Bashing Microsoft for being closed and proprietary has been a popular pastime in the media and the IT industry for many years, and there is no doubt that much of this has been well deserved. After having its wings clipped on several occasions by regulators, however, the Microsoft of today, while not totally reformed, is a lot …
Who cares about open? Macs are something you choose to buy, Windows PCs are something you are forced to use. At least from what I've seen as I'am not a MAC user, Apple tries to make their closed ecosystem something different and better, where as Microsoft are quite open about screwing over any competition and delivering third rate product following on from second rate product.
There is no doubt that Apple has enter a new era of its life and it has to come to terms with the fact that customer power cannot never be ignored. Apple has had it hands burned more than once due to rough riding over customer complaints and yet they don't seem to learn.
Apple needs to be abit more open cos if they dont then there could be trouble ahead and then it will be too late.
For the love of Hollywood...
Yes, Apple is a closed system, and for a huge raft of reasons. The Mac is now just a nicely specced PC, a little bit ahead of the curve maybe, but an Intel powered PC all the same. The first time that Windows was booted on an Intel Mac was when Apple lost its otherness, and all it had to compete in the PC market was its operating system. This was, until recently a very good reason to buy one. Apple resolved all the problems of Linux on the desktop, wrapped them in Aqua and sold OS X to anyone who wanted to be able to do all the things that could done with open source software yet still have some gloss and a consistent operating environment. The iPod brought the company further into the mainstream, applying the principle that it applied to the personal computer to the MP3 player, and merging it with the desktop and a nice management system that went from a ripping tool to becoming a shop. The shop needed to sell things, music at first, but then as domestic bandwidth expanded, it could deliver TV and movies - and that's where Hollywood comes in. Even as the iTunes store is able to deliver last night's Lost in a way that would have been unthinkable when Steve unveiled the first Mac running OS X, Apple has had to kowtow to the software providers, the big four media companies, to get the right to sell their product digitally, and that has meant that the operating system has been compromised to recognise media files that will only play in specific software and to be sealed against tampering. Apple has done this because it doesn't just want to sell computers or media players, but wants to be the seller of media. Jobs' 'wilderness years' weren't spent in the wilderness at all, but in other parts of the same industry that he now wants to dominate not as a maker, but as the distribution mechanism. When Steve Jobs is not showing us how to order pizza on the iPhone, he is, let's not forget, the CEO of Pixar, who are the largest shareholder in Disney. That's where Apple is going, and while talking about shaking up the media delivery industry, it has had to compromise because the rest of that industry still can't see where it's going. I don't like it. OS X was simply the best operating system going for quite a while and I was happy to be a fanboi, but there are parts of it, and Apple, that might claim to be open and revolutionary, but in reality are anything but.
We do need to care
To those who say "who cares", you should care.
It is simple matter that we should do the right thing. It's not like we have to choose which one is less evil. What we should do is get rid of all evils.
I can catch bus to work, or I can drive. I can say who cares, drive myself is slightly more convenience. But I either catch bus or share car with some else, because that's the right thing to do.
Human is deemed to be doomed, the general public is always stupid, selfish, greedy.
Children! Calm down...
"All these hippies on their macs have simply no fucking clue or need to do business like real men."
Have the christmas holidays started already? Grow up! Why do you Wintards feel the need to slag Apple off ALL the time? Have you got nothing better to do? It's success isn't it. Your all like broken records...
Kudos to the individuals that give reasoned and honest opinions as to why the don't like Apple, more so to those who don't make it out to be FACT. Those who don't like Apple cause they can't be bought/brain-washed et c. - get over yourselves. Read what you say about Windows, the devotion you all exhibit is almost religious! The very things that you accuse Apple users of doing are committed by yourselves on a much larger scale. Most of the 'insight' comes from hearsay (y'know, my friends sister has an iMac...), or just good ol' fashioned ignorance. The bile and vitriol is delivered with rabid exuberance. Most of you really need psycological help.
It's all about data
The most difficult aspect of migrating off Microsoft products is the artificial barrier to exit that M$ has created through the use of proprietary data formats. Nothing that Microsoft produces creates a industry standard file format, or even a published file format, and they are always changing formats to keep non-M$ products from being able to interoperate. Once you buy into one, leveraging that data requires buying into other M$ products, or lose interoperability. You are artificially and covertly captive to their offerings.
