Even if you don't own an iPod or an iPhone and regardless of whether or not you run OS X, there is one inevitable truth that many people may overlook: As consumers and geeks, you and I need Apple. I'm sure Apple fans are cheering and Windows and Linux users are getting ready to pelt me with virtual tomatoes of disagreement and disdain. Apple is just one of those companies, though. They incite such strong loyalty in many and such fervent hatred in others. Our very own forums and the accompanying log of warnings is a clear indication of that. Love them or hate them, though, you have to admit that Apple has a knack of delivering technologies in a way that nobody else can. Even if the idea isn't new, Apple makes it accessible and beautiful.
You can't discuss Apple without discussing the single product that seemingly turned the company around: the iPod. The MP3 player from that company in Cupertino came out in October of 2001 and within a few years, it managed to revolutionize the personal audio industry. The Microsoft Zune, arguably, wouldn't exist if Apple hadn't taken that faithful first step. What about all of the digital music stores? While they were most likely inevitable, they would definitely be years behind where they are today. Heck, we might still be dealing with DRM choked music files if the iPod hadn't come out so long ago or, even worse, $20 compact discs. If you leave your computer and jump into the living room, almost every company has a speaker system with iPod connectivity on its feature list. That little MP3 player single handedly pushed the industry down this road of digital music and, while audiophiles may boo and hiss at that fact, the mainstream consumer world is gleeful enough to dance as shadows on a bright colorful background with only a white iPod showing through. Thanks, Apple.
If we go a little further down the yellow bricked road that we're already on, we'll eventually arrive at the iPod's beefed up successor, the iPhone. As soon as the device hit the market, with its beautiful design and multi-touch screen, the mobile phone industry (or cell phone industry. for us Americans) changed forever. Two years ago, touch screen devices were part of a niche market and had almost no appeal to anyone outside of that little geek world. Then, one magical day, Apple brought us the iPhone. Everyone took notice. Where would we be today had the iPhone never been released? Would we still be relying on Palm's horrid Palm OS touch screen devices or HTC's ugly as sin line of touch screen mobile phones? Probably. The iPhone singlehandedly forced the market to take the touch screen and not only make it useful, but also wrap it in a more aesthetically pleasing package. If it weren't for Apple's market dominating phone, there's a good chance that none of HTC's latest Touch branded devices would have ever hit the market in the form that they have now. Would Android be around? Would Windows Mobile finally be getting some of the improvements it so desperately needs? Thank you, Apple, for saving us from a world dominated by Palm's and Razrs.
Finally, love it or hate it, Apple's highly advertised operating system, OS X, is one of the driving forces behind the innovation and progress being put into Windows 7. Before Windows and OS X started going head to head on a more mainstream level, Microsoft was perfectly fine with releasing a product that not only looked terrible, but was as secure as a paper bag left in the rain tethered to a pair of scissors. Granted, some bad publicity from some high profile viruses nudged Microsoft along, it was Apple and their marketing that really forced Microsoft's hand, especially with Windows 7. For the first time, Microsoft can't just develop an operating system for the corporate world and give it to the public with a few consumer friendly add-ons. The entire OS is being designed to be more consumer friendly and more secure than ever before. Why? Because Apple has made it very clear to the public that its operating system is as user friendly and safe as a golden retriever puppy in a room full of pillows. Some Apple zealots would probably argue that OS X is even cuter than that puppy in that pillowy room, but they're just crazy. Regardless of those nut jobs, Microsoft fell victim to Apple's very sound OS and amazing marketing machine. Windows 7 wouldn't be half of what it is without Apple's help. Thank you, Apple.
Love them or hate them, Apple is the company we all need. They may not always be original with their ideas, but they wrap them up so tightly and cleanly and present them in a way that drives mass adoption. Even if you don't use Apple products, you benefit from this because there's a good chance the device you're using or the mobile phone you're using was designed to compete with one of Apple's products. Imitation isn't just the greatest form of flattery; it's also the greatest thing that can happen to the consumer, especially when the idea being copied works so darn well. So, when you eventually power on a Windows 7 machine or come across a slick new touch screen device that makes your previous cell phone look like a toy, a little gratitude for Apple may be in order. After all, we need that company from Cupertino.
Boot polish doesn't make your shoes brand new. Just because one product is a success for them and another is a strong player but very much still a minor player in the game. This doesn't make them a company we need anymore then mozilla.
Last edited by Digix on 17 Feb 2009 - 17:49
Competition drives innovation in a capitalist society.
Competition drives innovation in a capitalist society.
But point is here you can talk about the internet without mentioning mozilla just like we can live life or use computers without mentioning a thing about apple.
It's completely true, you don't need to even acknowledge Apple. But they've done something for you anyway.
What in reality have done for us is the pocket our money, either called Apple, Microsoft, Mozilla etc
Competition drives innovation in a capitalist society.
No, we need Netscape and so on...
Truly, we need a real innovator and not a second runner, for the case of browser :Mosaic, the rest is just a legacy.
Yet they just came out with their own Linux distro which will be used on all their upcoming netbooks as well as afew currently out. But yeah okay /sarcasm
Saying the iPhone 'sucks totally' is just... never mind, I won't bother. You're wrong, it has at least a few good aspects. The biggest problem people have with it is that it lacks MMS and a good camera. If that's the only thing wrong with a phone, then Apple has done a good job.
Finally, the Apple laptops are a bit pricey, for sure. But they do have that design and durability, and I don't know where you got the idea that they lacked features.
