Apple doesn't make shit adaptors and doesn't put them in shit packaging and doesn't solely ship them to you from a factory in China like your $0.99 SDHC reader example. Also, the kit is both an SD reader and a USB adaptor. It is not a USB adaptor, but a dock connector. You are comparing Apple's to lowest common denominator.
Of course there is a mark up. I'm certain Apple makes a profit on the sale of each kit, but I'm saying they don't make a significant amount of profit overall from the sale of the kits. Not enough to warrant causing a negative impact in sales of iPads, which is what Entropius implied (that people would be better off buying a netbook).
With my pre-unibody Macbook Pro, I get 12 hours of battery life. How, you ask? I carry a couple of spare batteries in my laptop bag. Now my flights overseas don't require me to say "oh well, i might as well get wasted" halfway through the flight
You can get external batteries for the unibody MacBook Pros too. Somehow, however, I doubt intercontinental flights is all that pressing of a matter for most people.
Jobs' obsession with form in this case seriously compromises function. He seems to also be quite obsessed with thinness. I really like the new MBPs, but I just can't get over the battery thing.
An interchangeable battery is not a positive function. It's a negative one. No one wants to change their battery, but they sometimes need to. Apple solved this by making a battery powerful enough to run the computer for longer than most people wish, thereby completely removing the need for an interchangeable battery. This is an improvement.
But, like I said, for those few who do need extra power, there are solutions that serve you well without having to diminish the quality of the computer for the rest of us.
Because including a 10 cent part that hooks up to what everyone already has would prevent Apple from charging $40 for something they make, and that most people won't look elsewhere to find cheaper.
--Jeremy
$29, and it's unlikely Apple makes much money on them. If the slot was all that important, it would be built-in in order to sell more iPads. Also, that's not how design works. It's not like legos where you just snap something on, you have to make space for it, wire it in, modify the case for it, etc. Apple's design is often about the things they omit as much as it is about the things they include. That's why the iPad is so thin.
I think it makes more sense not to think of the iPad as a computer, but rather as special purpose device intended for browsing the web and running a limited selection of applications.
That's not terribly accurate. Kindle is special purpose. iPad is general purpose with a wide array of apps, including both content consumption and content creation, among many other types.
It may be that you want something more flexible. That would be a netbook.
That's definitely true in jedidiah's case, but his problem isn't that he doesn't view the iPad in proper context, it's that he can't seem to understand how anyone can have a different opinion than him about it. Lack of a built-in SD slot is to him a damning issue. To most everyone else? Not so much.
You've completely avoided the point: SDHC isn't excluded simply in order to up-sell to higher capacities.
All you've done is bitched about an Apple device (what a surprise!). Your opinion is fine, but is has no effect on Apple's motives. Whether their motives and actions meet your standards or not is entirely irrelevant.
"home sharing" is another one of those categories where a netbook stomps all over an iPad.
How quaint, another lame netbook comparison. There is some overlap in utility of a netbook and an iPad, but they are very distinct products. In the past 11 months, around 20 million iPads were sold. Back in January 2010, before the iPad was announced, netbooks were projected to maybe sell 39 million, up from the 35 million in 2009. Instead, netbook sales declined during 2010, although I can't find actual units shipped numbers for 2010.
So, maybe a netbook "stomps all over an iPad" in terms of functionality, that simply doesn't matter.
The rest of us won't really care about the iPad 2. In fact, at this point a much cheaper Android-based tablet computer may start to look more interesting than before ("Hey, even Apple didn't add much to their own iPad, why not get this $SEMI_ANONYMOUS_BRAND tablet instead?").
That's not a likely scenario. People want *iPads*, not "tablets".
Okay, I've not followed the ipad specs carefully, because it's not something I'd ever think about buying.
But -- the damn thing doesn't have a USB port? It's about the most universally useful thing I can imagine adding. USB memory keys, USB hard drives, keyboards, mice, cameras, teledildonics equipment, and all sorts of things that nobody's even thought of yet...
Why pay $30 for a dongle that does something that most every netbook ever made has built in?
