Slashdot Mirror

As genie for today, I will grant you your wish: Apple Recycling Program. Not only do they pay shipping, you get a gift card, too.

This serves two purposes. Firstly it reduces the number of macs in the second hand market. Second, it is silly "green" propaganda/public relations so hippsters will buy more Macs and feel good about it.

Real recycling would be encourage the second market, don't expect that from Apple any time soon.

Yeah, it's not as if Apple does something silly such as selling refurbished Macs.

As the Apple Recycling Program FAQ says:

What’s the difference between “reuse” and “recycling”?

Equipment may qualify for reuse if it has monetary value and can be resold in the secondary electronics market. Equipment qualifies for recycling if it does not have monetary value; it will be dismantled so that materials such as metals, plastics, and glass can be collected for use in the manufacturing of new products, reducing the need to mine raw materials.

Why should I use the Apple Recycling Program?

By participating in the Apple Recycling Program you are helping the environment by extending the useful life of products that have value in the secondary electronics market. You are also ensuring that products that have reached the end of their useful life are recycled in an environmentally responsible manner in North America.

As an added benefit, if your product qualifies for reuse — meaning it has monetary value — you’ll receive an Apple Gift Card equivalent to its fair market value as determined by PowerON. You can use the gift card for eligible purchases at any U.S. Apple Retail Store or the U.S. Apple Online Store. If your product does not have monetary value, we’ll recycle it at no cost to you.

They seem uninterested in embedded systems.

They seem uninterested in building embedded systems themselves, with the exception of access points and low-end NAS boxes and possibly set-top boxes (if those don't acquire support for third-party apps, at which point I'm not sure to what extent I'd consider them "embedded"). However, they're probably not too opposed to people using their hardware and OS in systems that might be considered "embedded" (just as, for example, Digital Equipment sold tons of PDP-11's for use inside various embedded systems).

They seem uninterested in embedded systems.

They seem uninterested in building embedded systems themselves, with the exception of access points and low-end NAS boxes and possibly set-top boxes (if those don't acquire support for third-party apps, at which point I'm not sure to what extent I'd consider them "embedded"). However, they're probably not too opposed to people using their hardware and OS in systems that might be considered "embedded" (just as, for example, Digital Equipment sold tons of PDP-11's for use inside various embedded systems).

They seem uninterested in embedded systems.

They seem uninterested in building embedded systems themselves, with the exception of access points and low-end NAS boxes and possibly set-top boxes (if those don't acquire support for third-party apps, at which point I'm not sure to what extent I'd consider them "embedded"). However, they're probably not too opposed to people using their hardware and OS in systems that might be considered "embedded" (just as, for example, Digital Equipment sold tons of PDP-11's for use inside various embedded systems).

They seem uninterested in embedded systems.

They seem uninterested in building embedded systems themselves, with the exception of access points and low-end NAS boxes and possibly set-top boxes (if those don't acquire support for third-party apps, at which point I'm not sure to what extent I'd consider them "embedded"). However, they're probably not too opposed to people using their hardware and OS in systems that might be considered "embedded" (just as, for example, Digital Equipment sold tons of PDP-11's for use inside various embedded systems).

You would be wrong. It was called "Application Memory". System 8 and 9 had a bare-bones VM system, but, other than turning it on or off, it was not "adjustable".

I'm not going to sort through this too much to argue over something from a decade ago, but what do you think this is referencing? By the way, the article you cite seems to indicate that it was adjustable when it says, "Increase the amount of memory allocated to the application in the Preferred Size box by 25 to 50 percent. (Example: change 1000 K to 1500 K)"

However, I don't think that what you're citing is the same as what I was remembering, because what I remember was definitely not controlled on an application-by-application basis. One of the frustrating things about it was that it was a system-wide setting that you had to change depending on which application you wanted to run.

There certainly were some (especially legacy) applications and drivers that hated that VM scheme, no doubt. But most devs. quickly updated their apps to be "System 8" compatible.