Mabe she should return it to the store, because my 16GB Touch goes for days without recharging.
Competition in the form of little man syndrome, arrogance and "force field" like skin deep consumer respect isn't exactly good.
Mac OS X was out and in the public hands years before your stated start date. It's far more likely that Microsoft was responding to years of criticism about the security and reliability of their products than anything Apple was doing. At the turn of the century "beleaguered" was still a mandatory prefix when mentioning the Apple Computer company by name.
Mac OS X 10.0 was damn near worthless at launch: a tech demo at best. Apple advertising was still heavily focused on Mac OS 9 because it wasn't possible to the "burn" part of the "Rip. Mix. Burn" advertisement with Mac OS X until the free 10.1 update. The initial slogan for Mac OS X was "It's the biggest thing to happen to Macintosh since the Macintosh"—the majority of tech demos were focused on the updated UI, the compatibility with network/filesystem stuff, and improved stability (preemptive multitasking returns to an Apple OS after a 10-year vacation). Here's a collection of the hardware print ads from the 2000-2002 period. Only one of them mentions Mac OS X—and that is focusing on the ability to run UNIX applications and the flexibility of a BSD system for über nerds: security is never mentioned.
Apple's advertising of that era still focused on the hardware The powerbook commercials don't even show or mention the operating system. iLife was flogging the relative making mix tapes. iBook and iMac commercials of the era focused on superficial hardware features like "it's not beige" and "it has a handle" or hardware claims like "G3 is twice as fast as P3".
The "switch campaign" followed in 2002 but mostly focused on Macs "Just working" with charming (ug) stories about saving christmas because it detected a camera. Viruses/worms/etc. were rarely mentioned (3 out of 40-something commercials IIRC).
It wasn't until "Get a mac" in the mid-2000s that Apple finally started hammering on Windows security and reliability record. Possibly because they knew that as long as Mac OS 9 was a major part of people's day they really didn't have a leg to stand on, or maybe they thought most people just didn't care.
Mac OS 9 was not secure by any reasonable stretch—certainly no better than Windows XP—of the imagination: like Windows 3.x and 4.x it was built for a time before ubiquitous net connections, multiple users, etc. Mac OS 9 didn't have a virus or worm problem but it wasn't because the system had the security secret-sauce poured in.
I really don't think we need to give Apple credit for causing Microsoft to step up their security game: their customers demanded that all by themselves.
Point I'm trying to make is that a company will always claim their product is better, faster, more secure, etc. How that can be made into assuming Microsoft was thinking,"Oh snap, Apple's talking smack, let's work on our OS!!" is beyond me.
The industry needs Apple, and the industry plainly *wants* Apple. No fanboyism here, just reality.
It's sad how Christopher posts something positive about Apple, and very well-reasoned, and he's called a fanboy. The people who do that are no worse than I am - in fact, they ARE worse, because I'm always 100% honest about my position. I don't BS people so I can appear diplomatic or likable.
The industry needs Apple, and the industry plainly *wants* Apple. No fanboyism here, just reality.
It's sad how Christopher posts something positive about Apple, and very well-reasoned, and he's called a fanboy. The people who do that are no worse than I am - in fact, they ARE worse, because I'm always 100% honest about my position. I don't BS people so I can appear diplomatic or likable.
Just reality ? like hell it is. Apple is insignificant in all but portable media player market. There's a reason for that.
I love how people just dismiss an entire article by insulting the author and calling him names, when you don't know anything about the author at all. If you did, you'd know he is far from an Apple fanboy.
Last edited by shockz on 18 Feb 2009 - 00:33
Last edited by shockz on 18 Feb 2009 - 00:34
I fail to see the life changing innovation they've brought to any market like this article paints them to have.
The irony of the hyperbole in your post did not go unnoticed, lol.
Last edited by shockz on 18 Feb 2009 - 00:34
if you think you can write a better editorial, feel free to submit one to the news desk....its much, much harder than you think to craft something that is opinionated, with support that doesnt interject total outright bias
Take your rebel without a cause attitude and give it to someone less capable of dealing with you.
Sounds about right to me, if some of the members had things their way. Actually, I think it's more "where opinions that do not fall into line with my own are not allowed"
Last edited by shockz on 18 Feb 2009 - 00:35
*roll eyes*
They are one of the 'big' companies who are able to spend billions on R&D and help move our generation forward.
Hell to the yes. Great article, in my opinion. Love 'em.
Well, nuff said, that's why we need Apple. Drives competition crazy
It's less prominent in the OS market, and Microsoft deserve more credit with what they have done with Windows 7, but MP3 and Phone consumers have a lot to thank Apple for.
Apple does good business by taking a look at market trends watching closely to the pioneers in the market and capitalizing on their shortcomings all the while adding their spin to muddy the competition and shine their product in the same breath. This kind of tactic produces popularity as well as fans (Mac cult). Popularity drives proliferation it doesn't have to be the best or most advanced to do so either.
We don't need Apple, we just need strong competition just like in ANY market. You could rewrite this article and state how we need Microsoft or Linux/OSS, because most assuredly those two have influenced Apple in their products as well and deserve credit.
you mean like Windows ( Unix/ every computer manufacturer made their own OS pretty much, MS made theirs Nicer to use )
Office ( Lotus Notes/123 anybody )
Hotmail ( originally not owned by Microsoft )
Everything MS does/has was owned by somebody else, or the exact same thing as somebody else made.
a VAST majority ( aka almost all of them ) watch the trends only to see if they can copy/make money in what somebody else is doing. not trying to create the next new thing
trackpads on laptops,, first was apple, everybody else was using nubs. ( Powerbook 500, i looked it up )
the first Mp3 player was i think creative but they wernt as popular and had an ass load of buttons, but the iPod brought it mainstream and simplified it
Apple is willing to take risks that nobody else is. im still waiting their MagSafe adapter to migrate to the PC side.
