What is with all the anti-Mac Labotomites?

Please tell me you didn't just misspell "you're" in a sentence to me. You know that makes me crazy.

I've eaten at Chevy's. I like flautas.

I agree with you there.

Though I run all my windows apps on my mac now. I gave my PC to my nephew.

I was referring to Mac users in Real Life, not in a silly forum. You don't see many Windows users in Real Life running up to Mac users in computer stores telling them how superior their Mac is. Forums don't count because people tend to get bigger balls when they can hide behind a computer screen.



Not at all. I think Macs suck, but don't hate them. They're quite tasty after grilling for 20 minutes on each side with a side of ranch dressing.

Does anyone remember the Apple Lisa? Or the decision to make the first Mac with a teeny-tiny integrated screen, instead of as a box with a stand-alone monitor?

(The second was done because, despite all of the market data that showed that people *hated* the design, and despite the fact that they were still at a point where they could change the design before going into production, they didn't, because they'd already started printing up the manuals for the other design.)

Apple has been making poor business decisions for a long, *long* time.

The Apple computer with the integrated screen was simply called the Macintosh. I used to write my physics reports in our computer lab at school on one of those, as I didn't want to futz around with a text-based word processor on a PC. I still have my old floppies.

Once done, I'd print a copy to the dot matrix printer. It was housed in a giant plexiglas box to try and cut down on the noise. Bzzzzrooowwr. Bzzzzzroooowwr.

We used to sell computers in the 80's. Shoved alot of Commodore prodcuts out the door.
Also carreid Atari and pc clones. The problem I had with Apple they are not small dealer friendly. The quota they set for a month was more than all the systems we sold total for the same time period. Not mention the idiotic hoops you had to jump through to become a dealer. If you wonder why your home town of Lower Podunk has three computer dealers and the nearest Apple dealer is two states away that is why. It's a computer not the holy grail. If you want to capture market share then get it in the hands of people who sell computers.

Third party support? Forget it. Remember the silly "Look & Feel" lawsuits? My parents were apple growers and was wating for the letter ordering them to stop selling machintosh In the course of running our business we had chances to meet third party supporters for other platforms and they said the same two things. Apple won't talk to them and if they did figure out how to build something. They were sure Apple would have them in court.

Then was the Apple clone and the mac emulator for the Amiga. Both killed by Apple.
The first throuh lawsuit and the second by cutting off the supply of ROMS for the cartridge.
In both cases a chance to expand their user base and expose people to the world of Apple. Not to mention selling the Mac OS.

Apple strikes me as a company who does want to win. 20 years too late now they now are starting to address the issues that put them this spot. As I said in a previous post: it is a orphan computer. I sold Amigas and know a orphan when I see it.
I see this as too bad. There is nothing wrong with the Mac but who wants to get stuck on the support issue? As much as MS sucks there is something to be said for walking into
a big box retrailer and seeting 100 pc titles for sale and maybe finding one small shelf of Apple ware.

I think the only reason Apple has lastest this long is the hype around the name Steve Jobs. The wonder kid who built a computer company in his parents garage.
Pfft big deal every electronics geek in the country was building a computer in thier basement at the time. Some just happen to be at the right place at the right time.
Nothing would give me greater pleasure to see a computer company give Bill Gates a good spanking. I had hoped Apple would do it but I don't think Apple knows what it is doing when it comes to the marketing and buisness end of computer game.

Too many chances have been missed over the years. Tomorrow they could come out with a computer that fits in your shirt pocket. does everything you ever wanted a computer to do plus cook eggs in the morning. Cost 29.95 and never needs updating. But if they don't know how to promote it, support it and generate a user base. It's DOA and that is what it looks like for any product they come out with now. If they appear dead in the water that is how the consumer will treat them and not buy.

As it stands I don't see a Apple product comming into my life. Even if I was given one. I doubt I would take it. I would feel compelled to try to support and do not want to go through that hassal again.