Contrast this to Apple, where every computer application they create either uses industry standard data formats, or has a provided export/import function, or, at the very least, is documented. OS X is POSIX compliant, so application porting of the wealth of UNIX software available is eased. No, you do not get to much with internals of the OS - a good thing. Automatically granting any installer root level access to the core OS is one of the main security flaws of Windows (duh! - operating system 101, for those that were asleep in that class).
Yes, Apple tightly controls their hardware and the development environment access. This creates the tremendously robust and stable platform that provides the legendary reliability of the Mac desktop. No, it is not perfect, but it is a far sight better than what Windows provides. Having led a few IT shops - the largest with 262,000 desktops - I can empirically state that the cost of supporting an OS X desktop is between 10 and 25% of the cost of a Windows desktop, with the variability based on how much of the back end infrastructure is M$ proprietary. It is not about acquisition cost - that is a nit in the overall life cycle cost structure; it is the cost of managing and support.
1) Apple platforms are less expensive than similarly configured, quality brand Windows machines. Except for the cheaply built consumer junk, Apple competes - nay, beats Dell, Sony, and IBM in every category, and absolutely destroys the cost comparison in servers (in a large part, due to licensing costs)
2) Apple platforms are far more data interoperable / open than Microsoft products, unless you commit to a 100% Microsoft approach. You are seldom if ever, locked into a particular application because of proprietary data.
3) Apple platforms are far more stable, and architecturally, less prone to virus attacks.
4) Apple server environments are less expensive than Windows. There are no user license costs on an OS X server, it interoperates extremely well with Windows desktops, and it provides a rich set of server applications, with a very low cost of administration.
5) Apple server environments scale far better than Windows. Some of the world's top 10 fastest supercomputers are Apple based - none are Windows. UNIX, by design, is a server OS, ported to the desktop, not a personal computer OS, bolted together to make a server. Although Windows Server is getting better, it still suffers from the above deficiencies.
6) Hundreds of thousands of OS X applications exist, affording virtually every capability available to the Windows world, and typically, in a higher quality, better ease-of-use delivery.
Developers may whine about openness, but that control is the very thing that makes OS X so attractive to cost conscious IT operations environments and companies that are concerned about stability, security and cost effective production capability. It is not a religious war, nor is that a fanboy diatribe; it is pure and simple economics. The Mac platform is more productive and less costly - and not by a little bit, but by a lot. Adoption is hindered by the ignorant, and more importantly, the high cost of dealing with all the proprietary data roadblocks in Microsoft software infrastructure.
You're using the wrong words
The correct word is "Mactards". It has been used for a long time, before "iTard" and "appletard" were out, which just don't sound right. Don't even bother using those words.
Mactards. Repeat it to yourself a few times, and you'll get used to it.
Also, I have a distinct feeling that kirkrr has stolen his response from an anti-apple email somewhere and switched all the company/brand names around, because now it's completely untrue. It's so untrue that I stabbed my thigh with a pen to make sure that I was reading it right.
Rather than A$
How about A$$?
It has been said before, but I feel it needs to be said more often, as people here have a different view on how IT should work:
Apple doesn't do "open". Apple does Apple, the Apple way. This is why Apple is still there. Now if the Apple way is in conflicts with your perception of how IT should be run among Faceless Corp X, Y & Z that might be because a large part of Apple's core clientele is not from the enterprise lot, but Consumer, Pro-Sumer & Creative Pro. A clientele that buys a tool to solve a problem. All they need is a tool that works in the most reliable and productive way possible. They could not care less if their tool is "closed" in nature or plays well along with whatever the needs and wishes of big IT departments are. They just need to get shit done.
It sure means Apple misses a lot of business because their attitude of not sucking corporate cock pisses a lot of people off. But guess what, sucking corporate cock is not their business and it doesn't really matter, as they are profitable, very.
As long as certain other companies keep churning out ever more bigger batches of bug-ridden bull it should pretty much stay that way.
It would also be helpful if people could learn to different segments when it comes to the Fruit. "Bwaaa bwaa, developing for OS X is such a bitch", "Bwaaa bwaaa, iTunes for Windows sucks", "Bwaaa, bwaaa, I'm an IT pro and cannot get over having to deal with others who are not". Get real.
Nevertheless, I very much second the notion that Apple's notebooks used to be better. Much better.
/sidenote: I'm sorry for all the profanity but most of what comes on the table here is the eversame litany of folks who bemoan "a my way or the highway" attitude in a company they fail to understand, as they think that all that is relevant is their OWN way. Hybris and double standards, pathetic. If you don't like what the Fruit does: Buy elsewhere.
