Technology Apple

[masta247]

So that's the point. They are not innovative but they do know how to make things popular to any average noob/joe. There were touchscreen phones before the Iphone (they sucked though) but there were superior mp3 players before the ipod. There were good tables before the ipad etc. They succeed at making things popular because they're trendy and use overwhelming marketing with mean techniques (our product will be the best, it's the most advanced blabla and others suck).

With innovations it's not about the design, I agree that their design might be liked but it barely matters if we're talking about technology. Since Android took over all Apple does is copy existing solutions calling them their own, best and innovative. They pretend to be innovative but all they do is copy and steal. New Mac OsX too, things that actually work there are stolen from Windows 7 and third party programs. There's absolutely nothing new and it's still way behind Windows 7 if it comes to innovations, and if it comes to ease of use too! Apple successfully creates a myth that people believe. Really, to an average Joe a Windows 7 PC will be much easier to use and more intuitive than Mac OSX. Apple's market share consists in a large part of people who believe the hype and myths.
Vista sucks so it doesn't count but XP was way more advanced and easier to use than Mac operating systems at that time too.

Now Apple have NEVER had market's finest hardware, at ANY point! Their highest end computers right now performance-wise are equivalents of average hardware available on the market, plus usually pretty outdated. Quality-wise they are even below average. Any guy having an idea of how to build his computer would be able to build up his own of much, much better quality, much higher performance for a fifth of the price or so of the fastest Apple computer. And I really mean it.
Now while they update their line-up once in a while it's rarely high end and for the rest of the year or so it's simply too outdated for the enormous price. Not to mention that they basically don't even use any reasonable graphics cards for their computers! Sure, there's no use anyway since you can't really use them to play games properly.

Let's not forget about Iphones - at no point any Iphone was on par with market's top hardware-wise. Be it processor, graphics, memory, camera, whatever. They were usually the most expensive though. That's where Apple's profits come from.

So I don't deny Apple's success at all. A success based on appeal, hype and lies and marketing tricks.

 

[dilla]

Really? What MP3 player was out in 2001 that was better than the iPod? What were its specs as opposed to the iPods?

In OSX, what specifically was taken from Windows 7? The Windows 7 that was released four month after Snow Leopard. The past two iterations all utilized the Magic TrackPad and gestures associated with it. That's what got the OS its reputation as an "intuitive" OS. I've seen some of the gestures manufacturers have employed on crummy trackpads. They suck shit.

And you're telling me when Sandy Bridge Core i7s were released earlier this year, they were still shit compared to previous generation i7s? i5s and so on?

 

[masta247]

Really? What MP3 player was out in 2001 that was better than the iPod? What were its specs as opposed to the iPods?

The first Ipod was a direct copy of this one, released in 1998:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_PMP300
and hdd-based mp3 players introduced in 1999/2000 or so.

Iriver had far superior mp3 players since 2001 or so. Actually it still applies till today. The first Ipod was actually released at the very end of 2001, entered most markets in 2002.
Now if it comes to specs it depends on the model. IFP series were pretty good, while being flash based though. They had much better audio chips, replaceable batteries and supported more audio formats at higher bitrates. Actually I still remember reading tech newspapers where audiophiles really dissed the first Ipods for their audio quality. In a techy/audiophile newspaper here the first generation Ipod received 2 or 3 out of 10 grade depending on the edition. They really weren't good, they became popular because they were stylish and came with "cool wheel for changing songs". Acceptable audio chips came with 2nd or 3rd generation. Still currently audio chips that Apple use are on par with higher mid-end smartphones, while companies like Iriver, Iaudio or even Sandisk use often superior, audiophile grade ones. Even Samsung uses superior audio chips in their mp3 players. This doesn't stop them from supplying inferior chips to Apple, just like with CPU/GPU units for Iphones (great example with a CPU/GPU Hummingbird and Iphone's A4 which was similar but lacked SGX540 GPU, had SGX530/535 instead which is a few times less efficient).

In OSX, what specifically was taken from Windows 7? The Windows 7 that was released four month after Snow Leopard. The past two iterations all utilized the Magic TrackPad and gestures associated with it. That's what got the OS its reputation as an "intuitive" OS. I've seen some of the gestures manufacturers have employed on crummy trackpads. They suck shit.

