I love Apple and their products, but yeah, I think they'll become far more evil than Microsoft was. Jobs is not the kind of guy that I would want to have that much power and clout.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Weekend Notes: Woz and Apple Firing, iPads in Israel, No Mac App Store, German Airline Offer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I love Apple and their products, but yeah, I think they'll become far more evil than Microsoft was. Jobs is not the kind of guy that I would want to have that much power and clout.
To everyone who is curious, I believe Woz's official capacity with Apple is as a Consultant. Now, how often he is consulted is questionable, but I believe that is how he received his permanent connection.
For those saying that Apple is some evil corporate entity, most of you are here because you feel that Apple consistently creates a superior or innovative product. Do you feel that if they were to allow any developer to muck up some code and sell it to the Apple consumer base it would still be as desirable? Or that if any competitor could have a potential opportunity to abscond trade secrets or information that it wouldn't be detrimental to Apple?
And as far as Jobs himself being evil, how many other CEO's of trillion dollar companies do you know of that will directly reply to a random Joe Customer's email, in any capacity? Not really the archetype for a villain obsessed with secrecy. Every action he's taken is that of a company leader who desires and demands the best that his company can offer.
For those saying that Apple is some evil corporate entity, most of you are here because you feel that Apple consistently creates a superior or innovative product. Do you feel that if they were to allow any developer to muck up some code and sell it to the Apple consumer base it would still be as desirable? Or that if any competitor could have a potential opportunity to abscond trade secrets or information that it wouldn't be detrimental to Apple?
And as far as Jobs himself being evil, how many other CEO's of trillion dollar companies do you know of that will directly reply to a random Joe Customer's email, in any capacity? Not really the archetype for a villain obsessed with secrecy. Every action he's taken is that of a company leader who desires and demands the best that his company can offer.
re: Steve W
He's still considered a "consultant" for Apple, basically. They keep him on the payroll as more of an honorary thing, given his past ...
He doesn't actually do day-to-day work for them, but I'm sure Steve Jobs values his input on things and runs ideas by him from time to time. (I recall an issue years ago where some of the Powerbook G4s had issues with the second RAM slot dying. Woz emailed Jobs with a technical analysis of why they were failing after looking at one of his own, and Apple wound up making a design change to address it.)
He's still considered a "consultant" for Apple, basically. They keep him on the payroll as more of an honorary thing, given his past ...
He doesn't actually do day-to-day work for them, but I'm sure Steve Jobs values his input on things and runs ideas by him from time to time. (I recall an issue years ago where some of the Powerbook G4s had issues with the second RAM slot dying. Woz emailed Jobs with a technical analysis of why they were failing after looking at one of his own, and Apple wound up making a design change to address it.)
To the point of complete paranoia. They won't even let the so-called "geniuses" (a laughable term if there ever was one) in charge of selling and "educating" the public on their products lay eyes on one before it launches. That's just weird no matter how you slice it.
No, it isn't. If you've ever done a product rollout of a tech product you would understand that the timing of release of information to the channel is critical. In the specific example you've cited, providing any information provided to the "geniuses" is pretty much equivalent to releasing the information to the general public. There's no way to control information once it is provided to 1000 retail employees.
Apple will fire anyone just to make a case of out someone or to control something they did wrong. I worked at an Apple store in Buford GA and there was a mac genius who was getting verbally harassed by another employee. The store manager did nothing about it so the employee went up the ladder and he was fired for not going to the store manager. He sued and won. Just a typical case where they try to cover their crap by firing people. I know this happens everywhere, but corporate found out and who knows what happened then.
I don't really believe that the employee was fired. Woz has always been a wise guy, and I'd bet he's just playing it up.
LOL! coffee spews through nose!don't tell me that's photoshopped. Woz rules!
Fair enough, but then the public is supposed to rely on these people for knowledge and information on a product that they have no more familiarity with than Joe Blow walking through the door does? How does that work?
We would get data right before the store opens. It's a massive headache and at times we look stupid and Apple does not care.
