or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The Case Against Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Case Against Apple - Page 4

post #46 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherwood View Post
Didn't the UK also level charges against Ribena for misrepresenting how nutritious blackcurrants were or some such?

Ribena is extremely delightful.
Nope, I do not believe that the U.K. as a geopolitical entity, ever levelled charges against a soft drink.

However, the Advertising Standards Authority in the U.K. did make a ruling that Apple were to immediately pull an iphone advertisement that contained objectively false claims.
post #47 of 117
Quote:
Spec a Macbook Pro 17" and go spec the same thing from Lenovo or Dell or Toshiba, come back with the prices, then, compare the Operating systems ANd the cost of using the software over the life of the product.

Macs are cheaper when all things are considered. For those that want an absolutely budget PC then yeah, Apple is not your bag because they don't play that market. Nothing wrong with that.
No, they're not. The point isn't "what does an equivalent machine cost". It's "what does a machine that does what I need cost". I'm a software developer and an all around high-end user; I haven't used a machine that cost more than $600 in a decade. I can get a laptop that does what I need for $500 and a desktop that does what I need for less. The cheapest Mac laptop is $1000. That's huge.
post #48 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzer1975 View Post
Nope, I do not believe that the U.K. as a geopolitical entity, ever levelled charges against a soft drink.

However, the Advertising Standards Authority in the U.K. did make a ruling that Apple were to immediately pull an iphone advertisement that contained objectively false claims.
Very well, if you'd rather be humorless I will as well. The ASA did level a charge against Ribena Toothkind for stating that it did not encourage tooth decay.

The thrust of my ribald retort was that the ASA seems to have a real hard on for absolute rectitude in advertising -- a hard on that its American cousin (nephew?) does not share. Fair enough?
post #49 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arainach View Post
No, they're not. The point isn't "what does an equivalent machine cost". It's "what does a machine that does what I need cost". I'm a software developer and an all around high-end user; I haven't used a machine that cost more than $600 in a decade. I can get a laptop that does what I need for $500 and a desktop that does what I need for less. The cheapest Mac laptop is $1000. That's huge.
Different people have different experiences, which tend to lead to different opinions and preferences. That's cool. Personally, I haven't been able to find a laptop other than a Mac that I didn't want to throw out of the window after using it for any reasonable length of time. (And I used PC's for many years before I switched to Mac's to save my sanity.) The PC desktops I have used (and still have to use at work) have fared a little better relatively speaking, but, IMO, can't compare to Mac in terms of ease of use and lack of regular problems. In terms of aggravation, opportunity costs (i.e., the costs of time), software costs (e.g., anti-virus software), and product useful life, I think Macs are cheaper for a lot of us.

But everyone is different, and as they say, your mileage may vary.
post #50 of 117
I guess it's difficult to really judge that article if you know nothing about the author. Jason Calacanis is currently the CEO of the website Mahalo.com. He also started Web Logs Inc. which owned Engadget as well as many other blog sites. He sold that to Time Warner.

He's a hugely popular and active member of the online technology community (sort of a mini Mark Cuban). His words mean quite a bit more than simply some guy complaining about Apple. There's been false stories posted on engadget that have caused Apples stock to take significant hits. There have been editorials posted that cause CEOs of very large companies to write them personally...


You wouldn't say apple has a "complete" monopoly in any business, but they do exhibit anti-trust type behavior in the markets they control. iTunes is, by far, the largest online music retailer and you can only hook an iPod/iPhone up to it and they have gone out of their way to block certain devices (Palm Pre). The iPhone currently is the market leader in smart phones, and they completely control the app store and what can go on the device.

Microsoft has never been the only operating system (not a monopoly) but they've been forced to change things due to significantly less. They were forced to remove internet explorer from Windows in the EU, and they were only installing it by default, not blocking the installation of other browsers.

If you're happy with everything it can do, by all means go for it. I don't hate apple, I own a Macbook and an AppleTV, but I find it appalling what they're doing with the App store and iTunes.
post #51 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherwood View Post

The thrust of my ribald retort was that the ASA seems to have a real hard on for absolute rectitude in advertising -- a hard on that its American cousin (nephew?) does not share. Fair enough?

yes.

Regarding the differing standards with regards advertising regulation, then I am all for tighter ad controls.

The very least they should be is truthful.
post #52 of 117
The AT&T deal isn't completely understood by many. The iPhone required a number of network changes and modifications to work. At the time, Apple was not a cell phone manufacturer and it was hugely risky. Several carriers refused to play. AT&T was willing to make changes and invest themselves in a big gamble.

Consider what would have happened if it did fail. Both companies would have lost huge amounts of money. Apple also had a poor track record with touchscreen devices and phones. The Newton was a failure. So was the Motorola ROKR phone.

The iPhone ended up a successful gamble, so it wasn't unreasonable to ask for exclusivity. Also consider that Apple could make much more money now by not being exclusive to a carrier. Apparently, AT&T is already worried about being dumped by Apple so they can get a bigger marketshare. How that shakes out in about 30 months will be interesting. I have no particular love for AT&T, so my money is up for grabs.