Most of the pro-Mac responses hark on about the technical merits. True, it's very good, but like anything, you can find dozens of opinions on which is best and why. Vista, properly patched, is a very good (if not somewhat bloated, with an annoying GUI) OS - especially in the Win2008 flavour. Linux is flexible, powerful and cheap (but a sod for amateurs). A user will buy waht they like/feel comfortable with. So all in all, this is irrelevent.....
The discussion on business practices: Apple probably is more closed than Microsoft - largely because M$ has been (right or wrong) slapped down enough times to make something stick. Apple used to be small enough to stay beneath the radar. That will change as market share grows and the blip on the radar grows. Eventually even the more liberal media Mac lovin' types will ask questions. But in the end, most end-users don't care, so in many ways, this too is irrelevent.....
The proprietary lock-in of OS to tin is technically great, but lacks flexibility (I'd love to buy a quad core Core 2 desktop with a big graphics board with OSX but can't - only iMac or Mac Pro, no middle ground) and stifles competition in the harware sector. iPods may not be tied to iTunes store, but they are tied to the app for most regular users. Generic MP3/MP4 devices can be used on pretty much any OS with most apps as they are often 'seen' as storage devices.
From a software perspective, the best example of lack of openness is iPhone versus Windows Mobile. Besides being able to pick up WinMo in many form factors from many vendors at different price points, you can install any software, including turn-by-turn satnav software from a dozen manufacturers. Apple's lock in means a limited product set and limited software choices - satnav being the prize example. However, the trade off is stability, so again, a buyer needs to consider what do they want. Don't start me on the camera and copy'n'paste....
Both these last points veer towards the fact that Apple is less open than MS in many ways, but while it can be both good and bad, in the final analysis, most buyers won't care, so renderiing the whole discussion irrelevent.
So why did I write all this. Dunno. Friday afternoon and I'm bored. Mines the one with the iPhone in one pocket and a PocketPC in the other, next to the iMac running Vista.
Well, of course...
Yes, the Macintosh is a more closed, proprietary, system than Windows. But the mere fact that it exists as an alternative to Windows is still a good thing, which is part of why Apple isn't normally criticized as much; the problem is seen as the dominance of Microsoft, and whatever limitations one has to accept to use Windows.
The fact that in some respects it might be worse for those other people who chose the Mac doesn't affect the fact that their 'sacrifice' made things better for Windows users.
And the Macintosh is indeed a bigger alternative to Windows on the desktop than Linux is. That's just not saying much.
What people want is either a highly competitive market, where there is no dominant player - you could use a Mac, you could use Windows, you could use BeOS, you could use GEM Desktop... and so on - OR where the dominant player is Linux, BSD, or something like that.
Early on, in vigorously defending a lot of aspects of its desktop interface - but licensing to Windows instead of getting into a legal fight with them - Apple made the decisions that led to Windows becoming dominant, because the other competitors Windows faced in the early days were swept off the board. Apple even sued Xerox - and won.
So there's blame to go around to Apple - and yet the world would be a poorer place without them as one alternative to Windows. It's just that it would be nice if there were many alternatives to Windows.
Top 10 supercomputers
>Some of the world's top 10 fastest supercomputers are Apple based
Nope. I think Virginia Tech(?) had a Mac cluster make it up to number 7, but it's slipped out of the top ten. This was in the middle of 2007 (I think ... I can't be arsed to look it up).
What a bunch of ........ :-)
Its funny how these flame wars always go the same way these days. But everyone forgets... or chooses to ignore.... The dollar is the one that chooses.
Mac sales are increasing each quarter and increasing as a total percent of things sold. Once you go Mac, you do not go back, is funny but basically true.
That says it all. Of people that try both systems (and are not MS developers :-) ) the Mac side grows. Why is not so important as the fact that the number GROWS. Period.
Year after year, product after product, Apple is growing.
Just a thought.
Open, Closed, whatever
I've got UNIX on my phone. Think about that for a second.
UNIX. On a phone.
You think *they're* bad..
I'd say Adobe is actually the least open software company out there. Sure, they give away readers and do a decent job of giving lip-service ti the FOSS community, but try and find a single piece of actual open source that they've put out. Not API's - they do a decent job of that, but actual open source app code. None. Zip. Etc.
Now *that's* closed.
Because it's not Windows...
