Printable View
Because the only original thing they do is removing things and selling to the crowd as "features". Then charging extra to upgrade and get the things you've been missing all this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Webhead
And the web browser? I have to give them huge credit, they managed to produce a browser which makes even IE look like a decent one.
This is such a general statement I'm not even sure how to reply to this (and honestly, I probably shouldn't reply since this is obviously just a bias opinion). But what the hey,.. Can you be more specific about your claims?Quote:
Originally Posted by CeeBee
Sorry, Webby, but he has a point. The user interface for Lisa and the original Mac was based on concepts developed at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center. Apple tried and failed for years to develop a modern multitasking OS in house, and only got one by buying NeXT. Even then, the NeXT OS is based on BSD Unix, so that isn't earth-shakingly original either. And just how long is Apple going to hang on to their UI anyway? Can you honestly say that virtually any Linux distro as well as Windows isn't more intuitive and user friendly?Quote:
Originally Posted by CeeBee
http://dottech.org/85881/these-are-a...-for-billions/Quote:
Originally Posted by Webhead
Cool! So how did Apple manage to get their hands on those concepts from Palo Alto? Are you saying Apple stole those designs? Or did Palo Alto willingly hand those concepts over? How did Apple manage to negotiate the purchase of the NeXT OS? Is there anything else that is based off of BSD UNIX that we should look at too? Bill Gates stole Apples GUI design -- along with blatantly ripping off and undercutting their sales. Should be we critical of Microsoft as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by slgrieb
I'm not sure what you are asking with that last sentence. I'll assume you mean that each OS has their own set of pros and cons? If so, then totally agreed.
Anyway, I should've been more clear with my earlier statement. My mind was focused on smartphones when I wrote that. I was thinking about the state of cell phones and mobile devices before the iPhone was introduced and about how for years iPhone was leading the way with innovation and how the Samsungs and HTC's and LG's were copying and copying for years to get caught up. And I was thinking about the state of how mobile devices *might* be now if Apple hadn't lead the way on new innovations in 2007. Looks like you guys are going back to the beginning of time covering every piece of electronics ever made. My bad.
"innovations" in smart phones. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...as-the-iphone/Quote:
Originally Posted by Webhead
Defining the term "rationalize": http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationalizeQuote:
Originally Posted by Larommi
I.e. You are rationalizing points but it doesn't change the fact that the mobile device industry changed when Apple introduced the iPhone. And the rest of the industry followed after that.
Let's then just forget all the other smartphones from before iphone...Quote:
Originally Posted by Webhead
What Apple did with great success was marketing to the masses.
As well we should forget. Because they were all junk. The Palm Treo, the Blackberry with that stupid side wheel thing, the various Windows CE based PDA's, the flip phones. All of it was junk. I know this. I sold them everyday. Every form of overly complicated engineering imaginable was on display in my store. And you're right. All Apple did with great success was market a great product to the masses. Finally a thing came along that people wanted to actually use. It was simple, worked, did the things we really wanted. Didn't have to hunt through 28 complex menus with a clunky stylus to do simple tasks. Everything made sense. Worked more as an appliance as opposed to a geek tool (the way it should be if you want to sell to the masses).Quote:
Originally Posted by CeeBee