 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / Portable Macs / August 2004Is Apple really different than any other corporation?
I have to admit that Apple seems to be putting out some decent products, but is Apple -- as a company -- really any better than IBM or Dell? For instance I heard that there was a class-action lawsuit against Apple because of white blotches that showed up on some 15 inch LCDs on some laptops. Apple "pulled an Intel" and refused to fix an obviously defective screen, just as Intel refused to fix defective Pentium processors a few years ago. It's worth pointing out that most MBA programs are teaching the same material around the US, so one could reasonably expect an exec at Apple to consider excessive greed and short-term thinking virtuous (instead of signs of a flawed character) as much as any exec at IBM or Microsoft... which inverts their thinking of course: Whereas society permits corporations to exist as a privilege, and not a right, the greed-based worldview rejects any debt to society and considers socially responsible business practices to be optional or absurd. Hence, our polluted rivers and offshored jobs and the corporate welfare system. (See the movie "The Corporation"(2004) for more on that...) The best thing I think you can hope for with Apple is a better management structure, but I have no reason to believe it is better at the moment. I've never seen an overview, an org chart, anything really to suggest it is more democratic or user-focused or consumer-oriented. I do perceive a deliberate attempt by some, not always at Apple but certainly in the magazines, to associate Apple products with wealth and luxury, which is a concern since put pushes the poor into Microsoft's arms. Anyway, if Apple were to become a co-op like REI, I would be much impressed. My perception is that cooperatives are more socially responsible; they are not perfect but the damage they can do is limited. But I don't see why that would happen or how it could. One "good sign" that I perceive about Apple is that I see no indication that it is following other companies in their mad lemminglike rush to send tech jobs to India. They have no job openings for India, and they're absent from the Lou Dobbs list of companies that have offshored or the related list here: http://www.techsunite.org/040416_offshore_tracker.cfm Saturday7 a écrit : > For instance I heard that there was a class-action lawsuit against Apple > because of white blotches that showed up on some 15 inch LCDs on some laptops. > Apple "pulled an Intel" and refused to fix an obviously defective screen, AFAIK they did (i.e. they recalled the defective machines and replaced them)  SignatureSebastien MARTY - Palmiste macintoshien et traducteur... * <http://sebastienmarty.free.fr> : mes traductions publiees * <http://palmiciel.free.fr> : logiciels PalmOS traduits en francais > Saturday7 a écrit : > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > AFAIK they did (i.e. they recalled the defective machines and replaced them) And now have extended that programs duration. ej > Anyway, if Apple were to become a co-op like REI, I would be much impressed. > My perception is that cooperatives are more socially responsible; > they are not perfect but the damage they can do is limited. > But I don't see why that would happen or how it could. this of course is not a bad idea and if there were a non-profit computer company I would certainly get behind it. Apple is not the be-all end-all computer company, even with Steve at the helm. But taking Apple private is kinda difficult now with its high market cap. It could have been done a year ago maybe, when the company was scraping $13/share. > One "good sign" that I perceive about Apple is that I see no indication > that it is following other companies in their mad lemminglike rush > to send tech jobs to India. They have no job openings for India, > and they're absent from the Lou Dobbs list of companies that have offshored > or the related list here: > http://www.techsunite.org/040416_offshore_tracker.cfm Apple has been less Made-in-USA friendly wrt its manufacturing however. Though it tried with its Fremont plants (mac and NeXT), and it's tough to compete with taiwanese/asian manufacturers with a US costbase (cf GM). As for Apple Computer Inc being a particularly moral company, it is in some areas and isn't in others. Corporations develop defense mechanisms to protect their IP and markets. Apple has always been about making money for its shareholders, and societal good has been more of a side-effect. Apple focused on societal good would look somewhat different, and would be a much more interesting company to watch. > I have to admit that Apple seems to be putting out some decent products, > but is Apple -- as a company -- really any better than IBM or Dell? [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > or the related list here: > http://www.techsunite.org/040416_offshore_tracker.cfm let's put it this way, apple is better than most... and while not completely altrustic, it's near the top of all US corporations on being focused on the User Experience, not the bottom line. apple has always done a good job in fixing problems... if you remember they made a hell of an attempt to fix all the powerbook 5300's, LC 5200's, etc... all when Apple wasn't doing too well. Apple took a charge against earnings a couple quarters back to fix the flaws in the iBooks. While i'm sure you can find plenty of horror stories, all n all apple does what is best for the reputation of itself and the satisfaction of the customer. yeah, no india tech support, but keep in mind apple's tech support expense is quiet a bit lower since it controls all aspects of the machine. so no, it's not a co-op, but steve rules with an iron fist, there really isn't a management bureaucracy that makes mindless, dronelike decisions like you see at DeLL, MS and IBM... but those companies don't really have a strong single