Xian Zhu Xuande
Apr 5, 10:32 AM
It's not ready for the masses yet, but if you know even the slightest about tech (in its use, not in more technical aspects), it *really* is a superior device at the moment.
How does knowing something about tech make it a superior device? Are you basing it on something like a feature list? It is a highly inferior device because it is an inferior means of accomplishing the vast majority of tablet-related tasks as compared to the iPad. I'm not knocking Android by any means—it will continue to evolve and tablet offerings will improve—but in the tablet world it trails a considerable distance behind iOS and that is what matters most.
CR is obsolete.
By no means. They're just struggling to evolve with the products they review. I agree that they're poorly suited to review some of these more technical devices and I think their methodology renders many such reviews released by them fairly useless, but they serve a valuable purpose, it would be a shame to see this type of service go away, and I can't see how they've become obsolete to many folks out there.
How does knowing something about tech make it a superior device? Are you basing it on something like a feature list? It is a highly inferior device because it is an inferior means of accomplishing the vast majority of tablet-related tasks as compared to the iPad. I'm not knocking Android by any means—it will continue to evolve and tablet offerings will improve—but in the tablet world it trails a considerable distance behind iOS and that is what matters most.
CR is obsolete.
By no means. They're just struggling to evolve with the products they review. I agree that they're poorly suited to review some of these more technical devices and I think their methodology renders many such reviews released by them fairly useless, but they serve a valuable purpose, it would be a shame to see this type of service go away, and I can't see how they've become obsolete to many folks out there.
aristotle
Jun 12, 02:00 PM
There is simply no reason why T-Mobile could not have shared the spectrum with AT&T since other countries have independent competitors doing exactly that. See my post about concerning Canada and look at the UK and continental Europe.
e�Studios
Mar 29, 03:19 PM
Better graphics than the existing DS
I am tempted to buy one for this reason. I was able to look at one in a store earlier today and wow, its ugly.. I really prefer the look of the DSi a lot more, the 3DS just looks horrible compared to the DSi.
The 3D aspect really means nothing to me as I cannot see anything in 3D (glasses based or this I assume) because of my vision issues. The idea of having better graphics compels me, however I'm not sure if I will get one just yet.
I am tempted to buy one for this reason. I was able to look at one in a store earlier today and wow, its ugly.. I really prefer the look of the DSi a lot more, the 3DS just looks horrible compared to the DSi.
The 3D aspect really means nothing to me as I cannot see anything in 3D (glasses based or this I assume) because of my vision issues. The idea of having better graphics compels me, however I'm not sure if I will get one just yet.
ctsoxfan
May 2, 03:22 PM
Thanks for the tip on this game - just downloaded it as well.
more...
PlaceofDis
Jan 14, 11:21 PM
A few people have set up chat for MWSF in ichat. it is called: MWSF08. Simply go to file>Go to chatroom> MWSF08. All 7 of us in the room were wondering if MacRumors could lock this or announce it somehow.
macrumors has its own IRC channel, fwiw.
http://www.macrumors.com/2003/06/08/macrumors-irc-channel-macrumors/
macrumors has its own IRC channel, fwiw.
http://www.macrumors.com/2003/06/08/macrumors-irc-channel-macrumors/
aristotle
Jun 11, 03:01 PM
Here in Canada, we have:
Bell Mobility - 3G 850/1900 (official iPhone/iPad carrier)
more...
quotes and poems. best friends
best friends forever quotes
more...
Friends Forever Boys Whatever
friends forever quotes
more...
cute friends forever quotes.
friends forever quotes
more...
friends forever quotes
friends forever quotes. ticman
more...
best friends forever quotes
friends forever quotes
more...
est friends forever poems
short friends forever quotes.
cute friends forever quotes.
Bell Mobility - 3G 850/1900 (official iPhone/iPad carrier)
more...
antman2x2
Apr 13, 10:50 PM
This all started in another thread... Im not too comfortable with threadjacking someone, dont wanna get in trouble!
Im also not too sure if silly threads like this are allowed. REMOVE/LOCK THIS IF IM BREAKING ANY RULES, dont wanna get in trouble :X
If anyone wants to contribute a skill LET ME KNOW.
