JRoberts

Apple

117 posts in this topic

I'm afraid you're missing the point entirely, then.

I got that point. This was a difficult issue for me, but I actually don't want MacOSX on other PC's either. My same position applies: I firmly believe that Apple has created a coherent, integrated product called the Mac. I think that as long as they focus on the total product, we will continue to see outstanding products like the iMac G5.

I fear that them allowing their software on all computers will shift Apple's focus from Quality to pure money-making, regardless of quality (as we saw in Michael Eisner and Walt Disney Corp.). It would be horrible to see another fine company fall vice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even more News:

Apple is working with many leading Car companies, such as BMW, Honda, Nissan, Mercedes, Volvo, and others to integrate your iPod with your automobile.

Can be found here.

This means that the millions of people who have iPods will be able to listen to their music while driving in as simple a way as people use CD's. Also, many cars have audio-controls on the steering-wheels. The iPod integration allows the iPod to be manipulated via these devices :lol:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fear that them allowing their software on all computers will shift Apple's focus from Quality to pure money-making, regardless of quality (as we saw in Michael Eisner and Walt Disney Corp.).  It would be horrible to see another fine company fall vice.

Apple's stuff is stylish and cute but their construction quality leaves a lot to be desired. I bought a 60 GB iPod some months back because I wanted to replace my MP3 player. It was dead out of the box. I returned it back to Best Buy - they had no replacement units - and the person taking the return indicated that Apple products were among the top in complaints from customers, partly due to Apple's attitude towards fixing problems. I just got a refund. (And ended up putting in a 100 GB Seagate laptop drive into my old Nomad MP3 player, a nice hack that works fairly well.)

Also, reports from initial iPod customers about prematurely failing batteries, and Apple telling them to buy an entire new unit, are legion. I've also seen major problems in the past with some of their computer models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, in the sense that it takes *extra work* to limit the OS to only run on their own hardware
Actually, it takes extra work to make sure one's OS is compatible with every third party hardware than it does to make certain it runs on a select few pieces of hardware.

However, even if that were not the case, that would not make Apple's actions "arbitrary". It makes it a part of a concerted plan. Now, you may agree or disagree with a particular approach. But a disagreement does not make the plan capricious or whim-driven.

I don't know the details of these operating systems, but it wouldn't surprise me if most of the code in Apple's OS is not hardware-dependent.
I can't say that the code is completely hhardware-dependent, in that one would have to rewrite the code completely to work on other hardware than that targeted by Apple. However, one of the reasons the intel-based OS X will not install to non-Apple intel systems is because there is code which checks the hardware of the system you are trying to install to and will not even boot the install cd unless the hardware specs fall within Apple mandated specs.
I fear that them allowing their software on all computers will shift Apple's focus from Quality to pure money-making, regardless of quality (as we saw in Michael Eisner and Walt Disney Corp.). It would be horrible to see another fine company fall vice.
I think you are still missing the point. Apple is NOT "allowing their software on all computers". In other words, as has been indicated, OS X will still ONLY run on Apple systems. It will NOT run on "all computers".

As to your other argument:

Allowing Window's on an Apple computer allows a buggy, faulty, and bloated OS to run on a fine machine. In effect, you are tearing out the soul of Apple and keeping its body, in some way hoping that the "body" will work just as well as it did when it was whole.
Could you please explain how the Windows OS is going to damage the hard drive, or the CPU, or the Graphics Card, the mouse, the keyboard, the fan, the cables, the sound card, etc - ie the "body" of the Apple?

The OS is a tool. OS X is well suited to some tasks. Win XP is well suited to other tasks. And they are both equally well suited to a number of the same tasks. In all events, they use (especially now with the switch to intel) much the same hardware. As such, using XP is not going to do anything to the "body" of the Apple at all.

All that will happen is that the user of the tool will be able to do more varied things with it than he could have done before the switch to intel. And he will be able to do them while still enjoying the wonderful design style of the shell, along with the space saving and aesthetic harmony that will result from the removal of any duplicate PC hardware.