leader so they have to rely on a "management" structure to make things tick... oxford - > I have to admit that Apple seems to be putting out some decent products, > but is Apple -- as a company -- really any better than IBM or Dell? What do you mean by "better" and "as a company"? That can cover a wide range of things. For example, it could be product oriented--are the products better or worse in an absolute sense, or better or worse in a value sense? Or it could mean how the company fits in with the community--are they good environmentally where their factories and plants are, or do they pollute right up to (or beyond!) the legal limit? Or it could mean how the company treats its employees. Do they support families (e.g., good maternity leave policies, accomodate workers who might have to care for sick children, or leave early to see a kid in a school play, or something like that)? Do they support employees who are gay/lesbian/bisexual? How about religious and ethnic minorities (beyond what is required by law)? I happened to read a story on employers and gay/lesbian/bisexual people recently, so let's look at that. Apple and IBM are both among the 21 large companies that scored 100% on the Human Rights Campaign Foundation's Corporate Equality Index, which rates their policies and behavior with respect to gay/lesbian/bisexual employees. Apple has been at 100% in prior years. IBM is new to 100%. Dell is at 71%. For comparison, Intel, Xerox, and Lucent are also at 100% and have been there multiple years. HP has just hit 100% on the latest list. The lowest companies scored 14%, and no tech companies were among them. The median score for both tech companies and telecom companies is 86%. Microsoft is at 86%. Sun is also at 86%. In 2002, there were several companies at 0%. The biggest change was Lockheed. They were 0% in 2002 and jumped to 71% in 2003, including health benefits for partners of gay/lesbian/bi employees. Apple, HP, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Cisco, and Xerox are among the companies that also support changing Federal employement law to prohibit employement discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Signature--Tim Smith > What do you mean by "better" and "as a company"? That can cover a wide > range of things. For example, it could be product oriented--are the > products better or worse in an absolute sense, or better or worse in a value > sense? While HR policies are important in the abstract, what affects me most is how well the tech company delivers innovation and a solid platform that meets my computer needs for the money. If Dell or Gateway or any other x86 OEM were to disappear tomorrow my computing life would not be materially affected, since all x86 OEMs are rather minimally involved in innovations. When Be had buzz I certainly followed them closely and would have bought a 2nd-generation box if they had moved more into the Amiga platform segment, since what I need in a PC is basically an Amiga 500 -- solid performance for the money. Apple, being the last maverick system integrator (outside the console manufacturers!) earns my respect and custom since they are truly committed to advancing the state of the art. I would love to see eg. Sony or even Microsoft light a fire under Apple in getting a mass-market $600 box out. Whether or not Apple has taken up this gauntlet seriously will be determined by how quickly they get an NVIDIA 6600 or 6800 part into the new iMac. > For instance I heard that there was a class-action lawsuit against Apple > because of white blotches that showed up on some 15 inch LCDs on some > laptops. > Apple "pulled an Intel" and refused to fix an obviously defective screen, > just as Intel refused to fix defective Pentium processors a few years ago. there was no class action lawsuit for the white spot issue and apple fixed the affected screens under warranty. where do you get this nonsense? there was talk about an ibook class action suit, but as far as i know, none was filed. apple began a repair extension program for the ibooks and even refunded repair costs if the owner had it repaired before the prgram began, so i rather doubt any lawsuit will occur. >> For instance I heard that there was a class-action lawsuit against Apple >> because of white blotches that showed up on some 15 inch LCDs on some >> laptops. ... > there was no class action lawsuit for the white spot issue and apple fixed > the affected screens under warranty. where do you get this nonsense? Perhaps he gets this "nonsense" from Apple's filing with the SEC? Palmieri vs. Apple. Discussed on page 56 of their 3rd Quarter 10Q filing. > there was talk about an ibook class action suit, but as far as i know, > none was filed. apple began a repair extension program for the ibooks Evidently, "as far as i know" isn't very far in your case. Two separate class actions were filed over the iBook logic board. Dunlap v. Apple Computer, and Chiaco v. Apple Computer. Discussed on page 55 of the 10Q cited above. There are several other consumer lawsuits mentioned in that document, plus a few patent infringement suits, and one or two from shareholders. Signature--Tim Smith > >> For instance I heard that there was a class-action lawsuit against Apple > >> because of white blotches that showed up on some 15 inch LCDs on some [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > There are several other consumer lawsuits mentioned in that document, plus > a few patent infringement suits, and one or two from shareholders. While you are correct, any idiot lawyer can start up a nuisance class action lawsuit once the problem is publicized. IIRC all these "class action" suits were settled out of court directly with the plaintiffs, so in my book they don't even count as bona-fide class action settlements. > >> For instance I heard that there was a class-action lawsuit against Apple > >> because of white blotches that showed up on some 15 inch LCDs on some [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > There are several other consumer lawsuits mentioned in that document, plus > a few patent infringement suits, and one or two from shareholders. While you are correct, any idiot lawyer can start up a nuisance class action lawsuit once the problem is publicized. IIRC all these "class action" suits were settled out of court directly with the plaintiffs, so in my book they don't even count as bona-fide class action settlements. Saturday7: > I have to admit that Apple seems to be putting out some decent products, > but is Apple -- as a company -- really any better than IBM or Dell? Apple is one of the most notorious money-grubbing companies in America. Apple has made a conscious decision to accept an ever-shrinking market share for their Macintosh computers by selling their products at premium prices, with concomitant very high profit margins, so long as they can find a sufficient number of fanatics* to pay their premium prices to achieve modest growth in units shipped. In cases where the Mac's low market share causes developers to ignore the platform, Apple may jump in and buy a company or an application (SoundJam MP > iTunes; Macromedia Key Grip > Final Cut Pro, e.g.), improve it (IMO) and call it their own. Nothing wrong with that. The mantra used to be "Apple is a hardware company, not a software company." This is no longer true -- witness the growing list of pro apps plus the bundled i-apps. (IMO, it would be nice if Apple bought someone who had good GPS/Mapping software; look at the number of questions in comp.sys.mac.system about GPS for Macs; the words "Virtual PC" appear at least once in each thread, because there is no solution for the Mac in this field that can compete with the quality of the software and GPS hardware that is available for Windows.) Otherwise, if Apple is not doing something heinous -- using profits to engage in the child slave trade, doing the Minamata mercury thing in SF bay, &c., who gives a rat's kneecaps? Davoud * I have six Macs in the house with some others "loaned" out (read: I'll not see them again), so I'm not certain exactly how many Macs I actually own. I'm shopping for two more Macs at the moment. I also have one Windows machine, a Sony Vaio laptop running Windows XP Pro. Nice computer, that Vaio, fast &c, but IMO Windows XP Pro is not quite good enough to be called a poor imitation of the Mac OS. Signatureusenet *at* davidillig dawt com > Saturday7: > > I have to admit that Apple seems to be putting out some decent products, > > but is Apple -- as a company -- really any better than IBM or Dell? > > Apple is one of the most notorious money-grubbing companies in America. was not is. Its 28% gross margins aren't that high considering that they have to pay for the R&D, and for the past 4 years (Oct 2000 -> now) it has been breaking even, actualling posting a small net operating loss of $100M over this time. > Apple has made a conscious decision to accept an ever-shrinking market > share for their Macintosh computers by selling their products at > premium prices, with concomitant very high profit margins, so long as > they can find a sufficient number of fanatics* to pay their premium > prices to achieve modest growth in units shipped. True in the late 80's, not true now. While Apple does not compete effectively in the substandard sketchy walmart plastic crap price range, the iBook and PBG4 compete very well against comparable offerings from Dell and Sony, and you can't buy an x86 box that is both faster and cheaper than the G5 towers. When the iMac is released, it should compete very effectively against comparable integrated x86 boxes, eg. the new Dell Optiplex SX280, which with DVD-R and a 20" Dell FP LCD is ~$2000. > Saturday7: > > I have to admit that Apple seems to be putting out some decent products, > > but is Apple -- as a company -- really any better than IBM or Dell? > > Apple is one of the most notorious money-grubbing companies in America. was not is. Its 28% gross margins aren't that high considering that they have to pay for the R&D, and for the past 4 years (Oct 2000 -> now) it has been breaking even, actualling posting a small net operating loss of $100M over this time. > Apple has made a conscious decision to accept an ever-shrinking market > share for their Macintosh computers by selling their products at > premium prices, with concomitant very high profit margins, so long as > they can find a sufficient number of fanatics* to pay their premium > prices to achieve modest growth in units shipped. True in the late 80's, not true now. While Apple does not compete effectively in the substandard sketchy walmart plastic crap price range, the iBook and PBG4 compete very well against comparable offerings from Dell and Sony, and you can't buy an x86 box that is both faster and cheaper than the G5 towers. When the iMac is released, it should compete very effectively against comparable integrated x86 boxes, eg. the new Dell Optiplex SX280, which with DVD-R and a 20" Dell FP LCD is ~$2000. Heywood Mogroot: > While Apple does not compete > effectively in the substandard sketchy walmart plastic crap price > range... Some pro reviewers have had nice things to say about WalMart's cheap Linux boxes. > ...the iBook and PBG4 compete very well against comparable > offerings from Dell and Sony, and you can't buy an x86 box that is > both faster and cheaper than the G5 towers. It's hard to know what you mean by "compete." I would say that, while Apple seems to be doing OK in absolute terms, once you say "compete" you are talking in relative terms. With a market share that is around 3% and getting smaller, I would say that Apple does not compete very well at all in the personal computer market. (Mind you, I'm not sure that that matters if the company can keep its shareholders happy.) You can't buy a G5 tower that outsells the X86 boxes -- unless you move down to the narrowest of market zones. My wife ordered one