MacOpz Rules of Conduct
Re: I know you're smoking something . . .
Posted By: J242 (184.108.40.206)
Date: Saturday, 8 September 2007, at 6:19 p.m.
In Response To: Re: I know you're smoking something . . . (Lord Crosis)
: I don't usually chime in to correct spelling or grammar, but you have
: misspelled this enough times that I feel compelled. The word is
Sorry, I type faster than I read and safari doesn't have built-in spell check like a few other browsers I use as second options. Oh freakin' well.
: I'm pretty sure he's referencing the move from Quicktime 6 to Quicktime 7.
: The primary new feature was the h.264 CODEC, and yet a paid Quicktime Pro
: 6 user who wanted the bug fixes in Quicktime 7 (of which there were a few
: significant ones), that user would be required to pay another $30 to
: retain the "Pro" features of the app. It was kind of a bullshit
: move on Apple's part.
Okay, clarification is always good thanks for answering the question for him as that sounds about right. A question though, when has Apple NOT done this between product versions other than OSX from OS9? Is the BS part that they didn't include enough to seperate it from previous versions that oculd have been handled via updates better?
: 10.1 was DEFINITELY equivalent to a service pack, and Apple planned to charge
: an upgrade fee for it, though enough public outcry arose to make them
: reconsider patching what was essentially a beta OS. 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 and
: 10.5 all add substantial new features, but also fix things that should
: have been fixed in the already shipping product. Saying that the
: difference between 10.4 and 10.5 is analogous to the difference between
: Vista Home Premium and Vista Enterprise isn't quite right either... Apple
: does what I consider to be the "right thing" here. They don't
: nickel-and-dime users for every little feature: You Mac OS X which has
: everything a "Pro" level OS has, and Mac OS X Server, which has
: everything that an "Enterprise" level OS has.
I agree with your assesment of Apple's moves on the OS market, in that they do what I see as "right thing" as well. From what it sounds like, JT considers these new OS's to be the equivalent of MS's SPs... I find that false, ignorant and just silly.
: OK, just once here or there and I'll let it go, but you did this one several
: times in the same paragraph. The word is "warranty."
Again, typing too fast and no spell check. Fine, just for you I'll switch over so that I'm ONLY using FF for Opz posts so that you never have to have your eyes assaulted by typos... :P
: When you said: This implies that people bought the iPhone and said,
: "Gosh, I really wish I had one of these without that pesky phone
: part," and in response Apple went to work on it. The evidence would
: seem contrarily to imply that the iPhone and iPod touch were developed in
Now, if the "and in response Apple went to work on it." bit had been part of my statement you might have some point. One simple question would have clarified this but instead you and JT both have apparently decided to assume otherwise and keep going from that. Whatever, to each their own but that wasn't the intent so get over it. I guess I'll just have to further spell out every single thought that I have to ensure that you and he do not in any way possible misunderstand exactly what it is I am trying to convey...
: There is much disagreement on this, but it seems obvious to me that Apple
: stands to make more money off of selling Mac OS X than they would
: potentially lose from hardware sales. This wasn't true in the PPC days,
: because the PPC was an island. You couldn't buy a generic piece of
: hardware and dual boot Windows and Mac OS X. This would be possible with
: OSX86 (and is... if you buy Apple's hardware).
Are you sure about that? Think about the margin per computer sold on top of the margin per copy of OSX.whatever then take that same software margin, multiply it by, let's just say 1 million new users. Now, count in the cost of support, maintenence, warranty (There happy? lol) work, etc (which are all still relatively unknown factors at this point) and you have to wonder if the additional costs would take enough away from sales of hardware to make it not cost-effective. Interesting thoughts but I think it's basically a snowball's chance in hell of happening over the next couple years. Maybe later on once Apple has switched gears so that their primary profits aren't coming from their computer lines then it may happen but right now, their laptops are outselling PC's and the new iMacs are outselling similar PC desktops in many areas. I don't see them giving that up anytime soon and letting comcrap or any generic company to run their OS. It opens the door to too many hassles and negative possibilities.
