For Apple Followers, It's a Matter of Faith

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Man, if you want somebody that looks evil, look no further:

<snipped>

I present to thee: Google CEO Eric Schmidt. :p

Disclaimer: I'm obviously just joking around here, but he really does look like the anti-christ. :laugh:

What I find most freaky about that image is how his face and neck have no separation. Almost like he has no jaw bone and his cheeks and neck flow together as one :|

[rawr_boy81]

And yes, I will always attack them.. I use their products, have experienced their business practices (aka "you are holding it wrong", or "we can't really fix your issues right now, but you'll have to wait until we release a new version of that product so you can buy it") many times so far until I realized that the only thing that's worth buying from Apple is their laptops and only if you want form factor.

The company itself is rotten to the core..

I will stop attacking them when they open up.. when they embrace competition and allow people to willingly leave their platform and take their content to other PCs or sync their devices with 3rd party software of my liking and not their piece of crap iTunes.

We all know that will never happen because Apple is too greedy, too controlling and they wouldn't be able to force people to continue buying their hardware after they realize that Apple hardware is just as flawed and has issues like anything out there.

I really speculate, but I'm absolutely sure that at least half of Mac/Apple users would leave Apple platform if they could, but they can't because their whole lives and content is connected to their DRMed Apple devices so they can't switch and start over without making huge sacrifices both financially and emotionally.

Many of these Apple users also don't want to admit they've been duped and are frustrated with the fact they can't do anything about it. So they don't want to feel like idiots so they keep defending Apple.

After many conversations with some of my friends who live Apple, it always comes down to them admitting it. It's not perfect, it's very limiting and they would really try other stuff but they can't move all their stuff from Apple to other platforms.

And Microsoft and other vendors locking their devices to Windows gives me so much choice when it comes to choosing operating systems. All vendors practice lock in - you deliberately choose to over look how Microsoft and their partners behave in the marketplace and focus on the dominant player. Call me back when Microsoft provides and uses an open protocol for their Zune, Windows Phone 7 and other devices. I might remotely care about your righteous indignation if it actually held some water.

[Colin-uk Veteran]

thread mostly cleaned :rolleyes:

[Boz]

And Microsoft and other vendors locking their devices to Windows gives me so much choice when it comes to choosing operating systems.

Not sure I fully understand what you are talking about here.. You have a choice of installing whatever OS you want on your PC.. Vendors like Dell and others offer Linux too on their computers.. with Apple you only get OSX. You will never get a Mac preinstalled with Windows. Talk about complete disconnect from the rest of the world.. It's only their stuff or nothing. They are completely anti-competitive company.

What vendors lock their devices to WIndows? You can use ANY device with OSX if company who manufactures the device has OSX support (most of them do). Apple stuff on the other hand you can't use on PCs unless you use iTunes..

Retarded either way you look at it.

Call me back when Microsoft provides and uses an open protocol for their Zune, Windows Phone 7 and other devices. I might remotely care about your righteous indignation if it actually held some water.

What does this mean? Zune has a different model.. it's a MONTHLY subscription model like Rhapsody and others.. When you sign up you KNOW you don't own the music.. you are renting it.. but in return you get 100% access to everything.. It's a conscious choice and again it doesn't FORCE you to specific hardware as Windows PHone 7, Zune Marketplace will be licensed out everywhere so you will be able to use your stuff you get throughout the Zune/WP7 ecosystem.

Again, Windows Phone 7 is already different from iOS because it is being LICENSED OUT.. what is it so hard for you understand.. This means that Windows 7 Phone will be on any manufacturer of phone that decides to pay the license.

If Apple decided to license iOS with other manufacturers where you could use the content you buy through them that would be OK! Because I could take my content and when a new better phone comes out than the one Apple makes (let's say from Samsung ie) and Samsung licenses iOS I would be able to switch to that phone and not lose everything I have accumulated in software and content. But they don't.. And why? Because they know that people would not want to pay overblown prices they have for their hardware. If they could use the content and apps on other devices they would not have the need to pay Apple mafia style "protection" margins.

Do you see the difference? Windows Phone 7, Android will be available on almost all phones and mobile devices. iOS will only be available on Apple hardware. Do you what's wrong with that picture?

We are not talking about the fact that Windows Phone 7 is proprietary and not open source.. This doesn't bother me at all. I'm not on an open source crusade... What bothers me is that with proprietary you have higher obligation to your users to allow them to take their apps and content to various devices.. not just yours.