G5 tower (dual 2GHz, 4GB, 2X250GB, NVIDIA6800) from the Apple store last evening, and no X86 boxes. > When the iMac is released, it should compete very effectively against > comparable integrated x86 boxes, eg. the new Dell Optiplex SX280, > which with DVD-R and a 20" Dell FP LCD is ~$2000. Well, there won't be any competition at all in our house -- iMac, hands down. But the new iMac won't be a drop in the bucket in the world market. Davoud Signatureusenet *at* davidillig dawt com "Davoud" <star@sky.net> wrote in 150820040934293669%star@sky.net on 8/15/04 6:34 AM: > Heywood Mogroot: >> While Apple does not compete [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > down. But the new iMac won't be a drop in the bucket in the world > market. I am just continually amazed at how much attention and influence such a relatively small company has. Signature"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law." Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235) > "Davoud" <star@sky.net> wrote in 150820040934293669%star@sky.net on 8/15/04 > 6:34 AM: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > I am just continually amazed at how much attention and influence such a > relatively small company has. I don't see why you would be amazed at the attention... hell, you're only one person and look what you've done in csma. Influence? Oh, you have that, too... I think 3 more people have killfiled you this weekend:) Signature"I may just be the primary topic of this group" "You really need to learn the whole concept of context" - Michael Glasser (AKA Snit) -- Steve C > I am just continually amazed at how much attention and influence such a > relatively small company has. As I am fond of saying, if you don't get it, you don't get it. Apple is a relatively small company that innovates and builds products that consistently stay years ahead of the competiton, in part because Apple does its own thing without seeming to worry much about the competition. It leads the way with new technologies, whether invented at Apple or not. Examples where Apple led the way: a GUI operating system*, USB, CD and DVD burning, FireWire (FW; invented by Apple, adopted by every maker of digital video equipment, and standard on every Mac, but still a couple of years away from being as firmly established in the Wintel world**), UNIX that mortals can use, LCD monitors, iPod (much imitated, but, according to independent reviewers, not yet duplicated), and on and on. What new and exciting technology has Dell brought us lately? Ever? Davoud * Please don't rehash the XEROX PARC story. Yes, it's true, but where can I buy (where could I ever buy) such a computer from XEROX? ** I tried to buy a FW hub at two CompUSA stores in the last few days; none was available, and in both cases I was told that they didn't get many in because PeeCee users don't have much use for them. By the time PeeCee manufacturers fully catch on to FW 400 (not to mention 800!), Mac users will be moving data over FireWire XXIV at terabytes/sec rates. By the time PeeCee manufacturers grudgingly implement FW XXIV, Mac users will likely be moving data instantaneously by quantum teleportation. Signatureusenet *at* davidillig dawt com "Davoud" <star@sky.net> wrote in 150820041222590321%star@sky.net on 8/15/04 9:22 AM: >> I am just continually amazed at how much attention and influence such a >> relatively small company has. > > As I am fond of saying, if you don't get it, you don't get it. Oh, for the most part I "get it", but it still amazes me that Apple can keep being so relevant and powerful in the industry. > Apple is a relatively small company that innovates and builds products that > consistently stay years ahead of the competiton, in part because Apple does [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > not yet duplicated), and on and on. What new and exciting technology has Dell > brought us lately? Ever? Black boxes. :) Cheap commodities. :) > Davoud > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Mac users will likely be moving data instantaneously by quantum > teleportation. Signature"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law." Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235) > ** I tried to buy a FW hub at two CompUSA stores in the last few days; > none was available, and in both cases I was told that they didn't get > many in because PeeCee users don't have much use for them. By the time That's interesting. CompUSA also sells Macs, so why aren't they catering to their Mac customers? Anyway, last time I was in CompUSA I couldn't find what I was looking for...seems that they are less interesting in selling computers than they are in selling TVs and entertainment centers... As far as PCs and Firewire, sorry, but I think you're on the wrong track. Most new Mobos, come with Firewire built in. SoundBlaster Audigy cards also have Firewire. A belking 3 Port FW card is available for under $20 (and I bet you CompUSA sells those). SignatureR. Bischoff - Tell me what you're doing, and I'll tell you why it's wrong- V. Mackie > Heywood Mogroot: > > While Apple does not compete [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Some pro reviewers have had nice things to say about WalMart's cheap > Linux boxes. The sub-$500 pricepoint is not a level Apple need effectively compete in. As for nice things to say, these linux reviewers are come across as quite estatic after being able to get the damn thing to boot after a new install. Their needs and mine are two different planets... How *quiet* is this box? Does it support bluetooth? 