StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Xisiqomelir wrote:

Durandal wrote:What exactly is unsuccessful about them? The fact that they went through the Dark Ages with Gil Amelio?

Scully the Traitor selling the company jewels to the Redmond monster.

That's a bad business move. It actually happens with a lot of companies, you know. That doesn't mean that they're unsuccessful.

Xisiqomelir wrote:

SPOOFE wrote:But if you look at the past twenty years, you'll be scratching your head wondering just how in hell Apple still exists. I guess managing to stay alive against all odds IS a success... sort of...

Apple is great because it's stock is so cyclical.

Buy at $16, sell after $40.

@$&#*$.

I told my mother years ago to buy Apple stock when it was around $12-16 dollars. During the dot com era it skyrocketed to ~$120 - we could have made a tidy profit. We probably would have gotten out at much less, but damn ...

Nice job of evading the point. You claimed that one company developing both hardware and software was contradictory to your hastily-assembled criterion of success (specialization) for the computing world.

I most certainly did not, and I'll thank you to keep your hasty words out of my mouth. I referred to companies that STARTED by specializing. Apple grew in an age where proprietary software/hardware standards were necessary, as there was no universal standard for all companies to adopt. This changed in the '80s. Soon after the advent of multi-company standards, Apple saw its market share decrease.

I said that there were advantages to that approach, which Apple have exemplified by their continued success in the market.

Their continued EXISTENCE in the market. Or are you denying that they have less of a market share now than they did twenty years ago?

The company has direction and a good figurehead, has consistently set the baseline for consumer PC design for the last 5 years

What "baseline", aside from Firewire, has Apple set?

I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that the fruity computer company who designs pretty boxes which 1337 g33kz0rs don't consider to be real computers has had a major influence on the computing industry throughout its existence, but that's the simple fact.

Calm down, dude, nobody's speaking blasphemy about your god. Now go sacrifice goats to your iMac.

What exactly is unsuccessful about them?

The fact that they have less of a market share now than they did twenty years ago? Or did you completely miss the part of my post where I said... (wait for it)... "twenty years ago?" Learn how to read, child.

SPOOFE wrote:

I said that there were advantages to that approach, which Apple have exemplified by their continued success in the market.

Their continued EXISTENCE in the market. Or are you denying that they have less of a market share now than they did twenty years ago?

Apple has indeed lost proportionate market share, however it has increased its total number of customers quite considerably from 1984. It is in no danger of immediate disappearance I think.

Xisiqomelir wrote: Apple has indeed lost proportionate market share, however it has increased its total number of customers quite considerably from 1984. It is in no danger of immediate disappearance I think.

Apple's Glory days IMHO, were with the Apple II. The IBM PC was
destined to win in the end due to the massive interoptability of the
PC standard over time.

Durandal wrote:What does not being able to build a cheap-as-shit Mac box have to do with anything?

Same reason why Sony is vastly more successful in the business world
than say, a company that builds $4,000+ DVD players with machined
aluminum waveguide blocks up the wazoo...

Same reason that if a part on my computer breaks, I can just go to
a major chain store and pick up the parts quickly and cheaply...rather
than having to mail order said part from a Mac Dealer.

The company has direction and a good figurehead, has consistently set the baseline for consumer PC design for the last 5 years

Yeah, for overpriced chintzy shit with no expansion possibilities at all
(see: iMac and Cube)

I haven't had a part break yet.

I've got 2 operable Mac Plus, a Motorola StarMax clone and a iMac SE DV. I have not had one single part or drive failure since 1990.

When I bought my iMac, I priced out a comparable Dell, for the same price, the Dell would have had a smaller HD and no DVD-rom.

SPOOFE wrote:I most certainly did not, and I'll thank you to keep your hasty words out of my mouth. I referred to companies that STARTED by specializing. Apple grew in an age where proprietary software/hardware standards were necessary, as there was no universal standard for all companies to adopt. This changed in the '80s. Soon after the advent of multi-company standards, Apple saw its market share decrease.

My apologies for misreading what you wrote. Still, how could Apple start off by specializing in an era where manufacturing both hardware and software was necessary, as you claim?

Their continued EXISTENCE in the market. Or are you denying that they have less of a market share now than they did twenty years ago?

