Why I don't use Apple products
-
I have a 27" iMac at home. I don't use it for what I had in mind when I bought it but I've got some books on Objective-C, Cocoa, and XCode which I'm going to look at when I get the time. For now, it's an expensive browser and Safari isn't that good compared to Firefox. One day it will justify its price. One day...
-
That article is badly reasoned. The writer is obviously trying to gain notoriety with a contrarian view, it is a pity that he needs to stoop to such ghoulish tactics just to get noticed, obviously coming up with something coherent and clever is never going to work for him. Describing Indian politicians as successful is just plain odd - they get elected because there is no real choice, the whole world knows what a bunch of theives and crooks most of them are.Was the iPhone revolutionary? Possibly, but probably not (all the tech was there beforehand). Was it a success? Certainly. Did he invent the things that he sold? No. Did he get those things sold? Definitely. Before anyone shouts fanboy I suggest they take a look at this[^] post. I'm anti (but not rabidly) Apple, even I can see Steve Jobs was a success by most reasonable measures. My main problem with this article is the way it cherry-picks from someone's life to paint them as either successful or a failure. This is especially easy with high-profile people. The lack of apparent philanthropy is largely irrelevant, this is a matter of individual conscience, it is also an argument that has been rehearsed previously, by better writers. It is also possible that Steve Jobs donated anonymously - I doubt this personally, but it is still possible, something the author never mentions. If he did he surely deserves more kudos for not making a big show about it. So what will history make of Steve Jobs? Only time will tell. My guess is a mixture of top-grade CEO mixed with some dubious business practises. The only thing I know for certain is neither mine nor the Journo's opinion will matter.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]One of the reasons I made this post is to educate some people out there who compare Jobs to the likes of Superman and Chuck Norris and call him a great man who invented iPhone and iPad. This article makes a nice point that there are far more important inventions in the history of mankind than iPhones and iPads and there are far more (really) great personalities in the world than some businessmen who knew how to build a fortune by robbing people with their shrewd marketing practise. I even remember someone asking in the Lounge why he didn't invent a medicine to cure cancer, it made me furious and also chuckle at the same time. :-) I was just wondering if inventing a cure for cancer was as simple as repackaging an MP3 player in a shiny & sleek box.
-
In your sig:
Julien Villers wrote:
'I'm French! Where do you think I've gotten such an outrrrrageous accent?' Monty Python and the Holy Grail
I've often wondered, how did they deal with this in the French version (assuming there is one)? Did they make them German or something?
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
In your sig:
Julien Villers wrote:
'I'm French! Where do you think I've gotten such an outrrrrageous accent?' Monty Python and the Holy Grail
I've often wondered, how did they deal with this in the French version (assuming there is one)? Did they make them German or something?
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]I don't know about a French audio track. AFAIK, there is only a subtitled version available.
'As programmers go, I'm fairly social. Which still means I'm a borderline sociopath by normal standards.' Jeff Atwood 'I'm French! Where do you think I've gotten such an outrrrrageous accent?' Monty Python and the Holy Grail
-
Here you are: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V7zbWNznbs[^]
'As programmers go, I'm fairly social. Which still means I'm a borderline sociopath by normal standards.' Jeff Atwood 'I'm French! Where do you think I've gotten such an outrrrrageous accent?' Monty Python and the Holy Grail
-
One of the reasons I made this post is to educate some people out there who compare Jobs to the likes of Superman and Chuck Norris and call him a great man who invented iPhone and iPad. This article makes a nice point that there are far more important inventions in the history of mankind than iPhones and iPads and there are far more (really) great personalities in the world than some businessmen who knew how to build a fortune by robbing people with their shrewd marketing practise. I even remember someone asking in the Lounge why he didn't invent a medicine to cure cancer, it made me furious and also chuckle at the same time. :-) I was just wondering if inventing a cure for cancer was as simple as repackaging an MP3 player in a shiny & sleek box.