802.11g? My HP laser printer? Firewire? People with basic needs are served, more or less, with basic crap. > > ...the iBook and PBG4 compete very well against comparable > > offerings from Dell and Sony, and you can't buy an x86 box that is > > both faster and cheaper than the G5 towers. > > It's hard to know what you mean by "compete." I mean able to buy similar computing power and value for the money. > I would say that, while > Apple seems to be doing OK in absolute terms, once you say "compete" > you are talking in relative terms. With a market share that is around > 3% and getting smaller, Irrevelant. Just because McDonald's sells the most hamburgers doesn't mean they sell the best hamburgers. > I would say that Apple does not compete very > well at all in the personal computer market. I was explicitly talking about certain pricepoints. At these pricepoints the company is competing quite well -- eg. the $2000-$3000 personal workstation pricepoint, and the $1200 notebook pricepoint. Dell 700m 12" laptop: 1.6Ghz P-M, Windows XP Pro, 512MB, 60GB HD, 802.11g, DVD-R: $2040 14.1" iBook: 1.2Ghz G4, ATI 9200, 512MB, 60GB, 802.11g, DVD-R: $1800 12" PBG4: 1.33Ghz G4, NV-5200, etc: $1900 > (Mind you, I'm not sure > that that matters if the company can keep its shareholders happy.) You > can't buy a G5 tower that outsells the X86 boxes -- unless you move > down to the narrowest of market zones. So what? I was talking about performance. Being a minority platform, Apple always has a tough row to hoe to make a sale. Application availability, lack of first-run games, the network effect (not able to pirate stuff from friends or work), hell, even being aware that an alternative exists -- all these are strong forces limiting Apple sales growth. XXX sells more units than YYY is a very stupid argument. > My wife ordered one G5 tower > (dual 2GHz, 4GB, 2X250GB, NVIDIA6800) from the Apple store last [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > down. But the new iMac won't be a drop in the bucket in the world > market. Irrelevant as the price of tea in china. > Saturday7: >> I have to admit that Apple seems to be putting out some decent products, [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > computer, that Vaio, fast &c, but IMO Windows XP Pro is not quite good > enough to be called a poor imitation of the Mac OS. I'm inclined to agree with you. Had Apple won the war with PCs I think Jobs would have made Bill Gates look like a saint. The whole world with not only one OS but one computer maker. Makes nice computers though. > > Saturday7: > >> I have to admit that Apple seems to be putting out some decent products, [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > I'm inclined to agree with you. Had Apple won the war with PCs I think > Jobs would have made Bill Gates look like a saint. Oh please. Ballmer & Co have wringed every cent out of the market they dared, and then some. > The whole world with > not only one OS but one computer maker. Makes nice computers though. Not any correlation with historical events. Apple's highest margins came after Jobs left the company. > Apple is one of the most notorious money-grubbing companies in America. > Apple has made a conscious decision to accept an ever-shrinking market > share for their Macintosh computers by selling their products at > premium prices, with concomitant very high profit margins, so long as > they can find a sufficient number of fanatics* to pay their premium > prices to achieve modest growth in units shipped. Well, then again, so does Ferrari. SignatureJoel Farris | Q: It reverses the logical flow of conversation. twinkledust Designs | A: Why is top posting frowned upon? http://twinkledust.com| AIM chat: FarrisJoel | "John Kerry: A walking, talking contradiction" Entity Saturday7 spoke thus: > See the movie "The Corporation"(2004) for more on that. The movie didn't mention Apple anywhere. What a relief. SignatureGnarlie's virtual Tour de Santa Fe http://Gnarlodious.com/SantaFe/Tour.php > I have to admit that Apple seems to be putting out some decent products, > but is Apple -- as a company -- really any better than IBM or Dell? [...] I recall Apple scoring at the top or very high on rankings related to diversity, the environment, LGBT, and the like. I'm afraid I don't have many links. SignaturePull out a splinter to reply. Apple (and Steve Jobs) are alternately fascinating and infuriating. Tight control over hardware and software meant good profit margins for years but ultimately cost them market share, and man was I pissed when Jobs and Co killed the first G3 machine (Power Computing) and forced the faithful to wait several more months 'till Apple could be bothered to introduce one of their own. So as I see it, they didn't lose some important 3rd party support, they killed it. And somehow despite shrunken market share and a LOT less 3rd party support, Apple survives and continues to set trends: Who'd have thunk it possible? Computer as must-have acoutrement (sp?) of today's digital lifestyle, sold out of fashionable retail stores like a Bang & Olufsen stereo? Yeah right, like that's going to fly. And yet, somehow it has. Digital music players and downloadable music? Been there, done that. But for the moment, iPod, iTunes and ITMS are the proverbial "It". Again, who'dve thought it possible? Today's Apple is less about delivering tools you need, and more about ojects of desire that you, well, desire. Considering how commodified much of the PC market has become, this may not be the dumbest idea. As far as the products themselves go: Evil: I think they've done backsliding on ergonomics and are back to pretty but not-so-good mice and keyboards. Probably view replacements for fragile Powerbook AC bricks as useful revenue stream and use an odd plug to make it tougher to clone. At $80 a pop, the profit margins on the AC bricks must be really good. My local dealer stocks a surprising number of them. And fashionable colors, hard to replace batteries, and clear plastics not designed for easy cleaning all smell like planned obsolescence. Good: They're still willing to take risks and still capable of waking us up from our slumber. Dell may be a more stable company, but when was the last time they did anything exciting. For that matter, when was the first time? > Apple (and Steve Jobs) are alternately fascinating