The Lisa came out before the mac, and had an integrated screen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lisa

The Apple Lisa



I have always thought that integrated screens were foolish. Monitor dies? You're without your entire computer until it's fixed.

All laptops are stupid.

They are. I own a notebook, and I love it, but I loathe the idea of spending twice as much as a desktop for the same amount of computing power. (I recently re-built my PC for about $600. A notebook with decent graphics, drive space, and memory would have been more than $2000)

All computers (notebooks included) should have removable displays and removable display cards.

I can't wait for the day when someone finally puts together an industry standard interchangable notebook platform with swappable display adapter, mainboard, and CPU.

I hate the way mac has protectionist my way or the highway use only what I approve bullsh***

I hate the way microsoft has protectionisht invade my privacy crush the competition if you can't buy them out bullsh***

Both companys suck balls. They are both arrogant and self serving corporations but one is wildly successful one is not. One got bailed out by the other. One's success was finally determined by something not even a computer oh wait both are successfull on something thats not a computer because niether one makes the same product one is a software company one is hardware that also makes their own os but finally made it by selling a music player.

The thing that makes my decision, I can upgrade my pc at will with parts I decide and install them myself.

That and that alone makes my decision. I don't give a dang if you like mac or you like pc use what makes you happy. If being forced to use only what your spoon fed makes you happy then more power to you.

Personally I don't like those decisions made for me.

While we are at it, ipods suck also.

I don't really get why everyone has to have an iPod, as if it's the only choice for a music player.

I don't use an iPod. I have a PDA that also plays music. It has an excelent battery life when playing music, I can keep my music on removable 1Gig SD cards (Which I can keep several of in slots in the inner cover of the protective case my PDA lives in.) and I also get to have a PDA without carrying an extra gadget.

While we're at it, why is it that this generation likes to pretend that they invented the idea of personal portable music players? Has no one heard of the Walkman? Does no one remember he 80's?

The digital music player is an improvment i quality, yes. But it's not like it's a new concept.

I have this argument all the time with people who actually ARE computer literate...

I've never seen such a collection of disorganized argument about the platform war....

I'm just going to stand aside and keep my nose out of it....

Hmmm I might fuel it.... nhaaaa I'll be good .

=B-)

Apple was for wimps. Real men used c64.

I still say they should make an SL client for the c64.

And the Mac was a huge success. It was expensive as hell and sold like hot cakes. Apple made a huge profit off it. Just exactly how was that a poor business decision?

Oh, you're one of those people who keep thinking Apple and Microsoft are in competition and that because most computers use Windows operating systems that Apple is somehow a failure. LOL. Apple is a computer company. Apple sells computers. The Mac OS is a feature of Apple computers. Apple isn't an OS company, never was. Apple's OS is a way of selling Apple hardware.

I could just as absurdly state that Apple is so much more successful than Microsoft because Apple computers outsell Microsoft computers. What? Microsoft doesn't sell computers? Yeah, well Apple isn't an OS company either.

The Apple ][+ (With a 16k memory upgrade, and the shift key option enabled.) were for the cool and stylish computer elite. Whereas the c64 was for the plebes, the common heard.

And that's about the last time that tha was true about an apple product, even if some poor, misguided people still think it's the case.



More seriously, I went to upgrade in the mid 80's from the aformentioned Apple ][+ to a better machine, and was looking at my options. Which led me to get a custom built 286 PC which did twice what the Apple machines I'd been looking at were capable of, for about half the price.

Whick is where Apple and I parted company, as I transitioned later to a 486, then to a PII, then to an Athalong Thunderbird, etc, to the XP3000+ that I'll be replacng soon with something even better...and far cheaper than any mac. Particularly since I'll get it from yanking out the memory, MB, CPU, video card and power supply, switching those gut over to an older computer, and replacing them with a new, AM2 motherboard and CPU, double the memort in the new DDR2 format, x16 compatable video card, 500w psu, etc. all *without* having to pay for a new case, and new HDD, new DVD player/burner, etc., etc.