Marketshare is not the only measure of success, unless you seriously expect me to believe that Ferrari is not a successful company. What about name and brand recognition and the ability to enter successfully into peripheral markets? iPod anyone?

What "baseline", aside from Firewire, has Apple set?

Computer design, functionality, single-handedly launching the USB peripheral market before everyone else, pushing DVD recording before anyone else, coming up with the first satisfactory, non-subscription-based digital music service, designing what has been repeatedly hailed as the best MP3 player on the market and is now the benchmark for all other MP3 players, et cetera. I outlined all of this before.

Calm down, dude, nobody's speaking blasphemy about your god. Now go sacrifice goats to your iMac.

It's certainly not my god, just ask Phong. I do plenty of bitching about them, but I also recognize that they've contributed a great deal to computing and continue to do so.

The fact that they have less of a market share now than they did twenty years ago? Or did you completely miss the part of my post where I said... (wait for it)... "twenty years ago?" Learn how to read, child.

See Ferrari, dumb-ass.

MKSheppard wrote:Same reason why Sony is vastly more successful in the business world than say, a company that builds $4,000+ DVD players with machined aluminum waveguide blocks up the wazoo...

And this impacts the fact that Apple is a successful company ... how? Walmart is more successful than a Mom and Pop grocery store in Dustville, Oklahoma, but who really gives a rat's ass as long as Mom and Pop are making money?

Same reason that if a part on my computer breaks, I can just go to
a major chain store and pick up the parts quickly and cheaply...rather
than having to mail order said part from a Mac Dealer.

The only parts you need from a Mac dealer are the processor and motherboard. Everything else is exactly the same as PC parts. This has got to be the tenth time someone has told you this.

Yeah, for overpriced chintzy shit with no expansion possibilities at all (see: iMac and Cube)

Whether or not you like their products, lots of consumers do. I know you're incapable of seeing beyond your little world where everyone absolutely requires the top of the line box with expansion capabilities that'll take it into the next millennium, but lots of people like things that look nice on their desks and work like they're supposed to. This thread deals with Apple's successes as a company, not whether or not you like their stuff. If all you've got is your usual Apple-bashing, then please feel free to shove a plunger up your ass and leave.

Durandal wrote: And this impacts the fact that Apple is a successful company ... how? Walmart is more successful than a Mom and Pop grocery store in Dustville, Oklahoma, but who really gives a rat's ass as long as Mom and Pop are making money?

Hahahahah, except Wal-Mart drives the economy by making decisions
on what to buy and sell, while Mom and Pop cant do jack squat.

The only parts you need from a Mac dealer are the processor and motherboard. Everything else is exactly the same as PC parts. This has got to be the tenth time someone has told you this.

I recall not too long ago where virtually everything was proprietary. Did
this change? If so, I stand corrected.

Whether or not you like their products, lots of consumers do. I know you're incapable of seeing beyond your little world where everyone absolutely requires the top of the line box with expansion capabilities that'll take it into the next millennium

Is this all you have? To bash me and make comments about "my
little world"? Try upgrading an iMac or a Cube. I dare you to.

Not a lot of room in there, persay, while I still have some room for
expansion in my 450 mhz Pentium II ratbox, which is limited because
I stupidly got one with onboard AGP video five years ago, with no
AGP port back when I didn't know as much as computers as I do now.

Either way, while that PII 450 won't be capable of being built back into
a major gaming machine without a major upgrade of virtually everything,
I can still convert it into a server with multiple hard drives et al easily from it's current configuration.

Try that with an iMac or a Cube.

The Cube has got to be the worst possible thing ever done by a major
company. It's a gimmick that lasts for about a few months before everyone
realizes how crappy it is, with no expansion possibilities whatsoever
so you can attempt to keep up in the computing world without having
to totally rebuild your system...

Come to think of it, I've never seen any apple Barebones kits, they all
come straight from Apple for a few grand. Way to upgrade. Instead
of buying a few parts at a time, you have to buy the damned thing
straight from apple all at once.