Windows 7 beta was already available before there was any info on Snow Leopard's features.

Now if it comes to Lion it's basically a combo of traditional MacOS, IOS and Windows 7 (in a retarded way) though it's said to suck like Vista.
Well, for example Lion is able to detect when your computer freezes (what? a Mac freezes?! yeah). You can tick an option(!) to make the computer shut down once it detects a process that uses up 100% of your CPU time resulting in a freeze. What Windows 7 does when your computer freezes is detecting the process that takes up 100% of your CPU time and asks whether you'd like to close the program. It's based on the very same feature just produces a different outcome, more reasonable on Microsoft's system.
Lion takes advantage of Windows 7's simple solutions like sending files wirelessly and management of wireless connections, peer to peer wifi (between Mac computers only! To ensure that nobody sends files to different devices they introduced a separate program that is only available to Mac computers), autosaving progress when editing documents (yeeah, super innovative).. oh hell, just check the list here and see yourself how ridiculous it is: http://www.apple.com/macosx/whats-new/features.html
Most features that make sense here are already available on Windows or Microsoft programs. Others are copies from third party companies and Apple's own systems.

And you're telling me when Sandy Bridge Core i7s were released earlier this year, they were still shit compared to previous generation i7s? i5s and so on?

I can't find any Macbook that had Sandy Bridge earlier than any other company. Can you provide a source?
Sandy Bridge was released in January 2011 and that's when anyone could buy a Sandy Bridge motherboard/cpu, I believe that a Sandy Bridge generation of Macs was released later, also I don't think that there's a Mac with the highest Sandy Bridge CPU till this day.
Also this doesn't change the fact that Macbooks tend to use low-end ram modules and graphics, average hard drives. CPU socket doesn't mean much, really.
Apple desktop computers also use poor power supply units and below average components overall (performance and quality). They are pretty good in quality compared to Dell or HP since they suck big time, and that's how people in America got the idea that Apple is great quality, I can understand that.

 

[dilla]

The 2011 MBPs all had Sandy Bridge as a new addition. Did any other manufacturer release a sandy Bridge notebook before or at the same time as Apple did this February with the MBPs?

Also, and I'm referencing Newegg here, it seems as if laptop prices are all over the place. I can see an 8GB, 750GB 7200 RPM, 1920x1080, 15", 2 Ghz Core i7 ASUS notebook for about $1300. Impressive. But there doesn't seem to be a good review about it. Granted, there's only one and it's bad. There's no image for it, even.

I price a 15, low end MBP with a high resolution glossy screen and it came to around $1900. Expensive, no doubt. Not to mention a 5200 500GB, and 4 GB of RAM.

Where Newegg comes in again, is that I set the search criteria to this

Between 15"-15.6"
Core i7 processors
1920+ resolution

These are the results (hopefully it saves the criteria): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...d=1&name=1920 x 1080&Order=PRICED&Pagesize=20

Do you see how vast the price range is? The MBP is close to the top, but not ridiculously far out in price in relation to other choices.

Do we even consider factors such as the aluminum unibody? Perhaps a price for OSX over Windows?

These are things that pop into my mind when I think of the Apple "Premium." Again, I'll state:

Apple products are expensive. It's sometimes hard to justify paying so much for a machine that, yes, is not range-topping in its sector, but there are things that you have to think about that certainly set Apple apart in some way.

A machine that runs two OSs flawlessly? Where the hardware used is compatible for both OSX and Windows (driver-wise).
What about OSX? It's used by only one manufacturer; the one that develops it. Apple is doing great. They're making billions. But maybe it costs just as much for R&D for OSX? Who knows? But it's certainly harder for a company to make the hardware and software in-house, isn't it? It's more work than a PC manufacturer has to do, no?

 

[masta247]

The 2011 MBPs all had Sandy Bridge as a new addition. Did any other manufacturer release a sandy Bridge notebook before or at the same time as Apple did this February with the MBPs?

