Technology Apple

[dilla]

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.

Google's customers are advertisers, not us. Still, they have ways of trapping people. The hype with Google Plus? Required a Google Account. Most people I know just made a GMail account and then used it. Google Music? Same thing. Betas and invites were highly sought after.

Buying an Android phone? Gotta have a GMail account to at least start it up. After that, use whatever, but your phone will be incomplete without a Google Account assigned to it.

Just because Google doesn't have analogous software to Apple's iTunes, doesn't mean they aren't forcing you to do things you really don't need to. What's the point of a Google Account being assigned to a phone? Save contacts? Why can't I bypass needing an account and use an app from the Market (many apps like this exist).Why do I need a GMail account if I'm only going to use it once?

Google only has a mobile OS, not something for computers like OSX or Windows. How can it make something iTunes for a computer when they're stuck on mobile OSs still? I guess Google Music does have an app (Music Manager), but what's to say they don't stick some limitations on transferring and purchasing media using their services? They can't now because no one's running around heralding Music as the iTunes-killer yet, but later on down the line, there's no telling what Google will restrict on Music.

 

[S O F I]

Google's customers are advertisers, not us.

Google'c customers are advertisers to the extent that you're a customer of Google. Think about it. There's no advertiser if there's no Google user.

Still, they have ways of trapping people. The hype with Google Plus? Required a Google Account. Most people I know just made a GMail account and then used it. Google Music? Same thing. Betas and invites were highly sought after.

Buying an Android phone? Gotta have a GMail account to at least start it up. After that, use whatever, but your phone will be incomplete without a Google Account assigned to it.

Just because Google doesn't have analogous software to Apple's iTunes, doesn't mean they aren't forcing you to do things you really don't need to. What's the point of a Google Account being assigned to a phone? Save contacts? Why can't I bypass needing an account and use an app from the Market (many apps like this exist).Why do I need a GMail account if I'm only going to use it once?

When I said something, I wasn't implying Google doesn't do the same, I said something because I was drawing a blank LOL. Duh, Gmail account. Dumbass me.

Google only has a mobile OS, not something for computers like OSX or Windows.

You forgot Chrome OS, buddy. It's not just mobile.

How can it make something iTunes for a computer when they're stuck on mobile OSs still? I guess Google Music does have an app (Music Manager), but what's to say they don't stick some limitations on transferring and purchasing media using their services? They can't now because no one's running around heralding Music as the iTunes-killer yet, but later on down the line, there's no telling what Google will restrict on Music.

Google doesn't need an iTunes killer, in the sense of iTunes being a media player computer program.

edit: I earlier wrote that Google Music restricts .m4a uploads. Apparently, I'm wrong. It worked when I purchased an album from iTunes, but not when I ripped an audio CD from iTunes in the same format. Hmm, I'll have to try to upload that again.

 

[Pittsey]

Google's customers are advertisers, not us. Still, they have ways of trapping people. The hype with Google Plus? Required a Google Account. Most people I know just made a GMail account and then used it. Google Music? Same thing. Betas and invites were highly sought after.

Buying an Android phone? Gotta have a GMail account to at least start it up. After that, use whatever, but your phone will be incomplete without a Google Account assigned to it.

Just because Google doesn't have analogous software to Apple's iTunes, doesn't mean they aren't forcing you to do things you really don't need to. What's the point of a Google Account being assigned to a phone? Save contacts? Why can't I bypass needing an account and use an app from the Market (many apps like this exist).Why do I need a GMail account if I'm only going to use it once?

Google only has a mobile OS, not something for computers like OSX or Windows. How can it make something iTunes for a computer when they're stuck on mobile OSs still? I guess Google Music does have an app (Music Manager), but what's to say they don't stick some limitations on transferring and purchasing media using their services? They can't now because no one's running around heralding Music as the iTunes-killer yet, but later on down the line, there's no telling what Google will restrict on Music.

You can still make a program for a music sync software without an OS. I don't get that point.