I call that a win-win situation. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, it takes extra work to make sure one's OS is compatible with every third party hardware than it does to make certain it runs on a select few pieces of hardware.

So what? That's the industry standard, including the free OS's such as Linux and BSD. Except that it isn't really a monolithic effort, if a third party needs to have their hardware work in a given OS, they write their own device driver, or use an existing standard that makes the whole process much easier, or some combination thereof. Also, with a PCI (or AGP) bus, anybody *can* in fact plug in any PC card that they want. Whether it works or not with OS X is a different question.

However, even if that were not the case, that would not make Apple's actions "arbitrary".  It makes it a part of a concerted plan.  Now, you may agree or disagree with a particular approach.  But a disagreement does not make the plan capricious or whim-driven.

Technically, arbitrary was too strong of a word to use. More literally, as a phrase, it should be: stupid and mostly senseless.

If Bill Gates had been so dumb, Microsoft would have the "Microsoft PC" and ruthlessly bashed down cloners. Then their market share would approximate Apple's today. Instead he recognized the intelligent division of labor involved: Let the companies who want to design hardware, do so (and they do so in a staggering variety at every cost point), and we'll do software that will run on any of them, because of an open standard. And now that hardware includes pocket PCs, embedded processing systems, etc. Gates' genius was recognizing that software is an industry in itself, worthy of single-minded focus within a company - pure IP that can run on a host of different hardware. Jobs never reached that point mentally - so despite having a very good OS, it will languish in a self-imposed limited world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, reports from initial iPod customers about prematurely failing batteries, and Apple telling them to buy an entire new unit, are legion. I've also seen major problems in the past with some of their computer models.

I'm sorry that you had that experience. From everyone I know who uses Apple, including friends, family members, and myself, not a one of us has had a single problem. Also, many of the legit problems with Apple Hardware, Apple is very good about fixing. For example, the faulty battery with iPods was replaced, no charge. I'm not going to speak for another user who posts on this forum, but someone who does had a personal experience with an Apple product. The result? The best customer service of his life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you are still missing the point.  Apple is NOT "allowing their software on all computers".  In other words, as has been indicated, OS X will still ONLY run on Apple systems.  It will NOT run on "all computers".

I am speaking of the potential, and the desire by people to see this happen.

As to your other argument:

Could you please explain how the Windows OS is going to damage the hard drive, or the CPU, or the Graphics Card, the mouse, the keyboard, the fan, the cables, the sound card, etc - ie the "body" of the Apple?

I am speaking in more spiritual terms. Of course it won't harm the cables, or the fan, or the keyboard. But there is a sense of unity and harmony with an Apple OS and Apple Hardware that, in my opinion, will be ruined by adding Windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bill Gates had been so dumb, Microsoft would have the "Microsoft PC" and ruthlessly bashed down cloners. Then their market share would approximate Apple's today...Jobs never reached that point mentally - so despite having a very good OS, it will languish in a self-imposed limited world.

For the fiscal year of 2005, Apple had $13.93 billion in revenues and Microsoft had $39.79 billion. I would call neither unsuccessful, in terms of pure money making.

Do you consider the "greater" company the one who has made the most money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I'm sorry that you had that experience. From everyone I know who uses Apple, including friends, family members, and myself, not a one of us has had a single problem. Also, many of the legit problems with Apple Hardware, Apple is very good about fixing. For example, the faulty battery with iPods was replaced, no charge. I'm not going to speak for another user who posts on this forum, but someone who does had a personal experience with an Apple product. The result? The best customer service of his life."

I also own an iPod and have never had any problems with it. Plus, if these iPods are so problematic, why is it that Apple is so brutally dominating the MP3 market?

I think JRoberts may be referring to me when he mentions someone having the best customer service of his life, but regardless, here is my story:

I have been a proud owner of a 17-in Powerbook G4 for over two years now and have only needed to have it worked on once, and that was because I spilled a full glass of water onto the keyboard :P

A called the number listed by my AppleCare subscription and explained what had happened, they said I should get a box in the mail in a few days.

