What, no thread yet on Apple's latest monstrocities?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by monolith94
Some things never change.

Howdy Stranger. What brings you to these here parts?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kontiki
On something you like? Isn't that the point?

On superficials. On something that "looks cool" despite being an otherwise inferior product.

[laurentius]

I cant wait for the mini-me/mini-jobs photoshop

[Agathon]

On superficials. On something that "looks cool" despite being an otherwise inferior product.

You've missed the whole point. An inferior product is one that does not possess the simplicity, efficiency and design of the ipod.

People like the things because they are idiot proof. When it first came out tech minded folk were annoyed by the autosync feature. But most people really like that "fire and forget" way of doing it (you can turn it off anyway IIRC).

The user interfaces for all the other players "suck" for want of a better term. Their associated music stores and software "suck" too. Most people want something that just works. They don't care about millions of options - that is why the ipod has pwned the competition. It's not rocket science - that's what people wanted.

In any case, by the middle of this year when OS X.4 is released, Windows will be looking even more like the shabby, antiquated, insecure wreckage that it is.

It's worth the price to some people to have an OS that works, that is virus free, that has decent graphics, and is simple and easy to use. That is the Mac OS.

[alva]

How many OS's do you have by now anyway?

[Agathon]

One. I deleted OS 9 as I stopped using it.

X.4 means it is time to buy a new mac. So does Garageband, which is really cool. Depending on what happens to me this year, I will get one before Xmas.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon

On superficials. On something that "looks cool" despite being an otherwise inferior product.

You've missed the whole point. An inferior product is one that does not possess the simplicity, efficiency and design of the ipod.

Which is why a major component of Apple's marketing was the fact that it looks cool...

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


On superficials. On something that "looks cool" despite being an otherwise inferior product.

I can't think of the last time I've purchased a durable good where "superficials" didn't enter into the equation.

Seriously, why are you harping on this? Do you buy clothes? Do you always buy clothes that are the most practical and durable things available, or do ever buy something just because it looks good but maybe costs a little more?

[Asher]

Originally posted by alva

Oi, I was until your side until you said this.

New beetles
Old beetles

Old Beetles are classic, not to mention the design is from the '30s. They're cool.

New Beetles fall in the same category as Apple as far as I'm concerned. Simple shapes, pastel colors, and a flower holder for the user...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Because Apple does it properly. That's the difference.

No, Apple does it in excess, which angers the more intelligent users who abandon Apple for cheaper, better alternatives. The desktop market, for example.

Are you deliberately being obtuse? Apple does not hold a monopoly (in the accepted sense, which you seem to be unaware of) in digital music. Nobody does.

Depends what you mean "accepted sense". Define why they do not own a monopoly if they're building a popular ecosystem and use litigation and threats to keep others out...

If that happens, then I won't complain. But no one has shown that Apple has pressured anyone to do anything.

What do you call Apple's comments to Real?

People are not forced to buy music from Apple's store. They can rip their own or steal it off the internet (as most do).

This argument wouldn't work in court, you realize...

Except it wasn't, as todays results have gone a long way in demonstrating.

Higher than expected (by analysts -- who you know I do not think that competent) doesn't prove it's not overvalued...

Of course it isn't. Why should Apple just give the results of its own hard work to a rival company? That's insane.

What hard work?

You honestly think setting up a store like iTunes is "hard work"? It's HTML, it's something a group of college students do for a project course.

All of the actual conversion from CD to AAC was done by a contracted firm...

And AAC is Dolby's hard work, and Fairplay wasn't made by Apple either.

The only people really complaining are trolls like you. Apple owns the HD player market, so this cannot be a real disincentive to people buying their products.

It may be a small one, especially to Apple's demographic which tends towards the computer-incompetent type. I bet most of them still rip their CDs in MP3s.

Welcome to 1997.

Help! Save us from the company with single digit marketshare.

You have no idea of what they will do in the future, and neither do I. So stop this juvenile speculation.

Apple is trying to take a page out of Microsoft's books, and it's prolonging the life of the iPod/iTunes.

But I don't think Jobs is smart enough to keep going in this direction. The entire business of Apple is based on brainwashing and blindfolding users, relying on psychology fundamentals like knowing most people will blindly try to justify an expensive purchase. If you make things expensive enough, people justify them.

They go for the faux-chic look, bound to draw the attention of art students and trendy yuppies who will proudly display their new Apple products. Apple expects the followers to then mimic the behavior.

I'll give you one thing: Apple's marketing and image department has some brilliant people.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
In any case, by the middle of this year when OS X.4 is released, Windows will be looking even more like the shabby, antiquated, insecure wreckage that it is.

It's funny, only because MacOS X is the one based on technology decades old, while Windows is the one based on technology originally developed for Windows NT...

And you call Windows antiquated.

I'll tell you this: MacOS X can call itself advanced when drag-and-drop behavior becomes consistent. When it can run on a HUGE plethora of hardware and configurations... When it has true low-latency graphical interfaces and not ridiculous amounts of overhead in simple window drawing. When it can adequately separate running programs from non-running programs on the dock. When it can provide actual textual captions on top of all of the active Windows, making full-screen multi-tasking far more efficient and effective. When it has a useful HAL for game development like DirectX...

It's worth the price to some people to have an OS that works, that is virus free, that has decent graphics, and is simple and easy to use. That is the Mac OS.

It's also Windows, provided you don't use Internet Explorer.

Except Windows has better graphics, what with having far better video card drivers and graphics performance.

[Agathon]

Blah blah blah. Same old crap.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Blah blah blah. Same old crap.

You'd think you'd learn by now, but you philosophy types never really did understand what critical thinking is all about.

You're just another sheep for the herd with Apple, and they just tell you that you're the special ones. "It's those outsiders, they don't understand us...drink the coolaid now..."

[Apocalypse]

You'd think you'd learn by now, but you philosophy types never really did understand what critical thinking is all about.

That's not true of everyone...come on

[Kuciwalker]

He's talking to Aggie, though