Because the iPad doesn't. Your question is nonsensical. You might as well ask, "why pay $40 dollars for an external optical drive for a netbook when every other computer has them built in?"
That's not why. First, Apple ships an SDHC reader. Second, Home Sharing (and eventual cloud syncing) also helps mitigate the difference between 16GB and 64GB. Adding another internal slot will affect size and mar the design. The internal flash is much faster than most (all?) SD cards. And lastly, using a removable storage device to augment internal storage like you are suggesting does not fit with the ease of use of iOS.
Apple's batteries are among the longest-lasting on the market. 10 hour iPad, 7 hour laptops. Even their smallest, thinest laptop gets 5 hours. Apple's battery numbers are also far more accurate than those listed by other manufacturers.
That's a lot less of a dig than it probably appears. Apple does what it does very well.
Sure, you just called Apple users locked-in, superficial cultists. Not a dig at all...
What is it about other people's computer choices that bothers you so much?
When those other people get up in your face all the time crowing about how damn good their computer is and how superior it is to everything else ever made EVER, you start to get pissed the fuck off. I'm just saying. (Yes, this cuts both ways.)
The guy posted about how he upgraded his old MBP to a new MBP, in a story about the new MBP. He didn't get all up in anyone's face. He did not say they are "superior to everything else ever made EVER". This is exactly what I'm talking about when I mentioned the rampant hyperbole.
If a Mac user says he likes the new Macs in a story about the new Macs, that's not something that should piss you off.
Yes, but you are a fanboi, that's what you're *supposed* to do, for God's sake - in fact, how you escaped the hypnotic clutches of Steve's Charisma Beam and lasted two years without an upgrade is probably worthy of some deeper investigation by the clerics of the Holy Church of Apple.
The problem with the Apple haters here is the rampant hyperbole. He upgraded his two year old computer, but you have to spin it into some sort of insanity. It's strange that you first call him a "fanboi", then note that he somehow managed to avoid this imaginary mystical superbeam emanating from Cupertino which would have made him a fanboi.
In other words, you just called him a fanboi while noting that he wasn't a fanboi. Fantastic!
Look at it from my perspective - if I proudly crowed about standing outside queuing in the rain the day before a new Dell Laptop or Ubuntu Linux 11.04 was released, you'd call me a sad loony!
Ignoring the fact that he didn't say anything about lining up in the rain a day in advance for the new MacBook Pro (in fact, no one has ever done this, the lines have only been for the iPhones and iPads, more on this in a sec), yes, you would look insane waiting for Ubuntu or a Dell laptop.
Why do people line up for iPhones and iPads? Because demand far outstrips supply. People in line know that if they don't line up, they will have to wait some uncertain amount of time before they can get one. Has this ever happened with a Dell laptop? Is this even possible with Ubuntu?
On the other hand, there have been plenty of geeks downloading Ubuntu (and other distros) the day of availability. Haven't you ever tried to download an ISO on release day only to find download speeds horribly slow? Do you hurl the same "fanboi" insult at people who line up for video games, concerts, movies, etc?
But no, only Apple users are "fanbois", because, well... "Fuck you, that's why"? That's all it really boils down to. What sort of insecurity leads someone to throw about effeminate insults to someone who upgraded his two year old notebook? What is it about other people's computer choices that bothers you so much?
Theoretical security versus actual security. Windows may be *theoretically* more secure, but in the real world, it's the least secure system out there.
I'm telling you, no matter what Charlie says, and no matter what the theory behind which is more secure or not is, the 100% truth is that Macs are significantly more secure in practice, which is all that matters for the user.
They all fall within minutes of each other. It's not like he hacks it in real time. You prepare your payload, then deploy it during the competition. That's why the Macs fall first, because people attack it first.
You mean, once the contest enters the phase where you can run a program remotely, people attack the Mac first, because they want to win the Mac, and Windows and Linux are successfully attacked minutes later.
