[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Xvise66 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Elegant Paradigm [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Xvise66 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Occipital Lobe Do you not realize that apple pretty much revolutionized the computer market, phone market, mouse, multi-touch, iPod, tablets and so many more things?[/quote]False. Apple never revolutionized anything, they just take ideas that were already there, put an apple spin on it(such as retina display or multi touch) and trick people into thinking its the second coming of jesus.[/quote] That must be why everyone copied the iPhone and iPod. [/quote]That implies that you have to do something revolutionary to be copied. Which is certainly not the case. Apple copied the notification center from Android. Does that mean the notification center was a revolutionary idea? The technology industry is built upon people stealing ideas. Maybe thats why apple is so successful. [/quote] The iPhone was revolutionary. No other portable device had near as much features as the iPhone if you were paying attention to technology back in 2007. There was never anything like it before which means it was revolutionary.

I don't hate it. It's delicious

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Yourself 332AGN i have the same problem i have with dell. they are the only people you produce their software (in terms of dell it because i when to get a new graphics card for a 2000 xp and i had to buy it from dell and they stopped make cards for this model for this computer and could not update it, so i had to a vista) and hardware, thus driving up the price. micro$oft pulled and atari and allows everyone to use their software if they do stuff. dizzy[/quote] I'm dizzy from reading that.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] EcksBawks_live 1. When you have more than 7 companies in the market, it's good.[/quote] Especially when 7 companies evens out to ~15%, you are doing fantastic. And when three of the companies have 500% of your marketshare, it's just indescribable. But, of course, we aren't talking about how excellent a 5.6% marketshare is. We're talking about how Apple was able to use its massive 5% marketshare to propel the iPod, iPhone, and iPad to the top based on the strength of the company's PC popularity. [quote]2. Lolwut, you're the only person that's making this a big deal, a computer is anything that computes, a phone is a device for long-distance audio communication, Iphones are computer-phones. [/quote] You're right. From now on, I'm calling my phone a computer phone and anything that computes a computer. Thank you for this. Your original point was that Apple's products succeeded due just to their popularity in the PC market. This has been proven, using figures over the course of almost a decade, to be completely incorrect. In the process, you've managed to bring the definition of a computer into the conversation and linked me to something Walt Mossberg, someone you probaby hadn't even heard of, said about the iMac. So I'd like to thank you for that. But the point stands that, somehow, Apple was able to magic its iPod, iPhone, and iPad into success through something other than previous popularity with PC's. So unless there are more definitions you want to link me to so I can improve my vocabulary, I think this conversation has run its course. [Edited on 04.28.2012 5:18 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] EcksBawks_live [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] HD PVR [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] EcksBawks_live [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Pipboy3070 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Xvise66 Post the specs of both computers, and what year they are from if you want to try to make a valid comparison. [/quote] I dont have to try. I know for a fact my Apple is much faster - because I own both. My brother's Sony is a 16 inch i5 (go look it up or something) and my mac-book white is pretty old in terms of specs (it's got a 2 year old GPU/CPU). The Macbook starts up faster, multitasks faster, runs programs faster and rarely freezes. I dont think the Windows OS is fit for laptops, that is my opinion. [/quote] Oh really? It boots faster so it's faster? Try running Crysis on a Mac, I dare you.[/quote] [url=http://www.videogamer.com/pc/crysis/system_requirements.html]I could easily run this on my Mac via Parallels or Boot Camp.[/url][/quote] Good luck doing that without DirectX9.[/quote] What? This statement proves that you're misinformed. I have a full (virtualized) Windows 7 operating system on my Mac via Parallels. It is 100% the same as the Windows 7 operating system you have on your PC, thus includes the DirectX APIs and the .NET framework. Boot Camp is a utility built into Mac OS X that allows you to dual-boot between Mac OS X and Windows. Basically the same thing I'm doing with Parallels except I don't have to re-boot to switch operating systems.

i have the same problem i have with dell. they are the only people you produce their software (in terms of dell it because i when to get a new graphics card for a 2000 xp and i had to buy it from dell and they stopped make cards for this model for this computer and could not update it, so i had to a vista) and hardware, thus driving up the price. micro$oft pulled and atari and allows everyone to use their software if they do stuff. dizzy

