Apple Unveils iOS 7 with Major Design Overhaul, Multitasking and Control Center

[Renzatic]

I never said that. I said Apple invented the PC. The Apple II is not a PC. The Macintosh was the very first PC. But the Apple II was already a home computer (not the first) and being a home computer is a very important part of what distinguishes Personal Computers as a category from the kind of computers IBM made at that time. And no one ever claimed so.

Since when has the Apple II not been considered a PC? Is having a GUI a necessity before a computer is considered a PC by your standard? If that's the case, then all those IBM PC clones using DOS up until '94 or so wouldn't fit your criteria.

A PC is a personal computer. One cheap enough to be affordable by most, and used in the home. That is the most basic, honest definition of it. The Macintosh was one of the first home PCs to use a GUI, but it wasn't the first PC.

You're arguing in circles, changing definitions to fit your argument.

See, the IBM PC was a fundamental shift in the companies strategy. Earlier IBM computers were not home computers at all. It was a reaction to the market success home computer makers had with their machines. PC became the category name for all home computers with a graphical user interface. Much like Ultrabook became the category name for all MacBook Air like Laptops.

You might have a point here, but I'm wondering...why does it matter? Someone invents a nice product. Someone else uses it and possibly improves upon it. That's the way the world works. From the rock, to the wheel, to the steam engine, to the modern computer. Apple does it as much as anyone else.

The problem is when Apple does push the envelope, people like you come in and start batting their eyes, overusing words like "innovation" as if the word itself proves a point.

Yeah. Innovation. I'm getting sick of that word. Everything is innovation. If I take Apple's basic GUI concepts, and add two handy features to it that makes it a little easier to use...I've just innovated. Innovation is improvement. Doing something new, something different, something better. Everyone innovates. Yes, even those companies you hate.

The big problem around here is that what's innovative seems to be subjective. Oh, they took someone else's idea and built upon it....it's sooooo innovative. Oh, that company I don't like did something to improve upon the basic design of that company I like...RIPOFF!

Ultrabook is also a brandname by Intel and they define what properties a Notebook must have to call itself an Ultrabook. No AMD CPUs for example. Apple never used the term Ultrabook for its MacBook Air and under the newest definition it wouldn't even fit, because it has no touchscreen. Nevertheless in the category computers subcategory personal computers subcategory laptops subcategory ultra books the MacBook Air is the dominating product in market share and profit share. Apple did not invent computers. Apple did invent personal computers.

This is all semantical nonsense, man.

Apple did not invent laptops. Apple did invent ultrabooks.
You're not even listening to what I have to say and dare to call me ignorant? Look in the mirror.

Ignorant and blustery.

That pretty much is the definition of ripping off.

How so? Intel designed and fabbed the chips. I'm sure 95% of it was their work. Who are they ripping off? Apple? Because they asked for it?

The entire point of the PC industry, of which Apple is one part of, is to make devices that are smaller, better, faster than what came before. It's why Netbooks hit so big. They were smaller and easier to carry. It's why Ultrabooks eventually supplanted them. They're were smaller, easier to carry, and worked without making any sacrifices. Just because Apple leapfrogged a generation of OEM devices and produced something even smaller doesn't allow them to claim ownership of "thin". They deserve credit for doing something nice, but if someone comes along, takes their basic idea, and improves upon it...well...they've just innovated. It's only ripping off if it's a direct copy without any improvements made.

Apple didn't invent the ultrabook. What they did was show it could be profitable, and created the ultrabook market.

If it's not a novel idea by Apple, why so much pressure by Intel to push OEMs to produce Ultrabooks? Intel foresaw that the MacBook Air was about to become the good enough laptop for almost everyone. Prior to the Retina MacBook Pro it wasn't even clear if heavier more powerful notebooks would survive as a major category at all. Intel was at risk to become dependent on Apple as its biggest and only customer for the fastest growing segment of the market. They had to react, just like IBM had to react with the IBM PC.

Probably because they spent a good amount of time designing a chip, and Apple wasn't selling enough machines to their liking.

A market is defined by quantities, revenues and profits. You made up the silly idea that an ultrabook is defined mainly by its thinness and lightness. But a sheet of paper is thinner and lighter than any other ultrabook, yet it's not the leading product in that market. What ever combination of properties the Mitsubishi Muramasa has, it did not help to sell lots of units, at a high price, with a healthy margin.

First off, congratulations on making the most well worded dumb post I've ever read on this forum. That is truly a spectacular achievement. The only thing that would've made it better is if you threw "egalitarian" in there a few times to impress me with your eloquent verboseness.

Okay, the first problem with your argument, popularity does not equate to design, does not equate to innovation, does not equate to quality. If that were the case, than any argument you're making pro-Apple before the coming of the iDevices would be rendered null and void. Apple could've very well created the Personal Computer like you're claiming...but it never sold. Therefore IBM PC cloness and Windows were the true innovative products. Together, they sold tons of machines, and helped usher in the computer revolution far better than Apple ever did with their brand new never before seen invention.

So tell me. If the Mitsubishi Muramasa isn't as "innovative" a device because it didn't sell as well, are Wintel machines better than Macs? In a roundabout way, you're telling me that yes, they are. After all, like you say below, marketing is innovation, lower prices are innovation. Since they were marketed better and sold for cheaper, they must be better, right?

Your logic is a circle with a hitch in it. And that hitch is your incessant need to put one corporation on a pedestal while ignoring the contributions of the others.

Secondly, that I "made up the silly idea that an ultrabook is defined mainly by its thinness and lightness". Those are some of the defining characteristics of an ultrabook, man. They're thin, light, easy to carry devices that don't make many sacrifices to raw computing power. How can the very definition of a product be..."silly".

Better marketing is innovation, lower prices are innovation. As much as smaller and lighter and longer battery life. Also a quieter laptop is innovation, a more sturdy one is innovation. The omission of legacy ports like Ethernet, Firewire, PCMCIA and optical and spinning drives is innovation. The iPad was different enough from PCs to become useful on its own.

...BUT...

Tablet-PCs were just Laptop-PCs with an added Touchscreen.

Being selective with "innovations" again, I see. It must be great being able to tailor the world to fit your argument.

And the additional functionality wasn't even worth the price, so it never became a feature in PCs anyway. Let alone an entire new category of computers. We call them tablets but we mean iPad-like.

By who's metric? Being able to take notes on a PC and interact with them using a stylus was a big deal back in the day. The biggest problem with early tablets was that the idea was outpacing the technology. They weren't "not-innovative", but they weren't as good as they could be. Apple released the iPad at just the right moment. When processing power, touch technology, and battery tech came together to produce a machine they deemed good enough to make. Apple gets points for taste and timing here, but I don't see how the iPad is somehow MORE innovative than earlier attempts simply because the technology used in it had matured to the point where they could make an all around better product. Progress is made on the noble failures of others as much as it is the successes. The attempts and technologies made by other companies gave Apple a roadmap to use in building their own device. It's an innovation on someone else's innovation. It wasn't created in a vacuum.

Also touchscreens are becoming standard in PCs. So I guess you're gonna tell me it's cuz "the iPad made it popular", right? So that thing they were doing before that was a complete waste of time it didn't become an accepted standard is now becoming standard because they're copying Apple by doing that thing they did before.

YEEAAAHHOOOKKAAAY.

What you like to ignore, is that a huge part of the technology an design that was required to build an iPad actually was developed in Cupertino.

Yes and no. There were a lot of technologies developed elsewhere that were either cherrypicked by Apple, or bought up by them. They developed the iPad as we currently see it using their talent along with other's. They didn't stand alone.

They are. You don't make more money than Microsoft if you're not the sole giant in the industry. They haven't been in the past and might not be in the future, but right now Apple is THE giant, bigger than Sony ever was. Bigger than any technology company ever was.

And they do a relatively small amount of R&D. They make a lot of money, and they make a lot of nice products, but they're not the end all be all of computer design. They're still dependent on multiple smaller companies as much as Asus, Microsoft, Google, and what have you.

As the old Apple zealots loved to proclaim back when their favorite company was nearing bankruptcy, having the most money and being the biggest doesn't necessarily mean you're the absolute best. I mean if that were true, we'd all be using Amigas right now.

Apple is great, but you're giving them far too much credit.

 

[Gudi]

Intel didn't model the "Ultrabook" on something they invented themselves or a famous model by Asus or Samsung - Intel wanted to sell more of the CPUs Apple was using in the MBA and so they asked other companies to sell knock-offs of the MBA with identical specs - and it was obvious that all those "Let's do what Apple did" companies would also clone the looks of the MacBook Air.

