Apple Closes More Doors

[Dreadnaught]

So Apple's new OS is going to have an App store with 30% of the revenues going to Apple, and only certain features available to developers who use the Mac App Store.

I find this bothersome, and something that could push me over the line as a future Mac consumer. I've avoided the iPhone and iPad for Android and maybe Chrome OS depending on how it looks when it comes out. But I do feel Mac makes great desktops and a nice OS.

But closing off functionality simply because an application doesn't go through Apple's filter? Jesus. Who wants to weigh-in on whether:

1) Apple's recently-grown marketshare will suffer.
2) This will be investigated by the EU.
3) The EU may have a point for once.

One of many articles for reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/te...y/21apple.html

[Ominous Gamer]

I swear that I warned this (to a degree) was going to happen when people started supporting the mobile app store...

Considering Apple's Intel jump years ago, there really isn't any ground for them being "great" PCs considering what else is out there (not even getting into hackintoshes). Pretty would be a better word.

[Being]

But closing off functionality simply because an application doesn't go through Apple's filter?

It's the same way Apple has always done business. That's why the PC kicked their ass.

[Dreadnaught]

They always had more of a tightly-controlled ecosystem when it came to hardware, and everyone is sort of used to some level of closed-ness on mobile phones. But limiting software on wholly-owned desktop machines (which don't need to be tied to any carrier agreements, etc) is definitely a new step.

Yes, it's not totally inconsistent. But is it even sane?

[Being]

They always had more of a tightly-controlled ecosystem when it came to hardware, and everyone is sort of used to some level of closed-ness on mobile phones. But limiting software on wholly-owned desktop machines (which don't need to be tied to any carrier agreements, etc) is definitely a new step.

Yes, it's not totally inconsistent. But is it even sane?

Were you even computer aware when Machintosch was introduced? All apps for it had to be developed on a Lisa. No Lisa, no Mac app.

[Aimless]

Along with the new operating system, Apple unveiled a new App Store that would sell software for the Mac. Mr. Jobs said that it would help customers to find applications and developers to sell them. Mac users would still be able to buy programs from other sources.

Concerns about Apple's compulsive narcissism aside, what's the problem?

[Dreadnaught]

The article doesn't mention that certain OS features (mainly dealing with where the applications appear in the launch tray of sorts) will be restricted if the applications aren't sold through the Mac App store.

[Ominous Gamer]

They always had more of a tightly-controlled ecosystem when it came to hardware,

Always did feel kind of sorry for the customers who got sucked into this continued cycle of outdatedness Apple controlling the hardware means Apple controls the drivers, and Apple has a tendency to hold driver updates for new OS releases, so you will pay for it.
Hell, it took a group like Valve to make Apple finally admit their graphics drivers were in need of serious retooling.

[Illusions]

If this is how they want to dig their grave, while the fanboys cheer that Apple makes the best dirt holes around, I say let them.

[Lebanese Dragon]

I'm not scared of apple, I'm scared of GOOGLE... They are too smart and inventive. They came up with the idea of having a group of people who are think tanks and say how can we spend our money, or rather invest our money not just in our current market/focus but in general. Then they just go through and rigorously and systematic test things as they gather ideas. Who the hell came up with that model? They're too good they need to be broken up... What can Bing do? I do have one valid complaint about google other than the fact they're becoming a monopoly by being better than everyone else, but they messed up youtube. They need a new system for filtering things some content gets taken down that shouldn't be. I don't think they have a real person look at the video they just go off complaints, probably 100% automated.

[Khendraja'aro]

I'm not scared of apple, I'm scared of GOOGLE... They are too smart and inventive. They came up with the idea of having a group of people who are think tanks and say how can we spend our money, or rather invest our money not just in our current market/focus but in general. Then they just go through and rigorously and systematic test things as they gather ideas. Who the hell came up with that model? They're too good they need to be broken up... What can Bing do? I do have one valid complaint about google other than the fact they're becoming a monopoly by being better than everyone else, but they messed up youtube. They need a new system for filtering things some content gets taken down that shouldn't be. I don't think they have a real person look at the video they just go off complaints, probably 100% automated.

