* firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
* > >Summary:
* > >(1) Apple's strength is its operating software, not its hardware.
* > >has been. Few people ever bought Macintosh for the hardware. When
* > >buys Apple, he should put the focus there, not on hardware.
* > WRONG WRONG WORONG. If you actually believe this, stop talking
* > right now. Apple's ease of use OS granted has been a big part, but
* > (as in years past) Apple's hardware that kept them alive. Built in
* > Networking, first with CD-ROM's, built in Digital Video, etc. No
* > has ever offered computers that featured all that standard, and I
* > think anyone still does. (Well NeXTStations but we won't go there,
* > Amiga doesn't count.)
* i'm unsure about your evaluation of mac hardware tim. i mean, sure,
* they had some great integrated features early (scsi, networking,
* video, high-speed bus, internal hardware task-parallelism, etc.),
* look where that got them. oh, wait, you said amiga's _don't_
* count. :)
Amiga's don't count because there was virtually no software other than
* the only thing wrong with your and this author's arguments are the
* fact that the soft didn't take advantage of the hardware _enough_.
* the scsi driver is a perfect example (if you don't know what i'm
* talking about, simply put, the driver continued to use interrupt
* polling and lacked pure dma transfers until very recently).
Granted, and actually the driver doesn't still doesn't use pure dma is
it still isn't native. But I digress. Take Joe adverage. Have him
attach a Zip to his PC. Then have him attach a UMAX scanner. Then have
him install a larger HD.
Then have the guy sitting next to him attach a Nikon cool scan to his
PC, or Sun, or SGI. This is the reason Apple is where it is.
* i applaud many of apple's hardware moves (build in networking, move
* powerpc, and use of scsi being three), but to believe that no one
* offers as many features as standard is ignoring the facts. just
* every large pc vendor matches apple's flexibility and breadth
* compliant and at lower cost, as sad as that is. don't begin to
* about those special mac features like dig vid; i'm only talking
* the features that the other 99% of the populous gives a shit about.
99% of the people that bought Mac A/V systems gave a shit about that.
And the sales figures prove it.
The A/V series of Mac's are consistently the largest selling in the Mac
* > >(2) Apple's problems have always been a deep lack of executive
* > >marketing understanding about the technology Apple owns. The
* > >marketing have rarely understood the benefits of their
technologies at a
* > >gut level. Most rarely used the technology themselves so they
* > >its advantages. The engineers were always light years ahead.
OpenDoc is the
* > >latest casualty, but there have been many others. Ellison should
* > >that.
* > >
* > Wrong again. Apple's problem has been they have ignored the people
* > were buying Macintosh's. It's the classic case of a love/hate
* > Yes, the arty types in pony tails and goatee's buy our products,
* > aresn't corporate Amerika, and we have to be accepted by corporate
* > That thinking has just about put them out of business.
* i'm a little confused. are you saying that mac users must be
* by corporate america and thus macs must as well?
No I'm saying that Apple felt almost embarrased by their users because
they weren't the type that was going to be accepted by corporate
Amerika. Thus they ignored them and went after the users that they felt
they could be "proud" of.
* > >(3) Apple currently lacks a focus. While the rest of the world
* > >network computing, Apple could be focusing on document centric
* > >and clean up on the market now dominated by Microsoft. Ellison
* > >Apple become the world's document centric leader and tie the
* > >technology (or some equivalent based on Java) to its Notes
* > >are people going to do with all of the JavaBeans and information
* > >off the net. The answer is that they are going to SHARE that
* > >personally designed, customized documents. Since Oracle knows
* > >documents from its Notes business, document centric computing
* > >out Oracle's business model.
* > Wrong again. Apple finally has realized that they are 1) not going
* > the desktop, 2) not going to be accepted by corporate America 3)
* > to be the server solution 4) sell a hell of a lot of Macintosh's
* > segments of the computing population, that also happens to be the
* > giants of the world.
* if (1) through (3) are true, apple is left with commodore's pitch.
* remember it?
* "amiga, computers for the creative mind."
Well if almost every major film and TV show (editing), and Midi artist,
ad agency, newspaper, magazine, pre-press solution, photo re-touching,
illustrator, etc. were using Amiga's would you be saying the same
* i'm afraid that probably won't cut it, but we'll see. i'm wishing
* apple all the luck in the world, but i wouldn't bet 2 cents on their
Their chances are fine <bold><color><param>0000,00D7,0000</param>IF
</color></bold>and this is the point to all this, the fuckin' computer
industry would just leave them alone. Go ask the users of Macintosh's
what their want, and you know what they say? "I want a faster Mac."
PERIOD. They don't really give a shit about multi-tasking,
multi-threading, protected memory etc. Why? Because they don't have a
clue what the fuck that is. Bring a Win'95 user to me and I'll show
them NeXTStep running on my Micron P-133 and watch the drool drip out
of their mouths. They don't know what it is either. They just think
they have a good OS until they see that. Apple is (and I can't really
go into much more about this here) firmly and finally coming to grips
with their market. Apple is also firmly committed to bringing some
really hot shit new hardware to market. Is it going to be the one that
you drool over to replace your P-Pro's and NT 4? No. That isn't Apple's
market. Is it something a graphic artist, or film editor, or effects
person is going to give his left nut to get his hands on? Yep.
Anyway, that's just my opinion, meant to confuse and disorient...
<<> email@example.com <<>