I don't remember which applications would work with VM and which would only work without, but I remember that it was common enough that my users had to switch back and forth constantly. It was silly along the lines of, "The latest version of Photoshop wouldn't run without virtual memory enabled, but the latest version of Illustrator won't run with virtual memory enabled, so any time you want to switch between the two, you have to close one application, change a system-setting, and then open the other."

I don't think it was literally Photoshop and Illustrator, but there were common big-name applications. It may have been Photoshop vs. Quark, or Quark vs. Appleworks, or something else.

Never heard of a single security problem with the Macs.

Actually, I think the Multi-User support began around System 8.5; but I can't remember exactly. But yes, just like the "Multi-User" support in competing OSes of the day, it was pretty much useless. So?

I could be wrong, but I believe in the multi-user support was pretty minimal before OSX. Like maybe it would let you have your own home folder to some degree, but it didn't have file-system level protections. Or maybe not that, but something equally silly.

Anyway, in answer to your question, "So?": It was a response to your claim that you never heard of a security problem, I was saying that would be unlikely unless you weren't concerned with security. Multi-user support is an important basic security measure. If your computer doesn't offer multi-user support with per-user filesystem-level permissions, then you can't have multiple users on the same computer without giving access to all of each others' settings and files.

Windows NT 4 had multi-user support, file permissions, and network authentication. It also didn't have the virtual memory quirkiness of Mac OS at the time, and didn't have the problem of preference files spontaneously corrupting on a regular basis.

You would be wrong. It was called "Application Memory". System 8 and 9 had a bare-bones VM system, but, other than turning it on or off, it was not "adjustable".

I'm not going to sort through this too much to argue over something from a decade ago, but what do you think this is referencing? By the way, the article you cite seems to indicate that it was adjustable when it says, "Increase the amount of memory allocated to the application in the Preferred Size box by 25 to 50 percent. (Example: change 1000 K to 1500 K)"

However, I don't think that what you're citing is the same as what I was remembering, because what I remember was definitely not controlled on an application-by-application basis. One of the frustrating things about it was that it was a system-wide setting that you had to change depending on which application you wanted to run.

There certainly were some (especially legacy) applications and drivers that hated that VM scheme, no doubt. But most devs. quickly updated their apps to be "System 8" compatible.

I don't remember which applications would work with VM and which would only work without, but I remember that it was common enough that my users had to switch back and forth constantly. It was silly along the lines of, "The latest version of Photoshop wouldn't run without virtual memory enabled, but the latest version of Illustrator won't run with virtual memory enabled, so any time you want to switch between the two, you have to close one application, change a system-setting, and then open the other."

I don't think it was literally Photoshop and Illustrator, but there were common big-name applications. It may have been Photoshop vs. Quark, or Quark vs. Appleworks, or something else.

Never heard of a single security problem with the Macs.

Actually, I think the Multi-User support began around System 8.5; but I can't remember exactly. But yes, just like the "Multi-User" support in competing OSes of the day, it was pretty much useless. So?

I could be wrong, but I believe in the multi-user support was pretty minimal before OSX. Like maybe it would let you have your own home folder to some degree, but it didn't have file-system level protections. Or maybe not that, but something equally silly.

Anyway, in answer to your question, "So?": It was a response to your claim that you never heard of a security problem, I was saying that would be unlikely unless you weren't concerned with security. Multi-user support is an important basic security measure. If your computer doesn't offer multi-user support with per-user filesystem-level permissions, then you can't have multiple users on the same computer without giving access to all of each others' settings and files.

Windows NT 4 had multi-user support, file permissions, and network authentication. It also didn't have the virtual memory quirkiness of Mac OS at the time, and didn't have the problem of preference files spontaneously corrupting on a regular basis.

As genie for today, I will grant you your wish: Apple Recycling Program. Not only do they pay shipping, you get a gift card, too.

This serves two purposes. Firstly it reduces the number of macs in the second hand market. Second, it is silly "green" propaganda/public relations so hippsters will buy more Macs and feel good about it.