and infuriating. > Tight control over hardware and software meant good profit margins for [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Considering how commodified much of the PC market has become, this may > not be the dumbest idea. some good points... a rather fascinating look into steve's idea process is below... it's worth a careful read since it shows how steve thinks about design and the perfectionism that goes into getting something "right"... http://hbswk.hbs.edu/pubitem.jhtml?id=3533&t=innovation > As far as the products themselves go: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > clear plastics not designed for easy cleaning all smell like planned > obsolescence. yeah, the mouse is rather cold, i don't use it... the keyboard, yes, it gets dirt inside... bad design... as for the power brick, there is a hidden reason for the odd plug... it maintains the proper cord is used, thus lowering support issues... or in other words it eliminates one point of failure since it's a known quantity... > Good: They're still willing to take risks and still capable of waking us > up from our slumber. Dell may be a more stable company, but when was the > last time they did anything exciting. For that matter, when was the > first time? i'm not sure how much more DeLL is stable... they are sitting on a shifting pile of sand, with no engineering expertise to fall back on... if the pc is suddenly eclipsed, they are screwed... when this happen to IBM in the 80's they had patents, research and engineering to bring them back. DeLL could be the next Wang, not so much with Apple since it also has a long, deep history of patents, research and engineering. (nothing like IBM of course) but stronger than most all PC vendors except maybe HP. > i'm not sure how much more DeLL is stable... they are sitting on a > shifting pile of sand, with no engineering expertise to fall back on... > if the pc is suddenly eclipsed, they are screwed... This is true, but I don't think Dell are losing sleep over the possibility of PCs suddenly disappearing. Pete > > i'm not sure how much more DeLL is stable... they are sitting on a > > shifting pile of sand, with no engineering expertise to fall back on... > > if the pc is suddenly eclipsed, they are screwed... > > This is true, but I don't think Dell are losing sleep over the possibility > of PCs suddenly disappearing. ah, but if the upgrade curve halves, then its sales will too unless it can continue grabbing marketshare from its big competitors (HP, Gateway, IBM, Apple). That's not good. > > This is true, but I don't think Dell are losing sleep over the possibility > > of PCs suddenly disappearing. > > ah, but if the upgrade curve halves, then its sales will too unless it > can continue grabbing marketshare from its big competitors (HP, > Gateway, IBM, Apple). That's not good. and i foresee a "pinch" coming with all the mindless pc drones waiting to see what it will take to be compatible with longhorn... the initial specs are nuts! CPU running at 4 to 6GHz; a minimum of 2 gigs of RAM; up to a terabyte of storage... http://home.earthlink.net/~cpalma/C1420387290/E303570820/ i was playing around with Tiger and it runs just fine on a 600Mhz G3... oxford - >>> This is true, but I don't think Dell are losing sleep over the possibility >>> of PCs suddenly disappearing. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > - I saw that too. I was wondering if that is what they expect to be on a standard PC by then and used that as a base or if it is as insane as it sounds. The 4-6 Ghz I can see, even laptops are aproaching the low end of that now. Speed is supposed to double every 18 months. 2 gigs of RAM that is easily doable even for laptops we are there now. You would think if your operating system needed a terabyte then the whole hard drive would be at least 3 terabytes. I just don't know if that can be done by then. Seems impossible at least for a laptop. Current hard drives last I looked max out at 80 gigs even if it doubles and doubles again your looking at 320 gigs, which is a third of what would be needed. For a desktop I think 400 is the biggest now. A double double would be 1.6 terabytes. I can't remember what the double is for hard drives, I know its a little faster for hard drives. And you could always stick a second drive on a desktop for data. It all sounds insane, but I remember a friend bragging about buying a one gig hard drive and saying that ought to be plenty big enough back around 94. Quite frankly I could really use a 120 gig for my Powerbook right now. > Apple (and Steve Jobs) are alternately fascinating and infuriating. > Tight control over hardware and software meant good profit margins for > years but ultimately cost them market share, and man was I pissed when > Jobs and Co killed the first G3 machine (Power Computing) Actually the first PCC G3 machine was a regular 2nd generation powermac (50Mhz bus) with a G3 processor card. You'd have been better off just getting a regular mac and adding the G3 later. This incident was a prime example of the wisdom of getting rid of PCC -- they were just another Dell cherry-picking wannabe, and I prefer my Macs to come from Apple, thankyouverymuch. > and forced the > faithful to wait several more months 'till Apple could be bothered to > introduce one of their own. So as I see it, they didn't lose some > important 3rd party support, they killed it. You make it sound as if Apple were sitting around with a thumb up their a.s. They were working on the 'Gossamer' G3, quite a good design, worth waiting a couple of months for. > And somehow despite shrunken market share and a LOT less 3rd party > support, LOT? compared to what? Marketshare is down a lot from its 1995 peak, but I think the platform is looking better now than when the cloners were killed. > Apple survives and continues to set trends: Who'd have thunk it > possible? Computer as must-have acoutrement (sp?) of today's digital > lifestyle, sold