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Hoggs Bison [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] EcksBawks_live [url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/article/2007/07/19/pie.png]Doesn't seem that bad.[/url][/quote] 5.6% marketshare doesn't seem that bad. Wtf am I reading. [quote][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer]Look up[/url][url=http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=computer+definition&oq=computer+definition&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_nf=1&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.644.644.2.1250.1.1.0.0.0.0.75.75.1.1.0.Uo_6OIbPOtY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=160a46efcf63646c&biw=1920&bih=979] the technical[/url][url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/computer] definition.[/url][/quote] So, [i]that's[/i] what we're talking about, the technical definition! See, I thought we were differentiating between phones and desktops - colloquially calling the latter "computers" - but you're absolutely right. They are computers and it was foolish of me to call the iPhone a phone. I mean, if you keep arguing semantics, you've got to distract me from the actual point, right? It's going to work-- I can [i]feel it.[/i][/quote] 1. When you have more than 7 companies in the market, it's good. 2. Lolwut, you're the only person that's making this a big deal, a computer is anything that computes, a phone is a device for long-distance audio communication, Iphones are computer-phones.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] da mob boss12 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] SpoonyMan [url]http://imgur.com/Z2VMb[/url] As far as I am concerned the price of a mac is completely unjustified. [/quote] That is absolutely it's seriously a blatant scam.[/quote] That is what it is. A scam. I can't believe people buy these things.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Occipital Lobe T4R Do you not realize that apple pretty much revolutionized the computer market, phone market, mouse, multi-touch, iPod, tablets and so many more things? Do you hate Apple because you can't afford a Mac? Or because you want to be different and have a Windows Phone? You do realize Apple is pretty much going to kill portable gaming, right?[/quote] I do not like (hate is a strong word) Apple at all. 1.) They are way over priced for the same components that make up their computers. We are not talking a few hundred dollars but the higher end Macbook Pros are a good $1,000 more compared to equally built rigs. 2.) They are too controlling with their software. It is not upgraded as much, and their IOS especially is lacking in features. Even the debunked Web OS has better multi-tasking then the current IOS. 3.) I do not like the fact they have shipped every damn dollar over seas, and have it sitting in other countries bank accounts. WTF! American my ass! Now they're complaining they can't "bring the $54 BILLION in cash they have overseas back into the country". Lame! 4.) They brainwash that their stuff is better at their stores, when in reality everything you can do on a Mac can be done on a PC with Windows 7 cheaper and as good...and in many situations better. There ya go.

Why do you keep making this thread?

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] EcksBawks_live [url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/article/2007/07/19/pie.png]Doesn't seem that bad.[/url][/quote] 5.6% marketshare doesn't seem that bad. Wtf am I reading. With a 94.4% deficit in marketshare, you can use [i]all that popularity[/i] to sell copied products! Why didn't I think of that! I get the feeling you link stuff without actually looking at it first. Or... it's not that you don't understand it, right? I'm holding out hope here. [quote][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer]Look up[/url][url=http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=computer+definition&oq=computer+definition&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_nf=1&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.644.644.2.1250.1.1.0.0.0.0.75.75.1.1.0.Uo_6OIbPOtY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=160a46efcf63646c&biw=1920&bih=979] the technical[/url][url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/computer] definition.[/url][/quote] So, [i]that's[/i] what we're talking about, the technical definition! See, I thought we were differentiating between phones and desktops - colloquially calling the latter "computers" - but you're absolutely right. They are computers and it was foolish of me to call the iPhone a phone. I mean, if you keep arguing semantics, you've got to distract me from the actual point, right? It's going to work-- I can [i]feel it.[/i] [Edited on 04.28.2012 4:48 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] SpoonyMan [url]http://imgur.com/Z2VMb[/url] As far as I am concerned the price of a mac is completely unjustified. [/quote] That is absolutely it's seriously a blatant scam.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] da mob boss12 Please tell me [url=http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro]this[/url] is a joke![/quote] > 4,999.00 > Two 2.66GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon "Westmere" (12 cores) > 6GB (6X1GB) > 1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive > ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB > One 18x SuperDrive > Apple Magic Mouse > Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (English) & User's Guide I lol'd

