Bwhahaha.
[sarcasm]
Let's all boycot business and head back into the stoneage. That'll work out, at least we're not evil.
[/sarcasm]
Greed is good!
--------
edit: I swear to god I didn't notice the poster above me, I **** a ton of bricks.
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.
Why Apple Doesn't Give Us All Features at Once, Such as in the iPad
- Thread starter NebulaClash
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Bwhahaha.
[sarcasm]
Let's all boycot business and head back into the stoneage. That'll work out, at least we're not evil.
[/sarcasm]
Greed is good!
--------
edit: I swear to god I didn't notice the poster above me, I **** a ton of bricks.
Errr, not sure about this.
I have no doubt Apple did indeed do this many years ago, but I do feel they have gotten lazy, with SOME products. Not so much their mobile devices perhaps.
It's seems more corporate money making and feed the non technical middle America simple things that are good enough, rather than pushing the envelope.
It's the open PC that's always pushing. As the PC is never held back and you can always pick the latest cutting edge item to fit into your PC.
It's the inherent drawback and limitation with Apple and the way they work.
In the real open world you see something brand new come out, you order it, fit it and tomorrow you are using it. With Apple you have to wait till next year to see if Steve Jobs himself deems it a thing worth having, Not your choice, HIS CHOICE, if he personally does not like it, you won't get it fitted in your Apple product, and that's it.
It does seem like he feels he's making the chooses for people he deems as too stupid to be able to decide for themselves. And one of the main reasons why so many people won't buy Apple Products as they want to decide what they want. I'm talking more about computers and not mobile devices of course.
Last edited:
Microsoft was the first to bring a tablet to market. In fact, they have been vigorously pimping the tablet form factor for over a decade.
In theory, no one should be in a better position to launch a competitive tablet than MS.
And yet, they seem to have not learned anything from their mistakes. Their last-minute conversion to ARM will take another 18-24 months. They have not yet shown anything resembling a workable tablet interface.
If you conclude that all Apple did was wait 'till the moment was right, then how come the entire tablet revolution seems to have taken Microsoft by surprise?
It's odd that you conclude that Apple has taking an "easy" "little-risk" strategy. If its really that easy, then why can't Microsoft, with all their wealth of experience can still not create a credible tablet device?
C.
I disagree. You are talking about a tiny subset of humanity -- the techies -- who gravitate toward open PC technology because they want to tinker. Frankly I think they should get a Mac Pro with its UNIX underpinnings and ability to modify the hardware in many ways. That's a very nice hackable device.
But for the vast majority of humanity, Apple makes the best equipment that does the job and does it very well. It may not cover all of YOUR needs, but it sure covers their needs.
If you are hacker, get what you want and hack it to death. Apple focuses on the larger market and does very well at it. And considering how many other choices there are in the market, they have every right to focus on their target market. Cry "Freedom" as much as you want, but Apple makes great technology that frees the average person to get work done and have fun doing it. You may not like it, but most people sure do, and Wall Street thinks Apple is doing it the right way.
You obviously cannot imagine anything between the stoneage and today´s sick capitalist system.
But this system is neither natural nor given by god.
@topic:
Although I really love many Apple products, I wished there was at least one other premium company than Apple with great ideas and useful innovations.
It's interesting to see how this is playing out, isn't it? You'd think there would be one other company with this ability. Most businesses play it safe and make incremental changes. Apple under Steve Jobs is willing to throw out the successful product in order to sell an even more successful product. Precisely the opposite behavior described by some of the critics in this thread.
Propaganda works.
What in the heck are you going on about?
This whole thread is blossoming into another "The iPhone doesn't have Flash, the iPad doesn't have a camera, and the 13" MBP doesn't have a six-core processor, so Apple must suck" rant. Give me a break. Buy an "open" PC, a flash-enabled phone, and/or a camera-equipped tablet then! That choice is always there - yet, the market is speaking, isn't it?
To reiterate, the market did not say "we must have flash on our phones!" The market did not say "we have to have a camera on our tablets!" I'm sorry, but the sales numbers bear this out.
It's neither natural nor supernatural? Then what is it?
It blows my mind how people could think it's not natural. As other people have said, no one is holding guns to your head making you buy apple products. It's a mutually beneficial partnership, and if you don't like the deal don't buy it.
I was confused by this too.
What envelope is the "open PC" pushing exactly?
Sure, as a box of parts, you can plug in newer shiny parts.
But as a consumer product, the rate of innovation has almost ground to a halt.
No PC manufacturer is capable on software innovation. And so the progress of the platform is shackled to Microsoft. - And Microsoft's rate of innovation (in the PC space) has become really really slow.
There's no innovation in that space, which is why the PC market seems to be dead on its feet. A clear sign of this death, is that manufacturers don't seem to be able to make more than a 5% margin.
What was the big PC announcement at CES? Oh yeah. There wasn't one!
C.
Indeed, the WinTel monopoly became a textbook example of a lack of innovation. What individuals can do with a box has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
So to sum up the on-topic thoughts so far, Apple releases things in stages because:
A) That's how it has to be to meet deadlines/costs/licensing issues, whatever.