out of fashionable retail stores like a Bang & Olufsen > stereo? Yeah right, like that's going to fly. And yet, somehow it has. Apple has always been a boutique brand, to mixed success. The Apple II's didn't compete with the Commodore 64's or TRS-80's on price. The first macs were sold out of Macy's. That is where I first saw one I think. > Digital music players and downloadable music? Been there, done that. But > for the moment, iPod, iTunes and ITMS are the proverbial "It". Again, > who'dve thought it possible? Temporary market sweetspot. Nothing to build an empire on. > Today's Apple is less about delivering > tools you need, and more about ojects of desire that you, well, desire. Unless you're a developer or computer professional, then Apple is making a very good tool. > Considering how commodified much of the PC market has become, this may > not be the dumbest idea. All Apple needs for success is continuing what is it is doing now. I don't think it can lose too much more to Windows, at any rate its unit sales should continue rising for the foreseeable future. >>And somehow despite shrunken market share and a LOT less 3rd party >>support, > > LOT? compared to what? Marketshare is down a lot from its 1995 peak, > but I think the platform is looking better now than when the cloners > were killed. Well, they're certainly more design-iconic these days, aren't they? It looks to me that Jobs & Co are not playing the computer marketshare game per se: That particular battle was lost long ago. Today's Apple is about digital lifestyle products: Nothing new there, but these actually seem to work pretty well and that IS kind of new. Put another way, Apple may have a 3% share of new PC sales, but they're #1 when it comes to selling iLife machines! You surely didn't think I bought an iBook to run MS Office or Quicken, did you :-) > > >>And somehow despite shrunken market share and a LOT less 3rd party [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Well, they're certainly more design-iconic these days, aren't they? we'll see, really only the iMac is wanky -- the iBook looks like a mid-90s Toshiba, the PBG4's ID has been ripped off by gateway and dell, and as for the G5 aluminum has been a popular case material for a while now. > It looks to me that Jobs & Co are not playing the computer marketshare > game per se: That particular battle was lost long ago. Today's Apple is > about digital lifestyle products: Nothing new there, but these actually > seem to work pretty well and that IS kind of new. yes. > Put another way, Apple may have a 3% share of new PC sales, but they're > #1 when it comes to selling iLife machines! You surely didn't think I > bought an iBook to run MS Office or Quicken, did you :-) Good point. I see Apple pushing all it can with Apple-label apps now. Lotsa money in apps, and there's more money in OS upgrades than hardware these days. JeffS delivered a well-written piece, including: > Apple (and Steve Jobs) are alternately fascinating and infuriating. These aren't opposing qualities; I think that he can be both at once. > Tight control over hardware and software meant good profit margins for > years but ultimately cost them market share, and man was I pissed when > Jobs and Co killed the first G3 machine (Power Computing)... I had a PowerTower Pro 225 for many years. It was a *great* machine, faster than any Apple-branded machine of its time, and I, too, was primed to order the Power Computing G3. A friend is now using my PTP 225 (now a G3/450,) and it's still a great machine! > And somehow despite shrunken market share and a LOT less 3rd party > support I don't know if the above is true or not, but the fact that such proprietary ports as ADB and Apple Serial have been replaced by USB and Apple's own FireWire certainly gives us a lot more choices of keyboards, mice, and other peripherals, especially printers; thus many third parties became Mac compatible without even trying. And smaller developers are doing great stuff with both commercial and shareware apps. I bought a Sony Vaio laptop/XP Pro a couple of years ago to run astronomy apps, where the Mac lagged considerably behind Windows. But developers both small and large are writing astronomy software for the Mac, and I rarely fire up my Vaio anymore, except to download the latest lame attempt to fix security problems. Just downloaded and installed the 277MB SP 2 last night, in fact. > Apple survives and continues to set trends... You got that right. I know it's hackneyed, but I do believe that Wintel users would still be staring at the C: prompt were it not for Apple leading the way. > Today's Apple is less about delivering tools you need, and more about > ojects of desire that you, well, desire. I take issue with this one. Photoshop is still a killer app after all these years, and there is no better way to run it than on a Mac. And Apple's Final Cut Pro and other pro video apps are positively lethal. Witness Lord of the Rings; shot in New Zealand, assembled in Britain. Director Peter Jackson did much post-productin work on PowerBooks running FCP during long flights between the two countries. He also used iPods to transport over 500GB of digital video during the making of the trilogy. Please see <http://www.annapolisappleslice.com/who.html> for other examples of people who find that Apple delivers the tools that they need. (The foregoing is a shameless plug for the Mac User Group, Annapolis (Maryland) Apple Slice. The referenced site is non-commercial and family-safe. I'm the sitemaster and complaint department.) > Evil: I think they've done backsliding on ergonomics and are back to > pretty but not-so-good mice and keyboards. Waaay right. Get over it, Steve! The Microsoft Intellimouse Explorer with five buttons and vertical and horizontal scrolling is sooooo nice! I would bet that MS could be persuaded to put the Apple logo on it, so start packing one with every Mac! Davoud (Who doesn't know how many Macs he has