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Hoggs Bison [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] EcksBawks_live Oh ok, lemme ask every costumer what they thought about Apple pre-2007.[/quote] If only there was a metric to gauge how much people used a company's product. How much of a market a company shared... share a market... sharmarket... [i]sharemarket![/i] I can't believe nobody's thought of that! [quote]At least show me where you get your information.[/quote] [url=http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/12/total-share.ars/9]1999 Mac marketshare: 3.2%.[/url] [url=http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/12/total-share.ars/9]2004 Mac marketshare: 1.98% (yes: it [i]declined[/i] after the iPod's release)[/url] [url=http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9054798/Mac_market_share_breaks_8_mark_in_2007_s_final_days]2007 Mac marketshare: 8%[/url] [url=http://www.macrumors.com/2010/07/15/gartner-u-s-mac-sales-market-share-nearing-10/]2010 Mac marketshare: 10%[/url] [url=http://www.blackberrycool.com/2006/03/31/strategy-analytics-rim-will-maintain-market-share-majority-in-short-term/]2006's market leader, RIM.[/url] [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/22/technology/22iht-mobile.3632626.htmll]Nokia and Motorola.[/url] By the way, you should let the market analysts they're completely wrong about iPod's being MP3 players/internet PMP's. They are, as you so correctly pointed out, [i]computers[/i].[/quote] [url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/article/2007/07/19/pie.png]Doesn't seem that bad.[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer]Look up[/url][url=http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=computer+definition&oq=computer+definition&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_nf=1&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.644.644.2.1250.1.1.0.0.0.0.75.75.1.1.0.Uo_6OIbPOtY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=160a46efcf63646c&biw=1920&bih=979] the technical[/url][url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/computer] definition.[/url] [Edited on 04.28.2012 4:42 PM PDT]

[url]http://imgur.com/Z2VMb[/url] As far as I am concerned the price of a mac is completely unjustified. [Edited on 04.28.2012 4:40 PM PDT]

Please tell me [url=http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro]this[/url] is a joke! For $2500 I could build a pc infinitely better than those pieces of junk. [Edited on 04.28.2012 4:40 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Elegant Paradigm I've been saying this whole time that apple revolutionized the phone market with the iPhone. That's what's going on here. The technology is irrelevant in the long run. The point stands that Apple changed the entire mobile phone market with the iPhone, like I've been saying. It changed things substantially, which you still fail to grasp. The software was a major change. If you actually used a phone prior to 2007, you would know how terrible and tedious it was to navigate the software. And Apple fixed that with their large display and iOS's UI. That was the major selling point of it, along with its apps and the fact that it displayed websites in HTML by default. They targeted the number 1 issue with phones of the day and that's one reason it sold well. And no, android got their inspiration from the iPhone. To say they got their inspiration from RIM is incredibly foolish. And windows phone was hardly relevant in the market at the time. If you don't see the similarities in iOS and Android, then you're wasting my time. It's blatantly obvious Android would be nothing without iPhone, which is still its number one competitor. [/quote] [quote]The technology is largely irrelevant[/quote]Oh boy, its like i'm really reading youtube comments. Thank you, for once again going over what we've already established. Thank you, I had forgotten from when I read it 5 minutes ago. The point still remains, that Apple doesn't revolutionize technology, and saying things like "you would know how terrible and tedious it was" doesn't make you right. Thats using your opinion to justify your already preconceived views. You keep throwing out these little things like "large display" and "displayed websites in HTML" but still fail to show how it was such a huge leap foward in technology to merit it as a "revolution". You give evidence for something but don't use it. I see the similarites between iOS and android, but there are a lot of similarities between iOS screen and the Windows desktop. Does that mean iOS copied windows? Maybe, so lets say thats true, does that make iOS less innovative? Or more? Think carefully before you answer. [Edited on 04.28.2012 4:41 PM PDT]

