Discuss technical issues, software, and hardware.
Don't attack people!
Don't respond to the Anti-Apple Thread Trolls!
PLEASE IGNORE THEM!!!
Ignorant Apple v. Android Analysts Ping!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 02/04/2011 11:59:21 PM PST by Swordmaker
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Why? It’s a little thing we like to call stupidity, sometimes coupled with a little thing we like to call payola.
>>techies, and tinkerers.
Without pointlessly debating specifics, it does seem after historical perspective that closed, proprietary systems ultimately give way to freer platforms. I think the IPhone and IPad are great devices but will not be able to keep up with the innovation that will come from Android’s developers. The Apple II line and Mac Classic line eventually got lost in the sea of cheaper, open platforms.
Cheap android devices are busting down the barriers. MetroPCS’s $100 Android phone was just the ticket for alot of smart-phone skeptics. I admit, it did it for me! On the other hand, I am also now more interested in the iPhone as well. I have used my brothers quite a bit. At the moment, nothing compels me to get one over the android device I have now, but that could change.
Excellent article.
Actually it’s a meandering article which never gets around to doing the most basic things that writers generally do in technological comparisons - comparing features offered, cost, and quallity.
“Without pointlessly debating specifics, it does seem after historical perspective that closed, proprietary systems ultimately give way to freer platforms.”
It’s not clear. With music players Apple is effortlessly holding on to great market share. With phones carrier lockin hurt Apple but that’s starting to change. In the pad space it looks like Apple will continue to do very well. Mac sales continue to pick up despite a somewhat limited range of hardware options.
I’m all for competition as it will spur Apple on to even better products, but I’m not at all worried about Apples prospects. Apple is on an amazing run, and it’s mind boggling that its market cap is exceeded only by Exxon.
It's not a technical article, a review article, or a consumer reports style comparison of features article. It's an article about the comparison of sales figures, as reported, and as they actually occurred.
Yup. That's why Linux has destroyed the desktop market share of OS X and Windows.
The upgrade path for Android phones or tablets will be a deal breaker for many in coming years. Apple will benefit when those early Android users realize they have to upgrade hardware when a major Android release hits (or learn how to weather through upgrading what is a Linux OS).
And just in case you wonder, I use Linux daily and have since 2003. Upgrades are always a challenge and never as simple as an iOS upgrade.
Historically, has competition inspired Apple? I am not a techie but just observing what has been going on it seems to me that Apple has pretty much been going their own way until that little hiccup with Skully giving in to "conventional wisdom" and selling their operating system to other hardware builders (Power Computing). Other than that, they have been the leaders with the others scrambling to catch up with the new ideas.
Others made portable music players but the iPod invigorated and revolutionized the market. Was there a smart phone before the iPhone? I really don't know but it doesn't matter because, again, Apple caused a real stir in the market place and that market took off with Apple in the lead. The same with the much ridiculed iPad when it was introduced. Did competition cause that or was it vision and leadership? As well as I recall, that particular market, the netbook or tablet, had been abandoned. Once again, Apple reinvigorated it and now it has become a phenomenon of its own.
I expect to see even more innovation from Apple because I think the have the future planned and are introducing it one step at a time. Competition is not likely to affect that.
Apple has never been sensitive to price so price competition won't affect them either. They build a better product, an integrated system, and provide a great user experience. People seem willing to pay for that. They are the most profitable company in the market. In market capitalization the are second only to Exxon Mobile, ahead of GE, Proctor and Gamble, Kraft Foods, etc. They have always seemed immune to competition and I don't expect that to change.
If I might jump into it, there's also the "good enough vs. highest quality" and "cheap enough vs. higher price" philosophy. No company is 100% either way, BUT each tends towards one end of the spectrum in each philosophy. With computers, comparing a $399 Windows box to a $999 minimum price Apple full computer, many decide the $399 box is "good enough." With the music players, Apple positioned an entry level player that was "cheap enough" that there wasn't a price point below it that other manufacturers could leverage. Other manufacturers also haven't been able to tap exterior sources of revenue to subsidize other music players as they could with PCs (adware on the PC.) With the tablets, the competitors were caught flat footed, as they were with the music players and smart phones. It's coming up on a year, and there still aren't any viable competitors.
BTW, side note: When Balmer came out with the HP Slate at a show a week before the iPad announcement, and the game he demonstrated was "Frogger," it was clear that Microsoft and others had again been caught flat footed. That year to grab market share and refine the product before other companies have even produced a viable clone is very valuable.
Apple has also become much better at making products that are "cheap enough." With the iPods, there's not enough pricing space below it for a company to make a product that is "good enough" and has enough price differentiation to grab market share. At this time, the iPad is apparently in the same category. By the time the touch screen, memory, processors, case and batteries are manufactured, it looks like $500 is about the floor for a product that does the job and is robust enough to be bounced around as much as a tablet computer will be.
This is NOT the same Apple that used advertising that looked like a "Burt's Bees" skin cream ad and didn't fully understand market forces. This is one of two US Corporations (Ford being the other) that appears to care about their products.
... got turned face down by Gates, who did that to a bunch of people (partner with them, learn their secrets, create a competitive device and drive them out of business.)
That is what first turned me against MicroSoft. Instead of encouraging innovation and cooperation, like Apple has now done with their iTunes store and App store, they became predators. It is especially irritating when posters start touting MS's market share as proof of superiority. They were simply in the right place at the right time and savaged the competition to stay there. Instead of innovating they simply added on to what they had stolen and became unmanageable and vulnerable bloatware. ( Perhaps with Windows 7 they have finally designed something themselves.) Yet, because they had established dominance in a market that grew exponentially they were the default winner in market share.