Yes, they have, in January. Most manufacturers already had one. I Googled for a Sandy Bridge Asus and the first result was the N53SV, which came out in January. It retailed for about 1000$ at that time here (the i7 version).

I price a 15, low end MBP with a high resolution glossy screen and it came to around $1900. Expensive, no doubt. Not to mention a 5200 500GB, and 4 GB of RAM.

You really don't need full HD on a 15 inch screen. Also glossy is inferior in laptops because it's uncomfortable outdoors, but improves colors and hides the fact that there might be a poor panel beneath. However even for the criteria that you picked there are Asus laptops for below 1000$ with good reviews. There are also more expensive laptops with Apple-ish quality for a lower price than a MBP. There are also laptops with aluminium unibody for a lower price. You can actually get whatever you want in a cheaper price, minus the Apple logo.

Apple products are expensive. It's sometimes hard to justify paying so much for a machine that, yes, is not range-topping in its sector, but there are things that you have to think about that certainly set Apple apart in some way.

I agree, each to his own. It's just that personally I don't see these things that set it apart that much for me, and certainly they are not worth the money for me. I'll be honest though - if I were to get a laptop for free and I had a choice between an Asus laptop and an Apple laptop worth the same price, with similar specs there's a chance I'd go for the Apple one mainly because of design. I'm not a super huge fan of their desktop designs but their latest macbooks and the ipad2 look good. It'd feel lame installing Windows on it though, but I really dislike Mac operating systems.

A machine that runs two OSs flawlessly? Where the hardware used is compatible for both OSX and Windows (driver-wise).
What about OSX? It's used by only one manufacturer; the one that develops it. Apple is doing great. They're making billions. But maybe it costs just as much for R&D for OSX? Who knows? But it's certainly harder for a company to make the hardware and software in-house, isn't it? It's more work than a PC manufacturer has to do, no?

Actually it's possible to run Mac OSX on a PC. It's just more complicated because Apple doesn't care about drivers and compatibility with anything other than their computers. Cheaper and better for them.
Also it's not harder for them to launch software and hardware at the same time. They know what they want and how they want it, they know what will work on which hardware and they have less unexpected problems. Also they don't have to think about every possibility ('what if user x buys thing y for his computer z and tries to install it/run a program yz or whatever that doesn't even exist yet'). Also that way they gain profits from both software and hardware.

Same as with the Iphone - it's much cheaper and easier to release a phone with its own dedicated operating system than a bunch of phones and then port and optimize the software for each of them (for example like any company releasing Android devices). A company like Samsung pays a lot for keeping their hundreds of phones with up to date software and struggles to do so in time. They have to make sacrifices and stop supporting phones that technically could handle a new software revision, because it's often too expensive. Apple have only a few devices, they decide whenever they want to release a new software version and they know that it will work because it's already made for their devices. Costs greatly reduced.

That's also why every hardware manufacturer would love to have their own dedicated operating system (take Samsung's Bada, Blackberry and their system, Nokia trying to own Symbian and MeeGo and others). It's just that these don't pay off as much because they're not as popular, paying money to create a system that only a relatively small group of people will use is a risk and in best case generates little profit. Economy of scale works in Apple's favor here. They can do the same while getting more, because there are more people who will go for it.
Also their products really don't cost much to manufacture while having a very high price tag.

 

[dilla]

With phones, I have yet to see a manufacturer put out a custom UI for Android that didn't suck ass. Sense looks great but the last phone I had with it had weak hardware specs and could not handle it. I'm sure phones now can handle, such as the Thunderbolt or Sensation, but I still have a bad taste in my mouth from my Eris before. The other custom UIs look like shit to me. BLUR, Touch Wiz, etc. Stock Android, I think, is the best way to go.

I know about Hackintoshes, but you must know how complicated it is to find all the crap to make it work as seamlessly as a Mac makes Windows work. Installing Windows on a Mac seems a bit dopey at first, but if you're only doing it for gaming (and I'm no big gamer, I play some old stuff from the early to mid-2000s) then there's nothing wrong with it. I have yet to boot up Windows to use a non-gaming program that was Windows only. Well, one program was RSDLite to root my Droid, but I could have done it using OSX too, I later found out.