Real recycling would be encourage the second market, don't expect that from Apple any time soon.

MacOS had no Virtual Memory system, per se.

And yet I'm pretty sure the system called it "virtual memory" in the control that you had to adjust. It's been about a decade since I supported these systems, but I'm pretty sure.

You would be wrong. It was called "Application Memory". System 8 and 9 had a bare-bones VM system, but, other than turning it on or off, it was not "adjustable".

Andit wasn't just an issue of allocating *enough*. One of the silly things was that some applications would crash if you allocated too much, and some required that you turn it off.

There was no way to "turn off" the Application Memory setting, and the VM on/off was Global, IIRC. You could make Application Memory larger or smaller; but not "turn if off". It was there for every Application. Part of the File Attributes for an Application.

Admittedly, even at the time I didn't know enough to tell you why some specific applications would die if the virtual memory was turned on, but neither did any of the "Macintosh experts" that I dealt with, and sure enough fiddling with the virtual memory would cause programs to either crash or stop crashing, with there being no setting that would allow everything to run.

As I said above, upon further research/remembering, I found/recalled that In MacOS 8 and 9 there was a very rudimentary VM system; but the only control was to turn it on or off. VM "swap file" size was FIXED at 2 times the size of your physical RAM. I had forgotten all about that, and I apologize. There certainly were some (especially legacy) applications and drivers that hated that VM scheme, no doubt. But most devs. quickly updated their apps to be "System 8" compatible.

Never heard of a single security problem with the Macs.

Well maybe you were dealing with an environment that wasn't interested in security, then. Mac OS didn't even have multi-user support until OSX. OS9 started to provide some multi-user support, but it wasn't very extensive, and it generally wasn't worth the trouble.

Actually, I think the Multi-User support began around System 8.5; but I can't remember exactly. But yes, just like the "Multi-User" support in competing OSes of the day, it was pretty much useless. So?

As genie for today, I will grant you your wish: Apple Recycling Program. Not only do they pay shipping, you get a gift card, too.

You cherry picked with the bomb, a comparable error screen would be

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sad_mac.png

Only place i ever saw a table for what the codes meant was in the someones mac bible, and yes there was variation in the mac's but they still had complete control and had the option/opportunity/ability to test and verify every configuration.

I didn't cherry-pick anything. I just clicked the first or second link that came up. I think your tinfoil hat is restricting the bloodflow to your brain. The "bomb" was ONLY available AFTER MacOS was up and running. Not so the "Sad Mac", which ONLY happened during POST, and had NOTHING to do with the OS, since there wasn't one yet.

A Sad Mac screen was ALWAYS a HARDWARE failure. COMPLETELY DIfferent animal. And I think I've only seen ONE of those "in real life" since 1983... If you've seen more than that, you had a Mac with a hardware issue, period.

It is YOU that is either cherry-picking, or ignorant. I'd vote the latter.

As for the availability of the "Bomb IDs", they are/were readily available on the internet, at your local User Group (remember those?), etc. In fact, in astonishing example of "continuing support", Apple STILL publishes a list of the System Error IDs, and their explanations, as well as a series of support pages regarding the "Sad Mac" Codes, and their explanations! It wasn't until later that Apple had the ROM space to put in explanations (like in the example I provided), instead of just "ID= -39", etc.

The Sad Mac codes were a bit more arcane; but seen so seldom that they almost always meant a trip to the repair shop, anyway...

Wouldn't that "restricted range of hardware" also apply to those who obeyed the Hardware Compatibilty List for NT? I seem to remember something about that... I have pesonally seen BSODs on many NT-based systems that did not stray one iota from the HCL. Now what?

You cherry picked with the bomb, a comparable error screen would be

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sad_mac.png

Only place i ever saw a table for what the codes meant was in the someones mac bible, and yes there was variation in the mac's but they still had complete control and had the option/opportunity/ability to test and verify every configuration.