If you are literally blackmailing consumers to keep buying your stuff whether you like it or not that's downright evil and Microsoft has been already whooped about that. So I dont' see why Apple is being allowed to do the same. And you might not like Apple stuff 3 years from now.. who knows.. then what happens to all your content and apps and similar?

[Quattrone]

The thing is ok for Apple lock other out but I bet if Microsoft do... people bitching ANTITRUST! and the EU going to have a field trip with it.

Take a look at the Browsers Ballot screen, apparent it's not ok for MS to bundle IE in Windows but it's ok for Apple to bundle Safari in Mac OSX and they practically locked down iPhone with Safari.

That's the reason why I don't understand how Apple can get away with their restrictive platform in both the Desktop and mobile machines. I don't understand why Apple has never been charge of monopoly in their platform and Microsoft has always been charge of monopoly. Look at iOS for example, they don't allow any app that can compete with own Apple apps, you can't be more antitrust than that.

[Chicane-UK Veteran]

Ugh. I get sick of reading bilge like this. You get fanatics for ANYTHING - be it a religion, a car, a tech company, etc etc. And it's always the vocal minority who have the loudest voice, and who always end up in the spotlight.

Apple has drooling, blind enthusiasts just like how Microsoft has them. There are plenty of people who buy Apple products who LIKE THEM FOR WHAT THEY ARE. Not because they're sheep, but because the products ARE well designed, because they're aesthetically pleasing, and because they (generally) just work! Is it so hard to understand?

And I say this as someone who embraced Apple stuff for a while (home computer was an iMac, phone was an iPhone) - but I since decided I didn't like either and went back to WinTel and an Android powered HTC phone. I can still look at these products objectively though and just make rational decisions based on the features, etc that I want... it's got **** all to do with being a sheep or a slave to trends.

ARRRGHGGGH!!!

[TechFreak:)]

Do you see the difference? Windows Phone 7, Android will be available on almost all phones and mobile devices. iOS will only be available on Apple hardware. Do you what's wrong with that picture?

We are not talking about the fact that Windows Phone 7 is proprietary and not open source.. This doesn't bother me at all. I'm not on an open source crusade... What bothers me is that with proprietary you have higher obligation to your users to allow them to take their apps and content to various devices.. not just yours.

I think you're wrong. Windows Phone 7 will work only on small number of devices - for now only 3 telephones have been announced to support it.

I don't see anything wrong with that because it allows Microsoft to make operating system and drivers for only limited amount of hardware - this usually means that it will work a lot better because they have to test it more thoroughly.

Only thing that bothers me is support for other operating systems. iPhone requires iTunes which works a lot better on Mac OS X than on Windows - in some way you are limited to OS X. Microsoft is event worse, WP7 will probably be able to connect only to Windows PCs.

[Boz]

I think you're wrong. Windows Phone 7 will work only on small number of devices

Nope..

Windows 7 Phone launch partners that are currently confirmed are: Dell, Asus, Samsung, LG, and HTC and probably more when they do release WP7.

http://www.pocket-li...launch-partners

That's hardly 3 phones. It might be 3 phones for the launch which is still a lot. Android only had 1.

[TechFreak:)]

Ugh. I get sick of reading bilge like this. You get fanatics for ANYTHING - be it a religion, a car, a tech company, etc etc. And it's always the vocal minority who have the loudest voice, and who always end up in the spotlight.

I completely agree with you. The biggest problem is that from their perspective if you're not using product from the same vendor, you are against them. I choose a device that works for me and I really don't care which vendor made it.

[hdood]

That's the reason why I don't understand how Apple can get away with their restrictive platform in both the Desktop and mobile machines. I don't understand why Apple has never been charge of monopoly in their platform and Microsoft has always been charge of monopoly.

If you weren't so filled with irrational hate for a company who you presumably have no dealings with and doesn't affect you, you might be able to take a step back and see that Apple has never had a monopoly in a market. Since they've never had one, they could never abuse it. This is in contrast to Microsoft, who did have a monopoly in the OS market and did abuse that (because, remember, simply having a monopoly is not in itself illegal.) You can read more about that here.

Look at iOS for example, they don't allow any app that can compete with own Apple apps, you can't be more antitrust than that.

