"Apple is the next Microsoft"

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by meeera

That depends on the kind of work you need to do with your portable device. My partner completely replaced his laptop with his iPad two or three years ago - dealing with customer and colleague communication (email and Skype, mostly), reading scientific papers, remotely monitoring lab machinery, and so on. He sits down at our home desktop computer maybe once every couple of weeks, if that.

Serious writers need a separate Bluetooth keyboard, but yes heaps of (but not all) people can and have replaced their laptops with tablets.

Sure, I agree there are cases where a tablet might rival and even surpass a laptop for doing work on. I should have said 'producing content' rather than 'doing work.'

I recall a survey on the digital reader site of students' hardware choices. They overwhelmingly chose laptops over tablets. That agrees with your point about entering text. Laptops are much better to write on.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Where do you see people working on laptops primarily?

Library settings. I used to see a lot more macs than I'm seeing now. I don't see any tablets or ipads.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by hardcastle

Your confusion stems from ignorance, then.

FYI, you're opening statement comes across as very condescending. I'm sure you didn't mean to be.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by WillysJeepMan

You have artfully and correctly described Microsoft's consumer market endeavors. They have mastered the ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

And yet they have been dominating the personal computer world for decades. They've made some gaffs, but they continue to succeed. When I first the title of this thread, I thought it meant it would be a good thing for Apple if they become the next Microsoft. It would mean personal computer world domination and almost monopoly status. I think Apple would love to have MS's market position.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

This is how one knows that a discussion is moving in a constructive direction: When people focus on points of clarity rather than defenses and self-vindication.

My point about your previous point was that you focused on the idea of Apple users as a homogeneity of shallow awe. Like you, I'm not using harsh words to criticize an opponent's imagined attitude but to explain a point of disagreement.

First, I don't agree that mac laptops are irrelevant. We've been talking about them all along and they're still viable. I can agree with you about the Mac Pro.

Second, saying that Apple hardware is not essential to any business and that its user base isn't driven by need is saying that none of the artists and writers I know matter because they aren't real business people and aren't really dependent on macs for making a living.

The error is associating a mindset, attitude and IQ level with a product, as if said product revealed anything significant about the person who used it. Personal analysis by product choice is the phrenology of capitalism. I'm not saying this because I think you're guilty of dismissing artists' intelligence and depth by design. I'm saying that that's what the argument itself implies.

I would argue that Apple is dominant to the point of holding a monopoly for computers in music and advertising as well as some circles in academia, at least in Sweden. I would also argue that in the long run, unless you get that user base to upgrade regularly, it is too small a segment of the total market to be sustainable. Most computers today are overpowered for their usage, isn't that why tablets has made such an in-road? I don't know anything about the computer needs in those market segments, but in most other segments the need to upgrade is not really there. Windows 8 penetration is mainly due to new computer purchases. My suspicion is that Apple is facing the same problem.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It was specifically stated that the old versions are abandoned. All the people who are using perfectly functional WinXP computers have no choice but to install a real browser. Because IE8 is not a real browser today...

I'm probably take your post a bit out of context, but...

Knowledgeable users of window's various operating systems know not to use all the bundled software / tools, because, well, some of them suck.

Take for example the Search facility in Windows 7. The interface is fundamentally flawed. And MS has never bothered to fix it. Rather than deal with what is at heart a bad utility, I install a third-party tool. Windows is well supported by 3rd-party software.

And does anybody who knows what they're doing use IE? I don't mean to be condescending by that, but I personally have found it's so much easier to install Firefox or Chrome than deal with IE which kept crashing. MS are great and not fixing flaws but still they succeed. I guess part of the cause is simple product lock-in.

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

I would argue that Apple is dominant to the point of holding a monopoly for computers in music and advertising as well as some circles in academia, at least in Sweden.

That's the perception, but I bet you can't support the position with data. In the early 90s I attended a MacWorld and someone had a Mac and a PC doing desktop publishing. The point was that the PC could do what the Mac could for about half the price -- that's advertising. It's hard to believe the same hasn't happened with music and video since.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by wizwor

That's the perception, but I bet you can't support the position with data. In the early 90s I attended a MacWorld and someone had a Mac and a PC doing desktop publishing. The point was that the PC could do what the Mac could for about half the price -- that's advertising. It's hard to believe the same hasn't happened with music and video since.

I'm sure there is no difference today. I have a friend who runs a smaller ad Agency, everybody is on a Mac. I told him that PCs can do all that as well at a lower price Point. His reply was that the Mac is so deeply entrenched it is impossible to change now. People would just mope about the differences instead of getting work done. In the end that was more important than shave something off the administrative budget.
This off course isn't data, but it is fairly representative of a prevailing attitude in those businesses.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It was specifically stated that the old versions are abandoned. All the people who are using perfectly functional WinXP computers have no choice but to install a real browser. Because IE8 is not a real browser today...

Chrome and Firefox don't require you to 'update to a "new" OS that is over 4 years old to use the latest version', which is all that really matters in this case.



What exactly do you mean by supported???

Support for old software is defined by the presence of updates, which for IE would be the IE 9, 10, and now 11 updates. How do you "support" an old version, is this like supporting Firefox 3.0 or something? Oh yay, Microsoft still "supports" Internet Explorer 2.

Microsoft does not "support" IE8, they support IE, and only on Win7&8.

---

The fact that they'd discriminate based on which version of the OS you have is frankly, asinine. And it is no matter what company does it.

By supporting old versions I meant that they offer tech support.

And I'm not clear on what you are talking about in the first part of the post in reply to pl001. Are you talking about an old computer running XP or a new computer running XP? Specs have changed a lot over the last decade.