Whilst I don't disagree with anything you said above, that doesn't alter the fact that the author: 1. Attempted get more fame by criticising a dead man who is in the news 2. Copied many ideas. 3. Did 1 & 2 badly. It also made no pretence at any kind of balance, I'd say it was pretty poor journalism. See this google search[^] for similar atricles criticising the whole not donating to charity thing. I avoid Apple products - but not because the CEO is Lionised (if you pardon the pun) or not a good man. I'd have to stop living in the modern world if that were the case. I object to Apple's control freakery and high-prices. [Edit] Just so you know, I didn't univote you. I only do that if something is particularly inappropiate or bad!
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
I don't know about a French audio track. AFAIK, there is only a subtitled version available.
'As programmers go, I'm fairly social. Which still means I'm a borderline sociopath by normal standards.' Jeff Atwood 'I'm French! Where do you think I've gotten such an outrrrrageous accent?' Monty Python and the Holy Grail
In a way it's a pity, but in a way it's not, this is one of the funniest parts in a very funny move, & John Cleese's performance makes it.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
I have a 27" iMac at home. I don't use it for what I had in mind when I bought it but I've got some books on Objective-C, Cocoa, and XCode which I'm going to look at when I get the time. For now, it's an expensive browser and Safari isn't that good compared to Firefox. One day it will justify its price. One day...
PHS241 wrote:
some books on Objective-C, Cocoa, and XCode
I would buy a Mac Mini for that.
-
That's bad news. I bought my iMac as a long-term financial investment. I thought they had excellent rock-solid resale values and that iMac values consistently outperformed the stock markets. Please don't tell me it ain't so... :(
PHS241 wrote:
consistently outperformed the stock markets
Well, at least that part's true. :sigh:
-
One of the reasons I made this post is to educate some people out there who compare Jobs to the likes of Superman and Chuck Norris and call him a great man who invented iPhone and iPad. This article makes a nice point that there are far more important inventions in the history of mankind than iPhones and iPads and there are far more (really) great personalities in the world than some businessmen who knew how to build a fortune by robbing people with their shrewd marketing practise. I even remember someone asking in the Lounge why he didn't invent a medicine to cure cancer, it made me furious and also chuckle at the same time. :-) I was just wondering if inventing a cure for cancer was as simple as repackaging an MP3 player in a shiny & sleek box.
You can go ahead and say that Apple didn't invent anything or bring any new technology to the world, but that is besides the point. Steve Job's legacy is not about inventing, its about seeing what people were demanding and giving it to them just right even before people knew they needed it. That is where his greatness lies. 1. The first succesful company to actually get a computer with a graphic interface and a mouse in about every school and many homes was, like it or not, Apple. I studied in the AISN (American School of Nouakchott (freaking Mauritania) and I remember those Apples in 1985 at my school. Who else was doing something similar then? Was it new technology? Absolutely not, but he was the first to actually make it something people would want to need (soon after the world decided he was right and everything ended up going in that direction). 2. iPod: Was it the first mp3 player? No. But still, he just got it right as to what people wanted and he gave it to them. If there is no genius at work there, then why didnt anyone get to do it before him? Why was the iPod so succesful and other devices weren't. Was it gifted to Apple? 3. iPhone. Again no new technology, but want it or not it changed the smart phone panorama entirely. It became the benchmark of all smart phones. Right now, its kind of funny to read all anti Apple fanatics talking about their phones...its all about comparing it to the iPhone and how theirs is so much better. I keep wondering, why is iPhone still the benchmark and the phone to beat. Was the succes of the iPhone also gifted to Jobs and Apple? or did he maybe get it just right AGAIN and delivered what everyone wanted? 4. iPad. lol, I wont even go into that. Nothing new either, but again, one step ahead of everyone and delivering something that people wanted even before they knew they did. Its funny to see how the rest have floundered miserable trying to bite into the iPad's dominion. Is it a better product than the rest? Probably not, but it has the best advantage it can ever have: headstart. There is greatness again. The rest have to play catch up. You see, you can say whatever you want, the numbers and facts dont back you up. There is just one undeniable fact that no matter how much you squirm you will never get around, and that is the undeniable success Apple has had. And most of it is due to the "taste" and the "timing" Jobs has had when it came to supervising the design and the strategic decisions of the company. Obviously his greatness has nothing to do with how