No, he means exactly what he said. OSX is less secure then Windows. [snip]
None of which disputes what I wrote. Pwn2own goes for the Macs first, and every other system falls right afterwards. That's because they all fall at the same part. And in spite of how you interpreted the situation, Mac OS X is vastly more secure than Windows. It's possible Windows is theoretically more secure, but theory doesn't hold as much weight as reality, and reality is that on Windows, you need to be mindful of malware, and on Macs you don't.
In *theory* Windows *might* be more secure. In practice, Mac is significantly more secure.
And Apple's current move with Lion shows they want to keep Mac OS X more secure in practice.
No it isn't FUD, do some research online, Just about every hacking contest sees OS X go down in a ball of flames in minutes
Yes, minutes... After the contest enters the phase where you can load files remotely. And minutes later, Windows and Linux go down (everyone attacks the Mac first, because pwn2own means you get to keep the computer you pwn, and everyone wants the Mac).
Just about every patch cycle from apple sees more security vulnerabilities patches than are found in all MS products combined in a year.
Not remotely true. However it is true that in pure numbers, Apple patches more vulnerabilities than MS. These are primarily in Open Source products included with Mac OS X, and is seen as a strength, not a weakness. Also, Mac OS X patches tend to be local vulnerabilities, while Windows patches are far more often remote vulnerabilities, which are significantly more critical.
Many security researchers have been pointing out Apples Lax Security practises for a long time
Yet somehow the sky has never fallen. It's possible that Mac OS X is theoretically less secure than Windows, but it's absolutely certain that Mac OS X is, in actual real world usage, significantly more secure than Windows. Hands down, no-contest.
Pwn2own and "patches per year" are interesting metrics, but the only thing that matters is whether a user has to worry about their computer being compromised, and Mac users don't, Windows users do. It's as simple as that. Everything else is academic and hand-waving side-stepping of the actual issue.
seems they might finally be getting the message now that there share of the pie is significant enough to warrant it being an issue.
Apple has had sufficient market share since the beginning of consumer viruses and malware. There were plenty of Mac viruses back when their market share was far lower than it is now. It's absurd to claim that there are essentially zero malware for Macs because of market share, when their market share is large enough for thriving third-party software and hardware. Market share plays a role, but is not *the* primary reason.
What this indicates is that Apple is being proactive in making sure Macs remain as secure as they are today, and not resting on their laurels.
However Apple users by and large are quite arrogant and care-free about the security of their OS, and IMO are just asking for it.
That's an odd take.
Anyway, as things stand right now, being "care-free" about viruses/malware is warranted. Once some actual outbreak occurs, or malware becomes more than a handful of trojans on pirated copies of Photoshop and iWork, the care-free days are over. But until then, what's wrong with accepting reality as it is as opposed to worrying about what might someday come to pass (but for over a decade now, hasn't)?
You mean, once the contest enters the phase where you can run a program remotely, people attack the Mac first, because they want to win the Mac, and Windows and Linux are successfully attacked minutes later.
You're completely missing the point. The claim wasn't "that Apple had a major hand in creating", but "that Apple had a major hand in". It's undeniable that Apple has had a major hand in ARM, and has for over twenty years now.
ARM has been in mobile phones since the 1990's, my old Sony dumb phone used one.
By that time, Apple had already had a hand in ARM.
When Apple introduced ARM in the original iPhone, that chip was used ten years previous by Acorn.
That's probably because you say things like, "fucking Apple fanboys. Sorry that your Gods at Apple, Inc. aren't everything you like to delude yourselves into thinking they are." Which is a troll.
The "no" is that Firewire was pretty much the last hardware standard that Apple had a major hand in.
Thunderbolt.
USB? Appeared on PC motherboards well before Apple ones(it was Intel's baby after all), Apple was just the first to burn the legacy options.
That's what the OP said.
802.11b? All of Apple's 1st gen gear was rebadged Lucent off-the shelf stuff.
Apple worked with Lucent on this.
Apple made it an available consumer option
And did this before anyone else. Which is what the OP said.
Killed off the floppy? The first to stop offering it across the board
That's what "killed off the floppy" means.
possibly; but you've been able to spec PCs without floppies well back into Apple's beige era.