They're actually required to by law. The only one who can file a counter to the DMCA takedown notice is the person who uploaded the content.

[Dreadnaught]

I'm not scared of apple, I'm scared of GOOGLE... They are too smart and inventive. They came up with the idea of having a group of people who are think tanks and say how can we spend our money, or rather invest our money not just in our current market/focus but in general.

How are they telling you how to spend your money?

Always did feel kind of sorry for the customers who got sucked into this continued cycle of outdatedness Apple controlling the hardware means Apple controls the drivers, and Apple has a tendency to hold driver updates for new OS releases, so you will pay for it.
Hell, it took a group like Valve to make Apple finally admit their graphics drivers were in need of serious retooling.

The thing is that Apple hardware tends to last longer than most of the similarly-priced commercial PC stuff I use. Regardless of driver cycles and graphics deficiencies, Apple is on to something when it comes to making things appealing to the average consumer. Most people don't care about drivers and graphics cards. They want the Web, pictures, videos and low-level applications that can process low-level amounts of data.

Apple is good at this, and tightly regulating the development process so that people prefer their systems. Interestingly, as hard the capabilities of computers have grown, peoples demands for systems seem to have gone down. We don't want more features in an OS, we want things that are faster, slightly clever and remain fast over time.

[Ominous Gamer]

The thing is that Apple hardware tends to last longer than most of the similarly-priced commercial PC stuff I use.

This you must explain more.

Most people don't care about drivers and graphics cards. They want the Web, pictures, videos and low-level applications that can process low-level amounts of data.

Apple is good at this, and tightly regulating the development process so that people prefer their systems. Interestingly, as hard the capabilities of computers have grown, peoples demands for systems seem to have gone down. We don't want more features in an OS, we want things that are faster, slightly clever and remain fast over time.

Problem is that Apple consumers don't even understand when they're getting ripped off. Apple has this thing about disabling what hardware can do, so that future generations of the OS can appear better. Apparently someone somewhere wants better graphics if Steam felt it worthwhile to port all their shit over to the Mac OS (you're having that whole personal experience problem again), and yes they've called Apple out on not allowing the OS to utilize what the hardware is already able to do. The exact same hardware thats in "similarly-priced commercial PC", if by similarly price, we mean more bang for your buck on the PC side.
Apple did the same thing for the longest time with their wireless drivers, including N capable cards but not allowing older OSs the updated drivers to use that setting.

The app store should have made this obvious, but people do want better graphics (games are huge there, are they not?), and that means more updated drivers. Since the time that Steam has opened their Mac support Apple has released 1 driver update. ATI and Nvidia have done 2-3 updates. Hell ATI and Nvidia update drivers not only around new hardware, but also around new games. This "good enough for now" mindset you're showing, thats the mindset that fuels the Apple crowd's love for planned obsolescence.

I would hardly say demands have gone down. More specialized perhaps, especially for the Mac crowd thats simply grown complacent being in the dark. Our Web experience is a fuck ton more enriched than it used to, everyday websites are able to do what users used to need individual software for. The same for pictures, and especially videos.

Is clever code for hip and stylish? Form over function?

[Dreadnaught]

Just my experience. The whole reason I switched to Mac PCs was my getting tired of Windows being clunky and rapid hardware degradation. I think the "closed circuit" of hardware and software does yield some advantages.

You keep on harping about the hardware utilization, except it's in ways that most people simply don't care about. Gaming is huge, but most consumers aren't gamers and Apple clearly doesn't care as much about the gaming market on their PCs. iPhones and iPads are obviously a different market, but people accept hardware and software limitations on those devices. Interestingly, some seem quite happy with the tradeoffs.

When I say demands have gone down, I say that the "cool things" people do with computers has shifted from gaming towards browser-based applications and Web sites. The growing importance of the Web-based experience has rendered this kinds of hardware controversies less relevant for most people.

[Khendraja'aro]

The closed circuit also yield massive disadvantages. With a very high chance, a program which worked on Windows 98 will still work in Windows 7.
Try that with MacOS.