We've already established that this cannot be compared to what Microsoft has been convicted of. Apples and oranges. Now, that doesn't mean that Apple hasn't engaged in other types of anti-competitive behavior that might be covered by some laws or regulations. Maybe they have, I don't know. I can't immediately see why it would be illegal for Apple to exercise control over their product. You seem to know, so maybe you can elaborate for us. I trust this will be easy.

[Minion Rebel]

How the minions use reversed labels to trample the Apple uprising:

It's so desperate it begs compassion ...

It's so obvious it doesn't really need revealing ...

And it won't stop the consumer uprising this time around ...

PC users have always chosen to follow the mainstream and felt threatened by anyone who dared to think different. And even back when it was still a question if you should buy a Windows PC or a Mac they used the reversed label psychology as a means to get people in line and start marching to the loudest drum: Microsoft. These days it has come down to a different choice: do you want a PC that can only run Windows, or do you want a Mac which can run Windows and Mac OS X. Pick one and then we'll get back to that later on, after we have revealed the reality about fanatics versus the main stream distortion field.

Here's how they did it and how they use the same trick on iOS users today.

Read more...

http://www.myapplespace.com/profiles/blogs/how-the-minions-use-reversed?xg_source=activity

[rawr_boy81]

Not sure I fully understand what you are talking about here.. You have a choice of installing whatever OS you want on your PC.. Vendors like Dell and others offer Linux too on their computers.. with Apple you only get OSX. You will never get a Mac preinstalled with Windows. Talk about complete disconnect from the rest of the world.. It's only their stuff or nothing. They are completely anti-competitive company.

What vendors lock their devices to WIndows? You can use ANY device with OSX if company who manufactures the device has OSX support (most of them do). Apple stuff on the other hand you can't use on PCs unless you use iTunes..

Retarded either way you look at it.

Which is irrelevant. I want to synchronise a Zune with my computer, the only operating system supported is Windows therefore I am locked into the same eco system as Apple does with their iTunes and i-devices. You first paragraph is a load of crap, I never stated that. The issue is about Microsoft shipping devices that are only supported on Windows. The lock in between Zune and Windows is no better/worse than the lock in between iTunes/i-devices.

Like I said, I'll give a crap when Microsoft provides an open protocol that allows synchronisation between a Zune and non-Windows platform - and by the way you aren't reliant on the subscription programme on offer by Microsoft so don't speak unless you know what the hell you're talking about.

The issue is locking a mobile device to a particular piece of software, the lock in between i-devices and iTunes is no different to Microsofts lock in between Zune and Windows.

[TechFreak:)]

These days it has come down to a different choice: do you want a PC that can only run Windows, or do you want a Mac which can run Windows and Mac OS X.

You can run Windows on Mac? Don't think so. Mac's drivers for Windows are catastrophic, I have problems with keyboard & screen backlit, trackpad and my MBP is also overheating when I use Windows or Linux. Linux has better drivers, but it's still not the same as using Mac OS X.

Apple is typical example of vendor lock-in. If you buy Mac, you will have to use OS X to get best performance and usability. If you have a Mac, you will probably have to buy iPhone too, because it's the only mobile phone that actually works with Mac OS.

[Frylock86]

Man, if you want somebody that looks evil, look no further:

I present to thee: Google CEO Eric Schmidt. :p

Disclaimer: I'm obviously just joking around here, but he really does look like the anti-christ. :laugh:

Uh, dude. He is.

Google is evil. There is no doubt about that.

[Elliott]

What does this mean? Zune has a different model.. it's a MONTHLY subscription model like Rhapsody and others.. When you sign up you KNOW you don't own the music.. you are renting it.. but in return you get 100% access to everything.. It's a conscious choice and again it doesn't FORCE you to specific hardware as Windows PHone 7, Zune Marketplace will be licensed out everywhere so you will be able to use your stuff you get throughout the Zune/WP7 ecosystem.

Again, Windows Phone 7 is already different from iOS because it is being LICENSED OUT.. what is it so hard for you understand.. This means that Windows 7 Phone will be on any manufacturer of phone that decides to pay the license.

Wait wait wait. So if Apple provided an iTunes subscription based service, you wouldn't care anymore? Because even though you're giving them money, you don't own any of the content you're listening to, but that's alright.