-
You can go ahead and say that Apple didn't invent anything or bring any new technology to the world, but that is besides the point. Steve Job's legacy is not about inventing, its about seeing what people were demanding and giving it to them just right even before people knew they needed it. That is where his greatness lies. 1. The first succesful company to actually get a computer with a graphic interface and a mouse in about every school and many homes was, like it or not, Apple. I studied in the AISN (American School of Nouakchott (freaking Mauritania) and I remember those Apples in 1985 at my school. Who else was doing something similar then? Was it new technology? Absolutely not, but he was the first to actually make it something people would want to need (soon after the world decided he was right and everything ended up going in that direction). 2. iPod: Was it the first mp3 player? No. But still, he just got it right as to what people wanted and he gave it to them. If there is no genius at work there, then why didnt anyone get to do it before him? Why was the iPod so succesful and other devices weren't. Was it gifted to Apple? 3. iPhone. Again no new technology, but want it or not it changed the smart phone panorama entirely. It became the benchmark of all smart phones. Right now, its kind of funny to read all anti Apple fanatics talking about their phones...its all about comparing it to the iPhone and how theirs is so much better. I keep wondering, why is iPhone still the benchmark and the phone to beat. Was the succes of the iPhone also gifted to Jobs and Apple? or did he maybe get it just right AGAIN and delivered what everyone wanted? 4. iPad. lol, I wont even go into that. Nothing new either, but again, one step ahead of everyone and delivering something that people wanted even before they knew they did. Its funny to see how the rest have floundered miserable trying to bite into the iPad's dominion. Is it a better product than the rest? Probably not, but it has the best advantage it can ever have: headstart. There is greatness again. The rest have to play catch up. You see, you can say whatever you want, the numbers and facts dont back you up. There is just one undeniable fact that no matter how much you squirm you will never get around, and that is the undeniable success Apple has had. And most of it is due to the "taste" and the "timing" Jobs has had when it came to supervising the design and the strategic decisions of the company. Obviously his greatness has nothing to do with how
You are just repeating my points here. If the products are not new, what is great about them then? Is it just the sexy look of the products or the level of marketing (read brainwashing)?
gumi_r@msn.com wrote:
Obviously his greatness has nothing to do with how good he was as a human being or if he helped save millions of lifes or not with his company's products
I did not go into that nor does the article. I have no problem with if he chose to be a philanthropist or not. It was his personal decision. Or better yet, he could have done philanthropy without the media ever knowing of it.
gumi_r@msn.com wrote:
But denying how his vision has had a lasting impact in the digital world and how we use our portable media devices today is just plain denial.
I don't deny that, I have a problem only when people call these products as 'great'. Greatness does not lie in how the product's existence changed the world, but rather how its absence would affect the world. A good example is the polio vaccine mentioned in the article. Jonas Salk could have become a billionaire overnight had he decided to patent his invention. But he chose not to, and that has enabled governments of third world countries manufacture them at cheaper costs and administer them to millions of its citizens free of cost. My point was very simple, Polio vaccine is a great invention, iPhone is not. On the other hand, getting patents to luxurious products like iPhone and fiercely fighting with competitors over patent violations (when iPhone itself violates many patents) and preventing common people from getting cheaper alternatives is as gross as it can get. This is the main reason I consciously avoid all Apple products.
-
exactly! I don't understand it at all! Why would you want to spend 1/3 more or in the majority of cases even more than that for the same machine but in a white case and a different OS?! I just don't understand it! I know they are now a fashion icon and its "cool" to have a mac but in my opinion it's better to have better insides at a cheaper price than an apple logo on my machine!
