[Ingen]

I believe Bill Gates described the incident with Apple and Xerox as Xerox being the rich guy with the nice TV leaving his front door open. Microsoft sneaks in and steals the TV. Apple then complains that they wanted to steal it first. Although I think it's a bit flawed (both nicked it although Apple did so first), I don't think one thief should be yelling "thief!" at another. Without sin first stone etc.

I'm rather fed up with fanboys though. If their company does something first, they invent it and the others steal. If their company does something after someone else, someone else invented but their company saw the potential and perfected it.

Just wait until an android-enabled phone has good SQ, and we'll have the google fanboys here as well (I really hope not as I'm fond of the android system, just not of google nor their fanatics).

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ingen /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just wait until an android-enabled phone has good SQ, and we'll have the google fanboys here as well (I really hope not as I'm fond of the android system, just not of google nor their fanatics).

Fanboyism bespeaks an immature need to believe in something absolutely, without doubt or reservation. People who idolize Apple, or Microsoft, or Ben and Jerry's for that matter, are looking for something to believe in unconditionally. So they ascribe all sorts of higher motives and capabilities to the object of their affection.

The reality of course, as most of us know, is that big companies are after one thing, and one thing only: profit. Brilliant design, innovative marketing, the creation of a community, and anything else good they do, is incidental. Apple, MS, and yes, Ben and Jerry's are in business to make money.

It is tiresome and disheartening to see people sucked in to the belief that their fave is somehow different, better motivated, or public spirited.

Google may have so far managed to cultivate a good guy image, but just wait; they've only just begun. Their disturbing data retention policy, the way they handle search data, and a variety of other corporate machinations are all far more important to them than that silly "Don't be evil" BS.

Google is an advertising firm, 21st century version, and everything they do is aimed at squeezing as much ad revenue out of their market as possible.

I don't mean to single out Google here. I like them about as much as I like Apple, MS, or any other corporate behemoth, which is to say not very much.

Fanboyism is always silly, always misguided, and always sad, regardless of its object. I was once a Sony fanboy. Don't ask...

 

[shigzeo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ihatepopupads /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yumm...selenium. It's pretty ridiculous to describe an essentially disposable product as "green" in any sense. I read recently that according to one study, the average MP3 player is kept by the average user for 8 months. Think of the landfills created by the lack of a replaceable battery alone. I mean, I completely understand the need to move product (how else to pay for back-dated compensation?) but Apple is about as green as Mars.

but mars is not green...?

 

[dvessel]

^ True, true.. Just look at Apples policy on accepting apps for their App store. Gawdamned evil!! They made it clear now that if your app gets rejected, your under NDA and can't discuss your rejection.

But I will say that not all are created equal. Their end goal may be the same but I do have a little more faith in Apple and Google only because they can still reap profits with the wind to their sails. The wind being their customers being satisfied. It's not always ideal but what is? How long it will last is another matter.

There seems to be no point of equilibrium. There always needs to be more and more until the giant starts stomping on massive toes.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif but mars is not green...?

Nope. The Mars rover gets awful gas mileage, and there's not s single recycling program anywhere on the planet. Disgraceful.

 

[dvessel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif O.K., I'll buy that, particularly the part about Xerox being managed by idiots. I still think there is this sense among Mac fanatics that Apple created everything good in the world, including mother's milk, sliced bread, organic farm products, etc. Not the case.

Start stroking a lonely engineer's ego and whole industries can be taken. I believed that happened with the camcorder by Sony.

And the fanatics that fall through the deep end can be safely ignored. More trouble than it's worth.

 

[shigzeo]

i like your avatar. anyway: the nano looks so much less like the zune than the zune the nano. by the way and again: i only started to care for the ipod last october with my ipod touch.

 

[scompton]

People keep reading my posts as an accusation of stealing on one side or another

I must not be writing clearly.

The story I heard is that Xerox management didn't really know what to do with their system so they essentially let Apple have it. According to the wikipedia article
Quote:

Although a single unit sold for $16,000, a typical office would have to purchase at least 2 or 3 machines along with a file server and a name server/print server. Dropping $50,000 to $100,000 for a complete installation was not an easy sell, when a secretary's annual salary was about $12,000 per year.

The Mac came out 3 years later and cost $1,995.

Edit: Reading more of the wiki, Xerox was prevented from enforcing their patents because of a Consent Decree as a result of an FTC antitrust action. I also forgot about Lisa, Apples pre-Mac GUI flop. It flopped for pretty much the same reason the Star did, it was too expensive.

 

[centerfold]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG POPPA /img/forum/go_quote.gif I like apple products but hate the commercials, the thread is humorous to me.

If I ever see another one of those mac/pc commercials again I will break my chair

 

[ZarakiSan]

As the story goes, Microsoft decided to make 16GB Zunes, and Apple didn't expect it, planning to keep the pricelevels at their ancient heights. But it would have been unfair competition to try and match the Zunes, already being in my opinion more advanced than the Nano's, with half the capacity at the same pricelevels.

On another note: New Nano's suck. They don't have Wifi, they have annoying screens, and I don't like the clickwheel that much, too small.

 

[Ingen]

Hrm, was pondering about what this means. If Apple did change their product due to MS planned products, does this mean Apple is either A) shafting customers except when they can't get away with it? or B) Forced to produce better products due to MS snapping at their products heels?

Or C) something else.

 

[lewislink]

I just now realized that the new Nanos have an LCD that matches the frame or surround. The Zune flash uses a little bit of deceit in its screen. It has a 1.8" LCD in a frame that looks to be able to hold a 2.2". The new Nanos have a 2" LCD in a frame the same size.

That's one thing I always disliked about the Zune flash and it gave me the impression of pure cheapness, the little LCD pretending to be a larger LCD.

 

[shigzeo]

well i am glad for a nice bit of competition. i hope it heats up even more so that ipods get even better. since 2005 it seems that they get better and better.

 

[scompton]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif well i am glad for a nice bit of competition. i hope it heats up even more so that ipods get even better. since 2005 it seems that they get better and better.

The classic just took a step backwards with the drop in capacity. I just replaced my 80GB from 2 versions ago with the 160GB classic and I don't consider some of the new UI features to be a step forward, just flashier. I prefer simple over flashy. Also the click wheel doesn't seem to work as well for scrolling. I'm not sure if that's a software problem or hardware, but I have seen others complain about it.

 

[aluren]

finally apple has some competition! (yeah right...)