because some are loaned out and he doesn't keep records. He does know, however, that in a couple of weeks his new dual 2GHz G5/4GB RAM/2x250GB HDs/NVIDIA 6800 will be delivered, and that sometime in 2005 his G5 PowerBook will be delivered.) Signatureusenet *at* davidillig dawt com > JeffS delivered a well-written piece, including: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I had a PowerTower Pro 225 for many years. It was a *great* machine, > faster than any Apple-branded machine of its time uh, not really. For one thing it was running a 10% up-clocked 604 on a 10% down-clocked bus. Not exactly earth-shaking difference over a straight 200/50 system, plus Apple did offer dual configurations of the 9500 during this time. PCC was a very dangerous operation that got let into the Mac ecosystem. They wanted to be the next Dell, and really didn't give a sh.t about the ongoing success of the Mac platform. Steve stuffing their IPO by screwing over the licensing agreement was great. Not because I like paying more for less, but because Apple was basically subsidizing PCC's presence in its own markets. > > I had a PowerTower Pro 225 for many years. It was a *great* machine, > > faster than any Apple-branded machine of its time [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > great. Not because I like paying more for less, but because Apple was > basically subsidizing PCC's presence in its own markets. agreed, power had very little edge over apple systems, a couple % on one or two special models, but even say "faster" is stretching it... and yes, power wanted sooo bad to be like dell they were even housed in old dell building for while, and within a few miles of where dell eventually built is headquarters. they did have mac passion, and if let to continue would of grown the mac market... but we'll never know, steve swooped in, bought them out, closed them down. which was a good move in hindsight... "Oxford" <csma@mac.com> wrote in csma-C013E1.14591916082004@news.uswest.net on 8/16/04 1:59 PM: >>> I had a PowerTower Pro 225 for many years. It was a *great* machine, >>> faster than any Apple-branded machine of its time [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > but we'll never know, steve swooped in, bought them out, closed them > down. which was a good move in hindsight... I used to own a Power Computing "Mac". It was built like a PC... hard to work with, parts that did not integrate well, poor SCSI bus... worst mistake I ever made buying a computer. Signature"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law." Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235) > Evil: I think they've done backsliding on ergonomics and are back to > pretty but not-so-good mice and keyboards. For what it's worth, I think the current keyboard (the one with nothing surrounding the keys, a transparent base with no angle adjustment and USB ports in the middle of the back surface) is pretty good. The only improvement would be to use proper microswitches like old-fashioned PC keyboards, but that's personal preference and they are noisy. The Apple keyboard also appears to be designed with removeable keycaps for cleaning (at least, they pop off and on easily, and don't seem vulnerable to damage in the process). I can't comment on the mouse, as I bought a third-party one with a sensible number of buttons. Pete > > Evil: I think they've done backsliding on ergonomics and are back to > > pretty but not-so-good mice and keyboards. > > For what it's worth, I think the current keyboard (the one with nothing > surrounding the keys, a transparent base with no angle adjustment and USB > ports in the middle of the back surface) is pretty good. To me it seems cheap, like the ones some of the off-brand PC laptop companies put out e.g. Sager, Chembook. The best notebook keyboards in my experience are made by IBM. > > For what it's worth, I think the current keyboard (the one with nothing > > surrounding the keys, a transparent base with no angle adjustment and USB [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > companies put out e.g. Sager, Chembook. The best notebook keyboards > in my experience are made by IBM. depends partly on what you are used to, ibm doesn't make the keyswitches any more than apple makes them... but both ibm and apple design and have certain specs companies like alps build for... it's kinda like mouses... there are a lot of mouses out there, but most are made by logitech... for ibm or apple key feel... it's alps... http://www.alps.com/ > > > For what it's worth, I think the current keyboard (the one with nothing > > > surrounding the keys, a transparent base with no angle adjustment and USB [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > certain specs companies like alps build for... it's kinda like mouses... > there are a lot of mouses out there, but most are made by logitech... Well I suppose I'm thinking more of my current IBM laptop, which is very old. The newer ones that I've tried have left something to be desired. Next time I open up my Thinkpad I'll take a look for a label to find out at which company made the keyboard. Anyway I think IBM has backtracked on keyboard quality too. All i have to say is that apple reaplaced my powerbook G4 15" 1ghz since i had cronic problems with it and gave me a 1.5ghz one with all the fixings. In comp.sys.mac.portables Saturday7 <u9526@yahoo.com> wrote: > > For what it's worth, I think the current keyboard (the one with nothing > > surrounding the keys, a transparent base with no angle adjustment and USB > > ports in the middle of the back surface) is pretty good. > To me it seems cheap, like the ones some of the off-brand PC laptop > companies put out e.g. Sager, Chembook. The best notebook keyboards > in my experience are made by IBM. My favourite keyboard was the Keytronic. Big, kinda ugly.. but very satisfying. My fingers could fly on one of those keyboards. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.