DanHodgson88 wrote:
in my opinion it's better to have better insides at a cheaper price than an apple logo on my machine!
I have the best of both worlds. I have a Dell notebook and a stick-on Apple logo on it! ;P
-
You can go ahead and say that Apple didn't invent anything or bring any new technology to the world, but that is besides the point. Steve Job's legacy is not about inventing, its about seeing what people were demanding and giving it to them just right even before people knew they needed it. That is where his greatness lies. 1. The first succesful company to actually get a computer with a graphic interface and a mouse in about every school and many homes was, like it or not, Apple. I studied in the AISN (American School of Nouakchott (freaking Mauritania) and I remember those Apples in 1985 at my school. Who else was doing something similar then? Was it new technology? Absolutely not, but he was the first to actually make it something people would want to need (soon after the world decided he was right and everything ended up going in that direction). 2. iPod: Was it the first mp3 player? No. But still, he just got it right as to what people wanted and he gave it to them. If there is no genius at work there, then why didnt anyone get to do it before him? Why was the iPod so succesful and other devices weren't. Was it gifted to Apple? 3. iPhone. Again no new technology, but want it or not it changed the smart phone panorama entirely. It became the benchmark of all smart phones. Right now, its kind of funny to read all anti Apple fanatics talking about their phones...its all about comparing it to the iPhone and how theirs is so much better. I keep wondering, why is iPhone still the benchmark and the phone to beat. Was the succes of the iPhone also gifted to Jobs and Apple? or did he maybe get it just right AGAIN and delivered what everyone wanted? 4. iPad. lol, I wont even go into that. Nothing new either, but again, one step ahead of everyone and delivering something that people wanted even before they knew they did. Its funny to see how the rest have floundered miserable trying to bite into the iPad's dominion. Is it a better product than the rest? Probably not, but it has the best advantage it can ever have: headstart. There is greatness again. The rest have to play catch up. You see, you can say whatever you want, the numbers and facts dont back you up. There is just one undeniable fact that no matter how much you squirm you will never get around, and that is the undeniable success Apple has had. And most of it is due to the "taste" and the "timing" Jobs has had when it came to supervising the design and the strategic decisions of the company. Obviously his greatness has nothing to do with how
gumi_r@msn.com wrote:
2. iPod: Was it the first mp3 player? No. But still, he just got it right
The first hard-disk based MP3 player was designed by Compaq who saw no market for it and sold the rights to it to Archos. Archos brought out a rectangular chubby MP3 player because in those days the hard disks were thick. It also sported ugly rubber bumpers on the case so that it was protected should it fall. Creative Labs brought out a MP3 player designed to look like a Sony Discman and got awards for the design (it is exhibited in the Museum of modern Art) and went from a nothing-company to $100 million in faster time than Compaq did with its original portable PC. Steve Jobs waited a bit longer. The hard disks got thinner. Steve Jobs put that in a thin rectangular case and sealed in the battery to keep it thin and sold it as if it was something new. The only thing new was the circular wheel in front which which was a different way to search through lists of songs. The other new things were the white paint that easily scratched and made the iPod look shabby within weeks and the $99 charge to replace the battery at the factory! (Even that was after someone -- an iPod owner -- took a big billboard in New York City decrying Apple's attitude about failing batteries. Before that, Apple's attitude was you should throw away the iPod when the battery failed to hold a charge and get a new iPod -- and probably pay for all the iTunes you had downloaded!) How soon we forget! Just because a bunch of fanboys queue up in front of Apple stores does not mean that the product is unique or great. Just walk into a Fry's (or similar electronics goods store) and see how many MP3 players there are.