I'm a Mac user now. I used to use Windows and "tried" Linux for 3 years until I just couldn't take it anymore. Most Windows users just have no where else to go. Seriously, what percentage of Windows "switchers" go to Apple versus Linux. Is there serious marketing for Linux? No. How many times over the past 5 years have we seen articles entitled, "Is Linux finally ready for the desktop? Try distro X now!" Give me a break. I am concerned about Apple's closed policies, but I would rather put up with "Father Jobs" than "Uncle Steve."
RE:Kevin O'Donnell @ 17:30 GMT
"I would also point out that you can run Windows on a Mac, but NOT vice versa. Is that monopolistic practice?"
You can run a windows on a Mac, but only on newer Macs. (and its not running windows on the mac OS, just running it on the hardware, almost like using dual boot on pc's)
Regarding running Mac on Windows, dont you mean running Mac on a non apple pc?
Which by the way, thats not M$ fault. Thats Apples fault. The OS specifically checks to see if its running on apple hardware.
The one company that was putting out Mac OS on non apple PC's is being sued by apple.
The problem with stories like these is that it immediately descends into 'for' and 'against'. There's a middle way, you know - see http://www.jigsawnetworking.com/news--events/mac-software-not-open.aspx
errrmmmm.... hhmmmmm..... aahhhhh.....
Paris 'cuz no one is quite as "open" as her....
The only thing apple is good for is.....
"It just works"
Currently using a Mac now, and have been doing so for the past few weeks. I find that it's generally a mixed bag.
I have found, however, that it locks up a lot more than my computer at home which runs Vista, and all I really do on this thing is surf the Internet.
Also, I was trying to access a shared folder on the network that i'm connected to right now, and didn't have any luck. It worked before, but now it doesn't.
So what i'm saying is that Macs are nice, but they certainly don't "just work", and certainly not good enough to justify the premium that Apple charge for one.
Also, these MacBooks get pretty bloody hot after a while.
Mine's the flameproof jacket.
"The difference here is that Apple's package is so good and so reliable. [...] I would also point out that you can run Windows on a Mac, but NOT vice versa. Is that monopolistic practice?"
Yes, it is a monopolistic practise. However you seem to be arguing FOR Apple using that fact.
Do your research, and next time you might not destroy your own argument: The only reason that Mac can't be run on non-Mac hardware (and also not as a VM) is because Apple refuse to let you do it, and will sue the crap out of anyone who tries to make it work. Not because it makes their software better, but to protect their profit margins.
Don't get me wrong, I know MS are equally ££-minded in their own ways, and in both OSes it means their release schedules and product content have stopped being about quality and security, and more about quick, easy money printing.
As such, Apple v MS arguments will never truly get resolved. Like a Newton's Cradle, they will keep bouncing back and forth with equal and opposite force, ad infinitum...
Dare I wish for a third alternative where money wasn't an issue and security, openness and quality were the top priority? ;)
Ok so I am a long time M$ fan (open minded enough to also use Linux and Mac). Problems with Apple:-
They sell an onsite warranty then refuse to deal with problems onsite, sending out a courier to collect the Mac!!!!
Have you ever used OSX? If M$ put all the default OSX stuff in windows they would be sued for billions! Why has no one thought of this yet?
Apple do not 'allow' developers to write drivers for hardware, this is a plus and a minus as main problem with windows is very sloppy drivers, YES I MEAN YOU NVIDIA!!!!!!!
Having just got a Mac I refused to pay £150 for a 4GB ram upgrade and purchased the same memory from crucial for £40! That's a nice mark-up Apple!
£50 for a wireless keyboard!
£50 for a wireless mouse!
Ok so for the price I paid for the Mac I could have got at least three quad core AMD machines, but the Mac really really looks nice :) (And I wasn't paying)
Genesis of a religion
and then, upon the offer, Adam did take the apple from st.Eve, and lo, Adam bit into the right side of said apple. immediatly God wrought anger and trademarks on the whole of mankind.
relevance of number
Regarding the results of your survey. Given that Apple has (very roughly) 5% market share and Windows has over 90%, the fact that only 55% of your readers think Apple should be more open means that even a considerable number of people in the Windows camp see nothing wrong with Apple's practices.
Of course, the only really interesting number, "How many Mac users think Apple should be more open?", isn't being asked.
If I stated that I think "Cobol is language for dorks", it might provoke controversy. If I add the fact that I have never even spent as much as 5 minutes looking at how Cobol works, it will turn that statement into admitance of ignorance, nothing more.
iPhone is a closed, locked down computer
Author Jonathan Zittrain talked earlier this year about how Apple is worse than Microsoft in many respects. It's disturbing to see that the most important computer today, the iPhone, is also the most closed and locked down.