Last edited by shockz on 18 Feb 2009 - 00:36
Pre-SP4 Windows 2000 and (to a slightly lesser degree) pre-SP2 Windows XP were the last Windows releases that could be described as inherently insecure. Microsoft adopted the SDL and pushed towards improved security before OSX really became a blip on the radar. Vista was the first consumer-level OS that Microsoft developed from the beginning with security in mind, and Windows 7 only adds slight improvements to Vista's security success. So Windows 7's security has little to do with Apple. If anything, Linux pushed MS to make Windows more secure, not Mac OS X.
Search, GPU accelerated UI, better device handling, improved media experience - these were all started before OS X came into fruition, although Apple was quicker to market with some of it thanks to the Longhorn development problems...
Last edited by JonathanMarston on 17 Feb 2009 - 19:03
Here's the video of the announcement, Microsoft paid market price for $150m worth of non-voting shares. Apple's share price was ~$4.80/share the day before that announcement. The day after it had increased 30% to around $6.70. In October Apple's stock was lower than before the announcement (which is typical: Apple's stock has dropped at least 5% after every major event they've held in 15 years) and by Christmas APPL had lost as much percentage as it gained: dropping to ~$3.30. 1
On that day Apple had $1.5 billion dollars in cash and short term investments. 2The $150m Microsoft invested was symbolic because Apple didn't need more cash to continue operating. The real value of that announcement was the promise to continue Microsoft Office for Mac OS. Apple went on to make some of their most popular products ever (iMac, iBook) with Steve jobs back and running the show. They also able to shed their losses trying to develop a "next-generation" operating system by picking up NeXT. They also drastically restructured their product line and distribution network. Those are the changes that ultimately led to Apple's recovery, but none of them would have been possible if world+dog assumed that Macs wouldn't be a viable platform, which meant having MS Office.
Allow me to try and explain my reasoning. The distinction between needs and wants is ever muddied in our society; they certainly aren’t words that should be confounded. We don’t need the products that Apple produces. As your argument can be applied away from Apple the use of “a company like” is more befitting. Your argument could equally apply to Dyson for example, revolutionising the vacuum industry with their bagless vacuum cleaners (though it's a lot less 'sexy' ).
“Windows 7 wouldn't be half of what it is without Apple's help. Thank you, Apple.”
Ignoring qualms regarding the factual accuracy of this statement, it implies that Apple works in the interests of the consumer at sacrifice to itself. For there would be no reason to thank Apple other than if it were doing this.
Apple works in the interest of itself, not in the interests of the consumer. If it just so happens that the interests of Apple and the consumer align then so be it, but we certainly shouldn’t be thanking Apple for this happy coincidence. iPhones being locked to one network provider is an example where these interests are skewed.
I don’t mean to be lambasting Apple for this fact either, it's a company and as such duty is to its shareholders whose utmost care is towards profits. Whether or not this is right is an entirely different issue...
You should be writing for appleinsider with "pull them out of your arse" comments like that...
Last edited by xpclient on 18 Feb 2009 - 23:53
Look, we dont need apple...we dont need Microsoft. If history has shown us anything, when something falls...something else is close by ready to pickup the pieces. And all companies steal ideas from other companies. Apple steals for MS, MS steals from Apple.
Also, I dont agree that if the iPod didnt exist, thens like the Zune wouldnt exist either. I am sure someone else would of came up with the iPod idea if Apple didnt. Saying something wouldnt exist if someone else didnt think of out, well, thats kinda stretching..isnt it? I am sure if MS didnt develop Windows, then someone else would of.
If I want shiny multicolored stuff, I will go with Apple. If I want to actually use a PC and be able to do pretty much anything I want, I will go with a PC.
Last edited by techbeck on 17 Feb 2009 - 19:53
Think about nearly any tech advancement and in hindsight it seems obvious. Do you recall what cellphones were like before the Motorola RAZR? Nice and bulky. When the RAZR came out it was incredible, because suddenly every single phone company out there was offering a RAZR look-alike. Slim cellphones - that's a bit obvious, isn't it? Yet the fact is that if Motorola hadn't come out with the RAZR when they did, cellphones would probably look quite different today. (Not that slim cellphones are a Godsend - it's just an example.) Give credit where credit is due.
Some day Apple may not be a company that leaves a big imprint on markets - that's fine, and that's not the point. The point is that we should all be pushing for those companies that, no matter how tiny, raise the bar for everyone else's development. We as consumers "win" when that happens.
And please... give credit where it's due. It's easy to say something was obvious in hindsight or to claim that someone else, anyone else would have done it anyway, and thus that it's no big deal. But when you're the one actually choosing the future direction and wading out into the big unknown, not knowing how a product will be received, there's a fair bit of skill, intuition, and luck involved. Reward those who take those risks so as to encourage them to keep moving forward with their work.
Yea, RAZR was the first think phone but isnt it a given that things get smaller and smaller? I mean, remember the first computer? It took up city blocks and now it just takes up part of a desk. If Motorola didnt come up with the slim phone, someone else would have.