Apple may have done it first, but they sure as hell aren't doing it right.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Elegant Paradigm [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Xvise66 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Elegant Paradigm That was your argument? You have to change the technology to revolutionize the industry? You have no idea what you're talking about. Learn the definition of revolutionizing an industry. And no, that chart doesn't apply because I can back up what I say. The fact that you even bothered to look that up is pathetic. And my point is that Android had to reinvent themselves after the release of the iPhone, because they knew they couldn't compete with their current software. And look what happened, it took them two years to have anything remotely rival the iPhone. And not all of the technology in it was new, but the important thing is that the concept was new (somewhat), and they executed it perfectly with good design and definitely never before seen ease of use mobile software. And their multitouch screen was new technology. The iPad isn't that great. I'll admit that. [/quote]That wasn't my argument at all. I don't know where you got that from. And we weren't arguing about the industry. We were arguing about the technology. But yes, you do have to change the technology in some aspect to be revolutionary. How the hell is it supposed to be revolutionary if it doesn't change anything substantial? And you can back up what you say? I'm STILL WAITING for you to back up your claim that apple revolutionized technology. All you have to do is say something along the lines "Apple revolutionized X by doing Y." Fill in the variables. And I do recommend you do that because your entire argument rests on the fact that apple revolutionized technology. There's a TON of somewhats, and opinions in your second statement. I've already shown you that the concept wasn't new, so you should really be arguing that Android got their ideas from Rim/Windows Mobile/Windows CE. The only thing thats even close in your post to apple revolutionizing anything, is the fact that they implemented the multitouch screen. Which isn't revolutionary, in fact, touch screens in the first place were more revolutionary then multitouch. [/quote] I've been saying this whole time that apple revolutionized the phone market with the iPhone. That's what's going on here. The technology is irrelevant in the long run. The point stands that Apple changed the entire mobile phone market with the iPhone, like I've been saying. It changed things substantially, which you still fail to grasp. The software was a major change. If you actually used a phone prior to 2007, you would know how terrible and tedious it was to navigate the software. And Apple fixed that with their large display and iOS's UI. That was the major selling point of it, along with its apps and the fact that it displayed websites in HTML by default. They targeted the number 1 issue with phones of the day and that's one reason it sold well. And no, android got their inspiration from the iPhone. To say they got their inspiration from RIM is incredibly foolish. And windows phone was hardly relevant in the market at the time. If you don't see the similarities in iOS and Android, then you're wasting my time. It's blatantly obvious Android would be nothing without iPhone, which is still its number one competitor. [/quote] Android would have been a major competitor till another 'Iphone' came.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] EcksBawks_live Oh ok, lemme ask every costumer what they thought about Apple pre-2007.[/quote] If only there was a metric to gauge how popular a product was... how many people used a company's product. How much of a market a company shared... share a market... sharmarket... [i]sharemarket![/i] I can't believe nobody's thought of that! [quote]At least show me where you get your information.[/quote] [url=http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/12/total-share.ars/9]1999 Mac marketshare: 3.2%.[/url] [url=http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/12/total-share.ars/9]2004 Mac marketshare: 1.98% (yes: it [i]declined[/i] after the iPod's release)[/url] [url=http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9054798/Mac_market_share_breaks_8_mark_in_2007_s_final_days]2007 Mac marketshare: 8%[/url] [url=http://www.macrumors.com/2010/07/15/gartner-u-s-mac-sales-market-share-nearing-10/]2010 Mac marketshare: 10%[/url] [url=http://www.blackberrycool.com/2006/03/31/strategy-analytics-rim-will-maintain-market-share-majority-in-short-term/]2006's market leader, RIM.[/url] [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/22/technology/22iht-mobile.3632626.htmll]Nokia and Motorola.[/url] The guys who could've used their popularity - actual popularity, not made up popularity - to just copy other technology like Apple did. By the way, you should let the market analysts they're completely wrong about iPod's being MP3 players/internet PMP's. They are, as you so correctly pointed out, [i]computers[/i]. [Edited on 04.28.2012 4:42 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] da mob boss12 Because you pay a lot of money for low end specs. Apple justifies this cost by saying that they have the best OS on the market. Honestly if you were to get a Windows laptop with the same specs as macbook pro you would probably only end up paying 600 to 700 dollars but the mac you would have to pay 1200 dollars. [/quote]Actually, my laptop was 1100$, so a macbook pro with all the same stuff(besides the Graphics card, apple wont put a graphics card as good as mine in their macbook pros) would be 2999$. So theoretically, the OS costs, 1900 dollars.