Q: But Bill Gates has total control, doesn't he?
A: No he doesn't. That's the ironic thing. Bill Gates is Mr. Proprietary. But for my purposes, even under the standard Windows operating system from 1990, 1991, you write the code, you can hand it to somebody else and they can run it. Bill Gates has nothing to say about it. So it's funny to think that by moving in Steve Jobs's direction it actually ends up far more proprietary.
Jobs is notorious for creating a very closed ecosystem of products that include the iPod and iPhone.
Yeah, it's amazing to me how much the progress of Apple has tracked the trajectory that I'm concerned about. It was Steve Jobs who brought us the first PC in '77--totally reprogrammable, totally generative. It was Steve Jobs who then came out with the Mac that made it so much easier to use while retaining the generative quality and allowing everyone to write code for it. Now Steve Jobs is bringing us the iPhone, which in version one is completely locked down. And then in the most recent announcement Steve Jobs says, "OK, we're going to allow third-party apps, but you can't just hand an app to someone, you have to put it through the iPhone store, and we reserve the right to take a cut for every app. And if we don't like the app, we can kill it."
Closed = Bad... Says who?
I am going to begin this comment by totally ignoring all of the comments by other people and addressing the article written by Dale Vile, after my brilliant commentary on his article I will allow myself to descend into the mosh pits of the Apple vs. Windows geeks and give the most thoughtful and intelligent opinion ever bestowed on mankind.
Dear Mr Vile,
in your article you state, "Meanwhile, those of us making a more objective assessment of what’s going on look at how Apple’s business is evolving and see a lot of similar traits to those that were apparent as Microsoft was gaining power."
After you make this statement you proceed with as slimy a hack-job of an anti-Apple attack piece as I have seen for many a day. Please, if you are going to write an anti-Apple add, be honest about your affiliations.
You seem to think that you are justified in your diatribe because, "21% said Microsoft was more closed, and 24% said there wasn’t anything to choose between the two, the majority, 55%, gave the prize for lack of openness to Apple." This poll is a amateurishly biased (which you even admit!) attempt at leading the public into giving you ammunition to attack apple. Why did you not give us the results of the obvious next question: "Is it a bad for a company to be closed?" Did you even think to ask the question?
Now, in your article you make several feeble attempts to explain why being closed is a bad thing. For example you make the shocking revelation that Apple is, "...trying to exploit its brand strength and the dependencies between its offerings as much as it can to extract money from us. "
Really?!?!? Apple is trying to earn money?! How evil!
Mr. Vile, I have a shocking bit of information for you, companies are almost ALWAYS set up for the sole purpose of earning money. The fact that Apple is successfully trying to earn as much money as it can, does not make it a bad company, it only makes it a successful company.
But I digress, your premiss that Apple is bad because it is a "closed company" (and be honest, that was the point of your whole article) simply does not stand up to any type of scrutiny. Being a closed company is not a bad thing. Let me draw you an analogy that, though not perfect, will explain what I mean.
Let us say that a computer's operating system = A high rise building.
and that computer programs = businesses inside the high rise.
In the Microsoft tower if a business comes in and wants to set up shop it just knocks down a few walls, and makes room for itself without regard to whether it is affecting all of the buildings around it. And, if the Microsoft tower does not have the right space configuration, the company just knocks down a few support columns and makes room. This means that the businesses (which remember represent programs) do not work well together, and that the overall structure of the tower is weak.
Now, across the street we have the Apple tower. In this building businesses must conform to building codes, and must configure their requirements to fit the structure of the tower. If the business is not willing to meet these obviously necessary requirements than it is not allowed to even enter. The result is a stable building, with businesses that work well together.
The analogy is not perfect, but it does get my point across. A closed system of business makes sense. It allows Apple to ensure that its users have a stable machine that just works. And, while it does give bad programmers headaches (or good programers who make a bad program) it is actually one of the single biggest factors in Apple's success.
Well, that is all the time I have for this topic. I must now return to my blissfully closed Apple life.
- - -
Dear Mosh-Pit Members,
Get a life!
P.S. Since my comments complete the discussion on this article, I will not be responding to your petty arguments and insults. :P
*Ah, the bliss that the anonymity of the internet brings!*
@Closed = Bad... Says who?