At the moment google doesn't force me to do anything I don't want to do. If they brought out an itunes similar software, I'd be gone. "Forcing" someone to create an email with them is not on the same level. Most places on the net "force" you to have a user account. It's slightly tedious but not on an itunes level of annoyance.

 

[dilla]

When I said something, I wasn't implying Google doesn't do the same, I said something because I was drawing a blank LOL. Duh, Gmail account. Dumbass me.

I was replying to Pittsey on that one, actually.

You can still make a program for a music sync software without an OS. I don't get that point.

Definitely, you can. But will Google do that, or has Google done that regularly in the past? Outside of a browser and Music Manager, what other apps does Google have on Windows or Mac that rival iTunes? My point was, you can't compare Google and Apple in the sense of iTunes because Google has nothing that's analogous and never really has made something similar in the past. The future could change though.

Google'c customers are advertisers to the extent that you're a customer of Google. Think about it. There's no advertiser if there's no Google user.

Ok. So we're the ramp that leads them to the cash highway with advertisers. I know that. The end result is the same, right? Your info. (voluntarily) is given out whereas with Apple it is not.

At the moment google doesn't force me to do anything I don't want to do. If they brought out an itunes similar software, I'd be gone. "Forcing" someone to create an email with them is not on the same level. Most places on the net "force" you to have a user account. It's slightly tedious but not on an itunes level of annoyance.

Well, Music Manager is really a gray line. As I mentioned in my other post, when Google Music picks up, will you not be able to buy music to own, instead of just streaming it? It'll be a music vendor, like iTunes. The pricing may be different. And it won't sell movies, tv shows, or apps like iTunes. Again, you will need a Google Account. With iTunes, you need just an email address that makes your iTunes account. That's similar to what any other site does, "give us your email, that's your username, you're good."

With a Google Account, all the services you use with that account have the information sold, right? What's to do in your calendar, what news sites you read, what emails you get and from whom (you know that add on top of your inbox that magically mentioned something you got an email about, or something related to it?). Again, we volunteer for this stuff to be provided.

I'm agreeing with you. SOFI, that once you're in, it's hard to get out. But Apple is no better or worse with it than Google, or even Facebook.

 

[masta247]

With a Google Account, all the services you use with that account have the information sold, right? What's to do in your calendar, what news sites you read, what emails you get and from whom (you know that add on top of your inbox that magically mentioned something you got an email about, or something related to it?). Again, we volunteer for this stuff to be provided.

I'm agreeing with you. SOFI, that once you're in, it's hard to get out. But Apple is no better or worse with it than Google, or even Facebook.

With Google having the information is not that simple. They are super cool because as opposed to most other companies they don't outright collect your information and then sell them. They don't do that at all. They're smarter than that and actually they respect your privacy.

They have software that collects keywoards from your messages, searches etc. That way they can provide better services and gain more money because when for example a software company wants to reach some guys with advertisement Google takes more cash because it will work better and targets ads at those who wrote something about wanting this and that software. Win-win for all.
Almost any other company would outright sell your email and information to everyone who wanted them, but not Google. That way it's better for them because they still are the only ones who have the information and you're good because your information is safe, stored only in their databases (data pretty irrelevant to you only, actually) and instead of getting your email account spammed as shit you'll sometimes see ads that might even interest you. Perhaps a program that you've been looking for, a holiday trip that you wanted etc etc. That was their key to success. They were one of the first companies that really knew what do to with the fact that information is the biggest value these days.
If they did anything to make people stop trusting them Google would be finished in no time, everyone would stop using all of their services. That's why I'm sure that data safety and privacy is their priority considering the amount of data and information they have, and that it makes for the biggest part of their real value as a company.

Now I also hated that Google account integration thing. I don't even have a proper Google account, only one that I decided to set up for spam a long ago and I have to use it all the time for almost all services. When my first Android phone wanted the Google account to actually do anything I was pissed off, it's really annoying. Yeah, but that's what every company would like to do in their shoes.