Which is pretty meaningless. There was never a time you couldn't build a PC without a floppy (well, after the PC was reverse-engineered, which is the time frame you are referring to). You could, FYI, buy Apple computers without floppies before even the first IBM PC existed (which is equally meaningless, but I just add it for comparison).
64bit desktops? Hello AMD
Hello G5.
3D cards? Apple's selections are always archaic, even now that they are an Intel shop. etc, etc.
Archaic doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, but this is definitely something Apple lags behind the cutting edge on, and is one of the few things where that is actually a consistent statement. Even so, their video cards are still faster than the average card being sold in PCs at any given time.
However, the list of "was actually first" is substantially shorter, especially in more recent years. The list of "invented here, rather than launch partnered here" is shorter still, especially these days.
By definition, "invented here" implies being less than "was actually first" for a company that ships actual products and works with other companies. And "actually first" is a misdirection. Few people state Apple is "first" as much as the first to do something in a major or consumer-oriented way (although they are still first overall from time to time, like 802.11b, some Intel chips, Thunderbolt). iPod and iPhone are two examples of this. MP3 players existed before the iPod, but the iPod was the first one consumers actually noticed, and multitouch existed in research labs before the iPhone, but it was the iPhone that brought it to market.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple doesn't make shit adaptors and doesn't put them in shit packaging and doesn't solely ship them to you from a factory in China like your $0.99 SDHC reader example. Also, the kit is both an SD reader and a USB adaptor. It is not a USB adaptor, but a dock connector. You are comparing Apple's to lowest common denominator.
Of course there is a mark up. I'm certain Apple makes a profit on the sale of each kit, but I'm saying they don't make a significant amount of profit overall from the sale of the kits. Not enough to warrant causing a negative impact in sales of iPads, which is what Entropius implied (that people would be better off buying a netbook).
With my pre-unibody Macbook Pro, I get 12 hours of battery life. How, you ask? I carry a couple of spare batteries in my laptop bag. Now my flights overseas don't require me to say "oh well, i might as well get wasted" halfway through the flight
You can get external batteries for the unibody MacBook Pros too. Somehow, however, I doubt intercontinental flights is all that pressing of a matter for most people.
Jobs' obsession with form in this case seriously compromises function. He seems to also be quite obsessed with thinness. I really like the new MBPs, but I just can't get over the battery thing.
An interchangeable battery is not a positive function. It's a negative one. No one wants to change their battery, but they sometimes need to. Apple solved this by making a battery powerful enough to run the computer for longer than most people wish, thereby completely removing the need for an interchangeable battery. This is an improvement.
But, like I said, for those few who do need extra power, there are solutions that serve you well without having to diminish the quality of the computer for the rest of us.
Clearly he didn't want to hog all the crazy for himself and left some unclaimed in case someone else wanted to join in.
Because including a 10 cent part that hooks up to what everyone already has would prevent Apple from charging $40 for something they make, and that most people won't look elsewhere to find cheaper.
--Jeremy
$29, and it's unlikely Apple makes much money on them. If the slot was all that important, it would be built-in in order to sell more iPads. Also, that's not how design works. It's not like legos where you just snap something on, you have to make space for it, wire it in, modify the case for it, etc. Apple's design is often about the things they omit as much as it is about the things they include. That's why the iPad is so thin.
I think it makes more sense not to think of the iPad as a computer, but rather as special purpose device intended for browsing the web and running a limited selection of applications.
That's not terribly accurate. Kindle is special purpose. iPad is general purpose with a wide array of apps, including both content consumption and content creation, among many other types.
It may be that you want something more flexible. That would be a netbook.
That's definitely true in jedidiah's case, but his problem isn't that he doesn't view the iPad in proper context, it's that he can't seem to understand how anyone can have a different opinion than him about it. Lack of a built-in SD slot is to him a damning issue. To most everyone else? Not so much.
> Because the iPad doesn't.
Then it is clearly flawed.
Yeah, it's so flawed that Apple sold around 20 million over the past 11 months. Clearly, your definition of "flawed" is far from universal.