I'm glad you mentioned what you'd choose based on design. It's this superficial aspect of the market that really only people with the money can afford. That doesn't mean rich people. Not people with money. The money. Some people can justify paying $2000 for a notebook. Some can't or don't want to. But you've gotta admit, most, if not all, Apple products look like pieces of art.

Look at the iMac. Pretty expensive, but pretty powerful all-in-one machine. Can you find an all-in-one that looks as nice? There has to be some sacrifice, like putting a mobile GPU so it fits in this thin-ass casing. But the display is great, I love the keyboard, and I wish every notebook ever came with the Magic Trackpad. Now, if I were an avid gamer, I'd drop $1500 on iBuyPower.com or something and get a machine that would tear a hole through two iMacs put together. But for those that don't require gaming power but still do enough with their computers outside of checking email and playing Solitaire, it can be a different experience on a Mac.

I like the OS. I like the programs for photo and music editing. iTunes works fine for me and my iPod Touch (my phone is music-free). I love the gestures and the battery life. If I were a gamer, I'd be pretty upset with it. But I'm not. Even knowing not the best hardware was put into it isn't discouraging enough. You mention the design. I love how light it is. I can bring it in my bag to class with two other textbooks and not feel bogged down. I love the keyboard controls (the top row with dashboard, expose, brightness, volume, playback controls, and eject). Like you said, "to each his own." Right. You can get a GPS, heated leather seats, and a six cylinder engine in a Honda. Why do some buy a Lexus at 1.5 times the price? Some sour people will say "they're wasting money" and justify why their Honda is better. Others will just understand what you said "to each his own" and just assume there's an experience in driving one car over another. Some are willing to pay the "premium" and others are not.

 

[masta247]

With phones, I have yet to see a manufacturer put out a custom UI for Android that didn't suck ass. Sense looks great but the last phone I had with it had weak hardware specs and could not handle it. I'm sure phones now can handle, such as the Thunderbolt or Sensation, but I still have a bad taste in my mouth from my Eris before. The other custom UIs look like shit to me. BLUR, Touch Wiz, etc. Stock Android, I think, is the best way to go.

Agreed. Every manufacturer wastes money by trying to be unique and failing at it.

I know about Hackintoshes, but you must know how complicated it is to find all the crap to make it work as seamlessly as a Mac makes Windows work. Installing Windows on a Mac seems a bit dopey at first, but if you're only doing it for gaming (and I'm no big gamer, I play some old stuff from the early to mid-2000s) then there's nothing wrong with it. I have yet to boot up Windows to use a non-gaming program that was Windows only. Well, one program was RSDLite to root my Droid, but I could have done it using OSX too, I later found out.

Yeah I know. However even if there's a Mac with a decent CPU and ram it's almost guaranteed that it'll have very poor graphic cards. You can play games but nowhere as good as on a decent PC (for a lower price ;-)).

I'm glad you mentioned what you'd choose based on design. It's this superficial aspect of the market that really only people with the money can afford. That doesn't mean rich people. Not people with money. The money. Some people can justify paying $2000 for a notebook. Some can't or don't want to. But you've gotta admit, most, if not all, Apple products look like pieces of art.

I like my electronics looking nice. I like Macbook Air's design, I like the looks of the Ipad2. I'm not really feeling their desktop solutions, I think theyr displays are ugly. I agree though that many of their devices look good. I guess a lot of people go for that in the first place. The Iphone is pretty stylish too after all.
Not that there are no great-looking devices from other manufacturers though. I think that many Sony Vaio and some Asus laptops look better than Macbooks, I think that there are phones which look better than the Iphone etc. I agree that with Apple devices good design is almost guaranteed. It's their biggest positive in my book. However digging down a bit you'll find something better that looks at least as good, most people are too lazy to dig though.

Look at the iMac. Pretty expensive, but pretty powerful all-in-one machine. Can you find an all-in-one that looks as nice? There has to be some sacrifice, like putting a mobile GPU so it fits in this thin-ass casing. But the display is great, I love the keyboard, and I wish every notebook ever came with the Magic Trackpad. Now, if I were an avid gamer, I'd drop $1500 on iBuyPower.com or something and get a machine that would tear a hole through two iMacs put together. But for those that don't require gaming power but still do enough with their computers outside of checking email and playing Solitaire, it can be a different experience on a Mac.