And I neither gave credit to apple or said anything bad about them. I didnt slam Apple at but can if you want.
All Apple is doing is promoting competition and getting others to develop new ideas. This is good and I hope someone comes out with a new phone, MP3 player...or whatever to give Apple a run for its money. I am not saying this as a bad thing but Apple's hardware is not perfect...far from it. Competition against Apple will force Apple to give the customers more features, batter hadware, and better support. And if anyone wants to argue that Apple is perfect and wonderful at these things, then argue all you want. No company is perfect and their is ALWAYS room for improvement.
Phones before the RAZR were already small compared with the first cellphones. The idea to make them slim - that was a big deal. Since we've been living with slim phones for about four or more years now it seems obvious, I'm sure, and it's easy to say that someone else would have done it. But no - other companies were trying other trends. To creat a slim phone and to make it so popular required something special, and you're really downplaying that.
I'll give you another example of how innovation doesn't always sell itself. Touch screens are suddenly the next big thing, right? We have Microsoft Surface, the iPhone... let's focus on the iPhone. Do you think that the iPhone was the first fully touch screen phone? It wasn't. I don't know how many preceded it, but the Motorola A1200 is one that I know of, and it's been around since the end of 2005. Surely you've seen that every single company is creating a fully touch screen phone to compete with the iPhone, just as every single company created a slim, RAZR-like phone to compete with the RAZR. Why didn't all of those touchscreen competitors appear with the Motorola A1200, or any of the fully touchscreen phones that preceded it? There's no single reason, actually, but wouldn't you agree that it shows how a special something is needed to not only bring the technology about, but make it a big enough deal to go mainstream?
I agree with you that Apple needs competition, as well. Ideally all companies would have it.
And things have always gotten smaller. Look at TVs, PCs, PROCESSORS, hard drives, expansion cards, cars...people want technology that is small and portable. Small meaning SIZE, not functionality.
Again, I never said that Apples stuff wasnt needed or that it wasnt "Special" I mearly stated that if Apple didnt come up with these ideas, someone else would have. Same goes with Microsoft...Adobe...Intel...whoever. Companies give other companies a kick in the ass sometimes to get them to think and improve their products and the way they do things. This is what Apple has done with the phone and ipod.
I do hope the new Palm phone, dubbed the iPhone killer, gives Apple a run for its money. Maybe this will make Apple improve the iPhone and give it more features.
But anyway, I get your point and thanks for not flaming me. I know that what I say sometimes isnt though out fully...haha. Its good to have conversations with people calmly and maturely.
+1. This is a friendly mini thread!!
I totally agree with you, I hope that strong competition in the market continues to force everyone to innovate to survive.
I am also no fan of Apple products, but you can't help admire what they do.
With out the iPhone, We wouldn't have all these nice lovely looking Windows mobile and Android devices coming out.
Which in return are making me want to turn back and check them out.
I come from a tech background. It doesn't really matter what OS I use at home. Linux, OS x or Windows. They will all do what I need them to do. But by personal choice I choose windows. As I like it. But you can see things changing based on what others have been doing. Would you of had Tabs in Internet Explorer if it had not of been for the raising popularity in Firefox(I'm sure firefox didn't come up with the Tab idea first) but it was it's popularity that most likely forced IE 7 to include tabs.
So this article is true. Apple has been known for making things look pretty. Now the competition is matching it.
But with the iPhone. They made things simple. It doesn't do everythign like other phones. But what it does do it does well and it looks nice. So that's what is is bringing to the market and making others change.
J/k.
The only thing I agree with is the iphone being a wake-up call for all the other companies to make better touch devices. Still, apple can only wish to move as many units as nokia does.
And windows7 being based on osx? no thanks.
Windows 7 is 'vista done right'. All those perks/bugs/feedback discussed by people during vista beta1 and beta2 are finally being addressed. I don't think windows7 is the result of copying OSX, it is the result of microsoft addressing that stuff.
Apples effect on PC was getting rid of the beige box by iMac and then UI.. cant belive the article doesn't mention the Aqua UI. which really started skinning as we know it. "mainstream"
Like someone already posted: if there hadn't been the iPod or Windows or Apple, some other company would have stepped up to compete against whoever else was out there and over the years you would get refined products and advances. It doesn't matter what company it is.
Just look at Palm we should all be thanking them for innovating and giving us the smart phone market since they basically invented it, and now with the upcoming Pre they might be back.
COMPANY is irrelevant, COMPETITION will happen and that is all that matters.
Apple is nothing more than a competitor in the marketplace. And it's only leading in one market (portable music players) with a significant presence in one other (mobile phones). That's it. Having them in the arena helps push it's competitors but not a lot more or less than any other competitors with significant presence.
We don't "need" Apple. If the company shut down tomorrow, the mobile phone, mobile music player, and computer industries would all survive just fine. They would continue to innovate with new and old players in the game.
Windows 7 wouldn't be half of what it is without Apple's help.
Uhh, no, Apple wouldn't be in existence today without Microsoft cutting them a cheque back in the day. When you find an innovation in Windows 7 that actually came from Apple be sure to let us all know.
If there's any OSX influence it is with the desktop (or sidebar in Vista) widgets borrowed from Dashboard, which was borrowed by any number of companies.
Sure, they could. And I could say those people are idiots and don't have the foggiest idea what they're talking about.
Just kidding...couldnt resist.
What's your point?
Wrong. If you knew anything about why we've hired new writers and have editorials, exclusives, and original news articles, you'd see that were focusing on quality and beating the competition, to provide the user with a unqiue, and great experience.