 

[S O F I]

Ok. So we're the ramp that leads them to the cash highway with advertisers. I know that. The end result is the same, right? Your info. (voluntarily) is given out whereas with Apple it is not.

What Masta said

plus,

it's why most Google services are free to you. It's a trade-off. There's not a single thing that Apple does not charge for.

 

[dilla]

What Masta said

plus,

it's why most Google services are free to you. It's a trade-off. There's not a single thing that Apple does not charge for.

Oh, you mean iCloud, iTunes, and Safari? Apple and Google don't share much common ground in terms of services provided. There's no Apple mail. Which is why I said that Google has its priorities on developing things for other OSs. They have ChromeOS, which no one uses, but outside of that, their services are on the web for other OSs. Apple does stuff more for themselves and people that buy their products. MobileMe, iCloud, etc. MobileMe charges, but iCloud does not.

 

[S O F I]

If you use iTunes, you most likely either have a Mac, or you use it to pay for music. I doubt many PC people use iTunes solely as a media player. So, in other words, you paid for iTunes with your overpriced Macbook (I own one) or you pay for it by purchasing music.

If you use Safari, you paid for it with your overpriced Macbook.

iCloud, isn't really free. I could take a shit on the little gigs that it offers for free. I have the shittiest music collection to date thanks to not giving a fuck about having every Tupac album and I fall right under 50gigs. That means, two more gigs, and I have to shell out 100/year.

and yea, you and I aren't actually disagreeing on anything. I don't even know what I'm doing replying.

 

[dilla]

Well, not everyone is like you and has 50 GB of music. Or even plans on putting music in their free 5GB of iCloud space. Dropbox immediately comes to mind, and I back up my phone apps to it using TiBU, I uploaded documents on there for printing at school (as opposed to emailing my self or bringing a flash drive) and I shared music with friends on there without having to upload to a service, send a link, and have my retard friends figure out how long to wait before they can download it.

You put small little things in the iCloud that you can access anywhere. Including your Mail and Calendar. Like Google.

Windows users can use iTunes and Safari too. They don't need to buy it. And I don't think saying those that bought MacBooks are "paying" for those things specifically. Not when it's available to others. Although, you could look at it that way. I feel you're paying for more than two programs. There's a reason both run better on OSX than on Windows.

If you don't mind me asking, what will your next notebook be, if you could simply choose one from anyone out on the market. Will you stick with another Apple computer or did you not like or see OSX as "worth it" and go to Windows?

 

[S O F I]

I'll stay with Apple for the foreseeable future. They'd have to really fuck things up for me to switch back to Windows.

 

[dilla]

Right. But can you elaborate? What are the reasons for your loyalty to Apple products?

 

[Pittsey]

Windows users pay for itunes when they buy an ipod or an iphone. There is no other reason for using itunes. It's an awful software. I hated it. Much like I hated Kies on my samsung phone, but fortunately, I don't have to use that.

 

[S O F I]

no, i don't want to. I did before, sporadically, through these threads. Search apple and android threads.

 

[dilla]

http://www.cultofmac.com/so-much-fo...m_campaign=Feed:+cultofmac/bFow+(Cult+of+Mac)

 

[masta247]

I double checked the Macbook air vs the world thing today by playing with a lot of laptops, actually Air's fame made me curious.
Well Macbook air is pretty cool actually. Sure it is very overpriced but I agree that there are not many similar laptops and those that are similar (but cheaper) usually feel cheaper at some point, whether its the display or elements of design, while most of these devices are more technologically advanced (performance, components etc). There were Sony Vaio models in a similar price or cheaper that I liked more but the Macbook air received a point in my eyes nevertheless, perhaps because I expected much less of it. It still is overpriced and technically outdated in many aspects but the display or build quality are very good, and its design is very good - not many laptops achieve that (again, they aren't as expensive though). On another hand for that price I wouldn't expect less since people wouldn't be THAT stupid to buy it. However I can understand why people are going for these laptops (those who aren't Apple fanboys). I assume that there's a lot of less tech-savvy people for whom the looks and premium feel of the device itself would be more important than what's inside or what's it doing, or possibilities, or being future-proof. Apple devices can feel better than anything else for them.