> Ipods are computers Welp this sums up this entire thread. Op is an idiot.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Xvise66 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Elegant Paradigm That was your argument? You have to change the technology to revolutionize the industry? You have no idea what you're talking about. Learn the definition of revolutionizing an industry. And no, that chart doesn't apply because I can back up what I say. The fact that you even bothered to look that up is pathetic. And my point is that Android had to reinvent themselves after the release of the iPhone, because they knew they couldn't compete with their current software. And look what happened, it took them two years to have anything remotely rival the iPhone. And not all of the technology in it was new, but the important thing is that the concept was new (somewhat), and they executed it perfectly with good design and definitely never before seen ease of use mobile software. And their multitouch screen was new technology. The iPad isn't that great. I'll admit that. [/quote]That wasn't my argument at all. I don't know where you got that from. And we weren't arguing about the industry. We were arguing about the technology. But yes, you do have to change the technology in some aspect to be revolutionary. How the hell is it supposed to be revolutionary if it doesn't change anything substantial? And you can back up what you say? I'm STILL WAITING for you to back up your claim that apple revolutionized technology. All you have to do is say something along the lines "Apple revolutionized X by doing Y." Fill in the variables. And I do recommend you do that because your entire argument rests on the fact that apple revolutionized technology. There's a TON of somewhats, and opinions in your second statement. I've already shown you that the concept wasn't new, so you should really be arguing that Android got their ideas from Rim/Windows Mobile/Windows CE. The only thing thats even close in your post to apple revolutionizing anything, is the fact that they implemented the multitouch screen. Which isn't revolutionary, in fact, touch screens in the first place were more revolutionary then multitouch. [/quote] I've been saying this whole time that apple revolutionized the phone market with the iPhone. That's what's going on here. The technology is irrelevant in the long run. The point stands that Apple changed the entire mobile phone market with the iPhone, like I've been saying. It changed things substantially, which you still fail to grasp. The software was a major change. If you actually used a phone prior to 2007, you would know how terrible and tedious it was to navigate the software. And Apple fixed that with their large display and iOS's UI. That was the major selling point of it, along with its apps and the fact that it displayed websites in HTML by default. They targeted the number 1 issue with phones of the day and that's one reason it sold well. And no, android got their inspiration from the iPhone. To say they got their inspiration from RIM is incredibly foolish. And windows phone was hardly relevant in the market at the time. If you don't see the similarities in iOS and Android, then you're wasting my time. It's blatantly obvious Android would be nothing without iPhone, which is still its number one competitor.

Because you pay a lot of money for low end specs. Apple justifies this cost by saying that they have the best OS on the market. Honestly if you were to get a Windows laptop with the same specs as macbook pro you would probably only end up paying 600 to 700 dollars but the mac you would have to pay 1200 dollars.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] GladBurrito [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] TheGreenAlloy They're factories has anti-suicide nets, for one.[/quote] They are factories?[/quote] I was too late. Check my post again.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Hoggs Bison [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] EcksBawks_live [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Hoggs Bison [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] EcksBawks_live They had popularity from their 'wins' on the computer market.[/quote] I'm sorry, I just have to ask if you're trolling right now. 1999 Mac marketshare: 3.2%. The iPod was released in 2001. 2004 Mac marketshare: [u]1.98%[/u] [/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II_series#Industry_impact[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerBook[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac#Reception[/url] Ipods are computers. [url]http://www.macobserver.com/stockwatch/2006/01/16.1.shtml[/url][/quote] You're right: people liked those machines so much, [i]they didn't even buy them![/i] That is literally the definition of popularity and brand recognition right there. Good thing reviewers and investors have so much say on popularity as opposed to, you know, consumers who actually buy the products.[/quote] Oh ok, lemme ask every costumer what they thought about Apple pre-2007. At least show me where you get your information.