Replies

Their innovations are mostly copied from others

That's hilarious. Who's copying whom, here? Looks like the nattering nabobs have given up trashing the iPad and are stepping all over themselves to get some Android kludge iClone tablet to market. Same with iPhone, what the heck is Android if not a copy of iPhone?

Then, you have the entire notion of "apps," a stripped down conception of software applications ... wholly attributable to Apple and only three years ago, but you'd think that's just the way the world has always been, to listen to the would-be crowd busily knocking off Apple again and again.

It's been like this since Bill Gates kludged together Windows on top of DOS with the explicit objective of making it look like a Mac, apparently elusive still, but that was the explicit objective. The keyboard commands, everything that could be just like a Mac was just like a Mac, and what couldn't was still like a Mac but backwards, inverted scrollbars or buttons for expanding and closing windows, etcetera.

Apple was largely responsible for every single thing you take for granted, from the first successful desktop metaphor GUI to using a mouse, to color monitors, to, well, you name it. Everybody else fell in line behind them.

So, again, what are you talking about?

That's hilarious. Who's copying whom, here? Looks like the nattering nabobs have given up trashing the iPad and are stepping all over themselves to get some Android kludge iClone tablet to market.

Yes, because that idea wasn't done like 6 years ago. The iPad is a rehash of 10+ years of PC tablets. It's moderately successful; compare iPad sales to netbooks, for example - it's not even close, netbooks dominate and notebooks annihilate iPad sales.

Then, you have the entire notion of "apps," a stripped down conception of software applications ... wholly attributable to Apple and only three years ago

Really? Nokia had an application store back in 2005, about 2 years before Apple even announced it.

It's been like this since Bill Gates kludged together Windows on top of DOS with the explicit objective of making it look like a Mac, apparently elusive still, but that was the explicit objective.

Yes, the Mac, with its single button mouse and shared menu was so well cloned by Windows...;) Never mind color versus B&W! And where did Apple get those ideas? Xerox PARC perhaps?

The keyboard commands, everything that could be just like a Mac was just like a Mac, and what couldn't was still like a Mac but backwards, inverted scrollbars or buttons for expanding and closing windows, etcetera.

Really? The original PC keyboards didn't have an "Apple" button, and they've always had a backspace button (Apple still doesn't). And those other features? Take a look at PARC again. CTRL+C/X/V were from PARC, not Apple. And Microsoft used those, since they were standards by 1977.

Apple was largely responsible for every single thing you take for granted, from the first successful desktop metaphor GUI to using a mouse

...if we ignore PARC, Wang, AutoDesk, and a host of others who were in graphical GUIs with mice or pucks (and, BTW, the mouse was patented in 1970 for use on other computer systems, well before the Steves ever met and started Apple)...

...Oh, and of course Apple released their FIRST computer about 4 years AFTER Charles Simonyi (yes, of Microsoft fame) coined the term WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get), and started the entire GUI/graphical revolution...

to color monitors

...other than IBM, Epson, and Xerox having color computers out in 1974-1975... Not to mention the ELF, Super ELF, and VideoBrain which also preceded the Apple II...

to, well, you name it

Someone's been studying their revisionist history!

Apple was not the first with apps! The first generation of what Apple calls the I-pad was called a tablet computer. IBM made one and Microsoft made software for them as well. The idea never caught on and that was in like 1996.

Apple did make some inroads into real inventiveness back when they were losing money, but changed direction when the founder returned and became a marketer along the same lines as the Sharper Image business model.

I am not alone in my assessments. Apple has huge following, but the fan base is about tapped out. There are only so many people who marry a company and are willing to use all their proprietary add on's like being forced to all drive red cars and use Apple gas. Most people resent that sort of stuff, and that is what happened to sharper image and other predecessors using this same business model. I could name dozens of them. The app thing was a great way to plant the hook, and every good marketer has a hook.

Analysts on the street are not yet shorting Apple because they are waiting for the solid downtrend to become firm on the charts, but Apple will show that weakness soon as they finish this rollout of 4G and after this, I will predict they come out with a bigger phone and a bigger screen....Oh wait! several companies already have one out or are on the drawing board but all the mac heads will claim it is new innovation by Apple. They did not invent the MP3 player, they just marketed one called the I-pod.

Eventually, reality catches up to the company that does this, and Apple will be no exception to the rule and Apple has have a long run by comparative standards.

I have never bought a product from a proprietary vendor with one exception, I bought a Bose Wave Radio and paid a ridiculous price for it because I had plenty of dough at the time and wanted to treat myself. I can't say it was a mistake because It still works and I've had it for 15 years, but you can't use any other remote with it and you must deal with them for any replacement parts and I am a pretty good board level electronic tech. I resent that. They even rubbed off the part numbers or had them made with Bose Id numbers to make it impossible to repair but I fixed it because I have a good memory for parts in that era.

Apple does much the same with their stuff. it is largely over the counter stuff with mods and changes that make it a must to deal with Apple.(desk tops)

These days the stuff is now mostly throwaway but I would much rather deal with a independent company that builds to suit, or do it myself and as far as phones are concerned, I first want a phone that works and does not lose signal. AT&T ain't it!

I don't know if Apple will ever make this deal with Verizon. Verizon has a 1XEV network for the most part except in large cities and the data draw from I phone users would compromise the network and make the phone have issues. A 1XEV runs everything through the phone servers, where AT&T had to install a additional network to piggy back the phone to handle the data load. That is the 3G. I use a Blackberry storm. I note that their networks are just about at capacity in some areas,(Verizon) but at least I stay hooked up where ever I go and make calls which is the purpose of the phone..Larger cities have 3G service though. I can't see that deal going through, but it might. If it does, it will be a disaster for much of the Verizon network just as it has been for AT&T. That is why they made the video chat app for wi-fi only. The network is overloaded now.

So....for all these reasons and more, I think the run is done.