I'm not even blaming them for understanding that this new form factor was the way to go and copying it was a necessity. Steve Jobs himself said once in a keynote: „We think all notebooks will look like these one day.“ So Apple pretty much knew, that they were setting a trend for others to follow. Expensive and rare at first, but a commodity in the future.

What I'm angry about is this million dollar ad campaign from Intel here in Germany with the claim „Ultrabook - eine Idee von Intel“ (Ultrabook - an idea from Intel). Especially the idea is not from Intel. Everything else yes, but not the idea behind the concept. Ultrabook to me means the theft of an idea. Not because no one should build their notebooks like Apple does.

But because it is setting a new word for something we called MacBook Air Clone, Competitior or Killer before. Some phrase with reference to where we have seen this design at first. Intel is claiming ownership and taking credit for inventorship of something that was clearly not their idea. To copy an idea is one thing, but to say it was yours, is something completely different.

No one will make me repeat that lie.

(Sorry for beeing offtopic.)

 

[Renzatic]

I'm not even blaming them for understanding that this new form factor was the way to go and copying it was a necessity. Steve Jobs himself said once in a keynote: „We think all notebooks will look like these one day.“ So Apple pretty much knew, that they were setting a trend for others to follow. Expensive and rare at first, but a commodity in the future.

What I'm angry about is this million dollar ad campaign from Intel here in Germany with the claim „Ultrabook - eine Idee von Intel“ (Ultrabook - an idea from Intel). Especially the idea is not from Intel. Everything else yes, but not the idea behind the concept. Ultrabook to me means the theft of an idea. Not because no one should build their notebooks like Apple does.

I would hardly call ultrabooks an "entirely new form factor". It's literally a laptop...but thinner. One that wasn't even the thinnest at release. That takes talent to do, sure, but not much forward thinking. Like I said previously, the entire computer industry has been working towards smaller, thinner, and more powerful practically since its inception.

But you already know this, and chose to disregard it because it clashes with your preconceived notions that Apple literally created an entirely new computing paradigm with the Air.

 

[SILen(e]

I would hardly call ultrabooks an "entirely new form factor". It's literally a laptop...but thinner.

But the criteria aren't just size, they are thickness, they must use an Intel ULV processor (that's the whole reason Intel "invented" the Ultrabook, selling more of those extremely expensive CPUs), at least one model costing less than 1000$, very short time to wake from sleep and at least 5h or battery life.

All of them are of course criteria the MacBook Air (or at least the 11" model if you consider the price) met and there were few other notebooks that met ALL of them.
Because before the MacBook Air, the category was usually called Subnotebook and they were very pricey.

Just like Apple had shown the world that they were able to sell a tablet not for the expected 999$ or more, but just half of that - Apple had shown the world that a subnotebook with some awesome added improvements could be sold for less than 1799$.

And even with Intel asking other companies to clone the MacBook Air, Apple was for a very long time the only company who actually could sell a MacBook Air-grade notebook for that price.

Many Ultrabooks had a battery life that just barely managed to make it pass the criteria, had screens with a lower resolution, were mostly made from plastic, had horrible touchpads or they managed to match the quality, but were unable to match the price, like the more expensive Samsung subnotebooks (they were not officially partners in the Ultrabook campaign, because they decided to take the idea of the MacBook Air before Intel jumped onto that train) of that era.


The MacBook Air may not have been as groundbreaking as the iPod, iPhone and iPad, it was more of an evolutionary step than a revolutionary one - but Apple skipped over a few steps in the evolution and released the notebook of 2011 in 2008!
And it definitely had an enormous effect on the industry, even if the advances in technology like battery life, short wake-up-time or long sleep-time would have found their way to regular Windows notebooks by now even without Apple - the MacBook Air definitely had an enormous influence on the looks, with black chiclet keyboards, huge touchpads and aluminium (or aluminium-colored plastic) case and wedge form.


And as Gudi already mentioned, Intel proudly proclaming "Ultrabook - Eine Idee von Intel" is always an eye-rolling moment for me because its just not true.

If Apple had said "Das Smartphone - Eine Idee von Apple" during their 2007 keynote, people would have been laughing about Apple.

But instead Steve Jobs entered the stage and said how he had seen all the other smartphones already available, that they all had many problems and were difficult to use - but that Apple had an idea on how to make it better and easier to use.

They didn't say they invented the device category or had the idea "Phone + PDA + Internet" - but on how to make it WORK!

The "Ultrabook" by Intel didn't solve any problem that nobody had solved before, because it was always just meant as something like the MacBook Air, but running Windows.

The MacBook Air had already solved the "Size, weight, battery life, long standy-time" problems of notebooks and the "****** performance" problem of Intel Atom Netbooks.

The only problems the Ultrabook tried to solve were these:
1. Apple is a single company, so they can't make many MacBook Airs with Intel ULV processors for people to buy.
2. Apple isn't using Windows, but some people want to buy something with Windows instead of OS X.
3. Other companies could sell their versions of the Intel ULV processor-featuring notebooks for less than Apple, so that more people will buy it.

The problem the Ultrabook tried to solve was "How could Intel sell more of those 300$ a piece ULV processors?"

 

[Renzatic]

The "Ultrabook" by Intel didn't solve any problem that nobody had solved before, because it was always just meant as something like the MacBook Air, but running Windows.

That's just it. What "problems" does it need to solve, other than being convenient and easy to use? Admittedly this is Apple's bread and butter, but it doesn't necessarily mean other OEMs are "copying" Apple by making a high quality, thin notebook for people to use.

And hard as it is for some people to believe, there are those who do prefer using Windows over OSX for any number of reasons.

The MacBook Air had already solved the "Size, weight, battery life, long standy-time" problems of notebooks and the "****** performance" problem of Intel Atom Netbooks.

I wouldn't say the Macbook Air solved it so much as they had a target idea, and had Intel build the components for them (though I'm sure Apple did have some input and offer up some advice). Apple's biggest contribution to the MBA would've been chassis design, component locations, airflow planning, heatsink placement, and whatnot. No doubt about it, the MBA was an impressive piece of engineering, but it's ultimately not much more than other OEMs are capable of, or have done in the past themselves. I'm sure the Sony Vaio x505 was a much, much more difficult machine to design in 2004 than the Air was in 2008.

Really, I think my biggest complaint about all this isn't so much Apple sucks and you're all stupid, or everyone copies Apple, or blah blah blah. It's that the entire industry has been filled with huge advances in computer design, screen design, battery design, whatever. Why is it that some of you refuse to give credit where credit is due, and heap more than you should on Apple?

I mean besides having a few more industry changing moments under their belt, they're not that much different than other OEMs. They've all done their part.

The only problems the Ultrabook tried to solve were these:
1. Apple is a single company, so they can't make many MacBook Airs with Intel ULV processors for people to buy.

This is true, but hey...Intel wants to sell their chip. It's their right to do so.

2. Apple isn't using Windows, but some people want to buy something with Windows instead of OS X.

Sorta true. There are people who buy Macs only to format the drives and install Windows on them.

3. Other companies could sell their versions of the Intel ULV processor-featuring notebooks for less than Apple, so that more people will buy it.

So far, the best selling ultrabooks have been the ones generally higher priced than the MBA. The Lenovo Yoga cost, I think, $200-$300 more, and it flew off the shelves when it was released. Rightfully so, since it was a fairly clever, well built machine.

The problem the Ultrabook tried to solve was "How could Intel sell more of those 300$ a piece ULV processors?"

That's a cynical way to look at it, and doesn't take competition into account. Intel wants to sell more ULV chips, but if the OEMs only make a similar base design as dictated to them by Intel, then no one has an advantage, no hook to sell their laptop over the other guy's. That's why we're now seeing a huge variety of ultrabooks coming out. Some of them use 1920x1080-retina quality IPS screens, some of them touchscreens, some of them try and eek as much power out of as small a space as possible (Asus has an ultrabook that almost matches the retina Pro specs in a package as thin as their other ultrabooks). Some of them have come up with some honestly clever and funky designs. Whether you want one or not, you have to admit some of the dockable tablet/keybard hybrids are pretty neat. There's a ton of interesting ideas being thrown around the ultrabook market right now. We're seeing more good ideas (and bad, I'll admit) come out from the OEMs than we are Apple at the moment.

Apple isn't the only company who innovates. Isn't the only one who builds high quality devices. And isn't the only company to come up with a good idea.

 

[SILen(e]

(1)That's just it. What "problems" does it need to solve, other than being convenient and easy to use? Admittedly this is Apple's bread and butter, but it doesn't necessarily mean other OEMs are "copying" Apple by making a high quality, thin notebook for people to use.