: This from the guy who is patting Apple on their back for "listening to
: their user base."
Final Cut Studio is including more in it's price like Color even though they could have left it out of the package and sold it on it's own ala Motion. They went with a larger screen on the Nanos. They have added open XML into iWork before MS could. They are uprading hardware to be more cost efficient than similar windows based models on their notebook lines and are getting to be less expensive in some cases for superior specs when they could inflate the margin to be the same and make more but they aren't. All in all, there are some things that Apple is doing that I think are good for both them and we, the consuming public. In comparison to their prime competition, I think they listen far more. I only have first hand experience with one of the two internally but based on what I had thought would be good and wanted, Apple has come through far more often and far more regularly to meet the demands or requests that I have put forth or cared about. That's all there is too it, so yes, I think they actually "care" (bad choice of words but it'll do for the moment I 'spose) more than the majority of their competition across a variety of markets.
: The things mentioned by JT are things that huge
: portions of the Mac user base have considered to be things that should
: have obviously been done for years.
Yeah, and I can think of several dozen things that have ben requested by the active MS MVP's, TAP partners, OEMs, public and internal employees for more than a decade that still haven't happened yet. That's part of my point, you can't expect a large company to listen to almost anything you say. However I feel based on direct experience that Apple cares more than their competition. I'm not saying they are saints or great about this, just better than the rest.
: It's not called the IndustryWideOpz discussion forum, it's called the MacOpz
: discussion forum.
Well, he's bringing up specific issues that are shared across the entire industry and voicing them as if Apple is the only troublemaker. That's hardly a fair debate. If someone berates company 1 for action X but is fine with company 2 (who simply makes a different product) doing the same action X, it's hypocrisy. The more you look into it and the more you find out how widespread X is and how almost every single market engages in X, it hardly seems relevant to rag on company 1 for doing it. That's a different discussion on it's own entirely and one specific company shouldn't be singled out for it to take the blame for the entire business world as we know it.
: Well, it says loudly, "I'm not going to buy your product." It
: doesn't state why. That's where the bitching comes in.
Of course, silly me. I forgot that we have SJ and his design team coming in and researching our complaints on a regular basis. Boy, bitching about it here is really gong to make them change their minds isn't it! That $100 back? Yeah, we should take FULL credit for that. Obviously they came in here and read our pathetically small group of geeks bitching at each other and realized "Oh my god, what have we done? We have been SO wrong, let's make it up to everyone!" ...
: I do, and so does the law. False advertising is illegal.
When was the last iMac AD you saw that ADVERTISED it had millions of colors? It's listed under the display's tech specs and I think it's BS that they are doing it to. However, I'm quite sure their overpaid lawyers have found it not to violate any laws and as such we are kind of screwed on that. Oh well, Just means I'm far less likely to buy one and unlike JT I simply don't recommend products until I've gotten my mitts on them in the first place as I understand that ANY company can come out with a diamond or a lemon. So, again, maybe I just haven't seen the same television, internet or print ads you have. Where has apple tried to entice customers by basing their marketing around "millions" of colors in their displays? The only place I've even seen that stated is in the tech specs which aren't really an "advertisement" in the first place.
: It's a shame if any
: other companies are doing it, but the product I bought was an Apple
: product, and it was falsely advertised.
Again, how was it advertised to you? If you can, show me a paid-for advertisement showing apple trying to gather attention to their products by selling the concept of "millions of colors" on the displays then I can be on the same page with you. Otherwise, you are blurring the line between specs and ads and they are two ENTIRELY different things. A specs sheet is NOT an advertisement no matter how hard you try to justify it as such unless they show it in a media format in order to specifically highlight them. Web? Nope, you have to clcik extra times to get to the specs, TV? Nope, they just show the product and have some music, occasionally a stupid voice saying something like "Mmmm did somebody say sushi?" or two dorks in akward situations. So print media is the only place I can think of on this...
Messages In This Thread
MacOpz Forum is maintained by MacOpz Administrators with WebBBS 5.12.