Apple and RadioShack?

[madmaxmedia]

The only reason Apple was superior was because of the RISC platform.

http://arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html

In the end, I'm not calling the Athlon or P6 "RISC," but I'm also not calling them "CISC" either. The same goes for the G3 and G4, in reverse. Indeed, in light of what we now know about the the historical development of RISC and CISC, and the problems that each approach tried to solve, it should now be apparent that both terms are equally nonsensical when applied to the G3, G4, MIPS, P6, or K7. In today's technological climate, the problems are different, so the solutions are different. Current architectures are a hodge-podge of features that embody a variety of trends and design approaches, some RISC, some CISC, and some neither. In the post-RISC era, it no longer makes sense to divide the world into RISC and CISC camps. Whatever "RISC vs. CISC" debate that once went on has long been over, and what must now follow is a more nuanced and far more interesting discussion that takes each platform--hardware and software, ISA and implementation--on its own merits.

 

[madmaxmedia]

It's quite obvious this is a pure business decision and Apple has just said "screw you!" to all the people who have believed their negative x86 campaign for so many years.

Pure business decision? I don't think people seem to really know what that means. Apple is a business, and is in the business of making computers. The better their computers, the more money they make. So in their judgement, they will be more successful with x86.

Have you considered that the negative x86 campaign was also one of those "business decisions"?

 

[fordlemon]

Pure business decision? I don't think people seem to really know what that means. Apple is a business, and is in the business of making computers. The better their computers, the more money they make. So in their judgement, they will be more successful with x86.

Have you considered that the negative x86 campaign was also one of those "business decisions"?

I'm sure the negative x86 adds (still to this day) are a business decision. Those, however were true. x86 is old technology. The pipeline is limited, that is why video editing and multi track audio recording sucks on a x86 machine. The bandwidth just doesn't exist. Woz has been highly noted about the inability of the x86 platform and why the RISC architecture is far superior. Also, Apple (in Woz words) would never become just another slave to Intel. Now they are, for pure profit only. It's that simple. They use to make good machines now they will make Radio Shack computers, aka Commodore 64.. "The thrill is gone"

 

[azrussell132]

Any decision by Apple that increases the sales of the iPod are positive. The more money Apple makes the more we get new and better products. I am a VERY infrequent Radio Shack customer but this was a very smart decision for Apple.

 

[FlakAttack56]

No name and address

They have not asked that in about 2 YEARS..... just your ZIP code now.

Actually, it's been three years ago this month that the Shack stopped asking for name/address. Since that time, other retailers have stepped up their total disregard for our personal privacy, asking for e-mail addresses, phone numbers, even asking for fingerprints on checks in some cases. I'll gladly give up a zip code, because that's very generic.

 

[twoodcc]

i think this is a good move for apple. expands their products to more people, and therefore will increase business. which will help everybody in the long run

 

[mongoos150]

Wow!! Thats awesome! I would love to see Macs at RadioShack!!!

You stand in the minority...

I agree with most - RS is a cheap, shoddy store with overzealous, undereducated and rudely-annoying associates. Part of buying a Mac is the Apple store experience, yes I realize many people don't buy their Macs at an Apple store, but the experience at a RS is quite contrary to any positive buying experience I've had anywhere else, it will make the product less appealing - I can't believe Apple would do this. I sincerely hope not.