"Clunky"? Right. We're entering the field of religion now, folks, so don't expect any rational arguments here!

And I really don't see the "rapid hardware degradation" (is that some term from Bullshit Bingo?) unless you're gaming with the latest and newest games. Oh well, live on in your happy La-La-land.

[Wraith]

Just my experience. The whole reason I switched to Mac PCs was my getting tired of Windows being clunky and rapid hardware degradation.

I'm assuming you mean obsolescence and not degradation. Macs aren't any more immune to that than PCs, and any percieved gains you got are probably only really there because from what I remember of your history, you switched at just about the same time there was an across-the-board massive slow down in that area.

[Khendraja'aro]

Psssh, don't disturb the Apple disciples with facts!

[Ominous Gamer]

Just my experience.

You're still doing it. This is your experience. An inexperience, ignorant user. Unaware of whats actually going on and whats truly available. Then you take this and transform it into most people. I'm not attempting to be insulting, this is my view from the rest of your post.

The whole reason I switched to Mac PCs was my getting tired of Windows being clunky and rapid hardware degradation. I think the "closed circuit" of hardware and software does yield some advantages.

To think you bitched at GGT for using buzzwords without meaning . It yields plenty of advantages for who ever is controlling the "circuit", but almost nothing for the consumer beyond the false sense that something works because you have someone official who says it would.

You keep on harping about the hardware utilization, except it's in ways that most people simply don't care about. Gaming is huge, but most consumers aren't gamers and Apple clearly doesn't care as much about the gaming market on their PCs. iPhones and iPads are obviously a different market, but people accept hardware and software limitations on those devices. Interestingly, some seem quite happy with the tradeoffs.

and here comes the most
69% of America's Head of Household play games
Half of Facebook users admit to it.
40% of American adults play games

Apple used to be the market for video games, thats obviously declined since the G3, and Apple's pretty much admitted defeat. There are dozens of reasons why this came to be, and driver support is pretty high on that list.
You may consider iPhones and iPads a different market (different discussion, different time), but if Apple wants to carry over its momentum from handheld to desktops and DTRs, people are going to have to admit some truths. Apple consumers play games.

When I say demands have gone down, I say that the "cool things" people do with computers has shifted from gaming towards browser-based applications and Web sites. The growing importance of the Web-based experience has rendered this kinds of hardware controversies less relevant for most people.

More most!
A computer's graphical capacities are extremely important to the browsing experience. Everything from cleartype to Vsync as you scroll. The next generation of browsers are focused on GPU acceleration to increase the experience. So even if you're not a fan of Quake Live, and the huge market of Adobe based games, you're going to be in the same boat as everyone else.

[Dreadnaught]

The closed circuit also yield massive disadvantages. With a very high chance, a program which worked on Windows 98 will still work in Windows 7.
Try that with MacOS.

"Clunky"? Right. We're entering the field of religion now, folks, so don't expect any rational arguments here!

And I really don't see the "rapid hardware degradation" (is that some term from Bullshit Bingo?) unless you're gaming with the latest and newest games. Oh well, live on in your happy La-La-land.

I'm assuming you mean obsolescence and not degradation. Macs aren't any more immune to that than PCs, and any percieved gains you got are probably only really there because from what I remember of your history, you switched at just about the same time there was an across-the-board massive slow down in that area.

Psssh, don't disturb the Apple disciples with facts!

I'm not a Mac fanboy, some of you will recall I bought one almost reluctantly after years of loving to tell Mac users to shove it. But I had repeated hardware degradation —*I'm actually talking about hard drive meltdowns, motherboard issues and other hardware quality control issues on three of my last PCs (Dell, Dell and IBM). Coupled with the gains Apple made in designing a good UI, I made the switch when my last computer short circuited and blew out the motherboard during final exams.

Backwards compatibility specifically didn't matter to me, Khend. I appreciate that Apple took a constructive risk and worked from scratch. And it's impressive that Microsoft does value backwards compatibility, and I see the value in that. But there is a cost of that compatibility.

Owning a Mac and enjoying it is not the same thing as getting a constant Jobs hardon.