Sure enough, about two days later I received a box in the mail.

The box contained protective foam, an instruction booklet and some more papers. The instruction booklet explained in detail how to store the laptop in the foam protected box, and also included peel-and-paste stickers that already had a delivery address printed on it and paid postage and a number to call for a delivery truck to come pick it up. After storing the laptop in the box, putting the included postage on it, I called the number listed in the book. A truck then arrived shortly at my college dorm, picked up the box and whisked my laptop away.

Five days later, that same box came back to me in the mail, with a healthy and recuperated Apple inside :D

I cannot stress how pleased I was with how Apple took care of that, because other than making two phone calls and peeling and pasting some stickers on a box, I was virtually required to do nothing.

This, along with other reasons, is why I love Apple so much :lol:

Now if only they would get into the console market and kick some X-Box butt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am speaking in more spiritual terms.  Of course it won't harm the cables, or the fan, or the keyboard.  But there is a sense of unity and harmony with an Apple OS and Apple Hardware that, in my opinion, will be ruined by adding Windows.
When it comes to the 'spirituality' of computers, I guess you can just call me an atheist.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an addendum, contrast this with a guy I know who had a non-Apple brand laptop who kept having problems with it, and would spend literally hours on the phone talking to some random man in India while accomplishing nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what?
Well, the "so what" is that you claimed the opposite. I was merely indicating that your statement was not accurate. Since that was the reason you gave for claiming Apple's actions were 'arbitrary', refuting that premise made your conclusion based on that premise a false one.

Thus, that your argument was in error leading to a false conclusion is the "what".

That's the industry standard
The fact that someone does not follow everyone else's lead or example does not make their actions "arbitrary".
Technically, arbitrary was too strong of a word to use. More literally, as a phrase, it should be: stupid and mostly senseless.
"Technically" I disagree that Apple's actions are "stupid and mostly senseless". However, I do not want to get into one of those senseless MS/Apple debates, so I will leave it at that.

My only point was to question the use of the term arbitrary, since the actions of Apple are far from capricious. As I stated, one can certainly disagree with their strategy (as you apparently quite strongly do). But identifying it as whim-driven would be a falsehood.

--

Jobs never reached that point mentally - so despite having a very good OS, it will languish in a self-imposed limited world.
I have to point out here that having a different approach or goal than Bill Gates does not make one mentally 'less' than Bill Gates. Again, as I stated previously, you are free to agree or disagree with Jobs' goals and methods of reaching them. But hold off on the broad generalizations about him and his "mentality" based on such disagreements please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now if only they would get into the console market and kick some X-Box butt!

LOL!!!

--

Concerning customer service, Apple has a well-deserved good reputation there. I have owned and have teched both PCs and Apples in my life. And Apple has consistently maintained a very good level of support and service for them. On the PC side, such support has varied. For instance, I used to recommend Dell specifically because of their superb service and support. However, in the more recent past, their service slipped to merely average.

All in all, Apple is the only company I would recommend today if one is looking for a good, reliable service package (AppleCare and/or In-Store "Genius Bar").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that someone does not follow everyone else's lead or example does not make their actions "arbitrary".

No, nor did I say that, and you are mixing up different statements. I was not referring to the totality of Apple, but to one specific (current) decision: To stop their OS from booting on standard PC hardware despite the fact that it can do so, or can very easily do so, they went to extra work to break that capability - in order to satisfy a desire to sell their own version of what will be standard PC hardware (the economics of which is what drives this move from PowerPC in the first place.) But I've already explained why I think that's a bad and short sighted idea, particularly compared to the much greater success of Microsoft, so I won't repeat it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To stop their OS from booting on standard PC hardware despite the fact that it can do so, or can very easily do so, they went to extra work to break that capability
As I indicated, Apple certainly uses a hardware scan to allow or disallow a boot of the install disk. However, that is not 'extra' work. Most OS's have hardware scans - including Win XP. Thus the difference comes in what they will and will not allow, not whether they restrict booting on some hardware. That fact remains regardless. As such, not 'extra' work. Just different work.