It's not just about money.
Last edited by Sacha on 18 Feb 2009 - 05:00
Providing flame bait editorials just to drive up hits isn't providing anything "unique" or "great". You can find that on every blog under the electrons, or even Digg FFS (and at least Digg has a way to interact with the thread and posters).
As far as quality goes, you seem to have no editors or at least no editorial policy at all. For example, I've been flagging front page stories without sourced links for months now, and this "editorial" (and the others recently) have clearly not been fact-checked at all.
Now, I also gave huge kudos to the in-depth Windows 7 stories, etc. so I'm not just being negative all the time here.
But as a person with PROFESSIONAL tech writing credentials (I've been paid for articles for BYTE, OMNI, etc. etc. over the years), I'm going to call BLOG vs. SERIOUS NEWS SITE when I see it, k?
how is this flamebait, its simply an opinion....and please, where have you been "flagging" stories w/o sources...also, id love to read all your paid for articles
If you'd read Woz's autobiography he points out a few of them.
Anyways Im gonna make this short and sweet and I DOUBT I will reply to any replies made to my comment:
The iPod: Sucked and still sucks. I mean it is pretty, it is nice, small, large HDD, but it sounds like ****. I mean you could problably get a better audio expierence listening to AMR tracks from your old phone
The iPhone: A piece of crap. My Nokia E70 can do ALOT more that the iPhone, cheaper and without needing to be tied to a carrier. To just show how piece of crap it is, Ill explain. Phones that do not support MMS, receive a link as a SMS that you using a data connection can access and see the content. Some newsposters here actually made a FRONTPAGE story saying that now the iPhone can recieve MMSs. A ****ty ass excuse to make the iPhone look better. Touchscreen? Alot of phones were getting developed with touchscreens but Apple simply released theirs first. Hurray.
And last maybe or maybe not least the unix-ripoff-turned-into-a-nice-GUI-shell known as OS X. Bragging rights about no viruses (which they arent any viruses for a OS that few people use) because you have to enter your password to excute it gets points (Vista implants this much better with UAC IMO) but there stops everything else. The OS itself is a piece of **** and has very little applications that are actually worth mentioning. Alot of eyecandy (If it was Vista, bloat). I remember that OS X used to be a platform for video/audio editing but time has passed and Windows has great software out which rivals it and in some cases beats it. Maybe, if Apple allows OS X to be installed on normal x86 PCs, this OS can improve but I DOUBT it will ever beat Windows.
And on that note, I expect a "Bang On: We all need Microsoft" because without Microsoft most of Neowin's 12 year old usergroup, your grandmother, and generally all PCs, would have never taken off into a mainstream view and be in the public eye for the future as I remind all of you Windows is still (and will be) the dominate OS in the computer world.
The only serious audiophile I know (who has multiple sets of $300+ headphones and spends lots and lots of money on home cinema kit) ALWAYS hated iPods for audio quality but is absolutely insistent that iPods of the last year or so (since the first iPhone came out) have cracked the audio quality issues. As he's the only person I know who takes his audio seriously, and as he is the only person I know who HATED iPod's previously, I'm happy to take his opinion on this!
Just.. wrong. So wrong. Good for you on the Nokia. Who gives a damn about MMS? Whoop - I can send some super low res picture taken on my camera. Why would I care about this when I have fully featured email as an option? MMS should have been in there - but Apple have always done what they thought was right on features. I don't miss MMS as I never used to use it. None of the people I know with iPhones (must be at least 8 now) don't either - so certainly in my 'sample group' it isn't a big deal.
Anyone capable of rational, unbiased thought (which, frankly, I don't think you are) would say that the touchscreen on the iPhone is excellent and probably better than 95% of devices on the market at the very least. Only products coming onto the market now can touch it (no pun intended). My devout, staunch Windows Mobile phone owning boss called it quits with the HTC Touch Pro which he got just before he went over to an iPhone. Now I think he's gonna throw the HTC out of the window every time he uses it such is the backwards, stubborn user experience he's subjected to - mostly because of the god awful touch interface. I won't comment - I've always HATED Windows Mobile so can't say anything favourable about it! I've not tried any of the new generation of Nokia's but would like to, just to compare!
I don't understand how you can so deftly defend Windows, yet so inexcusably dismiss OS X as nothing more than eye candy glued onto a 'ripped off' kernel. The kernel isn't a UNIX ripoff - it is a UNIX kernel. Period. And the UI is beautiful, and elegant, and everything Windows aspires to be.
Too funny. Really.
Visual effects in OSX have been in there since the first release and built upon. The fluid visual effects used to work effortlessly on 500MHz based G4 systems with very modest video cards - I know because I've owned / used such systems. It can't be bloat - what it is, is very well written and well optimized code.
Um - so how exactly would diversifying onto unknown hardware improve the OS? If anything it'd make it worse simply because it'd mean that Apple would have go through the pain that Microsoft have been going through for years - driver certification, incompatible hardware, bad drivers - they'd be at the mercy of 3rd party developers for the software which delivers the core functionality of the OS (hardware integration, etc) - as much as I want it to happen, it'd be suicidal.
I'm afraid that, based on your completely unconvincingly non-facts based comment, I can't help but picture you fitting within that user-group. Please prove me wrong..