You're still doing it. This is your experience. An inexperience, ignorant user. Unaware of whats actually going on and whats truly available. Then you take this and transform it into most people. I'm not attempting to be insulting, this is my view from the rest of your post.

Yeah, but it is insulting. Saying that someone's experiences are worthless, but that you're just an impartial distributor of facts is a highly bullshit way to go about things. I'm not some Mac fanboy, that's why I made this thread to criticize them. I'm explaining why I buy a particular type of PC and why I think other people buy it too. Because the average person isn't obsessed with clocking CPU speeds. They value user experience, which is inherently, umm, an experience (oh no!).

[Ominous Gamer]

I'm not a Mac fanboy, some of you will recall I bought one almost reluctantly after years of loving to tell Mac users to shove it. But I had repeated hardware degradation —*I'm actually talking about hard drive meltdowns, motherboard issues and other hardware quality control issues on three of my last PCs (Dell, Dell and IBM). Coupled with the gains Apple made in designing a good UI, I made the switch when my last computer short circuited and blew out the motherboard during final exams.
[...]
Yeah, but it is insulting. Saying that someone's experiences are worthless, but that you're just an impartial distributor of facts is a highly bullshit way to go about things. I'm not some Mac fanboy, that's why I made this thread to criticize them. I'm explaining why I buy a particular type of PC and why I think other people buy it too. Because the average person isn't obsessed with clocking CPU speeds. They value user experience, which is inherently, umm, an experience (oh no!).

Apple uses the same parts, same circuit designs, and same OEMs as any other PC maker can choose to use. Apple loves them some Foxconn, but the DIY market despises them for horrible CQ. If I'm not mistaken Apple had a pretty big battery bulging problem about the same time that Dell and Sony were issuing recalls. Do you have any defective or DOA numbers to justify transforming your experience beyond yourself?
You had an experience. You're luck of the draw shouldn't be in any way used to predict why you think other people make a purchasing decision, or how most people act.

The average user experience is dependent on facts, speeds, and figures outside of your stories and predictions. I'm not attacking your experience. I'm attacking that that your turning your experience into a "most people" and "other people" while ignoring whats actually happening.

[Khendraja'aro]

I'm not a Mac fanboy, some of you will recall I bought one almost reluctantly after years of loving to tell Mac users to shove it. But I had repeated hardware degradation —*I'm actually talking about hard drive meltdowns, motherboard issues and other hardware quality control issues on three of my last PCs (Dell, Dell and IBM). Coupled with the gains Apple made in designing a good UI, I made the switch when my last computer short circuited and blew out the motherboard during final exams.

Uh, you do probably don't know this but: The hardware inside a Mac is no different from that of a PC. There is NO difference (software and BIOS aside). That's why Windows runs on Mac and vice versa. And, Dell is not exactly know for quality hardware. Which means that your precious Mac is just as likely to "melt down" as any other PC.

Sorry, but you don't have a clue.

Backwards compatibility specifically didn't matter to me, Khend. I appreciate that Apple took a constructive risk and worked from scratch. And it's impressive that Microsoft does value backwards compatibility, and I see the value in that. But there is a cost of that compatibility.

Well, you'll love that non-existance of compatibility when they go from MacOS X to XI and suddenly your software is non-usable on the new system. Happened before with the switch from 9 to X.

[Aimless]

What?

I know for a fact that most of the people I know who've gone over to macs have done so because they perceived macs as being higher quality no-hassle products with good support. I don't know if their perceptions are correct, of course. Most of the research depts here at my uni (probably excluding the compsci people) prefer to give macs to their employees, perhaps because they perceive macs as being safer bets for a work computer.

Who cares if 69% of "head of household" like to "play games"? That could mean anything

If people are routinely feeling shafted by Apple then they'll switch, maybe they'll even be able to get a sexy-looking PC, who knows. Those who don't feel shafted will stick with their macs for the time being. I get that there are problems with macs and with OS X but no-one's forcing anyone to buy a mac or to try to play cool games on them

[Illusions]

I get that there are problems with macs and with OS X but no-one's forcing anyone to buy a mac or to try to play cool games on them

The problem we are discussing is one where people are saying that there are things that they can only do with a Mac, that can't be done/done as well with a PC, and these things can be anything from browse the web safely, to design graphics, to not have a hard drive die.