-
You can go ahead and say that Apple didn't invent anything or bring any new technology to the world, but that is besides the point. Steve Job's legacy is not about inventing, its about seeing what people were demanding and giving it to them just right even before people knew they needed it. That is where his greatness lies. 1. The first succesful company to actually get a computer with a graphic interface and a mouse in about every school and many homes was, like it or not, Apple. I studied in the AISN (American School of Nouakchott (freaking Mauritania) and I remember those Apples in 1985 at my school. Who else was doing something similar then? Was it new technology? Absolutely not, but he was the first to actually make it something people would want to need (soon after the world decided he was right and everything ended up going in that direction). 2. iPod: Was it the first mp3 player? No. But still, he just got it right as to what people wanted and he gave it to them. If there is no genius at work there, then why didnt anyone get to do it before him? Why was the iPod so succesful and other devices weren't. Was it gifted to Apple? 3. iPhone. Again no new technology, but want it or not it changed the smart phone panorama entirely. It became the benchmark of all smart phones. Right now, its kind of funny to read all anti Apple fanatics talking about their phones...its all about comparing it to the iPhone and how theirs is so much better. I keep wondering, why is iPhone still the benchmark and the phone to beat. Was the succes of the iPhone also gifted to Jobs and Apple? or did he maybe get it just right AGAIN and delivered what everyone wanted? 4. iPad. lol, I wont even go into that. Nothing new either, but again, one step ahead of everyone and delivering something that people wanted even before they knew they did. Its funny to see how the rest have floundered miserable trying to bite into the iPad's dominion. Is it a better product than the rest? Probably not, but it has the best advantage it can ever have: headstart. There is greatness again. The rest have to play catch up. You see, you can say whatever you want, the numbers and facts dont back you up. There is just one undeniable fact that no matter how much you squirm you will never get around, and that is the undeniable success Apple has had. And most of it is due to the "taste" and the "timing" Jobs has had when it came to supervising the design and the strategic decisions of the company. Obviously his greatness has nothing to do with how
gumi_r@msn.com wrote:
3. iPhone. Again no new technology, but want it or not it changed the smart phone panorama entirely. It became the benchmark of all smart phones.
All you have to do is to check out www.engadgetmobile.com and you will find that the vaunted multi-touch used on the iPhone was invented and patented by a small European cellphone maker. The company was struggling to get the product into the marketplace against giants such as Nokia, Siemens, Motorola, etc. Just as with the Mac's graphical user interface which was lifted straight from Xerox PARC's Alto computer, Steve Jobs lifted the multi-touch technology too. Don't tell me that Steve Jobs brought the graphical user interface to the masses. His first graphical interface computer, Lisa, cost $10,000! It was the price drop in components and enabled Apple to reduce the price on the Mac to levels acceptable even to Apple fanboys.
-
That article is badly reasoned. The writer is obviously trying to gain notoriety with a contrarian view, it is a pity that he needs to stoop to such ghoulish tactics just to get noticed, obviously coming up with something coherent and clever is never going to work for him. Describing Indian politicians as successful is just plain odd - they get elected because there is no real choice, the whole world knows what a bunch of theives and crooks most of them are.Was the iPhone revolutionary? Possibly, but probably not (all the tech was there beforehand). Was it a success? Certainly. Did he invent the things that he sold? No. Did he get those things sold? Definitely. Before anyone shouts fanboy I suggest they take a look at this[^] post. I'm anti (but not rabidly) Apple, even I can see Steve Jobs was a success by most reasonable measures. My main problem with this article is the way it cherry-picks from someone's life to paint them as either successful or a failure. This is especially easy with high-profile people. The lack of apparent philanthropy is largely irrelevant, this is a matter of individual conscience, it is also an argument that has been rehearsed previously, by better writers. It is also possible that Steve Jobs donated anonymously - I doubt this personally, but it is still possible, something the author never mentions. If he did he surely deserves more kudos for not making a big show about it. So what will history make of Steve Jobs? Only time will tell. My guess is a mixture of top-grade CEO mixed with some dubious business practises. The only thing I know for certain is neither mine nor the Journo's opinion will matter.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Keith Barrow wrote:
My guess is a mixture of top-grade CEO mixed with some dubious business practises.
Just check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer[^] to see how dubious some of his business practices were.