I didn't cherry-pick anything. I just clicked the first or second link that came up. I think your tinfoil hat is restricting the bloodflow to your brain. The "bomb" was ONLY available AFTER MacOS was up and running. Not so the "Sad Mac", which ONLY happened during POST, and had NOTHING to do with the OS, since there wasn't one yet.

A Sad Mac screen was ALWAYS a HARDWARE failure. COMPLETELY DIfferent animal. And I think I've only seen ONE of those "in real life" since 1983... If you've seen more than that, you had a Mac with a hardware issue, period.

It is YOU that is either cherry-picking, or ignorant. I'd vote the latter.

As for the availability of the "Bomb IDs", they are/were readily available on the internet, at your local User Group (remember those?), etc. In fact, in astonishing example of "continuing support", Apple STILL publishes a list of the System Error IDs, and their explanations, as well as a series of support pages regarding the "Sad Mac" Codes, and their explanations! It wasn't until later that Apple had the ROM space to put in explanations (like in the example I provided), instead of just "ID= -39", etc.

The Sad Mac codes were a bit more arcane; but seen so seldom that they almost always meant a trip to the repair shop, anyway...

Wouldn't that "restricted range of hardware" also apply to those who obeyed the Hardware Compatibilty List for NT? I seem to remember something about that... I have pesonally seen BSODs on many NT-based systems that did not stray one iota from the HCL. Now what?

You missed the section of time where Apple was minutes from bankrupt before Jobs came back with a load of money.

I certainly did. Care to cite some sources? I'll start you out with a direct link to Apple's quarterly filings, and you can start supporting your facts from there.

When you turn on Find My iPad.

What about that number 25? Why not 23 or 42? I don't remember any of those actually appearing in court filings.

Here, have a look at actual complaint, this is all that's claimed about design:

41. The following non-functional elements of Apple’s product designs comprise the
product configuration trade dress at issue in this case (the “Apple Product Configuration Trade
Dress”):
                    a rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded;
                    the front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders;
                    as to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and
below the screen having roughly equal width and narrower black borders on either side of the
screen having roughly equal width;
                    as to the iPad product, substantial black borders on all sides being roughly equal in
width;
                    a metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface;
                    a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners; and
                    a bottom row of square icons (the “Springboard”) set off from the other icons and
that do not change as the other pages of the user interface are viewed.

Nope, not about rounded corners.

Doesn't that make the point though? If you need to rely extensively on third-party software to make up for features missing in the new release, which were present in the old release, it's not difficult to argue that the new software is no longer the professional tool it was in previous incarnations. That these features are in other professional tools from Avid and Adobe just kind of cements it, yeah?

I'm sure you can think of other instances where Apple has misunderstood the professional market in some of their other products. I know I can think of few myself.

Apple may have not perfectly analyzed the features that FCP 7 users were using the most; but I don't agree that it is the crime of the century, when those features are either promptly returned to the product, and/or readily and cost-effectively (and $10 total is pretty cost-effective) replaced by third-party tools.

Few software products undergo such a massive paradigm and UI shift from one version to the next as the difference between FCP 7 and FCP X. They really aren't the same animal. But, not only has Apple taken care of most of the "missing features" already, I didn't hear you bitching about all the features that were ADDED or IMPROVED, e.g. "Audition", and SIXTY-FOUR-ANGLE multicam editing, and a spectacular built-in Keyer, and workflow IMPROVEMENTS that were made, like, oh, I dunno, TRACKLESS EDITING, BACKGROUND RENDERING, PROJECT BACKUPS, and the ability to EDIT WHILE IMPORTING. No, you want to bitch about 3 things that affected some greatly, and others not at all.

But the proof is in the pudding, and it seems that FCP X is teaching some old (but big) dogs new tricks.

So I really wouldn't be surprised if this next refresh is probably the last for the pro line, Apple doesn't really need them and they cost Apple more than any other division on hardware. Its just good business sense to bail out of a niche that doesn't bring in the sales and the Apple pros simply don't move like the Macbooks and iMacs.