It's a machine that's designed to be limited and to ignore many of the obvious ways to interact with a computing device.
Do you not realize that the existence of the camera connection kit undermines the validity of your jaundiced view?
You've completely avoided the point: SDHC isn't excluded simply in order to up-sell to higher capacities.
All you've done is bitched about an Apple device (what a surprise!). Your opinion is fine, but is has no effect on Apple's motives. Whether their motives and actions meet your standards or not is entirely irrelevant.
"home sharing" is another one of those categories where a netbook stomps all over an iPad.
How quaint, another lame netbook comparison. There is some overlap in utility of a netbook and an iPad, but they are very distinct products. In the past 11 months, around 20 million iPads were sold. Back in January 2010, before the iPad was announced, netbooks were projected to maybe sell 39 million, up from the 35 million in 2009. Instead, netbook sales declined during 2010, although I can't find actual units shipped numbers for 2010.
So, maybe a netbook "stomps all over an iPad" in terms of functionality, that simply doesn't matter.
The rest of us won't really care about the iPad 2. In fact, at this point a much cheaper Android-based tablet computer may start to look more interesting than before ("Hey, even Apple didn't add much to their own iPad, why not get this $SEMI_ANONYMOUS_BRAND tablet instead?").
That's not a likely scenario. People want *iPads*, not "tablets".
Okay, I've not followed the ipad specs carefully, because it's not something I'd ever think about buying.
But -- the damn thing doesn't have a USB port? It's about the most universally useful thing I can imagine adding. USB memory keys, USB hard drives, keyboards, mice, cameras, teledildonics equipment, and all sorts of things that nobody's even thought of yet...
It does, it's an add-on for the dock connector.
Why pay $30 for a dongle that does something that most every netbook ever made has built in?
Because the iPad doesn't. Your question is nonsensical. You might as well ask, "why pay $40 dollars for an external optical drive for a netbook when every other computer has them built in?"
That's not why. First, Apple ships an SDHC reader. Second, Home Sharing (and eventual cloud syncing) also helps mitigate the difference between 16GB and 64GB. Adding another internal slot will affect size and mar the design. The internal flash is much faster than most (all?) SD cards. And lastly, using a removable storage device to augment internal storage like you are suggesting does not fit with the ease of use of iOS.
Apple's batteries are among the longest-lasting on the market. 10 hour iPad, 7 hour laptops. Even their smallest, thinest laptop gets 5 hours. Apple's battery numbers are also far more accurate than those listed by other manufacturers.
That's a lot less of a dig than it probably appears. Apple does what it does very well.
Sure, you just called Apple users locked-in, superficial cultists. Not a dig at all...
When those other people get up in your face all the time crowing about how damn good their computer is and how superior it is to everything else ever made EVER, you start to get pissed the fuck off. I'm just saying. (Yes, this cuts both ways.)
The guy posted about how he upgraded his old MBP to a new MBP, in a story about the new MBP. He didn't get all up in anyone's face. He did not say they are "superior to everything else ever made EVER". This is exactly what I'm talking about when I mentioned the rampant hyperbole.
If a Mac user says he likes the new Macs in a story about the new Macs, that's not something that should piss you off.
Yes, but you are a fanboi, that's what you're *supposed* to do, for God's sake - in fact, how you escaped the hypnotic clutches of Steve's Charisma Beam and lasted two years without an upgrade is probably worthy of some deeper investigation by the clerics of the Holy Church of Apple.
The problem with the Apple haters here is the rampant hyperbole. He upgraded his two year old computer, but you have to spin it into some sort of insanity. It's strange that you first call him a "fanboi", then note that he somehow managed to avoid this imaginary mystical superbeam emanating from Cupertino which would have made him a fanboi.
In other words, you just called him a fanboi while noting that he wasn't a fanboi. Fantastic!
Look at it from my perspective - if I proudly crowed about standing outside queuing in the rain the day before a new Dell Laptop or Ubuntu Linux 11.04 was released, you'd call me a sad loony!