Try *that* kind of an upgrade with a Mac. Oh wait, you can't.

Finally a simple but plausible explanation for the development of Apple's earnings and stock price in the last years. Thank you, Jack!

It's a mistake, because it caused people to try out PC's and find out that they weren't so bad after all. It was the begining of the end. The start of the slide from Apple being the dominant computer maker in the field, to being a tiny niche maker.



And how sucessful they were at it, to have gone from *the* major computer maker, to the point where they're such a tiny niche player that they couldn't even produce enough orders to keep their CPU manufacturer interested in producing for them, and had to switch of to the same CPU's that their generic box competitors are using.


[

No, they've only gone over to producing a couputer that's esentially a PC bundled inseperably with A custom OS. That has to be capable of using the competitor's OS to stay competative.

Anway, since they're a very successful computer company, I'm sure that they must outsell Dell then, another computer company. Or maybe HP? Or...well, I'm sure they outsell *someone*. They're a very sucessful computer company. A very successful computer company who sell their machines for twice the going rate of the other computer makers, and who make the bulk of their profits selling a music player.

Wow, this *is* a fun game.

Easy, the switched their focus from selling computers to making trendy music players.

Or get a PS3, or a used PS 2....
The Mac is a toy for active brains... It doesn't require a CS degree to keep it running, and if you have a CS degree it doesn't make you spend unprecedented, and inordinate time out of your busy schedule to keep it productive...

I've used every significant computer since the first TR-80's appeared, and my macs are the most reliable machines I own.... go figure...

Which probably was a horrible "bad business decision" too ...

You don't have to like Apple computers (I did not like some of them for a long time, too) but the term "bad business decision" has a certain meaning. Let's not confuse "my personal assessment of a business decision" with "bad business decision".

Apple is the ONLY company selling generic PC hardware that comes with a proprietary operating system that ONLY works on their hardware.

They ARE an OS company as well as a hardware company since they make their own OS. To say otherwise is just plain silly. If they didn't make an OS, they wouldn't also be an OS company and what you said would be completely true. You can buy their OS separately! Hence, they are an OS company! What a concept!

Since their OS (and their case designs) is now the only thing that separates them from other PCs, their route of locking their OS to only their hardware is MUCH more monopolistic of a practice than ANYTHING Microsoft has EVER done. EVER! They're a monopolistic OS company as well as an expensive computer hardware manufacturer! If Microsoft started making their own hardware and then decided to lock their OS down to only their hardware, it would be a guarantee that they would not only be spending the rest of their miserable existance in courtrooms, but their existance would last less than a year.

Success of a LARGE computer company (or an OS company) is how much of a percentage of the market it has, and how much money the company makes from the sales of those computers. Right now, Apple has been making the majority of their money from the sale of Ipods, and when the market is saturated with compact music players that cost half the price of the Ipod, they're not going to have that money coming in anymore, and they'll have to rely on the sales of their computers (or they'll have to come up with some new product that sells like hotcakes), and their computers don't sell very well because they're not popular. This isn't saying they're not good, because they're great computers, but they certainly are NOT popular.

How did you feel about the Amiga in the 1988-1992 period? Did you think Commodore was a great company? If not, why?

The business model that Apple has developed is oriented around making profit by selling HARDWARE. That they also sell OS and Application software is exclusively to support their PROPRIETARY hardware products. The pricing of Mac OS and most of their Application products is such that they make just enough on sales to support the development. The big money is in selling hardware. Apple chose to support boot camp, and created special drivers to allow XP to run on the MacIntel systems.
Apple could also choose to sell MacOS for generic PCs, it is doubtful this will ever happen. If Apple was a software company we would have already seen this happen.
If Apple were to officially support MacOS on generic PCs they would kill their hardware market.