First off, do you REALLY think the Pro line isn't profitable for Apple? Have you seen the list prices for Mac Pros? If you listen to the Linux fanbois, they could build TEN systems with TWICE THE SPECS for these prices (but I digress...) ;-)

And then there's this little email from Tim Cook, that seems to affirmatively put to bed your meme...

One of the biggest complaints was the lack of multi-camera editing. I'm not that familiar with video editing, but that doesn't sound like a workflow issue to me. The same goes for the lack of RED camera support, which is apparently quite popular with filmmakers.

One particularly damning problem was the inability to import projects from the previous version of the software. Again, not really a workflow issue.

The inability to assign audio tracks I suppose is a workflow issue, though it doesn't appear that any sensible alternative is provided by the software. Of course, "updating" your workflow isn't helpful if that workflow doesn't jive with your other applications. As I understand it, FCPX doesn't support OMF transfers which appears to be a common feature. Given that solutions to many of the missing features in FCPX include the use of third-party software, this kind of omission, well, makes the software somewhat less than professional.

I don't know enough about video editing or the software to give a through critique -- all I can do is report on the problems. That FCPX was anything but a professional tool seems to be the consensus.

All of those were legitimate gripes. However I believe ALL of them have been, or are currently being, addressed, either by Apple, or by others. In one case (FCP 7 import), the 3rd party plugin/add-on is a whopping $10, and in the case of the other, more expensive one (AAF export), there is now a FREE solution.

If you mostly need it for books, the iPad 2 (last gen) is really good, and they are just $400 now - I would say it's a better option than other ebook readers for you because of the Netflix support which is also very good. The minimum configuration of 16GB would be plenty for books and a few other apps.

Reading is really nice on the newer iPad with the higher res screen, if you could find one refurbished or used that would be ideal. Apple refurb prices are around $450 though, still slightly out of your budget.

But while you could open "/Volumes/My Big External Disk/Movies/movie.avi" via a file dialog to play it back, the software could not automatically also open "/Volumes/My Big External Disk/Movies/movie.srt" to show you subtitles.

That's the problem.

Actually, it could:

Apple Developer Documentation

Some apps require access to secondary files or directories with names that are related to the primary, user-selected file. For example, a subtitle file, by convention, has the same name as its corresponding movie file, but with a different filename extension. If a movie player is sandboxed, an NSOpenPanel object will grant access only to the user-selected movie file (the primary item) and not its associated subtitle file (the secondary item).

To gain access to a secondary item, first register an NSFilePresenter object for it. At any point in its existence, a secondary item must be able to return an NSURL object to its primary item. This is done by using this property. When done accessing the secondary item, unregister the file presenter object.

What I love are the cases with bluetooth keyboards for the iPad. Every one I've seen has a micro-USB plug for charging.

And since you don't recharge the keyboard very often, finding that second cable might be a problem, especially if the battery dies while on a business trip. I can just imagine an iPad user bumming a micro-USB charger from an Android user to charge their accessory.

http://store.apple.com/uk/product/MD099ZM/A

Apple does contribute to Linux, they also contribute towards BSD and release a large portion of their code as open source.

opensource.apple.com

Sorry, the automatic fanboy response that Apple can do anything they want with your hardware is not valid. Apple officially support running other OSs (see Boot Camp). And you are not the only kind of Mac user out there. There are multiplatform developers that want to run Windows and Linux on their hardware too in order to test their applications. There are people that prefer OS X, but need Windows to run business applications. Disabling a hardware feature intentionally for other OSs is wrong. Apple has no obligation to give you drivers for them, but it has no right power down them intentionally

Is killing flash the best thing Steve Jobs ever did?

I would say killing DRMed music was. If Jobs were still alive, DRMed film would be next and we'd have something with a larger movie library than Netflix's pittance to choose from.

From the man's "Thoughts on Music" in February 2007:
The third alternative is to abolish DRMs entirely. Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.