Additionally, I don't believe there is evidence currently available to indicate that OS X can 'in fact' run on a "standard PC". And, while one might be able to change the OS so that it could (the ease or difficulty of which is unknown), that would indeed be "extra work".

I've already explained why I think that's a bad and short sighted idea, particularly compared to the much greater success of Microsoft, so I won't repeat it again.
You have indeed indicated such "extra work" would supposedly be advantageous. But that assumes one is seeking to achieve the goals and desires sought by Bill Gates. I disagree that one must work to that end.

Ferrari could try to be Ford if it so desired. It does not. That does not make then "bad", "short-sighted", of 'lesser' mentality, "dumb", "stupid" or "senseless". Nor does it make them less of a "success" than Ford.

The same is true of Apple. It could try to be MS if it so desired. It does not. And that doesn't make them "dumb" or unsuccessful - even compared to MS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ferrari could try to be Ford if it so desired. It does not. That does not make then "bad", "short-sighted", of 'lesser' mentality, "dumb", "stupid" or "senseless". Nor does it make them less of a "success" than Ford."

That is a great analogy.

You all can stick to your Model T's, I'll have my Ferrari :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the fiscal year of 2005, Apple had $13.93 billion in revenues and Microsoft had $39.79 billion.  I would call neither unsuccessful, in terms of pure money making.

Do you consider the "greater" company the one who has made the most money?

Well, I would say it's a better criteria than who makes the flashiest, prettiest injection molded plastic, even if Apple wins that hands-down ...

But seriously ... :lol: You are confusing two very different things, revenues and profits. Revenue, in basic terms, constitutes how much money you're taking in. Profit, in basic terms, is Revenue minus costs.

Using Yahoo finance (finance.yahoo.com), which is close enough for this exercise:

AAPL (Apple)

Revenue: $12.6 Billion

Gross profit: $2.26 Billion

Profit Margin: 8.02%

MSFT (Microsoft)

Revenue: $39.79 Billion

Gross profit: $33.59 Billion

Profit margin: 30.80%

Both in absolute terms of profit, and in terms of relative profitability, Microsoft crushes Apple in a comparison. This is due to the factor that I've been emphasizing here: moving bits, vs. atoms, is inherently much more profitable. A lot of Apple's revenue is in hardware, and even with their margins, it does not, and cannot, begin to compare with the margins possible to selling intellectual property. Microsoft's costs are largely manpower: software engineering and management. They can build it once, then very cheaply replicate it a billion times and sell it for an enormous profit.

So yes, as an Objectivist, I do say: profit is good, and what goes along with it: market share, mind share, developer share. And emotions aside, Microsoft utterly crushes Apple in all of those areas.

As it happens, I am actually not a big fan of Microsoft's quality in recent years either, but with dumb decisions by Apple to restrict their IP to their own hardware (which is the best possible news for Bill Gates), Microsoft isn't going to get much competition soon in their arena.

In music, there's a chance that Apple could leverage the "bits, not atoms" principle by focusing more on selling music and in becoming an actual original music publisher - that is, unless they're more interested in pushing iPods (that would be: atoms), against a growing tide of competitors who can do the hardware better for a lot less money, since there's nothing special about an iPod's capabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting history. I did a quick search and found a site that has the slides from the original marketing presentation of the VM370 system. If you are interested, you can view them here. (The site seems slow, at least right now.)

Thanks. I just took a look at some of the slides; they do indeed shed some light on what the VM/370 system was capable of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Additionally, I don't believe there is evidence currently available to indicate that OS X can 'in fact' run on a "standard PC".  And, while one might be able to change the OS so that it could (the ease or difficulty of which is unknown), that would indeed be "extra work".