Again, I think that Sony are doing the same with their Vaio laptops. They are also overpriced, come with a lot of additional software nobody needs and are often technically sub-par while packing great designs and decent build quality.

Well, if it wasn't for price, software that you are forced to have/use/pay for and some silly limitations I'd say that the Ipad 2 and Macbook air are decent pieces of hardware.

 

[masta247]

http://www.cultofmac.com/so-much-for-the-apple-tax-laptop-makers-cant-compete-with-the-macbook-air-for-the-price/107492?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: cultofmac/bFow (Cult of Mac)

I agree about Apple and light and thin products and competition trying to catch up with that in particular. There are only single devices that are going to be launched soon that are as slim. And I'm looking for more too since I like that and laptops were strangely getting thicker and thicker lately, my 7 year old IBM laptop is thinner than most laptops released these days, including ultra-portables. Props to Apple for releasing a slimmer laptop, creating a hype and making other manufacturers do the same.

There are times when Apple creates something in a way that everyone is trying to catch up to for a moment - whether it's the Macbook air and competition trying to catch up with thinness, Ipad2 with the same story (getting beat up by the likes of Samsung Tab 10.1 in the end) or Iphone (which, frankly Apple struggles to catch up with its competition since 3g). And what can I say, it's a very good thing about them.

Now about the article itself I hope I don't have to say how biased it is. Tablets on the whole are VERY overpriced because it's the new hype and some people will buy them regardless of the price and the Ipad 2 doesn't stand out in that case. Right now, compared to the competition it isn't a bad choice. However the Tab 10.1 is technically superior and that's why it's also sometimes more expensive. In a year or two tablets will be much cheaper and that's when most devices will probably be much cheaper than Apple devices, again.
There are MUCH better laptops than the Macbook Air but then again it depends on your criteria. I agree about the slim form factor being the new thing to catch up to, and like I said it's very good. However they made it seem like the Macbook Air is the best sub-1000$ notebook because it's slim, which is a very false claim because quite frankly, it sucks very hard for that price. But it's slim and well designed and that's where the competition is trying to catch up.

 

[dilla]

It's only surprising because they're not higher. http://9to5mac.com/2011/08/05/forbe...ative-company-google-is-7-microsoft-dont-ask/

 

[masta247]

Gotta love the Google hatefest in the comments and Apple fanboyism, and circlejerk

If they say Amazon is more innovative than Apple, and Google isn't far behind, then I don't give a crap about anything this study has to say. Google is one of the most uninnovative companies ever.

+13 props

Quite honestly though, Nintendo is more innovative than all other of those companies listed all together. Now I'm not a fan of Nintendo but I've gotta give it to them. Their ideas are often weird, but extremely innovative.
I wouldn' consider Amazon to be innovative at all, and Google after all is more innovative than Apple.
The problem is that most studies like this one contains weird and flawed criteria. It's hard to make a research like this, pick reasonable criteria and then come up with results that don't collide with common sense.

 

[dilla]

Well, you come in to a thread titled "Apple" I can't imagine what else you were expecting despite the OP of this thread.

 

[Preach]

edit: I earlier wrote that Google Music restricts .m4a uploads. Apparently, I'm wrong. It worked when I purchased an album from iTunes, but not when I ripped an audio CD from iTunes in the same format. Hmm, I'll have to try to upload that again.

There are different formats of M4A encoding. Try to look in the advanced settings to see if the encoding format is set to AAC. IIRC you are using a Mac, so maybe your encoder on your Mac sets it to Apple Lossless (ALE or ALAC) by default. Those are less supported formats, AAC is the standard.