Could you please list the reasons why you think this is true.
Apple is a business who's #1 job is making money for their stockholders.
So was Microsoft, but that didn't and doesn't stop all the Apple folks near and far from claiming how evil Gates and his company were.
As for reasons, I just think that Jobs is more of a megalomaniacal, paranoid, controlling person than Gates was. I can easily see himself bullying his way into the kind of deals that Microsoft was accused of engineering, and even going beyond that because he knows the power that the name Apple wields. I could never work for a person like that. It works for him though, so more power to him, and I hope that he keeps rolling out great products. Understand that "evil" is a relative term though. I don't mean it in the literal sense.
Well, for starters, apps would be 43% more expensive to allow the devs to make the same profits after Apple takes a 30% cut, for one. $1000 software available for $1430, but hooray, you don't have to use Google to find it!
Secondly, if it's not compulsory to use, then it's not a one-stop repository for apps that you want it to be. You would still have to hunt it down on Google. If it were compulsory for all developers to use, then you have the problem of the 43% price hike for consumers, as well as the whole approval thing, as Apple now have their reputation on the line for these apps.
Try Versiontracker
Oh, wow, you really think it'd be any different from going into an Apple Store and buying from there? Same thing, only difference it's now online.
The only problem in store is that not always is the application in stock or not always is it carried.
Other than that, same price. Also, 43% from what? Are you just pulling in that number from thin air? If so, your argument is invalid and have to try harder next time.
Exactly. However, where does one of these exist? I mean, I don't see an application in the likes of the iPhone App Store in OS X.
So Apple can further ensure a consistent and quality experience for users. You wouldn't have to worry about different methods of installation, different licensing schemes, etc, etc.
The benefit for developers is that you have a one stop shop to sell and advertise your software.
While such a store isn't really valuable to the big guys like Microsoft and Adobe, I'm sure that smaller apps like 1Password and SuperDuper would love a Mac App Store.
Its all well and good as long as OSX is still open and its still possible to install 3rd party applications as is now. Make AppStore the only source of apps will alienate a lot of users...
Every developer would! Instead of having to advertise themselves all over the internet, hoping that people notice their site or hear about them, the Mac App Store would be a boost to them!
Also, think of trust of the end user. We all go thru Google looking for something. We find it, how can we trust it on the get go? However, a Mac App Store will be trustworthy and have a nice rating system to rate the app on actual reviews rather than handpicked ones.
The Apple Downloads page (that has a link under the Apple menu).
It would need to be revamped, there'd need to be a verification/validation process, and there'd need to be a bunch of other things done, to make it more like the iPhone app store. But, it could be done.
And, as long as no other changes were made to Mac OS X, you could still download via dmg, via source code, etc.
It would just give you the option for one stop shopping, one stop automated updates (versiontracker, last I checked, wont tell you which of your installed apps have updates, because versiontracker doesn't actually know what you have or haven't installed, or installed and then later deleted, etc.), easy search that doesn't mix in all kinds of "seems related, but isn't even a Mac app" results, etc.
Not saying it would be perfect, but it would make some things more streamlined and integrated.
Do you really need to be nannied?
Go on to versiontracker and macupdate and you'll see lots of comments. If an application is good or sucks there will soon be comments to indicate.
Apple need to sort out its AppStore. Its way too easy for a good application to get lost amongst the average / crap applications.
Mac App StoreI don't think anyone advocating this idea wants to see it become the ONLY mechanism for installing Mac apps. We just want to see a centralized, Apple blessed/approved, managed mechanism for Mac apps. All of the "good parts" of the iPhone app store, basically. But still keeping all of the good capabilities of Mac OS X.
Well hang one, "If he was prepared to show it to Woz"??? You cannot tell me that you cannot trust Woz who works for Apple. He is the co-founder of Apple, you should be honoured to show it to him, that is trust. Not trusting Woz with a device like this is sheer paranoia, and patheric to be honest.