I'll bring the beer though;)

I'm sure it's quite a few:

MAC OSX
Windows
Android
iOS
BB OS

That may be true but it was because GPL forced them to give back when Apple was still using gcc. Apple doesn't like giving back. They stated as much as their motivation for using llvm. They said that they did not want to have to share their code generation optimizations as their motivation for abandoning gcc.

Do you have a citation for that? And what parts of their code generation are missing from the llvmCore directory of their open-source llvm-gcc or clang's CodeGen directory and not contributed back to the LLVM project?

That may be true but it was because GPL forced them to give back when Apple was still using gcc. Apple doesn't like giving back. They stated as much as their motivation for using llvm. They said that they did not want to have to share their code generation optimizations as their motivation for abandoning gcc.

Do you have a citation for that? And what parts of their code generation are missing from the llvmCore directory of their open-source llvm-gcc or clang's CodeGen directory and not contributed back to the LLVM project?

Apple US store iPad US$399
Apple DE store iPad EU399

399 USD = 325 EUR

Apple US store iPad US$399
Apple DE store iPad EU399

399 USD = 325 EUR

Oh god, I hope they do a retina MacBook pro

Um, what?

IPads can't be managed either

That is not entirely true: Mobile Device Management (MDM). I how no idea about costs.

> "As far as I know the iphone doesn't use full disk encryption."

And because you don't know if it does that means it doesn't, right?

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4175

Full device encryption has been available since the 3GS, when they added in hardware encryption support to their iOS products.

Before speaking on a subject you know absolutely nothing about you should do a little research on it first.

FYI, 'bump' has been around for years. Both 'bumpees' need the app, but it's a bit more likely than both people having the same phone.

http://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/bump/id305479724?mt=8
(may need to switch to your local app store)

Look at the lines on the bottom, the port doesn't fit.

But if you consider that the ideal layout, Lenovo's ultra-books are always available. Apple does this year still sell a line with all those ports: http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/features/13-and-15-inch/

OpenCL
Webkit
Bonjour
Clang
libdispatch
....
So wat is the point you are trying to prove ?

Apparently they open sourced it over Steve Job's dead body.

Of course, it's best not to let facts influence your opinion.

Well... that's just a list of open source libraries Apple has used to their own benefit so it's difficult to discern your point. What's the point of the link?

Apparently they open sourced it over Steve Job's dead body.

Of course, it's best not to let facts influence your opinion.

Taken from the iTunes FAQ at https://support.apple.com/kb/HT2729 [apple.com] :

Videos purchased from the iTunes Store have FairPlay digital rights management embedded in the files

Ie. the videos will only play on devices with FairPlay DRM - support.

How old is your source?
"Currently, in the US, Apple does not sell songs with FairPlay encryption" - Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay

Your link doesn't say when the article was written. It does say, "Last Modified: June 26, 2012", but that doesn't mean it's been updated in years. I noticed the article also talks about needing to have iTunes 9, but no mention of iTunes 10. iTunes 10 came out in 2010 - http://www.oldapps.com/itunes.php?old_itunes=63 So, that article has to be at least 2 years old.

Taken from the iTunes FAQ at https://support.apple.com/kb/HT2729 :

Videos purchased from the iTunes Store have FairPlay digital rights management embedded in the files

Ie. the videos will only play on devices with FairPlay DRM - support.

A border patrol vigilante is busy trying to figure out how to load a magazine clip into his assault rifle flatscreen.

There's an app for that.

Voice search has been on Android for about three years now. Just because IOS users are finally getting it does not make it news.

Wrong on so many counts, it isn't even close.

The "voice search" that is talked about in the article is new in Jellybean, so only a few weeks old.

Searching by voice as part of "Voice Actions for Android" has been available since Froyo, a little over 2 years.

The same searching by voice has been in the Google Search App for iOS for an unknown time, but at least since before the last update in June 2012.

The fact that iOS had "Voice Control" for a year before Android had Voice Actions is just the icing on your cake of wrongness.