(2)I wouldn't say the Macbook Air solved it so much as they had a target idea, and had Intel build the components for them (though I'm sure Apple did have some input and offer up some advice). Apple's biggest contribution to the MBA would've been chassis design, component locations, airflow planning, heatsink placement, and whatnot.


(3)I mean besides having a few more industry changing moments under their belt, they're not that much different than other OEMs. They've all done their part.



(4)So far, the best selling ultrabooks have been the ones generally higher priced than the MBA. The Lenovo Yoga cost, I think, $200-$300 more, and it flew off the shelves when it was released. Rightfully so, since it was a fairly clever, well built machine.


(5)We're seeing more good ideas (and bad, I'll admit) come out from the OEMs than we are Apple at the moment.

I added some numbers to make it easier to answer to each paragraph

(1) Well, If they only problem you solve one that has to do with your own profit, it's a bit funny to claim you had an idea that is actually just the product of one of your own customers - but sold by a different one of your customers.

(Apple is probably not very happy about the Ultrabook campaign, as it is very similar to the backstab they got from their other supplier - Samsung, with the release of Samsung's "iPhone", the Samsung Galaxy S)

If the Ultrabook is an idea by Intel, then all the Doodle Jump clones in the Appstore are ideas by their respective developers.
But we all know that they developed a rip-off of "Famous Game X with simple but addicting game mechanics" just for the money.

(2)Apple is one of the better customers of Intel, not because of high volume sold, but because they usually buy the more expensive stuff.
So we can probably say that Apple didn't just take something that Intel developed on their own from the shelf, but had a say during development of components.

(3) Unlike many of the other companies, Apple has been there from the start.
They were there before ASUS, Acer, Lenovo, Dell and probably a lot of the others.
They were one of the first companies selling computers to the mass market, with GUIs, selling PDAs etc...

Some other companies also had their transforming products, most prominently Sony, with the Walkman, Playstation (which started as a disk drive for the Super Nintendo^^), Asus was the first company to sell what could be called a netbook.

Many others did not and I don't know if they maybe are the most innovative and market transforming company on the "Robots that can shoot people at borders" market, but in computers and smartphones, Samsung is certainly not innovative in the actual sense.

Sure, if you consider increasing the size of a display by 0.15" per year as innovation, you'll think of Samsung as hyper-innovative.

But then you would probably see the really innovative products by Apple or Sony as pure magic or miracles.


(4) As you already said, many ideas that are now featured in Ultrabooks are probably more bad than good - like notebooks transforming to tablets - and they have already been tried in the past and failed, often due to reasons that are still existant in recent models - a tablet weighing a kilogram or more is just not comfortable to use.

(5)Oh, let me think about that...

You mean the Samsung notebook with a 3200x1800 resolution was totally their idea (the part with "using ultra high resolutions, not to increase the size of the available space on the desktop but to increase sharpness") and had nothing to do with a certain... whaddatheycallit... Retina MacBook Pro released by Apple last year?

Or the Mac Pro, which - just like the MacBook Air - will probably be the way that computers will look, work and be built like in 2016.

Look doesn't necessarily mean all computers will be small black tubes - but judging by the creativity of other companies, well...they will probably look exactly the same, but with plastic casing instead of aluminium.
How they work will mean the architecture with powerful CPUs, but GPUs doing the real heavy lifting via OpenCL. (This is not something Apple invented, but they bet all their in the Pro-sector on it)
And how they are built means few replaceable parts, but much better cooling that way.

By the end of the year, we will probably see a new version of the AppleTV, running apps and games (maybe you want to say that Ouya had this idea first, but it's quite obvious that Apple has been working on this for a looong time to get it perfect).

 

[Renzatic]

(1) Well, If they only problem you solve one that has to do with your own profit, it's a bit funny to claim you had an idea that is actually just the product of one of your own customers - but sold by a different one of your customers.

Claiming they created ultrabooks is one thing, and is kinda lame in an eyerolling sorta way, but I can't say they flat out stole the idea from Apple. I mean they came up to Intel and said "hey, can you make an ultra low voltage process for us that still runs well"? Intel said "yeah, sure", and went about producing their C2D line of chips to run as low voltage as possible without cutting any corners. It's Intel's design. Just because Apple requested it doesn't mean they own the rights to it.

That'd be about akin to saying Haswell is a rip off of Apple's unique idea about having machine last a long time on a charge. I mean comeon. Apple was the first company to have a large device last 10 hours on a charge. Everyone else is just copying their innovations.

(Apple is probably not very happy about the Ultrabook campaign, as it is very similar to the backstab they got from their other supplier - Samsung, with the release of Samsung's "iPhone", the Samsung Galaxy S)

I'm pretty sure they don't care. It's just another thing they can claim the competition is copying from them at their next keynote speech to get the fans all riled up.

If the Ultrabook is an idea by Intel, then all the Doodle Jump clones in the Appstore are ideas by their respective developers.
But we all know that they developed a rip-off of "Famous Game X with simple but addicting game mechanics" just for the money.

It's more like "if the Ultrabook is an idea by Intel, then Pages is a rip off of MS Word". Just because you came up with an idea for a word processor doesn't mean everyone is copying you by making their own implementation. Same with Ultrabooks. Just because you had this BRILLIANT idea to make a thin laptop (who would've thunk), doesn't mean blah blah blah...

(2)Apple is one of the better customers of Intel, not because of high volume sold, but because they usually buy the more expensive stuff.
So we can probably say that Apple didn't just take something that Intel developed on their own from the shelf, but had a say during development of components.

Once again, requesting isn't the same as designing. Apple didn't design the ULV chips. They just wanted one, and it got made to order. Intel then used what they learned making the chip for Apple and made other chips elsewhere. It's dumb to even assume Intel stabbed them in the back over this. They designed it. Period. Doesn't matter who asked for it.

The idea of a thin laptop is not a unique one. Repeat this to yourself over and over again until it sinks in. It's evolutionary design.

(3) Unlike many of the other companies, Apple has been there from the start.
They were there before ASUS, Acer, Lenovo, Dell and probably a lot of the others.
They were one of the first companies selling computers to the mass market, with GUIs, selling PDAs etc...

Yeah, and Karl Benz made the first car, and the company he founded still makes nice ones. It doesn't mean I'm gonna pick a Benz over a Bugatti just because his company beat them to the punch by a good 100 years.

Being first means very little, and is really only a bragging point for people who should know better than to bring it up in an argument, but unfortunately don't.

Some other companies also had their transforming products, most prominently Sony, with the Walkman, Playstation (which started as a disk drive for the Super Nintendo^^), Asus was the first company to sell what could be called a netbook.

Many others did not and I don't know if they maybe are the most innovative and market transforming company on the "Robots that can shoot people at borders" market, but in computers and smartphones, Samsung is certainly not innovative in the actual sense.

You know, when all is said and done, I don't care about who did what first, who innovated, who didn't, who founded what, who came first. All that matters to me is the quality of product in my hand. I don't have an emotional investment in Apple. I like their stuff, but if someone came out with something better, something that fit my usage style more, I wouldn't have many qualms ditching them. They're just a company to me. Their current product line up is all that matter in the end.

(4) As you already said, many ideas that are now featured in Ultrabooks are probably more bad than good - like notebooks transforming to tablets - and they have already been tried in the past and failed, often due to reasons that are still existant in recent models - a tablet weighing a kilogram or more is just not comfortable to use.

No, they're not. But the dockable tablet/ultrabooks are a great idea. As are more-tablet-than-ultrabook designs like the Surface Pro. They could use some work, but at least they're all trying something different.

Unfortunately, these OEMs can't win when it comes to the hardcore Apple fan. They either claim blatant ripoffs when they do something similar, or pull the old "lipstick on a pig, spaghetti against the way to see what sticks" argument almost as a kneejerk reaction. Then, when Apple does it.

...they didn't copy. They took someone else's idea and did it right.

It's hard to argue with people like this. They think they have taste, but their matter of taste is basically "stuff Apple does". I mean hell, they don't even like anything new Apple comes up with. When the unibody Macbook Pros came out, people hated them, said they looked like cheap PCs. Now they're the standard they always loved. iOS7 is the same way. OH IT LOOKS LIKE CHEAP ANDROID BAWWWW CRAP! Come December, I'll bet you 5 bucks they'll be saying Apple did flat right.

(5)Oh, let me think about that...

You mean the Samsung notebook with a 3200x1800 resolution was totally their idea (the part with "using ultra high resolutions, not to increase the size of the available space on the desktop but to increase sharpness") and had nothing to do with a certain... whaddatheycallit... Retina MacBook Pro released by Apple last year?