Apple seems to be targeted for the high end of the computing market;
the "useful idiots" who have more money than common sense, like the
people who buy Ferrarris which they really can't use on the street

The PC is best likened to a Pickup truck. It might not be as fancy, flashy,
or have the chic trend factor that a Ferrarri might have, but it's vastly
more useful than a Ferrarri can ever be, because you can convert your
pickup into just about anything you want, by adding 4x4, winches, or
even removing your truck bed and putting a wrecker crane on it to
make money towing people's cars...

MKSheppard wrote:Hahahahah, except Wal-Mart drives the economy by making decisions on what to buy and sell, while Mom and Pop cant do jack squat.

All completely and utterly irrelevant. They're turning a profit. What do they care who's driving the economy?

I recall not too long ago where virtually everything was proprietary. Did this change? If so, I stand corrected.

Actually, it's been standard parts for quite a while. Apple finally got off their RAM high horse and went with PC66 SDRAM in the first Beige G3's. Come to think of it, it's been that way since they realized that Nubus was a complete and utter failure and went PCI. Their hard drives just happened to be SCSI back then, which made them more expensive. Basically, the first generation of PowerMacs (way, way back) were the last of the completely proprietary days.

However, up until the G5, Mac users were basically SOL with respect to replacing their motherboards or CPU's. Motorola didn't sell the chips directly to the public, I don't think. IBM, however, does.

Is this all you have? To bash me and make comments about "my
little world"? Try upgrading an iMac or a Cube. I dare you to.

Fine. Users have successfully upgraded the graphics card, hard drive, memory and CPU in Cubes. iMacs are a different matter, since they're geared toward the consumer who is more likely to just buy a new machine once he feels that the old one is no longer adequate, rather than go through the hassle of upgrading. Are you deliberately ignoring this point, or are you so completely unaware of arguments that devastate your position that you can't even conceive of their existence at all?

The Cube has got to be the worst possible thing ever done by a major company. It's a gimmick that lasts for about a few months before everyone realizes how crappy it is, with no expansion possibilities whatsoever so you can attempt to keep up in the computing world without having to totally rebuild your system...

It didn't succeed because it was outrageously priced for a system without a monitor. There wasn't a single person I talked to at CompUSA who didn't buy the Cube because of it's lack of upgrade capability; they just balked at the price. It was a very fine piece of engineering, but Apple got greedy with it, and it failed.

Come to think of it, I've never seen any apple Barebones kits, they all come straight from Apple for a few grand. Way to upgrade. Instead of buying a few parts at a time, you have to buy the damned thing straight from apple all at once.

Yup, because you and I both know that the average consumer builds his own PC's.

Apple seems to be targeted for the high end of the computing market; the "useful idiots" who have more money than common sense, like the people who buy Ferrarris which they really can't use on the street

Yes, the computer science department at Virginia Tech is definitely a bunch of "useful idiots."

The PC is best likened to a Pickup truck. It might not be as fancy, flashy, or have the chic trend factor that a Ferrarri might have, but it's vastly more useful than a Ferrarri can ever be, because you can convert your pickup into just about anything you want, by adding 4x4, winches, or even removing your truck bed and putting a wrecker crane on it to make money towing people's cars...

And you know what? You don't cruise around in a pickup truck to get laid, either. Nor do you use a Ferrari for towing. Each machine has its purpose. Aside from gaming, a Mac can suit a user's needs just as well as, if not better than, a PC can.

Durandal wrote:However, up until the G5, Mac users were basically SOL with respect to replacing their motherboards or CPU's. Motorola didn't sell the chips directly to the public, I don't think. IBM, however, does.

AFAIK, you won't be able to upgrade the motherboard on the G5, either. You always could upgrade the processor though, one way or another.

It didn't succeed because it was outrageously priced for a system without a monitor. There wasn't a single person I talked to at CompUSA who didn't buy the Cube because of it's lack of upgrade capability; they just balked at the price. It was a very fine piece of engineering, but Apple got greedy with it, and it failed.

That, and Apple's R&D cost was so high on that thing that they were forced to price it so high. Still, for most tasks it works quite well (one lab at USF has a few cubes and they perform fine). Then there are the crazy people who put dual-processor G4s and R8500s in it...

Yes, the computer science department at Virginia Tech is definitely a bunch of "useful idiots."

The workstation and graphics areas tend to have expensive computers as well, x86 or Mac.