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e259/Antman2x2/STING-5.png
Im also not too sure if silly threads like this are allowed. REMOVE/LOCK THIS IF IM BREAKING ANY RULES, dont wanna get in trouble :X
If anyone wants to contribute a skill LET ME KNOW.
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e259/Antman2x2/STING-5.png
AppliedMicro
Jun 21, 05:13 PM
I think a lot of people in here are also looking over the fact that the card reader is on the USB bus.
Where did you get that info from? :confused:
I do not think it's on the USB bus. Evidence: while the card reader does not show up in USB tree in System Profiler whatsoever - even though other internal peripherals, namely Bluetooth controller & Infrared receiver do! - System Profiler provides two very interesting lines for the "card reader":
"Link width: 1x
Maximum speed*: 2.5 GT/s"
This strongly suggests the card reader being connected via PCIe. So the speed may, in practical terms, not be limited by the bus at all. Time - and faster SD cards - should eventually tell how fast it can go.
* or something alike. I cannot look it up right now as my currently booted OS doesn't recognize it at all.
Where did you get that info from? :confused:
I do not think it's on the USB bus. Evidence: while the card reader does not show up in USB tree in System Profiler whatsoever - even though other internal peripherals, namely Bluetooth controller & Infrared receiver do! - System Profiler provides two very interesting lines for the "card reader":
"Link width: 1x
Maximum speed*: 2.5 GT/s"
This strongly suggests the card reader being connected via PCIe. So the speed may, in practical terms, not be limited by the bus at all. Time - and faster SD cards - should eventually tell how fast it can go.
* or something alike. I cannot look it up right now as my currently booted OS doesn't recognize it at all.
more...
Iconoclysm
Apr 21, 05:09 PM
So, it's most likely they are going do these things.
1. One device that will work on both VZ and AT&T network
2. 32GB and 64G storage.
3. 1080P recording with 8 megapixel camera
4. A5 chip
5. Maybe higher ram or maybe not.
6. Throw in something new... like better gyroscope or something to just make iPhone 4 outdated, but nothing major.
This is BS. It's not good enough, apple.
Huh? What are you expecting? A Geiger Counter?
1. One device that will work on both VZ and AT&T network
2. 32GB and 64G storage.
3. 1080P recording with 8 megapixel camera
4. A5 chip
5. Maybe higher ram or maybe not.
6. Throw in something new... like better gyroscope or something to just make iPhone 4 outdated, but nothing major.
This is BS. It's not good enough, apple.
Huh? What are you expecting? A Geiger Counter?
mattwolfmatt
May 2, 12:53 PM
You're measuring it wrong.
more...
Dagless
Jan 19, 07:04 PM
I'd get one just for Zelda, Pilotwings and Starfox. But not at �230! That's ridiculous for a handheld machine that's primarily aimed at kids.
Gotta disagree there. Nintendo's handheld systems have always had a varied library. Have you seen the launch lineup? Metal Gear Solid, Street Fighter, 2 Resident Evil games, Madden, Ridge Racer, Asphalt. Even those Zelda and Mario titles are universal. The only obvious kids title I see is Nintendogs.
Gotta disagree there. Nintendo's handheld systems have always had a varied library. Have you seen the launch lineup? Metal Gear Solid, Street Fighter, 2 Resident Evil games, Madden, Ridge Racer, Asphalt. Even those Zelda and Mario titles are universal. The only obvious kids title I see is Nintendogs.
SteveRichardson
Aug 14, 02:14 PM
Exactly - enlighten us. How do you know why its marketshare has increased as of late? Neither me nor freeny claim that its SOLELY because of the ads - but how can you prove that the ads haven't convinced 1 single switcher...?
I'm not claiming to say that these ads have hurt or helped boost the market shares...I'm only saying that I have only heard negative things about them.
I feel embarrassed watching them.
I personally believe that the market share has risen because of the intel switch. The ads happened to come out at the same time so it's impossible to know how they've affected the market share, but either way I really don't like them. It's not the actors either... definitely the elitist script.