Well, I'm pretty sure that I'd find a better and cheaper all-in-one machine for me
A friend of mine has recently bought a ~550$ 13-inch Asus laptop (SB i5, GT540 graphics) which looks really great, works longer on a battery and packs more power than a similar Macbook air which costs almost 3 times as much. The Macbook is a bit slimmer though.
There's also a new line of Asus laptops which will probably get even cheaper soon. The U31SD, for example.
Also the MSI CX640 costs about 600$ in a i5 version, which comes with similar specs too. They both pack MORE power than the best Macbook air while having a graphics good enough to run almost all games smoothly(Nvidia Optimus with GT520s).

I like the OS. I like the programs for photo and music editing. iTunes works fine for me and my iPod Touch (my phone is music-free). I love the gestures and the battery life. If I were a gamer, I'd be pretty upset with it. But I'm not. Even knowing not the best hardware was put into it isn't discouraging enough. You mention the design. I love how light it is. I can bring it in my bag to class with two other textbooks and not feel bogged down. I love the keyboard controls (the top row with dashboard, expose, brightness, volume, playback controls, and eject). Like you said, "to each his own." Right. You can get a GPS, heated leather seats, and a six cylinder engine in a Honda. Why do some buy a Lexus at 1.5 times the price? Some sour people will say "they're wasting money" and justify why their Honda is better. Others will just understand what you said "to each his own" and just assume there's an experience in driving one car over another. Some are willing to pay the "premium" and others are not.

Well, it seems like you really enjoy your Mac, and that's okay. However I'm pretty sure most tech people would disagree about Apple being the Lexus and Sony or Asus being Honda

 

[dilla]

Well, it seems like you really enjoy your Mac, and that's okay. However I'm pretty sure most tech people would disagree about Apple being the Lexus and Sony or Asus being Honda

Well, I wasn't using the analogy to compare quality, although they are both quality cars. Instead, I was simply using the price disparity and how frequently you'd see one of these cars in a city. Also, how recognizable they are. Maybe it wasn't the best one.

I agree that a big thing Apple skimps out on is the GPU. Why does Apple use shit parts, in general? The obvious is to save a little money, increase profit. But is that it? It's so blatant then, unless there's more to it, like they simply don't have vendors selling the best ones to them (discriminating against them).

 

[masta247]

I agree that a big thing Apple skimps out on is the GPU. Why does Apple use shit parts, in general? The obvious is to save a little money, increase profit. But is that it? It's so blatant then, unless there's more to it, like they simply don't have vendors selling the best ones to them (discriminating against them).

Well, there's more to it. Most of all GPU is one of the most expensive parts in a PC. Since most Apple users don't use their computers to play games you don't need a good GPU. That's why Apple doesn't use good GPUs in their computers.

If it comes to part quality they are using average ones, if we're talking about desktops Apple are usually better than Dell or HP if it comes to part quality, Dell often puts PSUs that are black listed on most techy forums. It's about savings and maximizing profit and trying to find a balance between price and return rates. For example ram rarely fails so any company will use the cheapest ones with quite modern specs. HP or Dell perhaps think that servicing them will be cheaper than using a more expensive part. I don't know.
However no company will give you parts having quality equal to those you'd buy by yourself when building your own computer, granted that you know what you're doing. It's just slightly more complicated and from what I've heard not very popular in America, which kind of explains Apple's success. People would rather pay much more to make others do things for them.

 

[masta247]

Oh and if it comes to Macbook Air-ish laptops that are better here's the Asus ux21:
http://blog.laptopmag.com/wpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ASUS-UX21-i.jpg

It's slimmer (it's 3mm in the thinnest point, 17mm in the thickest) and lighter(the biggest version weights 1,1kg) than the Macbook air while packing the fastest Sandy Bridge i7 processor. Casing is a magnesium unibody.

Also Samsung's 9 series are thinner (about 15mm) and about as lightweight.