Also, what if I don't want to use a Zune or a Windows Phone? ****, I'm locked into the Zune ecosystem. Microsoft for life and all that. But hey, that's okay, because I can choose which hardware I can get to run the same software (and only for phones, a Zune's a Zune)! Totally alright and not even close to the same situation, right? I can't switch to Linux or Android or Mac OS X or iOS, but whatever. It's not like I owned any of that media anyway, and that's perfectly fine by me.

Before you blurt, check your double-standards. Or is being locked into one hardware/software combo your only problem? Being locked into just software totally isn't similar and is a-okay, right?

Licensing software is predominantly what Microsoft does. Creating hardware is predominantly what Apple does. Apple's in a unique position because they like to control the whole experience, but, in the end, it serves both companies just the same. Both get you locked into the ecosystem they want you locked in to. I don't see it really being any better of a situation just because I can choose which phone hardware I want (and of that set, only the ones that run Windows Phone).

[Prince Charming]

This thread absolutely delivers.

(Y) (Y)

[Chicane-UK Veteran]

This thread absolutely delivers.

(Y) (Y)

So a user who clearly adores Microsoft products (judging by username, avatar, description, the Microsoft URL in your signature...) feels it's appropriate to mockingly approve of a thread which deals with Apple's enthusiastic supporters and their blind faith? Can you not see the BLINDING level of hypocrisy?

[Simon Veteran]

Absolutely wrong.. OSX didn't run on PCs because it used RISC architecture .. It was incompatible.. that meant you couldn't really run Windows as a native OS on any Mac computer which doomed Apple to irrelevant marketshare in personal computers.

When Apple switched to x86 architecture they basically became a PC. They use Intel processors (Xeons, i7s etc) and PC GPUs with modified firmware but Apple doesn't want Macs to be PCs.. They want to treat as their own platform.

Apple deliberately prevents any x86 PC from legally running it because again they want to be a separate platform.. It's completely discriminatory and I don't really understand what you are comparing here. The reason they don't allow OSX to run on PCs is because they treat Apple platform as something else.

Well if that's the case, than Windows shouldn't be allowed to run on that platform to make it the same. There would be no discrimination. It would be exactly the same as Apple does.

Bottom line is.. you CAN run OSX on PC.. because it's the same architecture.. yet Apple doesn't allow it.. Same with Microsoft.. they could say Apple platform and hardware is a separate platform and we don't want Apple running Windows because they have their own OSX.

If you can't see hypocrisy here than I guess we have nothing to discuss because it's useless.

But Microsoft makes their money selling software. They make a hell of a lot more money off Mac users than they do from people who buy from an OEM, since Mac users pay the full price. Why would they give that up for the sake of setting a precedent and starting a war that is, in the end, bad for everyone?

Yes they can.. just like Apple doesn't allow OSX to run on "other platform" aka PC, Microsoft can stop Windows running on Apple platform. Apple sells specialized hardware for their machines, specialized graphic cards, and so on.. they can very well be treated as a different platform.

As for revenue.. Well Apple is stupid for not allowing OSX to run on x86 computers because from revenue standpoint they would make a bundle if they opened OSX. Yet they don't.. so the whole argument (Microsoft losing money preventing Windows running on 4-5% of computers won't hurt them a bit). Apple loses more here. So your comment doesn't make sense.

They make most of their money off hardware. As Jobs has said before, they have no interest in being a software company - they are a hardware company first and foremost, but also make the software that comes with the hardware.

Last.fm and Pandora are cloud based services. They are not software per se.. Apple is known to prevent any apps on their platforms (aka iOS, OSX etc) where the application or service directly competes with their own services. Good example is that you can't buy Amazon songs on iOS in digital format for example.

You can run stuff that apple allows you.. not what you feel like running.. and they have been very well know to ban apps from their platforms that directly interfere with their bottom line. I would advise you to read their Developer Agreements in depth because that would make it perfectly clear for you.. btw, I can't post it here because they legally don't allow me to discuss terms and conditions of developer agreement and their EULAs..

Some company eh.

I'm well aware of the terms they have, as an iPhone developer. I can also tell you that when Windows Phone 7 comes out, it will probably be exactly the same. That being said, Amazon music comes without DRM - you can buy it on your computer and put it on your iPod just fine. Or put it into one of those music apps that streams from your computer to your phone.

Yep... and those who do use it would account for about 2% of market share if there was no BootCamp.. let's be realistic here .. Apple wouldn't be here in marketshare if big companies like Microsoft didn't allow them.

