Whats it like to own an Apple product.....

[sanjay0864]

I've been using [forced to use because of my pod] iTunes right from it's early days. Was a lousy piece of s/w then and is lousy even now.

Well said. Much against my wishes and advice, I got my daughter an iPod a few years ago. I suppose 'peer pressure' has far more influence than a father's advice. Six months later she admitted that she should have listened to me and gotten something else other than the iPod.

 

[sanjay0864]

And now they have trouble with their iphone4 antennas...something that an electrical engineer would have been able to fix...

Can you imagine any other company having the arrogance and gall to even suggest that, "the problem is not with the phone, but rather in how the people are holding the phone". Sheesh... Give me a break.

 

[sanjay0864]

19. Apple was established on April Fools Day.

Enough said.

 

[pavanhifi]

I don't quite understand the Apple bashing here. If its just for fun, it one thing. But I am sure many of those who are criticizing Apple here haven't really ever used any Apple product. It takes a far more imagination and innovation to build a product which users are using for decades and still capture the market share the way Apple has done.

Ipod, Mac, iPhone none of these are path breaking technologies, but they have been able to successfully sell these products. And they have done it for many years now. You can possibly fool consumers once or twice, but not again and again. There is something in the Apple product that people like.

I, for example, after using Linux for many years, recently switched to Mac OSX and really enjoying its user friendliness. Similarly, I bought a Mac Mini recently and its such a good machine for its size and value. I am sure many people love their iPhone and iTouch and iPad, not just for its hardware, but also for the solid software and entire application ecosystem around it.

You may argue about the VFM part, but when someone sells million devices in a day, there must be something about the man or the machine.

 

[asliarun]

I am sorry but that cannot be correct. US anti-trust laws would never allow any such deal. In any case the Apple OS is only good for people with limited needs and would never ever be able to compete in an open market. Personally I find their computers and OS to be, how should i put this withotu being rude, designed for the simple minded.

From what I know, Apple used to do parallel internal x86 builds of their OS even when they were running on PowerPC architecture. They migrated to x86 (strictly speaking, Intel) only because they realized that PowerPC was reaching an evolutionary dead-end. So, one fine day, Steve decided to take the step, plus Intel was courting them for a long time and also offered them a sweet deal.

The reason why Apple has not released a stand-alone version of their OS is because they are primarily a "product" company - the fact that they happen to make both hardware and software is only a by-product of that (pun unintended). As per Apple's vision, selling their OS without selling their hardware makes as much sense to them as Honda selling steering wheels as that will fit onto other cars.

The problem is that the technical literati is not used to this. They are used to computers being a motley grouping of assorted hardware and software components, thus requiring arcane knowledge of such technical details, and with the independence of customizability and inter-operability.

Products or devices on the other hand are all about usefulness, ease of use, compactness, build quality, etc. They are mostly "closed systems" where we accept the product for what it is and buy it in a finished, not disassembled state. Imagine if you had to periodically open your microwave to update your firmware, or if you had expectations of your toaster to provide programmable custom heat settings in addition to the ones provided to you by the dial.

In short, Apple makes products. They are very good at making products. This does not mean that they necessarily make the best OS, user interface, or hardware. However, they do consistently make the best packages of these components, as evidence of their sales and brand image suggests.

In short, if my grandma wanted to buy a computer and wanted to know how to "download the internet", my choice would always be Apple. If you look at the complexity of technical gadgets that surround us nowadays that requires even hardcore geeks to pore over manuals, online forums, and web pages to know how to properly operate a daily use item like a television or a microwave, you know we are in trouble.

Apple simplifies the world for a normal person, and this is why it succeeds. Forget grandma, I myself would prefer usability over features. Give me a big fat knob or an on/off switch anyday over a bank of buttons or snazzy touch interfaces.

 

[Raghav]

"Simple Minded" - That is what 90% of the market is and will be. The rest 10% can make their own OS or versions of Linux.

PS: I am sure Bill Gates never regretted that decision.

In any case the Apple OS is only good for people with limited needs and would never ever be able to compete in an open market. Personally I find their computers and OS to be, how should i put this withotu being rude, designed for the simple minded.

PS: I am surprised that no one has pointed out that Bill Gates owns a substantial amount of Apple stock. When Apple was in major financial trouble before the iPod was launched, Bill Gates put money in Apple to keep theri competitor afloat, which helps Microsoft in dealing with US anti-trust laws.

 

[sanjay0864]

I don't quite understand the Apple bashing here. If its just for fun, it one thing. But I am sure many of those who are criticizing Apple here haven't really ever used any Apple product. It takes a far more imagination and innovation to build a product which users are using for decades and still capture the market share the way Apple has done.