However, to paraphrase Reverend Jeremiah Wright, their chickens are coming home to roost and they will lose the game in the future. The future is going where they are not going but Apple is. Apple will put a big dent in MS and Google, according to my crystal ball.
Frankly, I hope both Android and Apple do well. The more choice that’s out there the better for everybody. I like to see a larger range of price points and capabilities.
Bingo. ****WARNING**** Rant ahead.
When the MBAs took over General Motors and shoved out Harley Earl, the company started being run by a bunch of guys who didn't give a darn about creating great cars. They would have been just as happy selling laundry detergent. Earl was pushing for GM to design smaller, more refined, higher MPG vehicles. He also wanted to bring in women to design cars specifically for the female market. The new MBAs saw "bigger cars, bigger profits" and shoved Earl out. A few years ago, GM brought out their "Ghost of Harley Earl" ads, featuring an actor playing Harley Earl, hawking a Buick that the real Harley Earl would have spit on.
AMF nearly killed Harley Davidson by putting the MBAs in charge of it. Pursuit of short term profits put quality control in the toilet, and Harley only survived by being bought out by employees that had a vision of what a Harley should be.
MBAs are a necessary evil. They need to be there to keep companies from running completely off the financial track, but they should NOT be the people with final say on product development and manufacturing.
For me, when evaluating a company, I REALLY look at what their head guy says. If he talks about workplace diversity, sustainability, and green initiatives, that company is going to make a lousy product.
Look at Ford from three years ago and Ford today. Under Bill Ford, all they talked about was green, gay rights, and diversity. Today, under Mulally, they talk about making great vehicles. Yeah, they're pushing fuel economy and developing hybrids, BUT they recognize that it's about making a great car and defining the features that make a vehicle a desirable commodity.
Under Jobs, Apple has done a great job of figuring out what people want BEFORE they know they want it, and having the product to market as soon as the underlying technology is mature enough to support it. They also understand that the importance of the product is as a whole. Way too many competing devices are designed by tech guys who don't understand the end user. They view a product as a big tub where you dump a lot of features. For them, much of the appeal of a product is being able to take it apart and play with it, and put it back together in different ways. I've seen quite a few people post on FR that one of the big problems with the iPhone is that it's tough to root it, and that's why it's destined to be overtaken by Android. They do not understand that very few people want to root their phone and use it for an experimental science lab. Had a buddy back in the early PC days. He knew more about computers than anyone else I personally knew. Never got a darned thing done. Every time you walked into his office, his PC was in pieces cause he was sticking a new component in it.
When I bought my daughter an iPhone 4 for Christmas, the sales guy tried to steer me to a Windows phone. He said, "AND, it's got a Zune built into it." I stared at him for a second, and he said, "Come on, man. We're supposed to make a pitch for the Windows phones."
Earl was pushing for GM to design smaller, more refined, higher MPG vehicles. He also wanted to bring in women to design cars specifically for the female market. The new MBAs saw "bigger cars, bigger profits" and shoved Earl out.
Small cars had already been produced and found very little market for them. People wanted power and comfort. Immediately after WWII Kaiser Aluminum went into the car business. Among the models they made were the compact, high milage Henry J. Poor sales. American motors produced the Nash line. Among them was the Rambler. Same results. All the manufacturers have produced small cars over time and no body wanted them. Even now when the government is pushing "green" and gas prices are high few people want small cars. We all want large powerful cars with good gas milage. :-)
Carroll Shelby, at Ford, made the powerful Shelby GT Mustang, a roaring success. The large engine muscle cars from GM and Chrysler were successes also. In this case, I think the MBAs at GM may have been right. However, the UAW produced crap cars in many cases.
AMF nearly killed Harley Davidson by putting the MBAs in charge of it. Pursuit of short term profits put quality control in the toilet, and Harley only survived by being bought out by employees that had a vision of what a Harley should be.
I remember, perhaps misremember, that it was the union that was killing Harley and management stepped in and gave the members stock in the company, making them the owners of the company. That is what turned Harley around. It was no longer US, the unions, against THEM, management. It was now only US, so they changed their attitude and made excellent motorcycles again.
I understand that now that the original union owners have retired the problem is rearing its ugly head again.
Surely you are not calling Microsoft an open platform. Microsoft succeeded because hardware became a commodity. Operating systems were scarce back in the 1980s. Market conditions are different today. Today operating systems are a commodity.
As for open, Apple has created some amazing open source projects. Apple created WebKit to write their Safari browser and then open-sourced WebKit. Google later used it to write their Chrome browser. Lots of other projects are using WebKit.
Apple has also invested heavily in LLVM, an open source project to drive forward the development of a modern compiler and processor for the C family of languages. This is a very big deal if you program in those languages. And Apple's integrated development environment, based on LLVM, is free for any one to download.
People see the products like iPhone, iPod, and iPad. But behind those projects lie a great deal of technical knowledge and innovation. And Apple has been very generous in making some of those key technologies open source.
It had a 324 cubic inch 250 HP engine, and an undisclosed amount of torque. GM killed it so it wouldn't compete with the Vette. Earl was pushing for small cars to be well made. The GM philosophy was to make small cars grudgingly, and make them as spartan as possible, trying to push people to the larger, higher profit cars.
On HD, I know the union was furious with AMF decisions, but do not know anything about the internal politics of the buyout.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.