As for the iPhone's touchscreen, no, they did not release it first. Motorola had a smartphone that was a full touchscreen, very similar to the iPhone, but it wasn't popular at all. I know about that phone because I wanted to buy it; I'm guessing there were plenty of other companies that had similar phones. That raises the big question: why was it the iPhone instead of one of those other phones? Again, give credit where it's due.
As for OS X, you're free to not use it if you like, but let's be honest: Linux is still a ways away from going full mainstream because despite its UNIX-like underpinnings, the user interface is still too difficult for most users to get around. Apple has developed a reputation for being easy to use because - guess what? - people in general seem to like the interface and find it easy to get around. If that weren't the case then Apple wouldn't have experienced the relatively explosive growth that they have. No, they're not about to take over Microsoft's market share, but their growth has been extremely impressive (even in spite of the high price - and at a time when generic PCs are cheaper than ever). Give credit where it's due.
As a disclaimer, I use Linux, Windows, and OS X as they suit me and depending on my application needs. I do not particularly care for "this OS could beat that OS" - this isn't Pokemon, we're discussing tools, and outside of elementary school I don't think I've ever heard people claiming that one particular screwdriver could beat another one. You're entitled to your biases, but being a bit more open and honest wouldn't hurt.
Poor rips or encodes aside, speakers, whether for home or mobile audio (ie headphones) are ALWAYS going to be the biggest (and unless something is broken, the only audible) weakness in a modern digital audio reproduction chain.
Nice work on making a sweeping generalisation on someone you know nothing about.
Are you not just proving my point that, by him spending a fortune on decent headphones, he's been able to detect improvements in the quality of iPods over the years - as, if you say, the bottom line is the quality of the headphones, then by having some of the best on the market, you can really tell what's what from your audio source?
I also know a audiophile. He plugged his headphones into a iPod bought the other week by a friend after I said the sound still sucks. And indeed: The sound still sucked in the audiophile's opinion. Same file (the file on mine was exactly the same one on the iPod) everything compared to my MP3 player, which he says still sounds worse than his anyhow
And before you say he has a issue against Apple, he has 2 Macs so...I doubt it.
And the people that do have MMS and normal phones which can (alot more than
Tried it. It sucks. I say all I say with expierence of course.
I certainly hope your boss aint the owner of the company. Perfering a iPhone over a HTC is laughable.
Then it has been ripped off. You get the unix kernel, use it on the top of a GUI, and rename it OS X. Windows uses its own kernel.
Beautiful, elegant, and everything Windows wants to be? Please. Windows kicks its ass any day of the week (from XP to Vista of course. OS X wins before XP)
Your "And the UI is beautiful, and elegant, and everything Windows aspires to be." comment is hilarious. Honestly, go do stand up.
Again, Windows does this SAME thing and they call it bloat. They are even calling the "super taskbar" in 7 bloat. OS X does it: Apple reinvented the wheel
Market share. Look it up. Its why Windows kicks OS X and Linux based OSs ass....
Id be more than glad to scan my passport, blur out all my personal information, and send it to you to prove I do not fit in that user-group.
The reasons why he would make such a claim are obvious: consumer bias towards his preferred special audio player; a false sense of Elitism (oh those masses just don't know quality); justification for all of his expensive audio products; really, I could go on. Basically they're all the same reasons old ladies try to justify spending thousands of dollars on collector's wicker baskets and other nick-nacks.
Last edited by shakey_snake on 18 Feb 2009 - 01:36
Both of your "audiophile" friends can basically say whatever they want because there's no way to justify it, beyond proper ABX tests, which can be hard to do at a hardware level.
The OS X kernel IS UNIX. It isn't based on UNIX. Therefore it is UNIX. It was based (and significantly improved) upon NextStep and OpenStep which are fully fledged versions of UNIX. It isn't a "rip off" when it is derived from the ACTUAL code base and is UNIX certified. Jesus - can your fanboyism not look past actual facts or something?!
If we wanna get down to semantics do we want to talk about the origins of the NT kernel, including them having to settle with DEC because of the belief that code was 'borrowed' them? But that would undermine all the effort put into it since the early NT days - and that would be a troll like fanboy type thing to do.
Hey - you're entitled to your opinion. I don't remeber the same hate storm being heaped on Leopard when it came out compared to when Vista came out.. I think that said it all. Vista was a good base to build Windows 7 on - Leopard was just a good product all round.
So all Windows 7 will work excellently (including nice UI effects) on a 500MHz processor design from the late 90's? Show me - please.
How much time have you spent comparing the devices side by side? I'm aching to know. I just don't understand how you can spend time on the HTC with the inconsistent and frankly downright frustrating interface and then go onto an iPhone and conclude that the HTC is better. Can you elaborate on exactly what the iPhone does so badly that (for example) a HTC Touch Pro does better? I fully admit that the iPhone lacks a decent camera and MMS as you say but as a user experience and a complete package, the iPhone annhilates the Touch Pro.
Er yeah - I'm well aware of what market share is. Take a look at the iPod's domination of the portable music player - that's why IT kicks the ass of any other music player out there. Or do you have some convenient counter-argument for why having the best market share only applies to Microsoft in the OS space? I expect that you do.
Market share is all well and good but there is no point in trying to wide your market share if you're going to have to sacrifice your product to do it. Apple have said this all along and they'll never embark on something risky like making OS X for any PC. It takes it out of their control and Apple are control freaks.
In an interview some time back, regarding when he was ousted from Apple and subsequently re-hired when they were in trouble, he said that his predecessor said that in order for Apple to win, Microsoft had to lose - and that attitude is what made them fail. Instead they've concentrated on just making products people want, and making them as good as they could be - the customers and market share will hopefully follow.
