Re: blah blah blah
- From: Josh Hill <usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:41:11 -0400
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:38:01 -0700, $Zero <zeroisms@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 28, 11:41?pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:23:42 -0700, $Zero <zeroi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
or perhaps the surge in AT&T customers will help AT&T fund the upgrade
to their service.
i can only assume that there was some sort of strategic logic for
linking with AT&T .
or do you think that Steve Jobs is simply a drooling idiot who wants
to fail?
I read somewhere that one of the reasons Apple went with AT&T is
because AT&T was willing to do business Apple's way, e.g., Apple
wanted users to be free to choose the plan at home over the Internet
without being pressured by salesmen.
like i said in the other post, that couldn't have been much of a deal-
breaker for other providers, but you gotta admire a company like Apple
that goes out of its way to spare its customers that sort of
annoyance, no?
That's always been part of the Apple appeal, hasn't it. But, OTOH,
they tend to limit choices too much. And a lot of us dislike that,
too.
The Macworld types were very unhappy at Jobs's announcement. Big
mistake, I think, and the same one he's made repeatedly in the past --
control things to the point at which you lose sales.
again, another thing i admire in the guy.
(especially since his control has often resulted in much better stuff)
i mean, it's not ALL about money.
just look what happens to products where the opposite is the case.
the downside to higher quality?
a bit more expensive, maybe.
the upside?
well, better quality.
i frequently kick myself for not originally choosing Apple for my
company's computers way back when because:
1] Apple's systems were slightly more expensive
and
2] i feared they would go the way of Betamax
my cowardice was promptly rewarded with endless problems regarding
several dozen computers, for years and years and years -- always
chasing the buck toward the next level of crappy (but-cheaper-than-
Mac) stuff. -- not to mention the waste in man-hours on freakish
compatibility configurations, mind-numbing (and expensive and
frequently not downwardly compatible) "upgrade" paths, poor security,
less-than-stellar software, etc..
Yep. Except that some of it does have to do with profit, with forcing
you to buy songs from the iTunes store or an Apple-branded this or
that. And Macs back then (?) were really pretty sucky. Amazingly slow,
unexpandable, even flakier than Windows 95. Which wasn't entirely
Jobs's fault -- Scully was responsible for their botched attempt to
write a multitasking, multithreaded operating system -- but a lot of
it was. You couldn't put color monitors (or external monitors at all)
on a Mac. You couldn't add a sound card. Only a couple of years ago,
you couldn't even add your own DVD drive.
Not until the Intel Macs did they have computers that can do the job a
PC can, and do it better. I really, really hope it isn't too late. The
way I see it, if they can get their market share up to the point where
developers start writing programs for the Mac again, they'll have a
fighting chance, but if not, they're going to remain an expensive
luxury for everyone except us hacker types.
--
Josh
"Vista is at best mildly annoying and at worst makes you want
to rush to Redmond, Washington and rip somebody's liver out."
- Stephen Manes
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: blah blah blah
- From: $Zero
- Re: blah blah blah
- References:
- blah blah blah
- From: $Zero
- Re: blah blah blah
- From: Josh Hill
- Re: blah blah blah
- From: $Zero
- blah blah blah
- Prev by Date: Re: persecuted people -- are they ALL paranoid?
- Next by Date: Too skanky
- Previous by thread: Re: blah blah blah
- Next by thread: Re: blah blah blah
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