Then check this link, one of many. The entire point of Apple moving to the Intel/PC box platform is so that Apple can leverage the low costs of that platform - low costs created by the popularity of Microsoft's operating system. Apple is using an entire microprocessor devoted to encryption security in order to stop installation to normal PCs. Why do you think that would be required if it *wouldn't* install to them?

You have indeed indicated such "extra work" would supposedly be advantageous.  But that assumes one is seeking to achieve the goals and desires sought by Bill Gates.  I disagree that one must work to that end.

Well, I agree then - there's no evidence that Apple is doing what it would take to achieve serious competition with Microsoft :lol:

And, your Ferrari comparison is amusing. With Win95 in 1995 and beyond, Microsoft's operating systems had genuine multithreading, compared to a very weak pseudo-threading model that made doing more than one thing on Macs pretty painful up until the introduction of OS X, many years later. And the currently extremely powerful systems, with low cost but very potent modern Intel (and AMD) chips, and mind-bogglingly powerful 3D graphics cards at crazy-low prices, were most certainly not engendered by Apple's efforts - they came about as a result of Microsoft's dominance in the PC field. Your Ferrari seems to feel it necessary to adopt a Ford engine and suspension, to use your comparison (i.e., it is not the PC world moving to the PowerPC chip) - and in terms of visualization, your Ferrari has nothing to do except using ATI and NVidia chipsets that were designed for the PC world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without wanting to get into a PC/MAC debate myself, I do have to say that JRoberts has an interesting point about an integration between the software or a hardware. Putting aside the rather ridiculous protection against installing MacOS X on PCs, there is a genuine argument to be made on the technical side about an increased effectiveness of an OS designed for a very specific hardware, and moreover to have that hardware designed very specifically for it. If you have control over both software and hardware, a good argument could be made that increased efficiency, speed, and reliability should follow. To make an analogy, Ford may practice division of labor and purchase rivets and bolts instead of making them, but they don't purchase the front of a car from a company, and add the back to it. They build the entire thing in-house, in order to exploit the synergy this allows. If this synergy and integration of a software designed to optimally run on certain hardware, and that hardware designed to optimally run that software, is what JRoberts meant by "spirituality" of a computer, then that idea sounds intriguing. In principle,

With that said, however, I will not be trading my PC in any time soon, simply because I've used Macs for a while, and I just prefer Windows to it, both aesthetically and especially functionally. Even with the baggage of having to be a program weighed down with compatibility amongst an impossibly large array of hardware, Windows still seems to perform better, and be more user friendly, than MacOS. I just don't think that the latter is a good system, not as long as they obstinately refuse to implement such simple window options as "maximize". Plus, owning a PC system is far easier on the wallet. Despite all this, however, I still think that Steve Jobs' project of integration between hardware and software is nothing to sneer at. Remember that the ideal is not "profit at any price", but "profit only from fulfillment of one's highest values". That's why, while Bill Gates in this sense isn't automatically bad, Jobs comes out quite admirable as well. If Apple eventually makes their OS as great as Windows, does something for the applications shortage, I will certainly consider buying an 'integrated system', if I can afford it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The entire point of Apple moving to the Intel/PC box platform is so that Apple can leverage the low costs of that platform
Not in dispute.
Apple is using an entire microprocessor devoted to encryption security in order to stop installation to normal PCs. Why do you think that would be required if it *wouldn't* install to them?
Now you are trying to get into a debate of whether it is extra work to create this chip and software to recognize it vs making an OS that is compatible with third party hardware. Off the top of my head, I could provide a couple ways such a piece of hardware would make less work than the alternatives. However I have no interest in such a debate, especially, as I indicated in my very first post, it doesn't matter to the argument in which the issue was raised in the first place.

In other words, my point was - whether it is or is not extra work to have OS X operate on only Apple selected hardware, that fact does not make that (or any other decision of Apple) 'arbitrary' (or, as you have now taken to identifying it, "dumb", "stupid", etc).

