[arkitekt78]

Very well written and said pretty much why I have not purchased an Apple product since 1983... Steve Jobs needs to go.

[arkitekt78]

Also of interest is when PCWorld does actually print some truth about what a horrible company Apple really is, how all the fanboys come running to protect their precious corporation. Give me a break. But what can you expect from the kind of people who worship an egomaniacal jerk like Jobs... Probably much of the same behavior...

[artzy65]

Thank God 'His Steveness' doesn't listen!

Message was edited by: artzy65

[MMkay]

OK, I'll pile on, but from the other side:

"Its been said for many years--and not in a good way--that Apple is the company Microsoft wishes it could be. For while Microsoft only made a try for total domination, in its key markets--music players, music, smartphones, and applications for them--Apple seems to be achieving it."

Rubbish. Despite all the current Apple hype, I doubt Microsoft would trade places with them. They completely dominate in the spaces they care about: Enterprise software, office suites, and OS (Windows is still the dominant OS by far, both for home and work uses)

[Windows4Ever]

dcornibe,

I agree with you. Since Apple has been using, dare I say it!, pc parts, and use Intel chips, they seem to have gained some market share. Why is it when they allowed clones for a very short while, some good looking ones came out?

When people started to look at them instead of Apple, they got jealous and found out that they might actually have to SHARE the wealth with others.

Go to Inernet Archives sometime people and look at the Computer Chronicles part in Moving Images. See how Mac clones where actually made to look like a regular pc. They even used liscenced stuff from Apple.

But once Empreror Jobs came around again, it all stopped. How come Wozniak can come from the same company and be so good and Jobs be such a Jerk?

Here come the Fanboys! How dare anyone say anything bad about their GOD.

[Windows4Ever]

Here are a couple of examples:

http://www.archive.o...etails/MacClone

http://www.archive.o...ails/MacClone95

[SkePtiC]

huh!!! what!!! the sky is falling? gawd almighty...
stevie is evil.... well, of course... thank god for that hahahaha

[JeffAHayes]

Everyone who keeps defending Apple in this argument cites its tremendous sales and and profits (and market share) increase during the past year, at a time when both our overall economy AND most of the rest of the computer industry have seen anything from minor slumps to bankruptcies... Well, they're RIGHT about that, and Apple can claim victory for both smart marketing and excellent product rollouts.

BUT, that's all IN THE PAST YEAR. That doesn't mean Apple's growth will continue for the NEXT YEAR if it doesn't address these current issues (which I agree are likely spurred by the "Evil Steve" part of Steve Jobs' business personality). I think that like a lot of big companies, Apple may have hit a point where it's outgrowing the management style of its CEO (who has health problems, anyway, and won't live forever, at any rate). That's why corporations exist to begin with. A corporation is "a living business entity" that exists and persists beyond the life of any one shareholder.

I think Steve Jobs has been a true innovator and a boon for both the industry and, of course, his company. But whether it's him, his company, or the entire "Apple Culture," Apple is no longer, as it has long been known, "a boutique computer company." It's gone mainstream and has to start thinking and acting that way, and that means responding to the needs and wants of its customer base and dealing with its public image.

Right now, Apple is taking A SERIOUS BLOW to its public image. So far, it's just on these computer blogs and whatnot, but give it a few more days. I won't be at all surprised to see this brouhaha on the nightly news within the next week or two, because the people who are pissed are NOT shutting up about it. They CONTINUE to post these articles, one after another, and it IS gathering steam.

So fanboys, Apple or Microsoft or Linux or what have you... Pick your side. I really don't have one. I'm just stating a fact. A business needs to take care of both its customers AND its public image or it will go OUT of business in the long term. Apple is swimming in dangerous waters right now.
Jeff Hayes

[Evildave]

Why defend Jobs from morons?
I mean, if you want to see someone who needs 'defending', you need look not further than Steve Ballmer. What an uncool, fat, screaming slob. I wonder how long before he busts a blood vessel doing one of his spazz dances?
That'll be an instant 'net classic.

[gurly]

@David Coursey: You wish.

[WinTard]

markedman1132 said:

Every other tech company in the world would love to have Apple's problems.

So much cash they can't think of ways to spend it. One of the few tech companies making money, even in a bad economy. Profit margins that make even Warren Buffett blush.

Keep printing garbage like this and you will chase away the few readers you have left.

Actually it is pretty stupid from Apple to sit on $28+ Billion in Cash... That money should be put to work! That's what Apple's stockholders and investors want... Beware of upsetting your stockholders... Hey Apple Board, hear this? You could be fired at the next AGM! Same goes for Steve Jobs...

[JeffAHayes]

Here's how I think Apple should address the issue of the fear of losing market share of its own computers by allowing non-Mac owners to run OS-X... They should create a version of OS X for OTHER PCs that sells at an inflated price -- say $100 over the regular price for OS X, with a built-in emulator to make it run on PCs with at least specific requirements (just like those for XP, Vista, Windows 7, etc.), and on a separate partition or hard drive on the computer, or even inside Windows, if people prefer -- there are various possibilities. THIS would allow PC users who really want to also have Mac abilities without buying a Mac to do so (albeit a bit expensively), while at the same time giving Apple an extra $100 pure profit for "the bother" of selling their OS without also getting a computer sale in the bargain. It would also dissuade a lot of people from going this route, since they could buy the Mac and get the latest version of the OS for free with it., so it wouldn't be "a big seller," but it would, at the same time, quiet and answer the critics who fuss about not being able to run OS X on anything but a Mac.

And if you think about it, Vista Ultimate, or Windows 7 Ultimate will cost you about the same as that -- about $250, or so, if you buy them stand-alone, so the price wouldn't really be out of line.

Of course this is really a different topic from what's got people up in arms right now (Apple's restrictions on its Apps store), but I see no reason why such a strategy wouldn't work, and possibly also bring Apple some extra profits.

Jeff Hayes

[smax013]

JeffAHayes said:

Here's how I think Apple should address the issue of the fear of losing market share of its own computers by allowing non-Mac owners to run OS-X... They should create a version of OS X for OTHER PCs that sells at an inflated price -- say $100 over the regular price for OS X, with a built-in emulator to make it run on PCs with at least specific requirements (just like those for XP, Vista, Windows 7, etc.), and on a separate partition or hard drive on the computer, or even inside Windows, if people prefer -- there are various possibilities. THIS would allow PC users who really want to also have Mac abilities without buying a Mac to do so (albeit a bit expensively), while at the same time giving Apple an extra $100 pure profit for "the bother" of selling their OS without also getting a computer sale in the bargain. It would also dissuade a lot of people from going this route, since they could buy the Mac and get the latest version of the OS for free with it., so it wouldn't be "a big seller," but it would, at the same time, quiet and answer the critics who fuss about not being able to run OS X on anything but a Mac.

The fundamental thing that you are glossy over is that it would NOT be "pure profit" as you claim.

Right now Apple only has to test and support their OS on their hardware. You are talking a rather small number of "variables" to deal with compared to what Microsoft has to deal with. If Apple were to support "any" PC, then it would DRAMATICALLY increase their support and development costs. Why do you think Microsoft charges way more than $129 (or $29 in the case of Snow Leopard) for most versions of Windows? It is because they have WAY more different configurations and hardware setups that their OS has to deal with. And that is a big reason why Windows tends to have more crash and lock up issues...there is no possible way that Microsoft can make an OS that runs perfectly (or even close to perfectly) on so many different configurations of hardware. While I might not like some things that Microsoft does, I will give them TONS of credit for putting out an OS that does as well as it does on so many different hardware setups with relatively few problems in reality.

And that does not even get into the fact that it would require Apple to dramatically change their business model. Contrary to popular belief by some, Apple's primary business model is not selling OS software...their primary business model is selling hardware (i.e. Macs, iPods, iPhones, etc). The primary purpose of the Mac OS is to get you to buy their hardware. Apple is not in business to dominate the OS market. They are in business to sell their computers (and iPods and iPhones and AppleTVs and Time Capsules, etc). Yes, they happen to sell some software...as in they sell OS upgrades (they do not technically sell "retail" versions of their OS...all versions available by way of retail sales are "upgrades"), applications (iWork, Aperture, etc), such...but it is by far a very small part of their business. Most of the software they sell is there to give consumers a reason to by a Mac (you notice that most, if not all, applications that you can buy from Apple do NOT have a Windows version...the two basic exceptions are the free apps like QuickTime and Safari...and FileMaker Pro, but Filemaker Pro is made by FileMaker the company, which is a software company that is wholly owned by Apple...in other words, the company that actually makes FileMaker Pro is a SOFTWARE company whose goal is to sell as many copies of their software as possible, so it makes perfect sense that they would want it to run on the Mac and Windows).

[artzy65]

"A bunch of tech geeks with bow-ties?"
Good one... but don't forget the pen holder in the shirt pocket and the white tape on the glasses

[JeffAHayes]

Trust me, Smax, if Apple tried this, not only would they sell a lot of extra copies of OS X, they'd end up selling MORE MACS in the long run, too, as a lot of people who became more familiar with OS X on the PC suddenly decided they'd rather have it on a Mac (maybe they could do it in some way that made it still PREFERABLE to have it on a Mac?).

As for it costing them more to SUPPORT IT, Microsoft charges for support beyond about 30 days or so. I see no reason Apple couldn't do the same, or simply say any OS X installed on non-Apple hardware comes with NO free support period... If you're paying $75/hour, or whatever it runs, well, that's not really hurting their bottom line now, is it?

Hey, I'm just throwing out ideas, rather than all this ridiculous back-and-forth "mine's better than yours" crap most folks seem to want to do.

Jeff Hayes

[artzy65]

"Competitors are learning how to build products that are more competitive." Iphone killers, Windows7, ultra-thin notebooks, etc. aren't building competitive products. It's more akin to building knock-offs..."
Yeah, they build crappy looking knock-offs because they have no talent at all, the little hoes.
Remember this eMachines iMac knock-off from 1999?... a blue & white turd; it looks like a cheap toy:
Message was edited by: artzy65

[JeffAHayes]

Frankly, ANYTHING anybody buys with the eMachines logo on it, well, I think they got what they bargained for! Talk about CRAP! There are brands that have a low end, and a mid end, and some that also have a high end... and then there are those that are all low-end. I'd put eMachines in that category.

Jeff Hayes