The FCC asked some questions, yes. And then did nothing at all about it. It wasn't until a year and a half later when Apple revised their App Store Review Guidelines that Google Voice was approved (along with many other apps that had been rejected previously). There's no evidence whatsoever that the FCC had any more to do with that than Congress did (read: none). The submitter is either woefully misinformed or intentionally trolling; either way the editors should have caught it.

Virtual boy/girl friends. It'll happen.

We're already in the future.

Where OEMs have failed MS is in the quality of the hardware they put out, and the crap they pre-install.

MS is sitting on a worldwide 90+ percent desktop market share and 40 something billion dollars in cash right now on the backs of preloading their OS on OEM hardware for the last 30 years and you have the gall to say they've been failed? Failed would have been if the PC hadn't sold and Apple or Amstrad or Amiga or whoever else would have taken over the market and you wouldn't even have ever heard of Micro-soft. And if people wanted so-called high quality hardware without "crap", it ain't hard to find. You think that MS putting out a thousand dollar touch screen ultrabook is somehow going to change what people want to buy? If people wanted to pay that kind of money they have always had the option. This entire mantra of the OEMs have failed is pure bunk from apologists rationalizing MSs cargo cult aping of Apple with the Surface tablet introductions. Pretending that it has anything to do with Acer et al selling people cheap laptops is ludicrous and delusional.

I suspect MS needed to make Surface PCs because they needed an iPad competitor and they alone had the bucks and design chops to pull it off.

How the fuck would they know? They kept foisting Windows on the OEMs with fucking styluses and pretending that those were good enough. They haven't even released Windows 8 yet and already they've been failed? Are you even parsing what you're writing here?

The OEMs are busy working on Android tablets. Left to the OEMs they would take an Android tablet design and re-purpose it for windows.

Um, are you delusional? There were a fuckton of Windows 8 tablets shown off at Computex that were not Android retreads.

Fuck this. Dude, get off the fucking Kool-Aid before you OD.

well, that's still no excuse to not use time machine.

Based on your anecdotes, I'd argue that Best Buy is under-delivering on service in every possible manner.

For in-warranty defects, it's becoming fairly common to replace defective devices with new or refurbished ones when the warranty still applies, and to extend a 1-year warranty or longer from that day onward. If you turn in an iPad with a defective screen or to replace its battery, for instance, Apple will hand you a refurbished iPad -- not the one you brought in. As recently as a few months ago, they replaced iPods with entirely new ones. In my experience, kitchen appliance and vacuum cleaner vendors do the same exact thing, so I'm hardly cherry picking.

As for how you service an actual repair, my 2007 laptop would no longer turn on recently. I brought it to the local store down my street.

It's not a big store chain: three stores in three cities that are an hour or two apart from each other. I was not one of their customers, either. I was just another guy walking in, who bought a laptop in a different country, and needed it repaired ASAP.

They took it in for a diagnostic and a quote. This meant shipping the laptop to a nearby city -- and shipping it back free of charge if I refused the quote.

I got a quote by email the next morning. Without my laptop to read emails (fail!), I only discovered this when I called in for an update the follow-up day.

They needed to replace the laptop's top case (the keyboard/trackpad part). I highlighted that I needed a qwerty keyboard rather than the local azerty flavor. They understandably had none in stock; ETA one week as a result.

Understanding it was my work laptop, they immediately offered me one of their (free) replacement laptops until mine got repaired -- a 13" MacBook Air, no less. My tools and data were on my own device, so I declined, but their offer left me with an absolutely delightful impression.

They received the top case on the next day -- much faster than expected. The laptop was waiting for me at their store the following morning. The new top case came with a 1-year warranty.

Incidentally, its keyboard had a few defective keys. I brought my laptop back on the spot. It was waiting for me with yet another newly ordered top case the next afternoon -- free of charge.

In a more typical situation for them I'd likely have gotten a next-day repair, including the round trip to the city where they're stocked in spare parts. Which qualifies as impeccable service.