You may argue about the VFM part, but when someone sells million devices in a day, there must be something about the man or the machine.

Actually it is not just in fun. The fact is that Apple has simply taken the Bose strategy and applied it to several product lines. But the fact remains that as much as Bose is a rip-off brand, so is Apple. Both brands make products for the simple minded section of the marketplace, where image and snob value takes precedence over quality and substance. While some of their products are not actually bad, specially for their customer segment, the fact is products liek the iPad are absolutely crap and a total rip off. But then again that too has sold in the millions, so what does that say abotu the Apple customer. Apple and Bose are good for grandma and others like her, as pointed out by 'asliarun' in his post below, but that's about it. For the rest there are far better choices than them.

Oh and by the way, I have owned and tried to use Apple products. In all honesty, I have not found a single Apple product that was even half as good as other alternate products and that too generally at a far less price.

 

[sanjay0864]

From what I know, Apple used to do parallel internal x86 builds of their OS even when they were running on PowerPC architecture. They migrated to x86 (strictly speaking, Intel) only because they realized that PowerPC was reaching an evolutionary dead-end. So, one fine day, Steve decided to take the step, plus Intel was courting them for a long time and also offered them a sweet deal.

The reason why Apple has not released a stand-alone version of their OS is because they are primarily a "product" company - the fact that they happen to make both hardware and software is only a by-product of that (pun unintended). As per Apple's vision, selling their OS without selling their hardware makes as much sense to them as Honda selling steering wheels as that will fit onto other cars.

The problem is that the technical literati is not used to this. They are used to computers being a motley grouping of assorted hardware and software components, thus requiring arcane knowledge of such technical details, and with the independence of customizability and inter-operability.

Products or devices on the other hand are all about usefulness, ease of use, compactness, build quality, etc. They are mostly "closed systems" where we accept the product for what it is and buy it in a finished, not disassembled state. Imagine if you had to periodically open your microwave to update your firmware, or if you had expectations of your toaster to provide programmable custom heat settings in addition to the ones provided to you by the dial.

In short, Apple makes products. They are very good at making products. This does not mean that they necessarily make the best OS, user interface, or hardware. However, they do consistently make the best packages of these components, as evidence of their sales and brand image suggests.

In short, if my grandma wanted to buy a computer and wanted to know how to "download the internet", my choice would always be Apple. If you look at the complexity of technical gadgets that surround us nowadays that requires even hardcore geeks to pore over manuals, online forums, and web pages to know how to properly operate a daily use item like a television or a microwave, you know we are in trouble.

Apple simplifies the world for a normal person, and this is why it succeeds. Forget grandma, I myself would prefer usability over features. Give me a big fat knob or an on/off switch anyday over a bank of buttons or snazzy touch interfaces.

Although I may not agree with all that you have said, I must say that I found your post to be very well thought out and written. Your assesment of Apple and their reason for success is one of the best that I have seen in a while.

 

[sanjay0864]

"Simple Minded" - That is what 90% of the market is and will be. The rest 10% can make their own OS or versions of Linux.

Right, that would surely explain the fact that Windows has a 91.46%marketshare, while the glorified Mac, has a piddly 5.16% market share.

 

[BLASTO]

No, wait.... they're an image company!

:clapping: hyeah:

 

[Raghav]

I have only claimed that 90% of the market is simple minded. I stand by that.

The fact that Apple makes products for the simple minded was made by you.

Right, that would surely explain the fact that Windows has a 91.46%marketshare, while the glorified Mac, has a piddly 5.16% market share.

 

[sam9s]

I am kinda neutral to their product, having said that I must agree that after using iPod and Touch, specially touch one thing that CANNOT be ignored is the perfection in their UI and the shear number of applications available for the same. Add to that even after so many years, still no phone/gadget is able to match the responsiveness and ease of the multi touch any idevice offers ....

 

[venkatcr]

I am sorry but that cannot be correct. US anti-trust laws would never allow any such deal. In any case the Apple OS is only good for people with limited needs and would never ever be able to compete in an open market.

How many cases does MS have against them all over the world? Are you ware how many companies MS has bought out just to shut them down? Which company has grown being strict followers of the law? Once you are a monopoly such as MS, laws do not matter.

I know of the Apple OS and related software being very popular with publishers, CAD/CAM users and even scientist in an as-is basis. If it does get open, I am sure software and hardware companies will jump in to bring a plethora of capabilities to rival Windows. After all what was Windows 3.1 capable of?

Cheers