Is a resolution bump copying? When Apple only had 15" 1440x900 notebooks, and Asus came out with 1920x1200 15" laptops, were they innovating? I mean obviously they were, because that high res of a screen 3 years ago was a difficult thing to do. But no...they weren't. It's nothing big. Apple coming out with a big jump in resolution is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Oh, they're so innovative. They invented high density displays. Blahhhhh.

And now everyone else coming out with high density displays are copying them. Only Apple could come up with something so clever as....higher resolution.

And of course Samsung is going to try for a similar effective size if they go with a high density display. What do they want? Icons the size of a 3 year olds fingernails? Are easy to click icons an Apple innovation as well?

Or the Mac Pro, which - just like the MacBook Air - will probably be the way that computers will look, work and be built like in 2016.

Look doesn't necessarily mean all computers will be small black tubes - but judging by the creativity of other companies, well...they will probably look exactly the same, but with plastic casing instead of aluminium.
How they work will mean the architecture with powerful CPUs, but GPUs doing the real heavy lifting via OpenCL. (This is not something Apple invented, but they bet all their in the Pro-sector on it)
And how they are built means few replaceable parts, but much better cooling that way.

I seriously doubt that. It's a brilliant piece of engineering to be sure, but it took far too many sacrifices to get a machine that powerful into a case that size. I don't see HP and the like following suit. Not when the market they're aiming towards values upgradability first and foremost over aesthetics and desktop space.

Now if they could make one similar without the sacrifices...hey, that's innovation. You'll call it copying, though.

By the end of the year, we will probably see a new version of the AppleTV, running apps and games (maybe you want to say that Ouya had this idea first, but it's quite obvious that Apple has been working on this for a looong time to get it perfect).

What? A device that hooks up to your television, can run apps and games, but is majorly a TV device? I think Roku's been doing that for awhile now. At least as far as downloadable apps goes, not sure about the games. The Xbox 360 does it too, though not in as small a package.

Even if Apple has been working on it for awhile to get it "perfect", others have still come before, and have products that do the same thing out now. Why aren't you calling them out for copying?

I'll end this post with this...

If I have to hear the word "innovation" one more time, I think I'm gonna snap and punch someone in the head. I'm getting sick of the word. It's abused and over abused to ridiculous extremes.

 

[Gudi]

Since when has the Apple II not been considered a PC? Is having a GUI a necessity before a computer is considered a PC by your standard? If that's the case, then all those IBM PC clones using DOS up until '94 or so wouldn't fit your criteria.

Not my problem. I would never call anything without an mouse pointer a PC. Likewise I would never call anything without an AppStore a smartphone. The AppStore is so fundamental to what an smartphone is, it can not possibly be left out of the equation. Yes, at first the iPhone didn't have one, yet it kicked off the smartphone revolution. No contradiction in my book. At first the Wright brothers could only fly in a straight line, not left or right. I wouldn't call anything an aircraft that couldn't turn left and right, with the only exception of this very first iteration of the concept.

A PC is a personal computer. One cheap enough to be affordable by most, and used in the home. That is the most basic, honest definition of it.

By that definition, the Mac mini is the only PC in Apples portfolio. I wouldn't call any other Mac cheap and affordable. Macs are premium and expensive. No, no, no. A PC must have a GUI. And since we have also Touch-GUIs today, a PC must have a GUI with an indirectly controlled pointing device.

The Macintosh was one of the first home PCs to use a GUI, but it wasn't the first PC. You're arguing in circles, changing definitions to fit your argument.

The Macintosh was the first widely successful home computer with a pointing device and a GUI. And that's my definition of a PC. And it fits perfectly with that PC, I am writing on right now. And it delivers an apt distinction to that other category of mobile computers without a mouse arrow. And then there is this Microsoft Surface thing that combines mouse and touch input and is therefore called a hybrid between PCs and MCs. Your definition of affordable home computer can not explain why an Surface is a hybrid.

You might have a point here, but I'm wondering...why does it matter?

Because when the whole category wouldn't be called PCs and rather MACs, most people would find it much easier to accept, that it indeed was invented by Apple with the Macintosh. It's exactly the reason why I don't like the name of the Ultrabook category. Yes, Intels Ultrabooks also belong to that category the MacBook Air invented. Let's call that whole category Airbooks instead and there will be no ambiguity who had the idea for it. Lets redefine Ultrabooks only as a special kind of Airbooks from Intel, much like Macs are only special PCs made by Apple.

How so? Intel designed and fabbed the chips. I'm sure 95% of it was their work. Who are they ripping off? Apple? Because they asked for it?

An Ultrabook is not a pair of chips. If 95% of the work is done by Intel, why don't they do the last 5% and produce a Ultrabook by themselves? Hell, no one could force them to sell their precious Ultrachips at all. They could make all the Ultrabooks in the world by themself and cash in 100% of that markets profits. Why don't they? Stupid!

The entire point of the PC industry, of which Apple is one part of, is to make devices that are smaller, better, faster than what came before. It's why Netbooks hit so big.

It's called „the race to the bottom“. You missed that point, where they reached the bottom and Netbooks died as a category, while overpriced Macs sell better than ever. Your entire point doesn't match with reality. Netbooks are no big hit, they are going out of production.

Just because Apple leapfrogged a generation of OEM devices and produced something even smaller doesn't allow them to claim ownership of "thin".

Did I say Apple invented thin? I said Apple invented Ultrabooks. I mean Airbooks.

Apple didn't invent the ultrabook. What they did was show it could be profitable, and created the ultrabook market.

So who then invented the Ultrabook ... without a market? Oh you mean Subnotebooks. Like the 11-inch Air, which is - lets face it - not a real Ultrabook.

First off, congratulations on making the most well worded dumb post I've ever read on this forum. That is truly a spectacular achievement.

Not bad for a non-native speaker.

So tell me. If the Mitsubishi Muramasa isn't as "innovative" a device because it didn't sell as well, are Wintel machines better than Macs? In a roundabout way, you're telling me that yes, they are. After all, like you say below, marketing is innovation, lower prices are innovation. Since they were marketed better and sold for cheaper, they must be better, right?

Right, but you missed that point where Apple makes more money with Macs than Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer and Asus combined. Remember I said a market consists of three things, units sold beeing only one. Apple lost the market share battle, but had a big comeback with revenue share and profit share. You can't have high profits with uninnovative products.

Asymco – Escaping PCs

Secondly, that I "made up the silly idea that an ultrabook is defined mainly by its thinness and lightness". Those are some of the defining characteristics of an ultrabook, man. They're thin, light, easy to carry devices that don't make many sacrifices to raw computing power. How can the very definition of a product be..."silly".

And the Mitsubishi Muramasa simply is no full notebook without sacrifices. You left out that performance part last time. Marusama might be thinner but not better.

Also touchscreens are becoming standard in PCs.

Not in PCs over $1000 which make up the lion share of all profits in the PC market. Hence, escaping PCs. If people don't pay extra for it, it's likely no improvement.

So I guess you're gonna tell me it's cuz "the iPad made it popular", right?

No because OEMs are to stupid to make real innovation, that one which actually improves upon products, instead they throw any technology at laptops that is available at the moment, wether it makes the product better or worse. Microsoft is to blame because they are responsibility to make better use of touchscreens in Windows 8. But in an effort to support everything, Windows 8 became good at nothing.

And they do a relatively small amount of R&D.

Wright brothers did almost no research. Just develop, build and test cycles. Building the planes took them the most time. Remember sufficient wing and motor technology already existed. Someone had to form a package of all of it.

Having the most money and being the biggest doesn't necessarily mean you're the absolute best. I mean if that were true, we'd all be using Amigas right now.

Amiga was the best, back when they had the money. Than they stopped being the best and lost all the money. Nokia, Sony ... you name it.

 

[Renzatic]

Not my problem. I would never call anything without an mouse pointer a PC. Likewise I would never call anything without an AppStore a smartphone. The AppStore is so fundamental to what an smartphone is, it can not possibly be left out of the equation. Yes, at first the iPhone didn't have one, yet it kicked off the smartphone revolution. No contradiction in my book. At first the Wright brothers could only fly in a straight line, not left or right. I wouldn't call anything an aircraft that couldn't turn left and right, with the only exception of this very first iteration of the concept.

That's the problem, you're arguing your definition of what a PC, not the commonly accepted term.

And quit with the Wright brothers, please. It serves no purpose other than illustrating the giant leaps you're willing to take with your logic.