Well, I agree then - there's no evidence that Apple is doing what it would take to achieve serious competition with Microsoft :lol:
This is amusing only if one assumed the two company's goals etc were the same in the first place.

In other words, if one assumes Ferrari is trying to achieve the same goals etc as Ford, then one might be able to laugh at choices which deviate from those of Ford and which continue to result in smaller market share and profits. However, if one knows Ferrari has different goals etc, then laughing at Ferrari because they do not make the choices Ford makes is extremely misplaced humor. In such an instance it becomes unjust ridicule.

And, your Ferrari comparison is amusing.
As I tried to make clear in my last post, I have absolutely zero interest in getting into one of those useless MS/Mac superiority dog fights that so clutter up the internet. The single, explicit purpose of the comparison was not, as you completely shifted it, to address any issues of power, speed, etc. of one brand over the other. It was simply to make clear that different goals held by different companies which have different market shares and profits etc, do not qualify one company as "dumb" (or any of the other terms of derision you continue to use) compared to the other.

I am sorry you missed that sole point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Steve Jobs bashing thing is pointless. The man has a different vision of what he wants than does Bill Gates. So what? It is not "dumb" for Steve Jobs to restrict his OS to Apple hardware, he simply does not want to be merely another peddler of a unix based operating system; that is what we have Linux for! Since when is sticking to one's vision of what they want (even if it means less profit, or second place in a popularity contest) through any hurdle a vice? I happen to prefer the product and vision of Steve Jobs, so do a lot of other people. Apple brings in less profit than MS, no doubt, Apple takes on quite a challenge with the kind of system they build.

What Objectivist principle can be pointed to that says MS is better than Apple because MS has higher profit margins? Not one that I know of, and certainly not when the full context of the aims of the two companies are taken into consideration. Considering the full context is an Objectivist principle, and it should be the one followed here.

Making fun of Apple's sleek plastic designs as if that was all they were is not even fair. Taking a look at their iMac G5 (or even my eMac G4, couldn't stretch the wallet for the G5) tells of some great design and (yes!) integration. To speak of some lack of mind share or ingenuity after experiencing that system is simply not to be stating the case.

I had tried numerous PC systems, and built several of my own as well. There was also something missing each time, something I could never put my finger on, it was like always putting putty on drywall that kept cracking all over the place. After reading JRoberts initial thread in this topic (a big thanks BTW!) I went to try one. I certainly felt like Austin Heller when Roark fixed the submission drawing for his house-yes, that is it! Slashed and gone is everything superfluous, and non-integral.

There are enough Gates praisers around, I'll let them do their work. I say three cheers for Steve Jobs. That man who built a computer with integrity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The single, explicit purpose of the comparison was not, as you completely shifted it, to address any issues of power, speed, etc. of one brand over the other.  It was simply to make clear that different goals held by different companies which have different market shares and profits etc, do not qualify one company as "dumb" (or any of the other terms of derision you continue to use) compared to the other. 

I am sorry you missed that sole point.

It is totally disingenuous to say that casting Apple in the role of Ferrari, and then comparing Ferrari to Ford, did not imply the obvious performance superiority and (deserved) elitism of the Ferrari vs. the Ford. Give me a break! I took the analogy apart, as it deserved, since Apple is no Ferrari. (And I'd never place Microsoft, even with its problems, down in the pit with Ford either.)

Now - in the old days when Silicon Graphics machines actually had market significance - there was the Ferrari of computers. Or, the Amiga, an ill-fated, badly marketed Commodore product that was years ahead of its time, in terms of dedicated processing power (independent video and audio microprocessors), high res color graphics, and a great multithreaded OS, that made both Macs and PCs of the time look like complete crap.

But those days are gone, in large part because Intel and Microsoft won. The Intel/AMD microprocessor is it - the PC hardware architecture is it, as even Apple has grudgingly acknowledged - and it will evolve from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(And I'd never place Microsoft, even with its problems, down in the pit with Ford either.)

What's wrong with Ford?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites