My thoughts on apple

[caterham09]

I have had a hatred of apple over the past couple years and i have not been quiet about it. I wast in your face about it either so i didnt feel like i was bothering too many people with it. However i was always asked why i dont like apple so i posted this to my facebook to help people understand. Thought that this would be a good place to share this.

Pro's:
1. Apple has extremely exceptional build quality. From their ipods to their mac books they have an amazing quality control team over in china. Everything fits together very snug and nothing ever gets shipped broken

2. The functionality of their products is great. Everything does exactly what it is supposed to do. There are very few random crashes, reboots or forcloseing like there is on windows or android.

3. Clear business goals. With every one of their products they try and set their minds to something and they do not deviate from that path like most other companies do. If they want an incredibly thin laptop they make an incredibly thin laptop. If they want the most user friendly mobile os the create the most user friendly mobile os

4. High quality materials. All of their products use the best materials that they could afford for the price. Only metal and glass, plastic is used very sparingly unlike most samsung phones or windows laptops.

5. Clear market section. When apple designs a product they do it with a certain consumer market in mind. The macbook bro was designed for graphic designers on the go. The ipod classic was built for people who really like to listen to A LOT of music. However this does not apply for all of their products

Now for the cons:
1. Price. Most apple computers are priced much higher than the competitors and often times you get less. This is extremely apparent when looking at the $1700 base macbook pro and the $2500 base imac.

2. User custom ability. Apple designs their products to work great exactly the way that they want them to. Companies like Google and Microsoft have realized that every person is different and will want different things so they design their products to work the way that the user will want them to.

3. Customer appreciation. Apple thinks of their customers mostly as a hindrance to their products. This becomes extremely clear when you realize how blocked out the user is from the system or product. All of their devices are made to be serviced by apple and by apple only. Any attempt to do this yourself will void the warranty and usually break it.

4. Marketing scams. Apple happens to own one of the best marketing departments in the world and they often use it to lie to the consumer. For instance, recently apple released a new chip set in the new ipad called the a5x. The claim was that the new chipset would be 4 times as powerful as the other leading chipset called the nvidia tegra3. When the new ipad was released tech reviewers and bloggers ran several benchmarks and didn't find this to be the case. The a5x was completely demolished by the a5x in every single processing benchmark available. However the a5x was built for gpu abilities and when those benchmarks were run the a5x seemed to shine through. The gpu benchmarks consistently showed the a5x edging out the tegra3 by marginal victories. Even in the test that suited the a5x the best it only preformed about 2 times as well as the tegra3. It is easy to see then that apple can tell the consumers almost anything and they will believe it.

5. This is my biggest issue with apple and it is the lawsuits. Over the past year apple has proven themselves to be a huge patent troll. The US patent office is basically issuing patents for anything anymore and apple is using this to take advantage of other companies. It has been well known that apple has been suing samsung for almost every single part on a samsung device. Shoot they even sued for the freaking unlock screen. Apple did not invent the unlock screen so they have no right to be sueing for it at all. This is clearly a tactic to try and push samsung off of the market. This is funny though because samsung makes over half of the parts for the iphone and ipad. The reason this pisses me off so much is because when apple does this they are basically trying to push everyone else off of the market. This is bad for not just these big companies but for all of us. When there is only one company on the market they dont have to do anything, but when there are multiple companies they are all fighting for dominance. This fighting causes all parties to try and innovate and create new and beautiful things. With competition we as consumers are able to purchase much better products at much lower prices. Without competition though none of that happens.

 

[mikedt]

2. User custom ability. Apple designs their products to work great exactly the way that they want them to. Companies like Google and Microsoft have realized that every person is different and will want different things so they design their products to work the way that the user will want them to.

Thing is Google and Microsoft are primarily software and service companies, don't really have their own hardware products unlike Apple, except for things like Xbox, Zune, keyboards and mice. One can't really do much to customise these. Google certainly doesn't make any hardware products of it's own, unless ChromeBooks and Nexus phones count,

Perhaps one should be discussing the customisability of Acer, Samsung, Hasee, Founder, Great Wall, Haier, Lenovo or Sony compared to Apple.

3. Customer appreciation. Apple thinks of their customers mostly as a hindrance to their products. This becomes extremely clear when you realize how blocked out the user is from the system or product. All of their devices are made to be serviced by apple and by apple only. Any attempt to do this yourself will void the warranty and usually break it.

Isn't that the same with most computers and other products we buy, except probably desktop PCs? You know things like "No user serviceable parts inside.", "Warranty void if opened." TBH real customising only applies to desktop PCs anyway. Certainly not the all-in-one systems and laptops, except maybe changing out HDDs or upgrading RAM, which one can easily do on Macs as well.

 

[caterham09]

Thanks for the feed back. Sure i was comparing microsoft and google to apple but at this point i was really just comparing software sorry should have made that clearer. And yeah i know almost every company voids the warranty if you try and do something yourself but i specifically said this for a reason. I was really pointing towards parts that should really be user servicable. like cleaning the filter on an imac or replacing the battery on your phone. Im sure i made some mistakes in this rant but just remember that this was a facebook status not something i posted on a blog or something. The point of this was just to give my opinion on what apple is and what apple isnt.

I tried to be as unbiased as possible too.

 

[argedion]

In a very realistic way MacOS and Android are very closely related. Both are built off of Unix. Android built by Google a marketing company and MacOS built by Apple a Hardware/Software Company.

Apple has a very good advantage in the fact that the Hardware developers are the same guys who write the software. Jobs had a very good solid game plan as far as that goes. He was a Hardware Guy who knew software. He understood the relationship between the two and knew for best performance that it was best to build everything to work with everything else. Apple has no hardware conflicts because if this integrated system. The reason Apple doesn't want others to work on their systems is that because the tight integration of the system Apple is afraid someone would build off of that system and would cost them money. Mind you not a copy just a build off.

Edit Please view post six for the accurate information of Apple / Motorola. Original inaccurate information has been removed.

As far as law suites go Both Microsoft and Apple are continually in court trying to "Protect" intellectual rights. Android is built on Open Source. Google was not interested in Intellectual rights they wanted to put out a system that others could build on. However they were interested enough in them to go after Cyangenmod for offering Gapps "Copyrighted Material" So they could no longer burn those apps in their Android Project. They could however offer them as a package with the user licence agreement.

Apple Loves the mindless drone who will conform to Apples way of thinking and make no mistake about it Microsoft does as well. Yes Microsoft gives you more ability in Windows to Customize the OS but its still a very closed system like MacOS is. Neither of them want you messing with the "engine" that drives the whole thing. Linux has the philosophy if they see how it works they can make it better. Apple and Microsoft have the philosophy if they see how it works we'll be obsolete.

I have no Love for either Microsoft or Apple. I believe in Freedom. I believe in the Free exchange of information. Apple hides in a corner and doesn't let anyone get close enough to see and Microsoft just bullies you neither are a business practice that I find pleasing. However Both have a corner on the market. And that means that you will probably have something that has their stuff on it. Or at the very least that they claim has something of theirs on it.

 

[Shengxin]

Thanks for the excellent comments above. I am also a fan of open-source software, I like the complete open-source stack -- OS like Linux and Android, tools like Eclipse and Open Office, databases like MySQL, PostgreSQL and NoDB, as well as software like Java and Android SDK for me to make my own software.

I also believe in Freedom and believe in the Free exchange of information. Although Microsoft and Apple are doing well, especially Apple, I really don't like their philosophy.

 

[mrspeedmaster]

Apple used to have Motorola build their processors this relationship dissolved a few years back when Motorola asked Apple for permission to build their own version of the iMac. Initially Apple had agreed, however Apple became concerned that Motorola would make better processors for their computer than they would for Apple so Apple changed it's mind and told Motorola that they could not use the copyrights to build their own system. Motorola and Apple started the process of ending the business relationship and Apple started calling Intel to make the processor for them. The original Idea there was to start putting together a PC version of their MacOS to go against Microsoft whom they had worked with to give us Office for Mac. A venture that left Apple with feelings of regret. However Apple continued on the "i" venture and we know where its at now.

This is an incorrect recount of history.

Motorola originally produces the 680xxx chips for Apple, Atari and other.
In the mid 90s. Motorola, IBM and Apple formed the PowerPC alliance. A CISCO based architecture. Both Motorola/IBM produces PowerPC chips for Apple under shared design by the 3 of them.

Under Gil Amelio's leadership, Apple licensed Mac OS 7 to 3 companies. Motorola and Power Computing were some of the licensee. I know, I had a Motorola Power Mac (the StarMax 300) as well as a Power Computing Power Mac. The clones were only able to produce clones under OS7.

When Jobs came back, he update the OS quickly to 8 . 8 was suppose to be Copeland but they rushed, updated it to 8 to end the clone licensing.

You can read it here:
Macintosh clone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Clone program was a disaster for Apple. Apple was tattered. This is why Job and Apple is so focused on a integrated, holistic approach. Both my PowerComputing and Motorola Starmax gave me a bad impression. They both were cheap but had their flaws which ruined the OS 'experience'


As for Motorola & Apple's relationship failing.
It was due to the fact the PowerPC alliance could not get processors with fast enough clock-speed/performance in the portable space. Furthermore, IBM was carrying most of the weight of the PowerPC architecture. They were the ones who did all the innovating. Motorola could not keep up nor could they offer anything superior to IBM.
They could not get a PowerPC G5 to run on a laptop that was cool enough and fast enough to compete with Intel.

The PowerPC consortium could not compete with Intel so Apple switch.

More on PowerPC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC
BTW, IBM still produce and upgrade the tech. IT is also used in XBOX and other devices.

I am a long-time computer user from the original Mac Classic/Amiga days. I saw the birth of Linux, lived through the great dot com days. I've seen the birth of ARM (Apple Newton) and played with the earliest relics of mobile OSes. I'm pretty good with my Computer history.

 

[argedion]

This is an incorrect recount of history.

Motorola originally produces the 680xxx chips for Apple, Atari and other.
In the mid 90s. Motorola, IBM and Apple formed the PowerPC alliance. A CISCO based architecture. Both Motorola/IBM produces PowerPC chips for Apple under shared design by the 3 of them.

Under Gil Amelio's leadership, Apple licensed Mac OS 7 to 3 companies. Motorola and Power Computing were some of the licensee. I know, I had a Motorola Power Mac (the StarMax 300) as well as a Power Computing Power Mac. The clones were only able to produce clones under OS7.

When Jobs came back, he update the OS quickly to 8 . 8 was suppose to be Copeland but they rushed, updated it to 8 to end the clone licensing.

You can read it here:
Macintosh clone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Clone program was a disaster for Apple. Apple was tattered. This is why Job and Apple is so focused on a integrated, holistic approach. Both my PowerComputing and Motorola Starmax gave me a bad impression. They both were cheap but had their flaws which ruined the OS 'experience'


As for Motorola & Apple's relationship failing.
It was due to the fact the PowerPC alliance could not get processors with fast enough clock-speed/performance in the portable space. Furthermore, IBM was carrying most of the weight of the PowerPC architecture. They were the ones who did all the innovating. Motorola could not keep up nor could they offer anything superior to IBM.
They could not get a PowerPC G5 to run on a laptop that was cool enough and fast enough to compete with Intel.

The PowerPC consortium could not compete with Intel so Apple switch.

More on PowerPC: PowerPC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BTW, IBM still produce and upgrade the tech. IT is also used in XBOX and other devices.

I am a long-time computer user from the original Mac Classic/Amiga days. I saw the birth of Linux, lived through the great dot com days. I've seen the birth of ARM (Apple Newton) and played with the earliest relics of mobile OSes. I'm pretty good with my Computer history.

The real issue isn't the in-correctness (Although I'll apologize for my inaccurate information) its my inability to remember the full details. Unfortunate are those of us whom have the memory of a Sand Gnat. I wish I had that good of one I do know that none of those company's was graced with the Success of Microsoft / Intel until Apple brought Jobs back who focused more on instant media instead of trying to fight a war for the Desktop market. Probably the most brilliant thing Apple could do.

 

[Eugene]

The pros listed are not that accurate
1. Quality. Apple has had as many if not more recalls and known issues as other makers in the same price range. Sure a $500 dell inspiron is going to not have as good as hardware as a $1500 macbook but a $1500 Dell latitude will be the same quality. Apple has had battery recalls, power cord recalls, knon issues with heat and video cards, known hinge failures. not to mention the antenna/reception/call quality problems on the iphones.
2. having used a work provided ipad for a few months I don't agree with the best in functionality. Seems their navigation buttons are all over the place depending on what app or menu they are in and then the guessing game as to what the function the hardware button will do at any given moment. Android has a better interface there with dedicated buttons. I had as many crashes as I do with anything else using an ipad, this is because I push software to its limits. I know of no one else whose google calendar has entries back to the 80's (I've went from paper calendars then to commodore 64 to amiga to pc to linux, etc and ported my data over every time)
4. high qulaity materials. Again everyone compares the $500 Insporon with the $1500 macbook. My 2002 $1500 Latitude C400 was nearly as thin as the macbook air introduced years later, had a metal case lthat Apple copied later, etc and despite the many drops and bangs and dents and scratches it still working today.

And of course the biggest con, the lawsuits (5 on the OP). So many of apples iteas are copies of the palm from the late 90's. I thought for sure when HP bought them it was to obtain the prior art and maybe someone was going to finally step up and put apple in their place and show that evetrything they "innovated" had already been done.