Another important consideration is that Apple is a publicly traded company. That's important for two reasons.

First, Apple has a duty to shareholders to maximize profits and protect their IP. If they blow it, shareholder suits are expensive (possibly upwards of $1,000,000 a month in legal fees), there's a lot at stake if they lose and the existence of a suit drives off potential investors. It's the same reason why other companies do the same, but most of those have lower profiles and don't attract the same level of mainstream attention.

The other point is that anyone can buy shares of Apple. If you think Apple is making a killing on profits, you can get a piece of that action yourself. If people are brainwashed into paying too much, then head over to your broker and cash in. The more money Apple makes, the more money you will make.
post #53 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arainach View Post
No, they're not. The point isn't "what does an equivalent machine cost". It's "what does a machine that does what I need cost". I'm a software developer and an all around high-end user; I haven't used a machine that cost more than $600 in a decade. I can get a laptop that does what I need for $500 and a desktop that does what I need for less. The cheapest Mac laptop is $1000. That's huge.
That's anecdotal and completely useless. For the stuff I do on a daily basis, fully, we have to build the stuff internally. Does that mean that I can start whipping that out as an argument that Apple (nor anyone else) can do the market well with their offerings? Of course not. Completely and utterly ridiculous as a statement.

The point is, based on specs, Apple is not much more expensive upfront if at all and over time is actually cheaper. Because you don't require more from a computer is meaningless in an argument based on price and value.

Software developer can mean whipping up scripts in notepad on a 286. Tell me you are designing new CAD software and testing and you won't be able to do anything on a $600 PC that is useful. It is all relative.
post #54 of 117
Quote:
The point is, based on specs, Apple is not much more expensive upfront if at all and over time is actually cheaper. Because you don't require more from a computer is meaningless in an argument based on price and value.
It's EVERYTHING in an argument about price and value. If it makes me pay for a lot more than I need, that's a waste and a poor value. If I need a Honda Civic and the dealer only stocks Ferraris, I'm not getting a good value.

And as for being a Software developer, I work on a project with several gigabytes of C/C++ source that I have to build.
post #55 of 117
It is nothing in an argument when Apple themselves don't offer anything in your performance category. It's like going to Ferrari and yelling at them that their cars are too powerful and then stomping your feet telling them that all you need is a reliable car to get you to and from work. Ferrari isn't in the market to sell you cars that just get you reliably from point A to point B. They are in the business of selling performance vehicles to those that want to drive them.

Apple is in the market of selling reliable and above average to high performance machines to those that need or want them. IF you don't need or want them, why make a fuss?
post #56 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arainach View Post
It's EVERYTHING in an argument about price and value. If it makes me pay for a lot more than I need, that's a waste and a poor value. If I need a Honda Civic and the dealer only stocks Ferraris, I'm not getting a good value.

And as for being a Software developer, I work on a project with several gigabytes of C/C++ source that I have to build.
I feel sorry for you if you have to manage several gigabytes of source code on a $500 laptop. That's what, 100 million lines?

Based on Source lines of code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Windows 2003 server has less.
post #57 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan1son View Post
I feel sorry for you if you have to manage several gigabytes of source code on a $500 laptop. That's what, 100 million lines?

Based on Source lines of code - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Windows 2003 server has less.
He's in Redmond so I thought maybe Windows Server 2010

ALL of my friends working at MS from the devs to the testers have disgusting amounts of power under their desks. Dual quad core, 16+ GB of Ram etc etc., Linux/Win 7/Server 2008 etc and they get hardware whenever they want. Maybe they are simply way up the ranks and don't have to suffer through $600 worth of hardware to do their work or he works for some other SW outfit that has bazillions of lines of code but can't afford to give their coders more than $600 worth of kit. Arainach, honestly if you can get buy dealing with that much code on $600 worth of hardware, good for you, but you would have a much easier time with something far more powerful. With that many lines of code, even the top MacPros wouldn't be enough, try a beowulf cluster.
post #58 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zanth View Post
He's in Redmond so I thought maybe Windows Server 2010

ALL of my friends working at MS from the devs to the testers have disgusting amounts of power under their desks. Dual quad core, 16+ GB of Ram etc etc., Linux/Win 7/Server 2008 etc and they get hardware whenever they want. Maybe they are simply way up the ranks and don't have to suffer through $600 worth of hardware to do their work or he works for some other SW outfit that has bazillions of lines of code but can't afford to give their coders more than $600 worth of kit.
No doubt... I have a quad core machine with 8gigs of ram, 2 22" monitors and I'm only working with several hundred thousand lines.

Eclipse uses about 2gigs of RAM by itself... the application and database server vary greatly depending on load, but there is no possible way I could do what I need on a $500 laptop. Not to mention we support multiple OS's, database servers, and web browsers so I need several Virtual Machines for testing.
post #59 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drubbing View Post
I think the article writer is more upset the Jobs didn't love him back.
You nailed it and very succinctly
post #60 of 117
Macs "just work" eh?

Mac Problems
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The Case Against Apple