By that definition, the Mac mini is the only PC in Apples portfolio. I wouldn't call any other Mac cheap and affordable. Macs are premium and expensive. No, no, no. A PC must have a GUI. And since we have also Touch-GUIs today, a PC must have a GUI with an indirectly controlled pointing device.

What I mean by widely affordable is that any family could conceivably buy one. Mom and dad couldn't buy a mainframe. Wouldn't have room for it, for one. They could buy a $1500-$2000 machine, though.

The Macintosh was the first widely successful home computer with a pointing device and a GUI. And that's my definition of a PC. And it fits perfectly with that PC, I am writing on right now. And it delivers an apt distinction to that other category of mobile computers without a mouse arrow.

Actually, the Macintosh was only a modest success for Apple, and was mostly used by businesses. It was the first affordable machine with a mouse and GUI though, I'll give it that.

But like I said in my previous post, first doesn't mean much. And by your definition of innovation in your previous post, it's success (or relative lack thereof) means it doesn't matter in the long run.

And then there is this Microsoft Surface thing that combines mouse and touch input and is therefore called a hybrid between PCs and MCs.

Well...we don't know what the Surface Pro is. I call it an Ultratablettopbridbook. Cuz that fits.

Your definition of affordable home computer can not explain why an Surface is a hybrid.

...swuh?

Because when the whole category wouldn't be called PCs and rather MACs, most people would find it much easier to accept, that it indeed was invented by Apple with the Macintosh.

See first response. The Mac wasn't the first PC simply because it fits the criteria for what you consider a PC.

It's exactly the reason why I don't like the name of the Ultrabook category. Yes, Intels Ultrabooks also belong to that category the MacBook Air invented. Let's call that whole category Airbooks instead and there will be no ambiguity who had the idea for it. Lets redefine Ultrabooks only as a special kind of Airbooks from Intel, much like Macs are only special PCs made by Apple.

Eh. Whatever floats your boat.

An Ultrabook is not a pair of chips. If 95% of the work is done by Intel, why don't they do the last 5% and produce a Ultrabook by themselves? Hell, no one could force them to sell their precious Ultrachips at all. They could make all the Ultrabooks in the world by themself and cash in 100% of that markets profits. Why don't they? Stupid!

Why doesn't Apple build a bunch of fabrication plants and make ARM chips themselves? Probably because there'd be too much overhead involved, and it'd interfere with what they do best. Intel makes chips, Apple manufactures computers.

It's called „the race to the bottom“. You missed that point, where they reached the bottom and Netbooks died as a category, while overpriced Macs sell better than ever. Your entire point doesn't match with reality.

The quoted has nothing to do with the race to the bottom.

Netbooks are no big hit, they are going out of production.

Now? You're right. They've been supplanted by tablets. Just a few years back they were decent sellers though.

Did I say Apple invented thin? I said Apple invented Ultrabooks. I mean Airbooks.

And what is the "airbook"? A thin laptop. There isn't much special about it beyond the size. What criteria would you place upon another OEM to have them create a thin laptop that isn't an "airbook"?

What would it look like? What components would it have inside of it? How thin would it have to be?

So who then invented the Ultrabook ... without a market? Oh you mean Subnotebooks. Like the 11-inch Air, which is - lets face it - not a real Ultrabook.

Yeah it is. It uses the same Intel CPU, Intel integrated GPU, and Intel motherboard as every other Ultrabook out there. It's an ultrabook in everything but name.

Not bad for a non-native speaker.

Eloquence aside, that isn't something I'd be proud of.

Right, but you missed that point where Apple makes more money with Macs than Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer and Asus combined. Remember I said a market consists of three things, units sold beeing only one. Apple lost the market share battle, but had a big comeback with revenue share and profit share.

What does revenue have to do with anything? It's a bragging point, not an indicator of quality.

You can't have high profits with uninnovative products.

So was Apple a copycat company until the advent of the iDevices? Apparently so, since high profits directly equal to quality and innovation according to you.

And the Mitsubishi Muramasa simply is no full notebook without sacrifices. You left out that performance part last time. Marusama might be thinner but not better.

It also came out in 2004, the Air in 2008. Of course a computer that comes out later will have better specs and performance. You're not giving credit where credit is due. In fact, you're making up entirely arbitrary reasons not to do so.

Let's not forget that the 2008 Air had some rather glaring issues with quality and design. Like the fact it got hot enough to sear its shape into your lap if you left it there for long enough.

The Air line in general didn't become truly good until 2010.

No because OEMs are to stupid to make real innovation, that one which actually improves upon products, instead they throw any technology at laptops that is available at the moment, wether it makes the product better or worse.

You're tempting me to abuse the rolleyes emote, man. Don't make me do that. Don't make me become that person.

...once again proving my point that "innovation", that oft abused word I'm getting sick of, is entirely subjective. One man's amazing feature is another man's dumb pointless crap.

As for the rest? Blah. You have no point. No argument beyond an overly verbose take on the usual "Apple is good and everyone else is bad because I said so" spiel I see so much around here with some weird Wright Bros. stuff thrown in for flavor.

 

[Gudi]

I would hardly call ultrabooks an "entirely new form factor". It's literally a laptop...but thinner. One that wasn't even the thinnest at release. That takes talent to do, sure, but not much forward thinking. Like I said previously, the entire computer industry has been working towards smaller, thinner, and more powerful practically since its inception.

You do realize that the MacBook Air is not smaller, just thinner and lighter? When introducing the Air Steve Jobs made a pretty big deal about the „same-sized“ keyboard even in the 11-inch model. At that time I couldn't care less about something not changing in its size, and couldn't see it as an important feature.

But that was kind of the point that made the difference between an Airbook and a Subnotebook and created a new category of devices. Airbooks are not Subnotebooks, the are like you said „literally a notebook...but thinner“. And thats what gives them value. Because they can fully replace a bigger heavier notebook, they are something totally new.

The entire computer industry wasn't on its way to invent Airbooks by itself. On the contrary the industry had already decided, that it was not important to retain keyboard sizes in lighter devices. Changing the size in one dimension but not in the others was the innovation, no one thought or cared about before.

They needed Apple to show them the way.

 

[Gudi]

Now? You're right. They've been supplanted by tablets. Just a few years back they were decent sellers though.

By decent sellers you mean units, not revenue or profits. Even before the iPad netbooks made no money.

Acer CEO: We’re Going to Stop Selling Cheap, Unprofitable Crap

Netbooks died because of lag of usefulness. First iPads were way more expensive than Netbooks. Airbooks are still way more expensive than Netbooks. Cheapness and Thinness are not values in and of its own. To be cheaper doesn't make a product better, if it looses all its usefulness on the way. Airbooks are just as useful as notebooks just thinner. Netbooks are not nearly as useful as notebooks just cheaper.

Eloquence aside, that isn't something I'd be proud of.

I'm a Berliner. A certain arrogance lies in our nature. And that's good so.

What does revenue have to do with anything? It's a bragging point, not an indicator of quality.

Profit is a metric to mesure added value. If your meal tastes worse than the ingredients you used, you're probably not a good cook. But if you can sell it for ten times the production costs, than you make good quality cuisine.

So was Apple a copycat company until the advent of the iDevices? Apparently so, since high profits directly equal to quality and innovation according to you.

Apple contributes considerably more value to the world, since they started making iDevices. Although it wasn't a small company before.

Let's not forget that the 2008 Air had some rather glaring issues with quality and design. Like the fact it got hot enough to sear its shape into your lap if you left it there for long enough.

The way Apple creates value is to iterate on one basic design, without changing the idea behind the product. The 2008 Airs quality doesn't matter much when judging the concept behind this form factor.

The Air line in general didn't become truly good until 2010.

Still a lot of what makes the Air appealing, was already present within the very first model. Thin and light, right there from the beginning.

Once again proving my point that "innovation", that oft abused word I'm getting sick of, is entirely subjective. One man's amazing feature is another man's dumb pointless crap.

You can increase your world view objectivity by measuring whether people are actually willing to pay more for your product because of its supposed to be innovations or not. The customer is the one to judge with his wallet.

As for the rest? Blah. You have no point. No argument beyond an overly verbose take on the usual "Apple is good and everyone else is bad because I said so" spiel.

Not because I said so, but because Apple is making 45% of worldwide PC operating profits and everyone else combined is good for the remaining 55%. Without being the most innovative PC maker in the world, these numbers wouldn't be possible. Whats your argument again, besides „Blah. I don't believe you.“?

 

[garirry]

Netbooks died because of lag of usefulness. First iPads were way more expensive than Netbooks. Airbooks are still way more expensive than Netbooks. Cheapness and Thinness are not values in and of its own. To be cheaper doesn't make a product better, if it looses all its usefulness on the way.