[Ominous Gamer]

What?

I know for a fact that most of the people I know who've gone over to macs have done so because they perceived macs as being higher quality no-hassle products with good support. I don't know if their perceptions are correct, of course. Most of the research depts here at my uni (probably excluding the compsci people) prefer to give macs to their employees, perhaps because they perceive macs as being safer bets for a work computer.

It honestly has a lot to do with marketing. Its Apple vs everyone. Apple can run their marketing with the idea that Mac is better than PC. I'm sure you've seen the Mac vs PC ads, that feeds right into the ego of their target base. While PC manufacturers have always focused on why a consumer should purchase their PCs over another manufacturer. IBM is tough, Sony has lasting style, Dells are cheap, etc. While Microsoft... they have always been sorta WTF when it comes to advertising.
Once your on the boat I'm sure there are some sort of physiological factors that kick in. Everyone has that need to justify the extra expense of something. Staying with the "in" crowd. So on and so forth.
Take it to the extreme, and you just created a fanboy.

Apple also cuts some sweet deals with learning insitutions. Not that its without wires. I work with a guy that used to run the systems for public education in the next county over, and the stories he would tell about their upkeep, incompatibility, service nightmares yet they were nothing compared to batshit insane crap he had to deal with from a very vocal public minority when it was announced they were switching to PCs

Who cares if 69% of "head of household" like to "play games"? That could mean anything

Original stat was for video games, my bad for leaving it to vague. It means gaming is a huge part of the experience. Gaming could be considered one of the most intensive parts of the industry for an OS. This is handled in different ways by the main parties. Microsoft has its "Games for Windows" thing, ATI and Nvidia partner with AAA titles to ensure a steady base and income, and Apple follows a psuedo subscription based OS model to ensure they're always getting paid for their support.

If people are routinely feeling shafted by Apple then they'll switch, maybe they'll even be able to get a sexy-looking PC, who knows. Those who don't feel shafted will stick with their macs for the time being. I get that there are problems with macs and with OS X but no-one's forcing anyone to buy a mac or to try to play cool games on them

This I agree with, and its one reason that while Macs are very popular in college, they are almost non existent in the corporate world.
No one is forcing anything at this point. Except for Apple forcing everyone to go through them . But if Apple wants to be taken seriously, there are very large parts of the market they are going to have to stop ignoring.

and there some seriously sexy Windows machines out there

[']['ear]

I use both, and I prefer Mac enough that the wife and I have both switched to Mac laptops (we still have a Dell desktop at home, since we both occasionally have compatible doc issues , it's nice to have a desktop workstation, and I prefer games on a desktop). But the simple fact is that Macs run a helluva lot better. They don't crash constantly, and in fact they'll run for weeks or months. They're a LOT more user friendly for people who are computer confident but not tech-weenie inclined. For example, a Mac laptop and iPhoto finally made my wife embrace digital photography to the fullest (I mean REAL photography, like Bitter), because handling and managing her photos was easy for the first time. The PC had been such a pain in the ass that she never got the activation energy. No viruses, no constant security fretting.

So they are better computers for us. MUCH better computers. Windows 7 might be better, I can't say. But XP and Vista were nightmares, and I'm damned reluctant to go back. The smug condescension of PC fans frankly turns my stomach a bit. No, I'm not hipster, far from it! I'm anti-hip. I have gone with the better product, and am happy to pay a price for it. You gets what you pay for. I don't gun for the latest gadget, I won't get an iPad, and don't have an iPhone. I don't give a crap about that stuff. And I don't need the latest, fastest computer to convince others that my dick is sufficiently large. I want a comp that works. The track record with Macs in my hands puts PCs to shame. Consumer Reports agrees with me, since Apple pretty much kicks the shit out of the competition in every computer category in which Apple has an entry. Repairs are much less frequent, customer satisfaction is much higher. I have no anti-Microsoft animus or any such BS. I just go with the better product.

