinformation is you. Is it possible you have tagged the wrong group as misinformed?

Linda

You know, I didn't tag any group as misinformed, so I am uncertain what you are suggesting. I charged that Apple exhibited a particular marketing strategy. Maybe you are transposing this into areas you are more sensitive about. This is a behavior not uncommon among fans of Apple products, but it was not what I was addressing.

Rat already responded to you but I will add this. Apple's practice of claiming to be ground-breakers when they are not is well established. Sometimes they have fallen prey to their own advertising. They made themselves look silly at the end of the eighties during their failed attempt to sue MS for copyright violation concerning the Graphical User Interface (GUI) on computers.

To add to their embarrassment, while they were busy losing that lawsuit they themselves were sued for the very same thing by Xerox PARC, who actually had invented the approach, and had quite explicitly taught Apple about it prior to and during the development of the Lisa and Macintosh.

I give Apple full credit for moving some ideas into the mainstream of consumer awareness, and have even expressed my gratitude for this in the past. (I believe most recently in exchanges which you participated in during a thread about iPads.) That does not change the fact that their effort to portray themselves as revolutionary innovators is, as Rat also pointed out, an advertising tool.

It is not "misinformation" for me to say this. I made no reference in my post concerning the degree to which any people, regardless of what "group" they may consider themselves a member of, are misled by such claims.

If you want to pursue this separate subject that's fine with me, but it has no bearing on what I was talking about.

 

[Rat]

Yeah, that's my favorite part of the story - identical devices were already available, just unable to be hyped. And once Apple created the hype for them, instead of taking advantage of their headstart, they waited until almost a year later to begin offering iPad-like devices. It couldn't possibly be the case that Apple actually offered something different in terms of usability and affordability which other companies are now competing on.

Linda

Well, I've already conceded that I've not used the iPad much, so I'm unwilling to comment on them that much, though. OTOH, I remember well the launch of the iPhone, and I've had to use them on occasion since they came out. Affordability would be a joke in that case, since you would have to remortgage your house to get one. Usability is the one that Apple fans always fall back on, because it's not really something you can measure. I never found the iPhone to be more usable at all than comparable products, and I found it had a similar number of niggling problems that other phones had. The people I knew who got them had never owned anything like a smartphone, so had nothing to compare it to, but would have bought an Apple phone if looked like a brick and smelled of faeces, and would still have been sneery about the competition.

As for waiting a year to put out competition, manufacturers have been creating tablets for years, and getting better at it all the time as technology has allowed. The fact is that nobody wanted them, and if you asked the person on the street, including Apple fans (and I know this, because I had this conversation with some of them), they would say that they don't need it, because they can do a lot of things on their phones, and for watching movies and the like they had laptops. They had to be told that they needed it. They sold out precisely because people pre-ordered and queued round the block to buy them before having used them, so their usability wouldn't come into it apart from perhaps the reputation that Apple already have.

 

[dtugg]

I don't see the big deal about iOS. Its UI consists of nothing but grids of icons. Boring. And way less functional than Android.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

As for waiting a year to put out competition, manufacturers have been creating tablets for years, and getting better at it all the time as technology has allowed. The fact is that nobody wanted them, and if you asked the person on the street, including Apple fans (and I know this, because I had this conversation with some of them), they would say that they don't need it, because they can do a lot of things on their phones, and for watching movies and the like they had laptops. They had to be told that they needed it. They sold out precisely because people pre-ordered and queued round the block to buy them before having used them, so their usability wouldn't come into it apart from perhaps the reputation that Apple already have.

This pretty much encapsulates my feelings about gratitude to Apple for bringing a concept to the mainstream consumer. Especially the part I highlighted.

My first foray into tablet computing was a very pleasant revelation, and I was quickly convinced of the advantages. Prior to that I had viewed the concept with a disdain not unlike that of many other old school computer users who saw tablets as appropriate for limited vertical market applications at best, and as dead-end toys at worst. (I should probably point out that I hung onto command line interfaces for a ridiculously long time too. The first version of Windows I had on a machine I owned was Windows 3.11.)

After I became convinced that the idea had considerable merit I have waited for the the price/performance barrier to be lowered. Moving tablet computers out of industrial niche markets and curiosities for the well-heeled gadget freak was the necessary step. Economy of scale is a big deal, and popularity is one of the best ways to address that. The people who make the Motion tablet I first used half a decade ago are still priced out of my personal price range. Hopefully that will be changing

Advances in hardware technology and cost are also contributing factors, but changing from the "Wow, what is that!" reaction to "My little sister got one and she likes it." is going to be more significant.

Thanks for that, Apple. Now someone can make them the right way "for the rest of us."

I'll be waiting.