Originally Posted by Rizla

I'm probably take your post a bit out of context, but...

Knowledgeable users of window's various operating systems know not to use all the bundled software / tools, because, well, some of them suck.

Take for example the Search facility in Windows 7. The interface is fundamentally flawed. And MS has never bothered to fix it. Rather than deal with what is at heart a bad utility, I install a third-party tool. Windows is well supported by 3rd-party software.

And does anybody who knows what they're doing use IE? I don't mean to be condescending by that, but I personally have found it's so much easier to install Firefox or Chrome than deal with IE which kept crashing. MS are great and not fixing flaws but still they succeed. I guess part of the cause is simple product lock-in.

What is wrong with the Search facility in Windows 7? I never had a problem with it.

The first thing that I do on a windows computer is install another browser. But I've used IE occasionally. I block some things in Firefox and instead of allowing them and blocking them again when I want to see something it is easier to open the webpage in IE.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

What is wrong with the Search facility in Windows 7? I never had a problem with it.

windows 7 search sucks

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Rizla

I'm probably take your post a bit out of context, but...

Knowledgeable users of window's various operating systems know not to use all the bundled software / tools, because, well, some of them suck.

Take for example the Search facility in Windows 7. The interface is fundamentally flawed. And MS has never bothered to fix it. Rather than deal with what is at heart a bad utility, I install a third-party tool. Windows is well supported by 3rd-party software.

And does anybody who knows what they're doing use IE? I don't mean to be condescending by that, but I personally have found it's so much easier to install Firefox or Chrome than deal with IE which kept crashing. MS are great and not fixing flaws but still they succeed. I guess part of the cause is simple product lock-in.

True. But holding back Win XP & Vista from updated versions is still a jerky thing to do. Maybe it's a good thing, though.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

By supporting old versions I meant that they offer tech support.

And I'm not clear on what you are talking about in the first part of the post in reply to pl001. Are you talking about an old computer running XP or a new computer running XP? Specs have changed a lot over the last decade.

I mean any XP computers, why should there be a difference? There isn't for FF & Chrome.

Tech support for a piece of software that doesn't actually have the capabilities to understand the internet in the first place? By which I mean those parts of it that aren't 6 years old, like most of the important stuff. Because so many people call up MS Tech support when Gmail crashes on them.

By abandoned, we mean, or at least everyone other than you seems to mean, a piece of software that hasn't been updated to be useful in the current state of things.

99% of all calls will go like this: "Hi this is Tech Support. How may I help you? Oh, that? That doesn't work on this version, update your browser."

[theinfamousj]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Chrome and Firefox don't require you to 'update to a "new" OS that is over 4 years old to use the latest version', which is all that really matters in this case.

I cannot speak to Chrome, but the only reason I upgrade my OS is because of Firefox. Newer and newer versions have dependencies that my older OS doesn't have. I hold on to an OS until I reach that point with Firefox because upgrading is a pain no matter how seamless the upgrade scripts. Sure, I could run an old ("Not the latest") version of Firefox and not have to upgrade my OS, but those bug fixes were implemented for a reason.

So there is your falsifying case on that assertion. But I am not sure what the assertion has to do with Apple's future.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by theinfamousj

I cannot speak to Chrome, but the only reason I upgrade my OS is because of Firefox. Newer and newer versions have dependencies that my older OS doesn't have. I hold on to an OS until I reach that point with Firefox because upgrading is a pain no matter how seamless the upgrade scripts. Sure, I could run an old ("Not the latest") version of Firefox and not have to upgrade my OS, but those bug fixes were implemented for a reason.

So there is your falsifying case on that assertion. But I am not sure what the assertion has to do with Apple's future.

Nothing at all, I was just commenting on someones comment.

What OS can't you run the latest Firefox on? I know plenty of people who run it on WinXP without any problems -- well, not any FF problems.

[shanghaichica]

Originally Posted by Jessica Lares

I am not worried for Apple. They are NOT the next Microsoft.

iPad sales have slowed, but so has the Kindle Fire. The difference is that the majority of iPads that were bought are still being used, while the majority of Kindle Fires ended up on eBay and/or broke and people upgraded to the Nexus 7, Galaxy Tabs, and others.

For every person that still owns and uses an iPad 1, there are probably 10 who have bought two or more Android tablets since then.

The same can be said for Macs and iPhones. There are more people with 2007/8 MacBook Pros than with Dell laptops from that same year. There are more people with the iPhone 4 (not 4S) than there are those still using a Samsung Galaxy S2.

And the same thing with iPods, which is why Apple recalled the Nano five years after the fact, and if anything else came up with the others, would probably be doing the same procedure now.

iOS 7 has received a lot of negative press, but at the end of the day, it's nowhere near the amount of hate Windows 8 has received. Android guys don't complain about KitKat, but the majority of them probably haven't even seen Jelly Bean.

Good points. Over the past 2 years I've owned 3 tablets 2 androids and 1 iPad. Guess which one I've had the longest and still have? The iPad mini. I've had it for over a year now.

My mum is still clinging on to her iPhone 4 lol she's had it since 2010 and is way past her upgrade date. She took out a second line and got a samsung galaxy S3 but she rarely uses it.

[WillysJeepMan]

Originally Posted by Rizla

And yet they have been dominating the personal computer world for decades. They've made some gaffs, but they continue to succeed. When I first the title of this thread, I thought it meant it would be a good thing for Apple if they become the next Microsoft. It would mean personal computer world domination and almost monopoly status. I think Apple would love to have MS's market position.

If you consider Microsoft to be dominating the personal computer world now, or cannot see the difference between Microsoft of the 1980's and Microsoft of the 2010's, then we're viewing reality from two very different perspectives.