Yes, my dad has an old netbook he brought 3 years ago, it was cheap, it costed 300$, and OH GOD, it's horrible. It's slow and almost unusable with his horrible Intel Atom processor, and I hope they will forget about that crap and start with normal Intel Core processors like the MBA does. Or just stick with iPads.

I totally agree with you.

 

[SILen(e]

Yeah, and Karl Benz made the first car, and the company he founded still makes nice ones. It doesn't mean I'm gonna pick a Benz over a Bugatti just because his company beat them to the punch by a good 100 years.

It becomes important when "Apple didn't do it first, XY did!" is an argument that's brought up again and again.

I already mentioned it here before, but about one or two years ago, Apple sued HTC for infringement of a patent that had something to do with highlighting telephone numbers on websites, making them click-to-call.

I noticed how someone saying that that was ridiculous, because he owned a phone by Nokia in 2003 which did also did that feature, so Apple of course couldn't have invented that feature for the iPhone (well, they could have patented it in 2002, but let's just ignore that possibility).

But he ignored, that that patent wasn't granted to Apple during development of the iPhone, but instead in 1996, the patented mechanism was invented for Mac OS or perhaps even the Newton.

This thread is about iOS7 and again, many people have claimed that Apple ripped of Android or Windows Phone 8 by implementing features of those OS'es into iOS 7.

But like the one who claimed that Apple couldn't have invented that feature about highlighting telephone numbers, because his Nokia had that before the iPhone ignored that Apple existed decades before the iPhone, those claiming that Apple stole features or looks from Android or Windows Phone ignore that Apple was the first to market with this new type of touch-centered mobile operating system.
That alone will have shaped how Android looks and works now much more than Android shaped how iOS looks and works.
Apple has a long history of mobile devices, one of them the first device that was refered to as PDA, the Newton.

So while many people claim that Apple stole for example the design of the multitasking menu in iOS 7 from Android or Windows Phone, while more knowledgeable people will maybe claim that Apple stole it from WebOS - those who have actually used iOS once will know that the way the new multitasking menu looks is just like the menu where you were managing tabs in mobile Safari on iPhone. And no, it's not something Apple aded after they saw the nice "Cards" management in WebOS (which was developed by people who worked for Apple in the past) - it was visible when Steve Jobs announced and showed the iPhone in January 2007.

People who want to shout "Apple stole from..." should at first take at least 5 minutes to do research.

But they won't... they never will.

You can't change an opinion with...facts.

Netbooks died because of lag of usefulness. First iPads were way more expensive than Netbooks. Airbooks are still way more expensive than Netbooks. Cheapness and Thinness are not values in and of its own. To be cheaper doesn't make a product better, if it looses all its usefulness on the way. Airbooks are just as useful as notebooks just thinner. Netbooks are not nearly as useful as notebooks just cheaper.

A netbook was just a notebook that was too slow and had a screen resolution that was too low.
And they were also so very cheaply built, with much more care taken to make it cheaper than to make it GOOD or at least GOOD ENOUGH.

The moment i got my iPhone was the moment from which on i used my netbook much less.

The iPad was awesome, because it wasn't thaaat much more expensive than a netbook, but has awesome built quality.
Much better screen, much better battery life, better portability and also the most important reason: Apps that were developed for the device, with an eye on performance.

Yeah, you could use all the Windows XP programs on a netbook - but often it was just a very bad experience.
Windows programs were meant to run on 19" screens, with real keyboards and with much better performance, not on tiny screens with bad keyboards and barely enough performance to run the OS without hiccups.

 

[kdarling]

I already mentioned it here before, but about one or two years ago, Apple sued HTC for infringement of a patent that had something to do with highlighting telephone numbers on websites, making them click-to-call.

I noticed how someone saying that that was ridiculous, because he owned a phone by Nokia in 2003 which did also did that feature, so Apple of course couldn't have invented that feature for the iPhone (well, they could have patented it in 2002, but let's just ignore that possibility).

But he ignored, that that patent wasn't granted to Apple during development of the iPhone, but instead in 1996, the patented mechanism was invented for Mac OS or perhaps even the Newton.

Borland Sidekick had phone number recognition in the 1980s. It could find one in a document and even dial it for you using your modem. See page 29 of their 1985 manual.

Heck, it was listed in the features for the Mac version. Yes, that's right. Apple computers used a third party program that dialed numbers from text, years before Apple filed for their own patent about finding data in text.

So while many people claim that Apple stole for example the design of the multitasking menu in iOS 7 from Android or Windows Phone, while more knowledgeable people will maybe claim that Apple stole it from WebOS - those who have actually used iOS once will know that the way the new multitasking menu looks is just like the menu where you were managing tabs in mobile Safari on iPhone. And no, it's not something Apple aded after they saw the nice "Cards" management in WebOS (which was developed by people who worked for Apple in the past) - it was visible when Steve Jobs announced and showed the iPhone in January 2007.

A similar preview was available as Visual Tasktips for Windows a year or two before that.

There's not a lot of new ideas under the sun. The problem is, Apple has the manpower and money and time to keep seeking patents like this, which should've been thrown out long ago.

People who want to shout "Apple stole from..." should at first take at least 5 minutes to do research.

Obviously five minutes wasn't deep enough

 

[Renzatic]

The customer is the one to judge with his wallet.

Not because I said so, but because Apple is making 45% of worldwide PC operating profits and everyone else combined is good for the remaining 55%. Without being the most innovative PC maker in the world, these numbers wouldn't be possible. Whats your argument again, besides „Blah. I don't believe you.“?

Like I said previous, quality and innovation have literally zilch to do with sales, and the only reason you're bringing it up is because Apple is currently quite profitable. All it means is that Apple has a business model that works well for them, and they sell their products at a higher margin than most others.

To abuse an already tired analogy, Ford, Nissan, and Honda makes more money than Mercedes Benz, than Tesla, than Bugatti. Does that mean they're better cars? That consumers are speaking with their wallets and buying quality?

No. You'll contradict yourself yet again and say they're cheaper, which is why most people buy them. Price is an innovation as well, you'll say. As is marketing.

Still a lot of what makes the Air appealing, was already present within the very first model. Thin and light, right there from the beginning.

So...

A market is defined by quantities, revenues and profits. You made up the silly idea that an ultrabook is defined mainly by its thinness and lightness.

I thought you said that ultrabooks...ahem, "airbooks" weren't defined solely by their thinness and lightness. Rather, it was their "innovation" that sold, despite the fact that the Vaio x505 and Muramasa were thinner, lighter notebooks out 4 years before the Air.

So why didn't they sell?

Because they were too expensive, not because they weren't "innovative" enough. The Air became popular in 2010 when Apple released their $999 rev. The 2008 model probably made a modest amount of money, but nowhere near what the line is now.

People want affordable as much as they want "innovative". The largest leaps in technology, the greatest advances in "innovation" rarely ever come out at an affordable price point. That doesn't make them useless, you have to have someone burning a trail along the cutting edge, but they're never destined to be consumer success stories. That's for other companies to do later. To take their designs, their components, and make them cheaper and more efficient, which is an innovation in and of itself. This is what the Air did. It took Apple 4 years to make a similar design, 6 years before they could make a profit off of it.

Everything is innovative in some shape form or fashion. From big accomplishments to small. It is what it is, not what you want it to be so you can win an argument. The Muramasa, the Vaio, they were equally as innovative as the Air.

Profits and popularity are not by themselves indicators of innovation. Sometimes the best products cost too much, or don't have that special amount of mindshare and word of mouth to move it off shelves. Sometimes people even buy absolute crap, and make it wildly popular. The consumer market is a fickle, uneven beast of a thing that does as it willst. Using it as an indicator of quality is, once again, proof of your ignorance and willingness to ignore facts in an effort to spin everything ridiculously Pro-Apple.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

That's the problem, you're arguing your definition of what a PC, not the commonly accepted term.

And quit with the Wright brothers, please. It serves no purpose other than illustrating the giant leaps you're willing to take with your logic.

I completely agree. I had a Vic-20 and a C64 as my first personal computers and they didn't come with MICE. There was one available for the C64, but I didn't have one until I bought an Amiga 500 in 1989. The first Dos machines didn't all have mice either so it's a RIDICULOUS statement that guy is making about what constitutes a "PC". PC simply means personal computer, nothing else. A Mac is always a PC (same for an Amiga, AtariST, etc.), but a PC isn't necessarily a Mac. People have come to INCORRECTLY use PC to mean Windows or in the past, Dos machine, but that doesn't change what it stands for.