 

[dilla]

It's not out yet. And according to sources, it won't be for another few months.

 

[masta247]

My bad. Samsung 9 series are out though.

 

[dilla]

Apple usually does two refreshes a year, right? Perhaps they'll do one around the Holiday season to boost up the current lineup. Not saying it will supersede the ASUS or any other manufacturer, but they won't stay put for so long, I don't think. I hope not.

 

[masta247]

I'm not sure about Apple and their refreshes. They are usually random and late, at least if it comes to phones.

 

[dilla]

I'm not sure about Apple and their refreshes. They are usually random and late, at least if it comes to phones.

The phones have been relatively consistent. Usually every June is something new. This year was the anomaly, but perhaps the introduction of the iPhone to a new carrier in the Us (Verizon) kinda spoiled the unveiling of the iPhone 5 in June. Probably more likely is Apple has realized they've got serious competition now and so they wanted to take their time in releasing 5. That's why it's looking at a release in Q4 of this year.

With computers, it is a bit more sporadic. The general rule is 10-12 months, but that is extremely....general..vague...unsatisfying for those looking to upgrade.

I have been told by many people that Apple products have incredible resale value. Something like 85% to 95% after about a year. Also assuming that it's in "like new" condition. I haven't exactly babied my MBP. Nothing is broken or no gashes, but the underside has taken a slight beating from being moved around on a table. I still figure I could net $800-$900 of the $1100 MSRP. A friend of mine sold his 15" last time for about $2000, with an upgrade from 4GB to 8 GB of RAM. MSRP was $2100, maybe?

Also, just came across this: http://gizmodo.com/5411442/the-best-gadgets

Given the sour relationship between Apple and Giz (I think, right? After the iPhone 4 prototype shit) the suggestions are surprising for notebooks and phones.

 

[masta247]

Well, the fact that they said that Iphone 4 won the best mobile camera made the article look ridiculous in my eyes. Even at the time it was released almost every manufacturer (except of HTC maybe) had better cameras in at least some of their phones. Not to mention phones from Nokia or Sony Ericsson. Also I'm not sure if they're up to date with notebooks, they mentioned rather random ones.

Anyway the fact that Apple products have that great resale value proves that people who buy their products don't care about what's inside, since the resale value of a year old CPU would be about 20-50% (for high ends) to 50%-70% max for low and mid ends. The fact that Apple computers are quite up to date only once a year doesn't help that, but indeed keeps the price high. If there were already 10 Iphones since the Iphone 3g its price would be much lower. If new Android phones were released only once a year we'd have the HTC Desire selling for twice as much as it does now and people would think that it's actually much more awesome than it is. Fortunately we have better phones to choose from now.

 

[Pittsey]

I can't hate on Apple too much. The ipod is still good. If it wasn't for itunes, I'd buy a new one.

I prefer google because they let me do what I want with the gadget I BOUGHT. I don't want no shitty itunes infrastructure. I don't want to have to sync my shit. I want to drop and go. I use Win7 because my PC cost fuck all. I don't need it to be fashionable. I don't do anything with it besides browse and download.

I don't have an Ipad, because I want to be able to view any webpage. Not the ones apple allows me to.

 

[dilla]

Well, in their eyes, buy "guiding" you to the right programs and websites, they feel they're giving the user a flawless experience. How far that's true, I don't know.

 

[Pittsey]

Well, in their eyes, buy "guiding" you to the right programs and websites, they feel they're giving the user a flawless experience. How far that's true, I don't know.

You think Apple believe that?

It's about empowering itunes and getting people to buy from the itunes shop.

 

[S O F I]

Well, something that Amazon, Apple, and Google know and do very well is build ecosystems to trap people in. The point is to have people using your service and services in a way that they will not want to switch over because it will cost to switch over. Amazon has the Kindle, Apple has iTunes, and Google has...something? So, make no mistake about it, it's all shrewd business maneuvers. It's just that Apple believes that people don't know what they want so they tell them what they want while Google believes more in the idea that people know what they want.

and it's not quite clear who's right and who's wrong.

What do women want? Mel Gibson knew but that's about it.