Not all companies deliver service like this, but they should strive to. It also leads me to suggest that the only acceptable reason for making a customer wait for a whole week nowadays is if you're waiting for parts coming from the other end of the world. Anything else has understaffed and poor logistics written all over it.

Around here, an iPhone is yours for a mere $1049 NZD ($862 USD); completely unlocked, completely carrier agnostic, no contract (no connection either!). New Zealanders have no qualms about paying this sort of price tag because we view 'connection' and 'phone' as completely seperate.

(There is some overlap; for example, a 24 month contract with Vodafone will give you $250 NZD towards your phone. Same deal on month-by-moth costs a little more per month and has no discount on your phone.) Oh, and yeah, there's no unlimited data plan.

I'm sure such a model would be profitable in the US market; but many consumers might balk at the up-front cost so they might get few takers.

You think those were GOOGLE restrictions? The only reason any restrictions were in place was because APPLE refused to allow Google to provide the best apps they could.

You know, Apple Haters are generally stupid, but every now and then you run across a "special" Apple Hater who just really takes stupid to the next level.

I mean, you might have only been wrong about where map application restrictions came from. But then you doubled down atop that by also incorrectly claiming Google wrote the iOS maps app...

So then, the takedown:

The iOS map app has been written by Apple from the start. Google just provided the data. So how did Apple limit anything in what they themselves were writing?

The restrictions on what application developers could do with map data came wholly from Google. You can tell because the moment Apple stopped using Google for reverse geocoding a limit on use per day of the APi was also lifted (that was last year). You can tell because now that Google is no longer providing map data developers can place turn by turn directions on the map.

In short the entire world inhaled sharply when they saw your post, aghast at the sheer ignorance on display. Even your fellow Apple Haters will shun you after that debacle.

I'll let you have the last reply as Apple Haters always feel the need to debase themselves as much as possible, and I'm quite sure you'll want to cement the evidence of ignorance you have to offer.

If you don't believe me, go look up what happened with Google Voice for iOS.

The Google Voice that is in the app store... huh.

Yes, I'm sure you have many more ignorant comments along those lines to share in further twisted missives. I'll not be reading but perhaps someone else can find amusement in your inevitably ignorant response.

Looks like the game's changed...

Go to Apple's online store and spec out a mini - I chose the 2.5GHz 500 GB one, replaced the processor with a 2.7 GHz i7 and upped the RAM to 8 GB. That makes this an i7 with 8GB RAM and an Radeon 6630M GPU, and it clocks in at about $999.

Now, let's go to Dell and check out desktops. The only i7 desktop it shows me is the "OptiPlex 990 Ultra Small Form Factor", which has an 2.8 GHz i7, 4 GB RAM and an Intel HD3000 GPU. Right off the bat, it's already $949, and when I up the OS to Win7 Ultimate 64bit (that's only fair - OSX has exactly ONE version), it jumps to...

$999 ONLY!

It's kind of give-and-take - the Dell is 2.8 GHz, but only 4GB RAM and the GPU is kind of anemic. The Mini's a slightly slower CPU, faster GPU, and on top of that, it's smaller and less power consuming

But there's more! Suppose I'm using it as a dev machine (which is what I'd use it for) - Xcode is free with the mac. Visual Studio Pro costs another $499! Even with the $99 I'd spend to get stuff onto the Mac App Store, the Mini's a bargain!

Summary: 2006 called. They want their Apple bashing back.

First off Apple's share of the desktop market in the USA is 8-12% which is about where it was when Microsoft was considered a monopoly. Microsoft's defense at this point might be the existence of a tablet market where they have no presence. But even if one does include tablets Windows still far outsells iOS and OSX combined. Apple targets profitable customers not marketshare.

As for Apple restricting boot. No they don't. In fact they produce and support a multi-platform bootloader for their computers: http://www.apple.com/support/bootcamp/
They also work with parallels and VMware to help people load virtual images of windows.
Apple doesn't mind in the slightest if you buy their hardware and then run someone else's OS on it.

On their iOS devices, iTunes allows you to put any BIOS image in you want.