Apple is leads the industry on implementation of new technology. After Apple adopted USB the PC market followed suit. Apple innovated 1394 (FireWire) and the market followed. Micro$ith countered by funding development of USB 2.0 to break into high-speed connectivity. Apple was the first computer vendor to support S-IDE on the motherboard. Micro$ith copies MacOS so blatantly(and poorly) that Apple has used
this fact to market MacOS to developers. The pitch is that if you want to develop your products with the latest technology THAT WORKS, build for the Apple product line.

Apple leads the industry in customer service, support, and product quality.
In the last 6 years Apple has doubled their market share in the personal computer space.

Recent (independent) market evaluations show that Apple systems are less expensive than comparable systems from Dell, the current market leader in the PC hardware market. Apple systems also offer better bundles than these Dell systems, which ship with no bundled software except XP. MacOS not only runs it's own software, but also runs a growing collection of Linux software which can be compiled to run natively.
Starting with Panther (Mac OS 10.3) Apple integrated X-Windows into OS X thus allowing many Linux based applications to be ported to MacOS with almost no modification.
This is very difficult to do on XP, and generally requires setting up a dual-boot, or
a Virtual PC environment to integrate Linux and Windows.

Micro$ith, Sony, Neintendo, Nokia and others sell proprietary hardware that runs proprietary OS and Applications. They have regressive developer licensing, and at least for M$ and Sony would like to position their offerings AS replacements for PCs in the home entertainment/muli-media space. Apple offers their proprietary systems with FREE, high quality developer tools that have very liberal EULA terms. Hardware, driver, and application development information is FREE to any MacOS user.

As for Commodore, as a company, they sucked. That they never could market the Amiga properly and never were able to expand the Amiga market is a shame. The Amiga was a truly innovative platform, it influenced the design of the Apple IIgs, gsOS, and the Mac II, and altered the development of MacOS (Apple studied the architecture of the Amiga hardware, and AmigaOS extensively. In their R&D lab.

A little known fact: Commodore DID NOT design the Amiga. It was designed by a group of Atari Consumer Division engineers working in a R&D group that Atari spun off, and funded as an independent company called "The Amiga Group" this company developed the custom chip set for the Amiga, the OS, and ROMs for the Amiga intending to license the design to Atari. Atari declined to license the system for development as they were losing a$$ in the computer market. The Amiga Group lost their funding from Atari, and hooked up with Commodore to fund the development.

In the end, sexy hardware, and an innovative OS were not enough to save Commodore, or the Amiga. The system was mis-marketed, and perceived as a over priced game system in the market. It never gained enough market share to support further development. This eventually killed off Commodore.

The Amiga technology was sold to a German company that tried to revive the platform for a time, selling upgrades, and peripheral cards, but never could spin up the support needed to roll a new motherboard design.

Popularity is a relative term. By your argument Mercedes Benz, BMW, and Volvo are not popular because all together, they have about 1.8% market share in the US. Their perceived value is from their status as symbols of success, and their reputation as manufacturers of high quality cars. Their success in the market place is unquestioned, and they continue to do very well in the market.

So it is with Apple. They continue to develop high quality innovative products, they have truly insane buyer loyalty ( to the point of being rabid! and they consistently turn a tidy profit on their products. Honesty Apple can also be credited with bringing the big media companies to their collective senses. If it weren't for iTunes Music Store the big media would still be floundering in the market trying to figure out how to make a buck in the new digital media marketplace...

That Apple has not added support for third party players on iTMS content has more to do with the media companies than Apple. I'm sure apple would rather not have to support DRM, but the media companies require it. Apple does support 3rd party players with MP3 content and even WMA, I have an iPod and a nice iRiver(that I like better than the iPod because it has a radio, and recording features), and I have no problems loading content into the iRiver on my Mac, using iTunes...

Additionally, since Apple designed the DRM in iTunes why should they have to share it with their competition?! Last time I checked, making money off your innovations was the point of doing business. I see it's very well established in SL

Enough... Do your homework before you whine.....

=B-)