If they did the same things as Apple does to protect their platform, you wouldn't see iTunes on Windows systems, you wouldn't see Windows running on any Mac etc..

The big selling point of macs today IS the fact that they can run Windows.. if it wasn't for that, I don't know anyone in mainstream who would buy a Mac for anything really because you NEED Windows if you do anything serious (if you want to game, if you want to run Windows specific software etc). That's what doomed Macs to begin with and why they had 1-2% marketshare constantly until they produced Macs that can in fact run Windows.

If I want to do anything serious... like game? I don't need Windows for anything besides testing sites in Internet Explorer. Most of the games I play are made by Valve who have ported most of their stuff to OS X anyway, and I have a choice of both iWork and Office if I feel like getting real work done, not to mention Coda for web development, along with good ol' Photoshop. I have Windows 7 on a separate partition, sure, but I barely use it.

And btw, we are not talking about Microsoft here.. and without a doubt yes they did.. and they paid for it. Nobody is saying Microsoft is peaches, but they are far better than Apple in EVERY aspect of taking care of their users, developers and overall pretty non-discriminatory. Plus they license their stuff too.. You can pay for it and use it but you don't..

Apple does no such thing.

Again, Apple is currently about 100 times worse than any other company including Microsoft. The only reason they get away with it is because they are still not holding enough marketshare which is I think is utterly ridiculous. They should be pursued and legally sanctioned because they have vertical monopoly in their field due to their vertical integration (software + hardware). The reason why they are not, is because tech laws are so behind the curve that half of them would have to rewritten completely.

Not to mention the fact that Apple is trying now to patent SERVICES!!!! So you can't build services due to their patents.. It's disgusting thought if they are allowed to do that..

One such thing right now and what they are doing is to patent hotel reservations and resorts, how you buy tickets online and so forth.. They really want to completely close things up and own it so you can't invent anything that remotely resembles theirs.

It's downright awful.

Windows Phone 7 has some very, very specific guidelines if you want to license it. They're moving to the way Apple works, because the way Apple works has proven to, overall, be pretty successful with the market.

Patents? Those are a totally different issue, and I have a feeling we have the same opinion on software patents as a whole, but Microsoft patent trolls too, as does every single tech company out there. I'm not saying it's OK to do that, but all the companies do.

[Nayos]

I got threatened with violence for saying "iTouch".

Sounds reasonable to me, as it's not called an iTouch. It winds me up to no end, and I don't even have one.

[TDQuiksilver]

This thread absolutely delivers.

You ain't kidding!

[lunarworks]

The amount of ignorance and generic talking points in this thread is still astounding.

Actually, no, it's not astounding. I've been listening to it for 20 years.

(Just synched my Nokia 5800 to my iTunes library with zero problems.)

[acnpt]

I find the Android users on this site to be worse. (but not as bad as 'engadget evos' :laugh: )

Any iPhone thread or article turns into a big Android circle jerk, and God help you if you don't think every part of Android is perfect.

Then they moan about how much coverage the iPhone gets, after commenting in every article and repeatedly starting new threads about it's problems.

[.Neo]

And yes, I will always attack them..

Blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla

blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla

blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla

blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla

blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla

Good for you! Your level of hypocrisy will never cease to amaze me. Keep it up. (Y)

[(Spork)]

Nope. Apple brand loyalists are several steps up in craziness over any other fanboys. There's no comparison, really.

QFT !!!!

[bobbba]

Ugh. I get sick of reading bilge like this. You get fanatics for ANYTHING - be it a religion, a car, a tech company, etc etc. And it's always the vocal minority who have the loudest voice, and who always end up in the spotlight.

Apple has drooling, blind enthusiasts just like how Microsoft has them. There are plenty of people who buy Apple products who LIKE THEM FOR WHAT THEY ARE. Not because they're sheep, but because the products ARE well designed, because they're aesthetically pleasing, and because they (generally) just work! Is it so hard to understand?

And I say this as someone who embraced Apple stuff for a while (home computer was an iMac, phone was an iPhone) - but I since decided I didn't like either and went back to WinTel and an Android powered HTC phone. I can still look at these products objectively though and just make rational decisions based on the features, etc that I want... it's got **** all to do with being a sheep or a slave to trends.

ARRRGHGGGH!!!

What he/she said.