If we wanna get down to semantics do we want to talk about the origins of the NT kernel, including them having to settle with DEC because of the belief that code was 'borrowed' them? But that would undermine all the effort put into it since the early NT days - and that would be a troll like fanboy type thing to do.
...What the hell are you arguing about?
I know it isnt based on the UNIX kernel, IT IS THE UNIX KERNEL. What do you not understand of a "ripoff". Apple ripped the Unix kernel off and placed in their OS X. Do you argue to just **** me off or something?
One thing is belief the other thing is reality. AFAIK (again AFAIK) I believe the NT kernel is Microsoft's own baby.
Why are you quoting parts that dont make sense.
"OS X wins before XP"
What kind of ****ing quote is that?
Search Neowin's threads. Windows 7 (and Windows Vista for that matter) will work on lowend PCs (with a decent video card).
I havent used a HTC much granted but Ive used a iPhone several times and it is discusting. Bells, whisles, and not much else. I perfer Symbian millions of times over the iPhone.
And you admit it lacks MMS? I thought you said that you and other people dont care about MMS....
Market share is all well and good but there is no point in trying to wide your market share if you're going to have to sacrifice your product to do it. Apple have said this all along and they'll never embark on something risky like making OS X for any PC. It takes it out of their control and Apple are control freaks.
In an interview some time back, regarding when he was ousted from Apple and subsequently re-hired when they were in trouble, he said that his predecessor said that in order for Apple to win, Microsoft had to lose - and that attitude is what made them fail. Instead they've concentrated on just making products people want, and making them as good as they could be - the customers and market share will hopefully follow.
iPod kicks ass in the DAP deparment not because of its market share (which it has no doubt) but because of marketing. Very few places are MP3 players marketed worldwide in all sorts of media like the iPod. Yet, there are alot better DAP players than the iPod.
Hope you don't mean me mate. I've been here since 2001 - I don't consider myself to be a troll
To me a rip-off is a copy. I was trying to point out that the OSX kernel wasn't a rip-off (copy) - but that it was UNIX. Actual UNIX. It can't be a rip-off when it's the real mccoy.
Do some reading up on the origins of the NT kernel, specifically it's origins within DEC. And find out why NT was supported on the DEC Alpha processor for so long.. part a settlement between Microsoft and DEC after accusations were levelled at Microsoft questioning where the code base came from.
I just don't understand how you could come to such a conclusion - I really don't. It has plenty of toys, but it's exceptionally versatile for other work - email, document viewing, connectivity, etc. I adore my iPhone and I've had cell phones now for over 10 years.
I'm trying to make some sense of what you're talking about yet all you do is resort to swearing when I quote and reply to comments you've made. I think we're talking different languages or something.
I said that I and the people I knew who had iPhones didn't consider it an important feature - but I'll willingly concede that it could be considered vital by some people and certainly could be considered as a missing feature when lined up against other products. The irritating thing is the phone would easily be capable of doing it - it's not like it's some kind of technical limitation. They just haven't bothered to include it for some reason.
Last edited by shockz on 18 Feb 2009 - 00:41
Last edited by shockz on 18 Feb 2009 - 00:41
Go figure.
Thats ad tech. It gets the words "Apple" "iPhone" "iPod" etc. If we all wrote "pussy" in our posts, something pornographic would come up in the ads.
and here I thought it was Microsoft buying 150 million non-voting Apple shares that helped the company...my bad..
Don't get me wrong, I'm GLAD there's competition in the marketplace.
Apple exist because it produces compelling products that people want, and given their current finances, at exactly the right prices. That's all it takes.
Not sure how Microsoft would have "crushed" Apple, whatever that means.
Apple exists because Microsoft needed them too. It's why they settled.
The fact that Apple has since gone on to create the iPod, which has made them un-buyable, is just a lovely twist of fate and Apple deserves every bit of credit for that, 100%.
But never forget why Apple COMPUTERS still exists in the Windows world.
Part of the settlement involved Apple dropping the outstanding patent infringement suit against MS and make IE the default browser on the Mac. And in return MS would invest in that Apple non-voting stock. The Office deal was also a part of this. MS recouped a third of it's investment the very day the deal was announced at Macworld in Boston; the stock price soared by more than 30%.
Steve Jobs and the litigiousness of Apple saved Apple.
Interestingly enough, it was Gil Amelio himself who approved the purchase of NeXT. It was NeXT that saved the company.
Some have argued that Apple should have simply pursued the infringement suit against MS. They had them over a barrel on it.
I imagine at some point it will become hard to justify posting these editorials as the replies consistently disintegrate into a giant flame-fest, but don't get discouraged.
But at least one opinion column is welcomed, and Chris does a decent job. Although, I think it's obvious enough that if the front page news drowned into an endless sea of editorials (or editorials posing as real new articles) we'd have problems.
Last edited by shakey_snake on 17 Feb 2009 - 21:56
Nevermind.
Last edited by CalumJR on 18 Feb 2009 - 02:33
Apple started the MP3 revolution, the nice interface revolution, the all-in-one pc revolution, touchscreen cell phones revolution and more.
Tough, Apple is not the only one that made revolutions, without MSFT, we would not have a PC in our homes...
Without Motorola, we would not have Cellphones...
Without Palm, we would not have smartphones since Palm popularized the PDAs...