 

[potyec]

This topic makes me laugh


IOS7 Still big ****tt and i will stay on iOS6

 

[Gudi]

To abuse an already tired analogy, Ford, Nissan, and Honda makes more money than Mercedes Benz, than Tesla, than Bugatti. Does that mean they're better cars? That consumers are speaking with their wallets and buying quality?

Do your homework! Mercedes Benz is slowly being killed by BMW and Audi. Ford, Nissan, Honda are all in the race to the bottom. They might have the means to differentiate, but they choose not to. Tesla and Bugatti are not even in the race, they specialized in a niche to avoid competition. The most profitable automaker in the world is Volkswagen. They have the high volumes and the high prices. They sell many cars, because many people find them fitting for their usecase. And they sell them at a good price, because customers are willing to pay a premium for the quality provided.

How Volkswagen Is Run Like No Other Car Company

However the car analogy doesn't work with phones, because Google gives away Android for free and no carmaker could do that. Still Samsung sells more phones, but Apple makes more profits with phones. Toyota sells more cars, but Volkswagen makes more profit with cars. There you have your quality voting with wallets.

I thought you said that ultrabooks...ahem, "airbooks" weren't defined solely by their thinness and lightness.

What defines an Ultrabook™ in one of its three specifications is entirely up to Intel. First of all you have to buy a lot of Intel chips. What defines an Airbook is something completely different. When conceiving the MacBook Air, Apple clearly had some special goals. Valuing weight and battery life much higher than cpu and graphics power. That's why you thought the MacBook Air didn't became great until 2010, when in fact it was great from the beginning for the customer group it targeted, people always on the road.

With gaining power and shrinking price the target group for the MacBook Air was growing. Yet the MacBook Air still doesn't want to be the most powerful notebook you can buy. So it was obvious that this years refresh wouldn't bring retina screens and maxed out graphics, but rather longer battery life. True portability in a notebook you carry around all day every day, that always was the goal behind Airbooks. In German we say „Schlepptop“ (which might be translated as „Hefttops“) for mocking notebooks that were unpleasantly heavy. Airbooks were invented to end that era.

Rather, it was their "innovation" that sold, despite the fact that the Vaio x505 and Muramasa were thinner, lighter notebooks out 4 years before the Air. So why didn't they sell?

Because no one in his right mind would pay 3.330 Euro for a windows machine. It's the race to the bottom. You can not differentiate on a platform, where you are always in competition with 330 Euro netbooks running the same OS. The entry price for MacBooks has always been just under 1000 Coins, and this price was already justified with all the features that are unique to OSX.

Still in the beginning the Air was less powerful and more expensive than a 13" MacBook Pro with the same software features. You really had to be keen on light and thin to buy one. I wasn't. Later the Air replaced the entry level MacBook in pricing and light and thin became a free bonus to sweeten the deal and settle with a low power ULV chip. That was when Airbooks became the new standard form factor for personal computers.

On the windows side of things it was Intel forcing manufacturers with its Ultrabook requirements to meet at least some minimum size and battery life targets. Otherwise these features would be lost in the race to the bottom. Where as Apple always tries to provide as much battery life as possible in its MacBook Air line, PC makers deliver only the minimum required to get the Ultrabook brand.

Because they were too expensive, not because they weren't "innovative" enough. The Air became popular in 2010 when Apple released their $999 rev. The 2008 model probably made a modest amount of money, but nowhere near what the line is now.

Every price is too high for a windows laptop, because there is so much competition among hardware makers. Apple products are only in competition with other Apple products which deliver the same features for a lower price. Besides that there is no price competition in the Apple camp. Apple prices remain steady for years until Apple decides, that some new model is so unique in its innovative new features that they can charge anything. And that was the first MacBook Air in 2008.

You have to have someone burning a trail along the cutting edge, but they're never destined to be consumer success stories. That's for other companies to do later. To take their designs, their components, and make them cheaper and more efficient, which is an innovation in and of itself.

Refinement is not innovation. Only if you find a totally new way, no one has ever gone before, to make something cheaper and more efficient. Than you are innovating. Everything else is just development.

This is what the Air did. It took Apple 4 years to make a similar design, 6 years before they could make a profit off of it.

So first, I'm sure every single Air sold made a healthy profit much higher than the industry average. Second the Air is no where near a similar design to anything ever made in the PC world. It's not. It's a class of its own.

Everything is innovative in some shape form or fashion.

It's not. You have to be first. But since every computer system is made up of so many components and features, it's hard to tell which ones in their combination created this new kind of computers. No one can say fore sure, how many millimeter in thickness, how much weight in grams, how many hours of battery live and how much seconds in startup time, constitute an Airbook? Nonetheless everyone knows which one was the machine widely considered to have done the trick of flying first. Maybe its all only perception and appreciation.

From big accomplishments to small. It is what it is, not what you want it to be so you can win an argument. The Muramasa, the Vaio, they were equally as innovative as the Air.

When our discussion ends, Murasama will be the name of a famous swordsmith and an infamous notebook. Only the names of Brothers Wright and MacBook Air will remain.

Profits and popularity are not by themselves indicators of innovation.

They are. Ever head of Gustave Whitehead, inventor of the powered flying machine?

Sometimes the best products cost too much, or don't have that special amount of mindshare and word of mouth to move it off shelves.

If you fail to win the mindshare, you have failed to innovate. It's that easy.

Sometimes people even buy absolute crap, and make it wildly popular. The consumer market is a fickle, uneven beast of a thing that does as it willst. Using it as an indicator of quality is, once again, proof of your ignorance and willingness to ignore facts in an effort to spin everything ridiculously Pro-Apple.

Listen I said, the ability to make money is an indicator of the creation of value, not quality or innovation. Windows PCs are cheap crap, yet they are more valuable to use than pen and paper. A Mac is of higher quality than a PC and provides unique improvements, thats why it makes even more profit per unit. Higher profits come from higher prices. The stark difference in price and willingness to pay the higher price, for two things that are supposed to be interchangeable, is the indicator for higher quality. Do you get it now?

 

[Renzatic]

The rest of your post is random tangents that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, and constant goalpost moving to fit your argument. I will comment on this, though...

Refinement is not innovation. Only if you find a totally new way, no one has ever gone before, to make something cheaper and more efficient. Than you are innovating. Everything else is just development.

First of all, refinement is innovation. Innovation is improvement as much as it is invention. It's doing something better as much as doing something new. Going by your strict terms of the word, Apple wouldn't be an innovative company, considering they rarely, if ever, invent new technologies or ways of interaction. They take what's been done elsewhere, combine them into a single, sleek package (I've said this a lot, I know) and popularize them for the consumer market. They are the stylish, ergonomic focused refiners of the computer industry.

They don't make new things, they make new things easy to use.

Plus the Air wouldn't be an innovative product by your definition because the Vaio x505 and Muramasa were thinner laptops that came out 4 years ahead of it. The Air, which was a faster, better performing thin laptop, would be a refinement, and therefore not innovative.

edit: I want to reply to this because the contradiction is too hilarious and obvious to ignore

However the car analogy doesn't work with phones, because Google gives away Android for free and no carmaker could do that. Still Samsung sells more phones, but Apple makes more profits with phones. Toyota sells more cars, but Volkswagen makes more profit with cars. There you have your quality voting with wallets.

Profits don't have much to do with your argument here, man. Toyota selling more cars means more people are buying Toyotas, which means that people are voting for Toyota with their wallets. Considering that Toyotas and Volkswagen sell their vehicles for roughly the same price on the market, then the only thing Volkswagen making more money means is that they're either more efficient, have a better business model, or they're cutting costs somewhere. Profits by themselves are hardly an indicator of quality.

 

[Gudi]

The first Dos machines didn't all have mice either so it's a RIDICULOUS statement that guy is making about what constitutes a "PC".

Because running MS-DOS defines what a PC is. Right?

PC simply means personal computer, nothing else.

Because PC is an acronym for Personal Computer formed from the initial letters. For an non circular definition lets see Wikipedia again:

„A personal computer (PC) is a general-purpose computer, whose size, capabilities, and original sale price makes it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end-user with no intervening computer operator.“ (Wiki)

In my interpretation of useful for individuals and usable without intervention a graphical user interface is an absolute necessity for an overwhelming majority of end-users.

The rise and fall of personal computing

Thats a logarithmic scala, because computers without a GUI never sold more than 1 million units per year, they would dwarf next to computers with a GUI which sold ten-times and hundred-times that much. Sales numbers speak volumes about affordability, usefulness and usability in the eyes of average customers.