-
Keith Barrow wrote:
My guess is a mixture of top-grade CEO mixed with some dubious business practises.
Just check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer[^] to see how dubious some of his business practices were.
Wow, the only part of that I knew about was the "Wrong Guy" incident. Then they used all those Beatles tracks in their Ads. Linked is this[^] some intersting stuff too, they sued NY city for using a "Stylised Apple" logo on their environmental awareness campaign. Really good for a brand that pitches itself as the hippie good guys.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
gumi_r@msn.com wrote:
3. iPhone. Again no new technology, but want it or not it changed the smart phone panorama entirely. It became the benchmark of all smart phones.
All you have to do is to check out www.engadgetmobile.com and you will find that the vaunted multi-touch used on the iPhone was invented and patented by a small European cellphone maker. The company was struggling to get the product into the marketplace against giants such as Nokia, Siemens, Motorola, etc. Just as with the Mac's graphical user interface which was lifted straight from Xerox PARC's Alto computer, Steve Jobs lifted the multi-touch technology too. Don't tell me that Steve Jobs brought the graphical user interface to the masses. His first graphical interface computer, Lisa, cost $10,000! It was the price drop in components and enabled Apple to reduce the price on the Mac to levels acceptable even to Apple fanboys.
Again, I never said Apple invented anything...what I am saying is that Apple has consistently been able to come up with a design that pleases people. There is genius at work there, no matter how you look at it. Once can be chance or luck, but they have done it more than a few times.
Vivic wrote:
Don't tell me that Steve Jobs brought the graphical user interface to the masses. His first graphical interface computer, Lisa, cost $10,000! It was the price drop in components and enabled Apple to reduce the price on the Mac to levels acceptable even to Apple fanboys.
"Apple fanboys..." hmmm, I'm wasting my time with you as it is clear where you stand. Anyhow I think you really dont know what you are talking about and are just spitting stuff out you've read without really bothering to look into it. Yes, Xerox was the first graphical interface and yes, Apple's Lisa was expensive, where did I ever say the contrary? The fact remains that the Macintosh 128K was the first comercially succesful computer with graphical and mouse interface. I don't seem to remember any Xerox PARC's Alto computers at my schools in 1985-1988 or at any home but I do seem to remember a whole lot of Macintosh(no PCs at all either, I started to see those in the very early 90s). Your point? If it was simply because hardware was getting cheaper then why wasn't it Xerox or IBM or whoever who made the breakthrough instead of Apple? Don't you see the trend? Jesus, even Pixar was the first one to ever produce a major breakthrough in computer animated movies. Again, who was at the owner of Pixar back then? Jobs decided to sell all the hardware branch of Pixar and center all resources in the animation department, becuae that is where he saw the future of the company. And strangely enough, he was right, AGAIN. Did he make Toy Story? Absolutely not, but I'm quite convinced that he was responsible for focusing the company in order to make it possible. But whatever, Apple and Jobs are just hype: 1. They have worse products than most competitors. 2. They are a whole lot pricier. 3. They haven't brought anything original to the industry, they just copy everything all the time. I find it kind of curious, how if 1,2 and 3 are true they can still be so succesful? Oh I know, it is thanks to all those stupid Apple fanboys....oh but wait, how did Apple ever manage to have so many Apple fanboys to begin with? I'll keep saying it again, Job's genius wasn't about inventing...it was all abou
-
In a way it's a pity, but in a way it's not, this is one of the funniest parts in a very funny move, & John Cleese's performance makes it.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]Oh by the way, they're not talking real French, so it's funny for us too, because they're blending French and English humorously, as in "fetchez la vache!" where "to fetch" is an English word with no obvious French meaning ("allez chercher" ou "ramenez" would be translations).
'As programmers go, I'm fairly social. Which still means I'm a borderline sociopath by normal standards.' Jeff Atwood 'I'm French! Where do you think I've gotten such an outrrrrageous accent?' Monty Python and the Holy Grail