I like that Shaun White ad where he narrates what he does with his computer and this stunt guy (you can only see his torso) is reaching and grabbing at nothing that was edited later to appear as if what he was grabbing at were his folders/documents/songs/etc... Pretty clever. And no snobbishness (yeah that word rocks) either.
Did I mention I like Ellen Feiss?
I'm not claiming to say that these ads have hurt or helped boost the market shares...I'm only saying that I have only heard negative things about them.
I feel embarrassed watching them.
I personally believe that the market share has risen because of the intel switch. The ads happened to come out at the same time so it's impossible to know how they've affected the market share, but either way I really don't like them. It's not the actors either... definitely the elitist script.
I like that Shaun White ad where he narrates what he does with his computer and this stunt guy (you can only see his torso) is reaching and grabbing at nothing that was edited later to appear as if what he was grabbing at were his folders/documents/songs/etc... Pretty clever. And no snobbishness (yeah that word rocks) either.
Did I mention I like Ellen Feiss?
more...
moobey
Apr 5, 12:10 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
They're still sticking with that aluminum/chrome back?? Ugh... It looks so dated, not to mention the fact that they get scratched to hell so easily.
They're still sticking with that aluminum/chrome back?? Ugh... It looks so dated, not to mention the fact that they get scratched to hell so easily.
Sydde
May 2, 03:00 PM
Ill agree with you on Lack of Education and Religious Extremism. Resentment, somewhat. I tend to think that if we just leave them the heck alone to do whatever they want and be as Shariah as they please we will see less terror attempts.
Terrorism typically arises from some sort of injustice. I think there is some truth to the clich� "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." But "leaving them alone" is somewhat problematic as long as we support multinational enterprise that seeks to extract maximum profit in every corner of the world. Even if the business s not based in America, America is the most prominent target.
I know it is not apples-to-apples, but I was wondering if anyone has seen the National Geographic on North Korea? One part that struck my nerve was at the end when the doctors were removing the bandages from the patients eyes, one of the North Koreans first thing to do was go praise a poster of Ill and promise to "Destroy the american scum with my new eyes" or something like that, despite the fact that much of the equipment used to complete the surgeries was American made and American funded IIRC.
Most likely, the government expects this sort of show of loyalty, when they are paying for your treatment. If you do not do this, you would probably labeled as seditiously ungrateful and they would find some way to make your life miserable.
Terrorism typically arises from some sort of injustice. I think there is some truth to the clich� "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." But "leaving them alone" is somewhat problematic as long as we support multinational enterprise that seeks to extract maximum profit in every corner of the world. Even if the business s not based in America, America is the most prominent target.
I know it is not apples-to-apples, but I was wondering if anyone has seen the National Geographic on North Korea? One part that struck my nerve was at the end when the doctors were removing the bandages from the patients eyes, one of the North Koreans first thing to do was go praise a poster of Ill and promise to "Destroy the american scum with my new eyes" or something like that, despite the fact that much of the equipment used to complete the surgeries was American made and American funded IIRC.
Most likely, the government expects this sort of show of loyalty, when they are paying for your treatment. If you do not do this, you would probably labeled as seditiously ungrateful and they would find some way to make your life miserable.
more...
realtwang
Apr 20, 01:34 PM
Maybe a little off topic, but could we *please* do something about the auto-play videos on these stories. Not that they're not great videos, but it's annoying as hell when you bring up this page a few times a day...:mad:
Axl Rose
Mar 27, 01:24 PM
when was that?
more...
Balli
Nov 12, 05:33 AM
Oh, I know it's sort of off-topic, but check this out:
How to Fold a Shirt (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/fold.php).
That was amazing! :)
How to Fold a Shirt (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/fold.php).
That was amazing! :)
bella92108
Apr 1, 12:32 PM
Do you really think the channels would be priced at $1/channel? If they ever do go a la carte, channels would likely be priced at $5/channel. That way, the cable companies won't lose any money.
The a la carte TV debate hasn't seen much action lately since the government has all sorts of other crap to worry about. But there are upsides and downsides to each side of the ALC debate.