AC- I think you are missing the point, closed/proprietary is not bad in and of itself. But we are in a situation where we have 3 main choices for home computer OS:
A) a proprietary company that enjoys a overwhelming marketshare, and has tried to use that marketshare to force its customers to buy a new OS that is bloated by cutting off access to the previous OS that people liked.
B)a proprietary comany that forces its customers to buy its hardware due to a very unusual situation where the CEO of this company is an "irreplaceable" talent behind the design of company products and also happens to be an ego-maniac, so normal market driven economics is thrown out the window and the customer is forced into the company's product lock-in at every possible instance, style and status being the motivators behind doing this, which of course attracts a certain kind of customer (what the Brits would refer to as an "upperclass twit").
C)an open sourced OS that gives anyone the freedom to change anything and adapt to anything they want
gee, now which one do I want to choose? hmmm, I know a lot of people think that they feel some sort of responsibility to A and B to be loyal customers, but somehow, C seems like its a good alternative out of the mess A and B have put us in.
now Im not a free software/open source fanatic, and I dont think most people who use Linux or BSD are using it to get free (non-paying) software. But the fact that Linux and BSD are open is a major factor in breaking the monopolistic practices that proprietary software companys A and B are playing.
Appl€ sucks, but M$ is worse
As someone who is using neither Appl€ nor M$ products (Linux only here), I think I can be fairly objective here -- both suck, but M$ is worse.
Apple has done a lot of good things, their work on WebKit has benefited everyone, and libmDNSResponder and the likes being open source helps too.
Microsoft, on the other hand, never releases source to anything useful, and actively tries to prevent people from writing open source software.
The criticism of Appl€ for tying OSX to Mac hardware is justified, but then, anyone who has worked on an operating system will understand the reasons -- one of the top things holding Linux, FreeBSD and the likes back is that people expect them to run on every piece of "Designed for Windows Vista" hardware, and people get angry at the OS if it doesn't support their latest toy - when instead they should be getting angry at the manufacturer of that toy for not providing drivers or documentation needed to write a driver.
Apple gets around that sort of criticism for OSX by making sure it runs only on hardware they've tested and where they know the hardware makers will support them.
"You can run a windows on a Mac, but only on newer Macs."
I refer you to SoftPC and OrangePC. The Mac OS has had software (and hardware) capable of running DOS *and* Windows since the late 80's. In fact, Mac's jump to Intel effectively killed both SoftPC and OrangePC, as they were no longer needed.
Im not buying the argument that Apple forces their customers to use their hardware to avoid driver problems, lets look at the choices they give:
a) iMac- I dont want my computer inside the monitor casing, I want to be able to choose/replace the monitor that I want.
b) Macbook and Macbook Pro- This is as close as Apple gets to selling something affordable/useful, but still too much money to spend for a laptop with a one button touchpad.
c) Mac mini- absolutely worthless, quite a lot of money for a weakling that you cant even put a graphics card in to soup up, an insult to anyones intelligence, not even a cheap monitor thrown in
d)Mac Pro- dual Xeons?? what the hell am I going to use this for? good for gaming? no, but if you need to run a server or render farm out of your house, youre set to go
There is no excuse for a line of computers like this, its simply trying to be 'different' in order to justify price mark-up. What kind of idiot will tolerate buying overpriced mis-matched hardware they dont need and accept driver compatibility as an excuse for doing so?
The scale of evil...
It's all relative.
Asking if Apple is more evil than Microsoft is like asking if Ted Bundy was more evil than Pol Pot.
At the end of the day they were both pretty damn nasty. Pol Pot just had the opportunity to be evil to a lot more people at once.
...and Google Too?
Interesting article. The same can be said of Google --- a company that has done an excellent job of portraying a "warm and fuzzy" image, but is actually quite closed, quite secretive and quite arrogant --- all the while while they strangle us with their monopoly.
In the US the education environment tends to swim with mac fanboys. Despite the fact that like 5 students have them at home and the majority of businesses and even colleges run Microsoft software. (do you see where I am going with this?) I am forced to support macs on a windows based network because people just buy the crap because it's pretty.
Tell me, why on earth does it take DUAL QUADCORE XEONS to run Photoshop FOR A HIGHSCHOOL STUDENT?!!?!?
I find it uttlerly insane to pay $2500 for something that a $1000 PC could do just as well, is easier to support and doesn't do stupid things half the time.
-does anyone else find that using a mac is the most inconsistant expierience ever? you do something one way, oh gee, that doesn't work over on this one, despite being the exact same.
(only paris is stupid enough to use the damned things)
More Pounds than sense ?
App - £€ ?