It's also not a secret right now that Apple are making profit and rise in market share, where Microsoft, Sun, Dell, HP, Adobe have all made massive employee layoff in 2008 for cost-cutting.
Tough you are right, no MP3 files = no MP3 Player
Tough you are right, no MP3 files = no MP3 Player
Yea, I know. Was just giving you a hard time...
Its a shame other companies didnt jump on the online song buying sooner. Everyone knew it was the way to go but no one had the balls to be the 1st to try it. All the bitching the RIAA is doing about losing money...welll, they could of capitalized on this big time....
Vista appeared to be compiled from 7+ years of XP Feedback.
SOME...SOME SOME of that feedback could have been "Make it more like OSX" but... I really doubt it.
To say they caused things to change is like saying Quartz caused the need for atomic clocks. Technology advanced, increased security needs were DEMANDED, and Microsoft answered, eventually. I don't see the fact that Apple, too, answered and in a slightly faster way, as proof of their impact on the competition. If anyone is to thank for Vista/7's increased security (as one example) It's the hackers who made it necessary. Microsoft answers to the clients it has, and I really oubt they act in a reactionary way very often.
So if Apple influenced them it was by influencing consumers as a whole... Of course, that's very very unlikely outside of a few key markets / concepts. Not saying the article is FUD, just that it may be seeing cause/effect relationships as clearly as it should.
I must say that as much as I really despise Apple's attitude towards marketing, and the general attitude of their most hardcore fans (er... worshippers
Apple from day one has employed a centre-of-the-universe attitude, thanks to Jobs. Doesn't matter who their allies are - one day it's Motorola, next day it's IBM - whom Jobs gave the one-finger salute in the 80s, and then Intel whom Apple called the Pentiums turtles compared to the Gx processors... their friend one year is their enemy next, or vice versa. It's all business. Not so much of a problem, but when that centrist attitude carries over to its most dedicated customers, then we get this nasty position we have today. People blood thirsty to disown Apple from all corners because the opposite camp has this mental ideology that NO ONE else in the industry can ever innovate. The best people are those who sit in-between these two extremes and are simply consumers open to anything.
Apple doesn't deserve more credit than any of the other companies, except just for the iPod that drove everyone to offer better mp3 player interfaces...
It's just that, not OS X, not iPhone, not Apple computers. They still believe in a closed market but they will get caught by it in the near future if this isn't happening yet.
I think you'll find it's more a natural life cycle and evolution rather than apple inspired. inspiration or innovation isn't always the person who does it first. It doesn't mean others aren't thinking about it parallel.
In another time, before or after, there will be another company doing this, but, for now, it's Apple.
1. Apple inspired some tchnology advances, which later was picked up by other companys and developed - I agree with that.
2. Still don't need anything made in company named "Apple".
So, when you talk about WE all need Apple, then the "WE" is pretty limited, to think otherwise is myopia.
And, for innovation :
Window interface :Xerox.
Mouse usage :Xerox.
OSX :BSD.
Ipod :portable mp3 pendrive with a harddisk.
Iphone
and so on.
ps:i am a macbook pro user (also a xp user) but i still feel that Mac is not quite popular, in fact it is not popular at all but in specific ecosystem.
You know what next time disable comments make it a whole lot easier. It's better we don't discuss the topics/articles at all if we cannot speak out differently to editors opinions and socio-followers or question the integrity or quality or point of it.
shockz did not remove comments which discussed this article, he removed comments which went against our rules.
We would like to keep the news comments on topic, discussing the related article, please. If you have a problem with any staff decision, please PM a member of staff.
Thank you.
Last edited by CalumJR on 18 Feb 2009 - 20:57
Like it has been said before, give credit where credit is due. Like it or not, Apple has been one of the most trend setting companies in the last decade.
Remember who started including WiFi as default in laptops? Or brought colors to the PC market(iMac)? Who made the first easy to use music store and player? Who made the iPhone? And these are just a few from the top of my head.
This has nothing to do with who makes the best products, it has to do with who sets the trend. The Moto RAZR set a trend. Was it good? Not really, the software was slow and buggy and lacked many features compared to a symbian phone. But it was the target to kill in the slim phone market.
So as long as Apple innovates, we need it (along other companies) to keep the market going. That is my opinion anyway.
For all the people with counter opinions you'd think there'd be a 'rebutal' written up and posted by now.
Instead of worthwhile discussion about how "[mac os x] is as user friendly and safe as a golden retriever puppy in a room full of pillows." is a false statement we get people saying compound-falsehoods like "You get the unix kernel[1], use it on the top of a GUI[2], and rename it OS X[3] "
[1] Saying <operating system> is build on "The UNIX kernel" is like saying that <neowin home page> is "the HTML". UNIX is a collection of standards, Mach (the Mac OS X kernel) and Darwin (the BSD subsystem) are one implementation of those of one of those standards. Just as Neowin is one site using HTML on the Internet.
[2] WindowServer, Finder, Dock, etc. are processes running on top of Mach, the comment got it backward.
[3] Nitpicking, but the operating system used on Macs is Mac OS X. Apple's marketing literature prior to the release of the SDK said "iPhone uses OS X" (note the missing "mac", a distinction Apple had always been careful to make since renaming the operating system from the "System #" series when they started licensing their OS to clone makers). Today iPhone is described as running "iPhone OS" in the SDK documentation - it's similar to Mac OS X but is missing several notable features and isn't UNIX.
Don't worry. We're going to be cracking down on the moderation of news comments in future in order to make this section of the website as clean and enjoyable as possible for all members
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.