Pros - gives control to the consumer; potentially lower cost for the consumer (dubious at best)
Cons - smaller networks wouldn't survive; most niche networks would become less focused in order to appeal to a wider demographic; diversity in program would be jeopardized.
You clearly haven't left the US much. MOST other countries offer programming ala carte, and it works fine and is almost always about a buck a channel. It basically turns into you getting a bunch of the nonsense like home shopping free with subscription of 10 channels... television in the US is so regulated, taxes, and expensive because of things like ESPN and Disney having such a dominance on the providers, this country is f'd...
The a la carte TV debate hasn't seen much action lately since the government has all sorts of other crap to worry about. But there are upsides and downsides to each side of the ALC debate.
Pros - gives control to the consumer; potentially lower cost for the consumer (dubious at best)
Cons - smaller networks wouldn't survive; most niche networks would become less focused in order to appeal to a wider demographic; diversity in program would be jeopardized.
You clearly haven't left the US much. MOST other countries offer programming ala carte, and it works fine and is almost always about a buck a channel. It basically turns into you getting a bunch of the nonsense like home shopping free with subscription of 10 channels... television in the US is so regulated, taxes, and expensive because of things like ESPN and Disney having such a dominance on the providers, this country is f'd...
bmustaf
Apr 5, 05:56 PM
I think you're misinterpreting my language - I mean "for the user that knows even the most basic amount about technology" the user experience is superior in my estimation.
Not the interpretation you seem to be reading into it that reads more like "anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot".
How does knowing something about tech make it a superior device? Are you basing it on something like a feature list? It is a highly inferior device because it is an inferior means of accomplishing the vast majority of tablet-related tasks as compared to the iPad. I'm not knocking Android by any means�it will continue to evolve and tablet offerings will improve�but in the tablet world it trails a considerable distance behind iOS and that is what matters most.
By no means. They're just struggling to evolve with the products they review. I agree that they're poorly suited to review some of these more technical devices and I think their methodology renders many such reviews released by them fairly useless, but they serve a valuable purpose, it would be a shame to see this type of service go away, and I can't see how they've become obsolete to many folks out there.
Not the interpretation you seem to be reading into it that reads more like "anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot".
How does knowing something about tech make it a superior device? Are you basing it on something like a feature list? It is a highly inferior device because it is an inferior means of accomplishing the vast majority of tablet-related tasks as compared to the iPad. I'm not knocking Android by any means�it will continue to evolve and tablet offerings will improve�but in the tablet world it trails a considerable distance behind iOS and that is what matters most.
By no means. They're just struggling to evolve with the products they review. I agree that they're poorly suited to review some of these more technical devices and I think their methodology renders many such reviews released by them fairly useless, but they serve a valuable purpose, it would be a shame to see this type of service go away, and I can't see how they've become obsolete to many folks out there.
Mr. Gates
Apr 5, 11:53 AM
Can't they just improve the button itself?
I know this is is a prototype so I'm now worried about this nonsense, but it does bring up an important issue.
The button on the iOS devices has never been updated or improved.
Its too small, it is easily damaged, and the clicking action is pretty weak.
There is a lot of room for improvement
I know this is is a prototype so I'm now worried about this nonsense, but it does bring up an important issue.
The button on the iOS devices has never been updated or improved.
Its too small, it is easily damaged, and the clicking action is pretty weak.
There is a lot of room for improvement
MikhailT
Mar 28, 09:05 AM
When has Apple ever made anything more than "just a small improvement"?
To many users, Snow Leopard is just a small improvement over Leopard.
To many users, Snow Leopard is just a small improvement over Leopard.
MikeTheC
Nov 3, 01:19 AM
I'd like to tackle a few points in the discussion here.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
kdarling
Oct 6, 03:50 PM
First off Apple isn't even close to first in sales, so your thoughts are based on faulty data.In the US they aren't but in the rest of the world they are.
Worldwide, 2009:
Worldwide, 2009:
ddtlm
Oct 2, 08:53 PM
Not Microsoft's market... yet.
They want that peice of the pie. Give them time, they will try to take it.
They want that peice of the pie. Give them time, they will try to take it.
No comments:
Post a Comment