Quote:
Originally Posted by UCF w00t
I know you guys are just baiting us but I'll bite anyways.
So you're saying if Microsoft behaved more like a monopoly? It's funny because they've tried and failed to do this. They got sued (and lost) over this very topic. And I would love to see some statistics to your whole "Macs last longer" thing. Here's a hint... you won't find them. I can, however see why you would think this. Apples tend to be much more upscale in cost as compared to off-the-shelf PCs. Also, Apples tend to be used longer and PCs thrown by the wayside while still working as most Apple machines are used for basic web/email and not much else. Yea, there's all the graphics folks that swear by their Macs and upgrade more often but they're the minority.
Using your analogy, for the same money as that JL unit you could've gotten another unit that has intergrated LCD screen with nav & DVD playback with just as good of quality without the "JL" logo on it. Yea this doesn't hold up in the car audio world but it really shouldn't hold up in the computer world either. But Apple has managed to convince people otherwise. Point is, for the same price as your apple hardware, I could've gotten a MUCH better PC.
And I hate to break it to you, that Apple hardware is all being made by the same exact companies that make stuff for Dell and everybody else. I guess you missed that whole Apple switching to x86 (Intel) a few years ago. It's funny how they bashed the crap out of x86 just prior to switching to it. Apple may design (even that is limited by the chipsets made by the same companies that everyone else uses) stuff like their motherboards but they're still made by someone like Foxconn or Asus who also make boards for themselves as well as the OEMs.
Of course you use Apple products in printing... all of the graphics people seem to. I don't know why. It doesn't make sense anymore. Yea, it used to but these days it just doesn't. I guess it's just habit. And maybe you guys like to feel cool and hip and artsy and fight the man by buying such trendy products.
I haven't gotten a virus in years. Probably at least 6. I don't even know the last time I did. And no, I don't run any virus scan other than COMMON SENSE. Don't do stupid crap and you won't get a virus. It's all about numbers... why would malware authors go after 8% of the market when you can go after 90%? It would be stupid for them to go after such a small audience. Most malware doesn't use flaws in Windows as attack vectors but flaws in people's intelligence. And stability? Come on... my Vista box at work hasn't been rebooted in at least a month.
And I guess I'm not a real programmer. I better go tell my boss at work tomorrow that half of the work I've done doesn't exist. Oh and that VIN database? I guess I better just turn off that Dell laptop (yes, it's my old laptop) that is running Windows Server 2008 and Microsoft SQL Server that happens to be hosting it. Since, of course, no real programmer wrote that site or anything. It's all just make believe.
If Mac OSX is so great, why won't Apple let people run it on any hardware? There's no technical reason they don't. It would just shatter your notion that it's so great when you realize that OSX driver support is deplorable. That and Apple would actually have to compete for their hardware sales.
|
Basically, my big argument is that you will always be your own best advocate. Apple will support Apple products better than non-Apple companies. Inasmuch, Microsoft ignored this when it allowed for Windows to be placed on non-Microsoft products.
Think about it in another way. GM makes cars using a lot of parts. No steering wheel manufacturer is complaining that GM doesn't use their steering wheel or offer it as an option because they have no right to do so. GM never let them have a role in building steering wheels. If GM had done so in the past, GM would have given those companies a precedent and a dependency on GM.
Microsoft has created companies that are dependent on their products. For example, Dell cannot sell PCs without the Windows operating system. Apple, however, has never allowed its operating system to sell on non-Apple products. As a result, Apple has a legal monopoly on its operating system. Apple also maintains very carefully placed controls on its products being sold by retailers. Microsoft has not protected its product by forcing it to be sold with specific hardware. As a result, Microsoft has doomed its product to mediocrity while Apple controls the standard of its product and its brand by carefully controlling its sales.
That sounds like a monopoly. It's not because you don't have to buy Apple products. In fact, a lot of people don't, and they are happy people, even though their computers are inferior.
No one complains that many of the products at Wal-Mart are oftentimes only sold at Wal-Mart or that the Camaro is only sold at GM sales locations. Without the type of control that Apple has, its products will not have good quality.
That is why Apple will not let anyone run its operating system on anything else. Apple works to make its prices competitive, but people consistently know that Apples cost more. If the Apple OS were suddenly available in a cheap format, Apple would no longer be responsible for the quality of the product that effectively represents Apple.
In other words, Microsoft has allowed some crappy brands to slap a good system in a bad product. Having witnessed this, why would Apple do the same thing? It would be incredibly stupid to make that business decision because Apple will then have to try to build an operating system to operate under conditions that Apple no longer controls. If Apple can take responsibility for making sure that the hard drive is big enough, that the motherboard lasts long enough, that the camera works, that the speakers are loud enough, that the battery lasts long enough, and that the computer is attractive enough, then Apple can sell its products. If Apple loses that advantage, then someone will cheapen the Apple name.
Apple is using a business strategy to sell its products. That strategy works. This is evident in the obvious fact that Apple still exists and makes money. Why should it change?