A Mac is always a PC (same for an Amiga, AtariST, etc.), but a PC isn't necessarily a Mac. People have come to INCORRECTLY use PC to mean Windows or in the past, Dos machine, but that doesn't change what it stands for.

In a world where over 95% of all personal computers run windows variants its fine to use PC to mean Windows, cause most times it means exactly that. And despite Macs are more personal computers than Windows PCs, considering how useful and usable they are for endusers, that term is rarely used to describe Macs.

The same is true for tablets. When we speak about iPads we don't use the term tablets. But when we try to describe what a tablet is, we list a lot of use cases that are predominantly most and best fulfilled with iPads. The iPad defined what we think of tablets, like the Macintosh defined what we think of PCs. Microsoft even licensed the MacOS GUI for Windows 1.0 so there is not even a question who invented the PC.

 

[Renzatic]

Snip

Much sound and fury, signifying nothing. Strawman arguments, quotes taken out of context, discussions that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, assumptions based upon the flimsiest of data, personal preference being regarded as rock solid fact...

You obviously didn't do debate club in high school.

 

[Gudi]

They don't make new things, they make new things easy to use.

If it is easy to use now and never was before, than it is a new thing. The who point of personal computers is to make personal computing easier. It could be done before with workstations, it just wasn't that easy. And since easier is better, it's also an improvement and therefore innovation. If a new technology comes into being without providing an improvement, it's not innovation.

Lets choose an example, ultra high resolution screens versus retina displays. Ultra high resolution is a new technology, but it is not automatically useful for PC monitors, because without software support text would be tiny and unreadable. Apple had to rewrite the whole OS and all of its Apps to create the very first MacBook Pro with Retina Display. The price of these machines is much higher than the price of an notebook plus the price of an ultra high resolution screen. Thats because the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

Retina is a huge improvement because everything looks sharper. But this is only achieved in the way the parts are put together by Apple. The system is more than the sum of its parts, because it has characteristics none of the single parts had. The value is created within Apple. And Apple can treat the screen as an mere component. So you have an ultrabook with an ultra screen? Good luck with your software support.

Considering that Toyotas and Volkswagen sell their vehicles for roughly the same price on the market, then the only thing Volkswagen making more money means is that they're either more efficient, have a better business model, or they're cutting costs somewhere.

So you didn't bother to read the link. Because of Ignorance? Let me recap.

„VW looks like a productivity basket case. Any efficiency expert would tell you that VW is too vertically integrated, has too much overlap and duplication, and has way too many brands. VW, meanwhile, keeps growing bigger, stronger and more profitable.“

So no, this is not your typical cost cutting story. Volkswagen Group is the eighth largest employer in the world. 549,300 full-time employees building only 8.5 million vehicles. Since I know you don't follow links.

„Dividing the revenue by units sold means the average price of a car and van across the VW Group in 2012 was €19,606. Dividing the profit by units sold means the average profit per car or van was €987. The profit margin per car and van sold is 5%.“

Toyota is the one who sells millions of inexpensive cars and makes a profit by further and further increasing efficiency by means of Kaizen in the Toyota Production System. They are in a frenzy of waste reduction. Volkswagen is the opposite. Every brand is doing it all over again.

„All of VW's brands (VW, Audi, Seat, Skoda, Bentley, Lamborghini, Ducati, Porsche, Bugatti, MAN, Scania, and VW Commercial) are treated as stand-alone companies. They have their own boards of directors, their own profit & loss statements, and their own annual reports. They even have their own separate design, engineering and manufacturing facilities.“

One thing leads to another. More independence > more efforts > more uniqueness > more value > higher prices > higher margins > higher profits.

... assumptions based upon the flimsiest of data ...

The data covers every major computing platform sold since 1975. My conclusions derived from that data might be wrong. The data is rock solid and the opposite of flimsy. And since you use no data to backup your point. I'm fine with it. And there are no such things as debate clubs in Germany.

 

[Renzatic]

If it is easy to use now and never was before, than it is a new thing.

No, it's refinement. And refinement, according to you, isn't innovation.

The who point of personal computers is to make personal computing easier. It could be done before with workstations, it just wasn't that easy. And since easier is better, it's also an improvement and therefore innovation. If a new technology comes into being without providing an improvement, it's not innovation.

No...well...yeah, actually. You got this right. Except for the fact that it completely negates your previous argument that innovation is something brand new, anything else is development.

But don't fret, you saved face by redefining what "brand new" means.

Lets choose an example, ultra high resolution screens versus retina displays. Ultra high resolution is a new technology, but it is not automatically useful for PC monitors, because without software support text would be tiny and unreadable.

That's why text is vector based. Infinitely scaleable. Also, don't use ultra high resolution monitors vs. retina. They're all high PPI monitors. Retina is just a marketing term.

Apple had to rewrite the whole OS and all of its Apps to create the very first MacBook Pro with Retina Display. The price of these machines is much higher than the price of an notebook plus the price of an ultra high resolution screen. Thats because the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

Actually, they didn't rewrite the entire OS to support retina display, they just made their icons four times as large.

Retina is a huge improvement because everything looks sharper. But this is only achieved in the way the parts are put together by Apple.

No, a sharper, more clearly defined image is pretty much a given with a resolution bump.

The system is more than the sum of its parts, because it has characteristics none of the single parts had. The value is created within Apple. And Apple can treat the screen as an mere component.

...wuh?

So you didn't bother to read the link. Because of Ignorance? Let me recap.

„VW looks like a productivity basket case. Any efficiency expert would tell you that VW is too vertically integrated, has too much overlap and duplication, and has way too many brands. VW, meanwhile, keeps growing bigger, stronger and more profitable.“

So they're an efficiently run company, hence why they're able to net higher profits than their higher selling competitors.

...but this has absolutely zilch to do with innovation automatically being successful with the buying public. Nothing. Nada. Zero. You have no point here.

So no, this is not your typical cost cutting story. Volkswagen Group is the eighth largest employer in the world. 549,300 full-time employees building only 8.5 million vehicles. Since I know you don't follow links.

Once again, what does this have to do with teh subject at hand?

„Dividing the revenue by units sold means the average price of a car and van across the VW Group in 2012 was €19,606. Dividing the profit by units sold means the average profit per car or van was €987. The profit margin per car and van sold is 5%.“

YES! They are a well run business. BUT THIS IS AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE DISCUSSION THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INNOVATION! They make more money because they're able to produce cars with a lower overhead, not because the public rewards innovators.

More independence > more efforts > more uniqueness > more value > higher prices > higher margins > higher profits. One thing leads to another.
The data spans every major computer platform sold since 1975. My conclusions derived from that data might be wrong, the data isn't. And since you use no data to backup your point. I'm fine with it.

Admittedly, I haven't linked to a pie graph yet showing the profound effects Eli Whitney's cotton gin had on the computer industry. I guess you've got me there.

 

[Gudi]

So they're an efficiently run company, hence why they're able to net higher profits than their higher selling competitors.

No they are not. They are run with a focus on product quality, ignoring efficiency completely. Much like Apple this allows them to charge more per car and make the highest profit, even when they are not the market share leader.

...but this has absolutely zilch to do with innovation automatically being successful with the buying public. Nothing. Nada. Zero. You have no point here.

Its not my point, it was your point. You brought up the car analogy to proof that quality and profits are not connected. You failed.

Once again, what does this have to do with teh subject at hand?

Number of employees needed per car made, is a metric of efficiency. Volkswagen is maybe the least productive carmaker in the world. They make very few cars compared to the enormous size of their workforce. But they use this overhead to offer a lot of very different premium brands, which allows them to aviod price competition with competitors that can not offer this variety of high quality cars.

YES! They are a well run business. BUT THIS IS AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE DISCUSSION THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INNOVATION! They make more money because they're able to produce cars with a lower overhead, not because the public rewards innovators.

No, not with a lower overhead, with a bigger overhead. Selling at a higher average price, making more profit per car than anyone else. Your lag of knowledge about the car industry makes me sad. Compared to more complicated business models in the computer industry, with its free software giveaways and indirect payoffs, cars are very easy to understand. If you don't get cars, you are a hopeless case. Some people never learn.

 

[Oletros]

In my interpretation of useful for individuals and usable without intervention a graphical user interface is an absolute necessity for an overwhelming majority of end-users.

Yes, in your interpretation, not what reality is

Thats a logarithmic scala, because computers without a GUI never sold more than 1 million units per year, they would dwarf next to computers with a GUI which sold ten-times and hundred-times that much. Sales numbers speak volumes about affordability, usefulness and usability in the eyes of average customers.

A curious interpretation, what that graphic shows is the same that shows the growth of a technology when its price decreases. It has nothing to do with having a GUI or not