B) It also helps prevent the copycats from seeing Apple's full plan.
C) It benefits Apple by encouraging people to upgrade when they see value.
And now for the haters, I will translate those three thoughts into their language:
A) Apple is greedy
B) Apple is evil
C) Apple is greedily evil
I think that sums it up.
So to sum up the on-topic thoughts so far, Apple releases things in stages because:
A) That's how it has to be to meet deadlines/costs/licensing issues, whatever.
B) It also helps prevent the copycats from seeing Apple's full plan.
C) It benefits Apple by encouraging people to upgrade when they see value.
And now for the haters, I will translate those three thoughts into their language:
A) Apple is greedy
B) Apple is evil
C) Apple is greedily evil
I think that sums it up.
You see there is a fundamental mental difference here of what a computer is.
You, and I guess many Apple people (and some PC people) see a computer in the same was they see a Microwave, a Toaster, a Fridge, a HiFi, a TV.
It's an item made by a company that they buy and it works, when they don't want it, they sell the item on and buy a new one. This seems to be the Apple way, and it the way with thing like Laptop and Phones etc.
To, me, that's not a computer, that's like a consumer item, an appliance.
For me, in my mind a computer is a collection of really nice parts.
A case, which I'm not really that interested in personally as it's just a box and I don't look at a box, I look at the screen. this case holds a motherboard, a sound card, a graphics card, a hard drive, and I can pick the items that perform the best to my budget and to my personal needs. I can also get someone to make it for me and deliver it to my door in the configuration that I want and matches my needs perfectly.
I don't have a camera on my PC as I don't want one, I do have two monitors as I want two. I have more memory and a nicer graphics card than perhaps other machines, but it's basically made for me.
With Apple I cannot do that. I have to buy and put up with an item that someone else has chosen and decided what I want. But what if I don't want their choice, but I still like an Apple? I'm stuck.
I can pick up the phone tomorrow order my USB3 motherboard, my BluRay Drive, and by the weekend they are fitted and I'm using them. With a Mac, I have to wait a year and See if Apple seems those items worthy of fitting into their next offering.
I don't care how thin my case is, what metal it's made from or plastic, If the people in the shop have a badge which says genius on it.
To me this is all an act and a show for the general public.
The PC pushes the boundaries all the time as the individual components you fit into it can be the best you can get.
I would like Apple to do the same, why not fit a GTX580 into the top end iMac? Oh because we feel people don't need it, and anyway the case it too thin and we value the thickness of the case over the performance it could give.
It's just a whole different attitude. I look at my screen, I don't sit there looking side on at the thickness of the case wishing it was an inch thinner, and I'd happily accept my machine was worse to get that thin case.
For a mobile device, I can accept this is an important part of the functionality, but for a desktop?
I also accept for some people the looks and design of an item is more important than it's functionality. but not for me.
You have to read my entire post, not just pick out pieces. I said:
"That's what other companies did... they took the initial chances and huge R&D expenses, then ended up with lots of legacy devices and UIs they thought they needed to support."
Microsoft has always been stuck with the idea of being backward compatible. That's why everyone ended up with the Intel architecture and ancient UIs. Heck, I used to write their developers about Windows Mobile, begging for them to move forward.
Apple had advantages with the iPhone and iPad. First, they had no legacy phones or tablets or enterprise customers. That is a huge boost. Second, they were willing to ignore all those asking for an OSX tablet.
Apple did not push any UI or technical envelope with either device, because all the elements they used, existed previously. What they did do was actually implement those pieces and sell them as only Apple can.
Indeed, Apple is not the company for you.
The problem for you is we are in the beginning stages of the Tablet Era. We used to be in the PC Era, but that is now ending. The world is embracing computers that do not meet your definition of what a personal computer is, but it sure does meet their definition.
An analogy might be the early days of the automobile industry where you had to be a mechanic to own a car because it required tinkering. In later decades the new thing was to own a car that did not require your tinkering to use well, and if something went wrong you took it to the shop. It was "closed" to the owner, and the mechanic types scorned this type of owner.
But this type of owner took over the car market and expanded it far beyond the mechanic market share. The same thing is now happening in the computer marketplace. You don't even want to admit the iPad is a computer, but it is the computer that is being used by millions of users, and far more millions to come.
Enjoy tinkering. You'll always be able to do that, and it will never go away any more than the fact that you can still rebuild a car engine if that's your thing. But don't begrudge humanity for accepting an easier approach to computing, and don't begrudge Apple for getting wildly rich by pushing the envelope to eclipse the PC Era and jumpstart the Tablet Era.
Just as Microsoft should have been willing to ignore all those asking for legacy support in ways that prevented them from moving forward. It was Microsoft's choice to get fat on monopoly profits and not force innovation forward. They made the wrong choice.