As for their policies, I can't judge. Do I wish they were less exclusive? Yeah, it would be nice if most games ported to Macs promptly. But perhaps the reason that their OS works better is that they're not dicking around with so many diverse platforms, and they demand software developers to play by Apple's rules. If that's the price for quality, I'll take it, thanks.

Edit: I just check CR's latest. Dell has passed Apple for reliability, and Apple is top of every category but one (where it is second). Still blows the doors off tech support an satisfaction rankings.

[Ominous Gamer]

No viruses, no constant security fretting.

This is a bad minset to have. Apple products are commonly among the first to fall victim in hacking competitions. I do believe the MacBook Air even holds a record. Becoming compromised in under 2 minutes at pwn2own in 2008.
There are viruses out there, and there are obviously security threats. The difference is the market share, and thus the public's rabble rousing.

Dread and Tear both seem to be pointing to the same problem though. The PC has so many options to decide from, and if you pick bad, you get a bad experience.

[']['ear]

I didn't say that I didn't have virus protection, did I? My university provides free virus protection; I have it on mine and the wife's laptops. We pay for a yearly subscription for the home Dell and our wireless network also has an updatable firewall and protection.

Fact is, very few get Apple viruses. So regardless of whether they are hackable, they don't get hacked. You could live in a dangerous neighborhood and have a nice alarm system, or just live in a nice neighborhood. I've got enough money to live in the safer neighborhood, and that house in the safer neighborhood isn't a busted old joint like the one in the dangerous neighborhood. But feel free to rationalize living in the shitty neighborhood.

[Lebanese Dragon]

How are they telling you how to spend your money?

The "our" was referring to google's money.

On the Youtube Issue, I know they are required by law to take down content that shouldn't be there, I just wish they had a different system, because some videos are completely legit that are being taken down. Or when they ban an account they ban all their videos, I don't like that.

There are viruses out there, and there are obviously security threats. The difference is the market share, and thus the public's rabble rousing.

On this note it doesn't matter why something is safer, I agree with the reason you gave, but if it's safer use it. If you're the only one in the world with a Certain OS that's vulnerable as hell to hacking but no one cares to write scripts for it, then it is the safest OS to browse with.

I didn't say that I didn't have virus protection, did I? My university provides free virus protection; I have it on mine and the wife's laptops. We pay for a yearly subscription for the home Dell and our wireless network also has an updatable firewall and protection.

If you can get the free protection it's just as good, if not better than what you have. AVG, AVAST get one.. Zone Alarm, Comodo get one.

[Ominous Gamer]

I didn't say that I didn't have virus protection, did I? My university provides free virus protection; I have it on mine and the wife's laptops. We pay for a yearly subscription for the home Dell and our wireless network also has an updatable firewall and protection.

Then its no different than a Windows based PC on that point

On this note it doesn't matter why something is safer, I agree with the reason you gave, but if it's safer use it. If you're the only one in the world with a Certain OS that's vulnerable as hell to hacking but no one cares to write scripts for it, then it is the safest OS to browse with.

This is where I was headed. You're only safe for as long as no one gives a fuck about you. Its not about living in a nice neighborhood (), its about living in the middle of nowhere. Shitty house or not. Wasn't there research as well? Well to do, especially gated, communities were more likely to experience (or report) break ins? Goes back to that false sense of security.

Same thing happened with garage doors years back before encryption was possible or popular. Whatever unique frequency your door operated off of was only safe until everyone else wanted that unique frequency. The more popular your model, the more at risk you were.

[LittleFuzzy]

and here comes the most
69% of America's Head of Household play games
Half of Facebook users admit to it.
40% of American adults play games

Apple used to be the market for video games, thats obviously declined since the G3, and Apple's pretty much admitted defeat. There are dozens of reasons why this came to be, and driver support is pretty high on that list.

And most of that is the equivalent of Farmville or Bejeweled, followed by games played on consoles *not a market Apple has ever been in* rather than on PCs. This does not strike me as impinging much on the original topic, before things descended purely into a Mac vs PC war.