This comment gets made all the time about Apple, and it just cracks me up. Yes, there are always individual elements floating about before Apple brings out its new thing, but please show me the well-known multi-touch devices before the iPhone. Apple patents their stuff like crazy, so they are clearly pushing some technical envelopes.
But it's easier than that: the tech world largely follows Apple. They wouldn't do that if Apple weren't forging new paths.
If you don't like the choices Apple makes, why would you like an Apple?
Anyway, the vast majority of people don't want to tinker with computers. Yes, to them computers are appliances, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
Me, I could tinker with computers if I wanted to -- I have a general knowledge of the things involved, and I can research the details if needed. However, I don't think I'd save much in terms of money or time by doing so. If I walk into a store and buy a computer at random, chances are, it'll be sufficient for my needs. Sure, in actuality I do a bit of research to make sure I'm getting good value for my money, but the point is, I don't need a machine that is custom made to fit my needs to a T. Tailor-made clothing is nice and would fit me exactly, but off-the-rack clothes are more than adequate. People who want custom made computers either have really very specialized and unusual needs, or they just like to tinker with computers as a hobby. And for those kinds of people, Apple just isn't the company for them. And they haven't been since at least the first Macintosh.
It *is* about functionality.
So what function can you perform with a high spec PC now, that you could not perform with a high spec PC 8 years ago?
(I'd suggest that running Far Cry 4 at 1024 frames per second is not a new function.)
The functionality of the desktop computer has hit ceased to develop. (The Mac included) Which is why, at CES, no electronics company even mentioned the PC*.
The PC as a product category has come to the end of its life, because
a) No one knows how to make money making them (except Apple)
b) Most consumers don't really want or need an office machine in their homes. Their desire to communicate, consume media and play games is better served by other devices.
There's nothing at all wrong wanting a box, that you can tinker with, add upgrades and generally play engineer. But that isn't a mass-market product anymore. It's a niche.
C.
(* With the exception of the Samsung Series 9 laptop - a mooted "MacBook Air" killer.)
Last edited:
I am confused by what you mean. Do you mean that they didn't invent anything specifically for use in the iPhone/iPad? I think that's not really the same thing as pushing the envelope. I mean, RIM and apparently many other dedicated phone makers didn't even believe what Apple did was possible at first.
I *did* read that.
MS initially chose to support legacy devices, and made a valid attempt to have desktop user-interface metaphors shoehorned onto a tablet interface.
They made a product. Discovered it was a mistake. It didn't work. Fine. Nothing wrong with making mistakes.
But the right thing to do after a mistake is learn from it. And by the second and third attempts, MS should really have had some great insights.
By rights, MS should have been perfectly placed to move forward with a radically new platform. They knew better than anyone that tablets need a tablet UI.
So what happened?
Yes and no. Apple certainly was able to design all-new products without the baggage of backwards compatibility or having to meet someone else's expectations. I'd argue that they did ship an OS X tablet. Just not a MAC OS X tablet.
MS had the freedom to do the same. But they lacked the will or the courage or the culture. If MS is handicapped, then it's a self-imposed handicap.
I am not sure I can think of any new product at all that "pushes a UI or technical envelope" by your definition. Every product is based on pre-existing technologies.
I would agree that Apple had the NeXTStep / Cocoa technology in place which gave them a massive advantage when it comes to building mobile applications.
But the real innovation that requires acknowledgement is taking all those pre-existing technologies, putting them together at the right time, and putting them together to create original products that resonate with consumers.
You don't seem too impressed with Apple's ability to do this. Which I guess is fine.
But how do you explain the inability of others to do the same?
C.
I'm confused. What sort of "new" functionality do you expect?
You try to say that the desktop is essentially a dying breed, but tablets and smartphones are based on the same fundamental technology? Anything they can do, a desktop can do as well.
Clearly, they mean the portability, simplicity, and ease-of-use.
My PC can display Kindle books and access "the cloud," but it is obviously limited in the locations it can do that. The UI is vastly different as well - and if the touchscreen interface wasn't more intuitive and easy, I doubt everyone would be moving towards it so quickly.
It depends whether you are thinking like an engineer or a designer.
To an engineer, an Audi A5 is really not that much different to a Steam Locomotive. They both convert fuel to kinetic energy. They move from place to place. They are the same fundamental technology.
To a designer, they are quite different. They have radically different modalities of usage. Issues of comfort, maintenance, style, manoeuvrability divide the two.
Desktop PC and iPad - same thing.
C.
Um.. what? When will we stop with the stupid (car) analogies. So they have the same basic function (engineer) but they accomplish them differently (designer). Even if that made sense, you said it was about functionality:
So if desktops and tablets have the same function, then you have no point. The focus of CES was on mobile because that's where all the buzz is. And by the way, Razor and Dell both had some pretty significant PC-related announcements.
Forget form, forget function, forget labels. By the end of this current decade, the average consumer will be far more likely to buy a tablet than to buy what we think of as a personal computer. Only specialists will buy a PC. The other 90% will buy a tablet.
That's what I'm talking about when I call this the Tablet Era.
That's what I'm talking about when I call this the Tablet Era.