Ignoring the fact that he didn't say anything about lining up in the rain a day in advance for the new MacBook Pro (in fact, no one has ever done this, the lines have only been for the iPhones and iPads, more on this in a sec), yes, you would look insane waiting for Ubuntu or a Dell laptop.
Why do people line up for iPhones and iPads? Because demand far outstrips supply. People in line know that if they don't line up, they will have to wait some uncertain amount of time before they can get one. Has this ever happened with a Dell laptop? Is this even possible with Ubuntu?
On the other hand, there have been plenty of geeks downloading Ubuntu (and other distros) the day of availability. Haven't you ever tried to download an ISO on release day only to find download speeds horribly slow? Do you hurl the same "fanboi" insult at people who line up for video games, concerts, movies, etc?
But no, only Apple users are "fanbois", because, well... "Fuck you, that's why"? That's all it really boils down to. What sort of insecurity leads someone to throw about effeminate insults to someone who upgraded his two year old notebook? What is it about other people's computer choices that bothers you so much?
Theoretical security versus actual security. Windows may be *theoretically* more secure, but in the real world, it's the least secure system out there.
I'm telling you, no matter what Charlie says, and no matter what the theory behind which is more secure or not is, the 100% truth is that Macs are significantly more secure in practice, which is all that matters for the user.
They all fall within minutes of each other. It's not like he hacks it in real time. You prepare your payload, then deploy it during the competition. That's why the Macs fall first, because people attack it first.
You mean, once the contest enters the phase where you can run a program remotely, people attack the Mac first, because they want to win the Mac, and Windows and Linux are successfully attacked minutes later.
No, he means exactly what he said. OSX is less secure then Windows.
[snip]
None of which disputes what I wrote. Pwn2own goes for the Macs first, and every other system falls right afterwards. That's because they all fall at the same part. And in spite of how you interpreted the situation, Mac OS X is vastly more secure than Windows. It's possible Windows is theoretically more secure, but theory doesn't hold as much weight as reality, and reality is that on Windows, you need to be mindful of malware, and on Macs you don't.
In *theory* Windows *might* be more secure.
In practice, Mac is significantly more secure.
And Apple's current move with Lion shows they want to keep Mac OS X more secure in practice.
No it isn't FUD, do some research online, Just about every hacking contest sees OS X go down in a ball of flames in minutes
Yes, minutes... After the contest enters the phase where you can load files remotely. And minutes later, Windows and Linux go down (everyone attacks the Mac first, because pwn2own means you get to keep the computer you pwn, and everyone wants the Mac).
Just about every patch cycle from apple sees more security vulnerabilities patches than are found in all MS products combined in a year.
Not remotely true. However it is true that in pure numbers, Apple patches more vulnerabilities than MS. These are primarily in Open Source products included with Mac OS X, and is seen as a strength, not a weakness. Also, Mac OS X patches tend to be local vulnerabilities, while Windows patches are far more often remote vulnerabilities, which are significantly more critical.
Many security researchers have been pointing out Apples Lax Security practises for a long time
Yet somehow the sky has never fallen. It's possible that Mac OS X is theoretically less secure than Windows, but it's absolutely certain that Mac OS X is, in actual real world usage, significantly more secure than Windows. Hands down, no-contest.
Pwn2own and "patches per year" are interesting metrics, but the only thing that matters is whether a user has to worry about their computer being compromised, and Mac users don't, Windows users do. It's as simple as that. Everything else is academic and hand-waving side-stepping of the actual issue.
seems they might finally be getting the message now that there share of the pie is significant enough to warrant it being an issue.
Apple has had sufficient market share since the beginning of consumer viruses and malware. There were plenty of Mac viruses back when their market share was far lower than it is now. It's absurd to claim that there are essentially zero malware for Macs because of market share, when their market share is large enough for thriving third-party software and hardware. Market share plays a role, but is not *the* primary reason.
What this indicates is that Apple is being proactive in making sure Macs remain as secure as they are today, and not resting on their laurels.
However Apple users by and large are quite arrogant and care-free about the security of their OS, and IMO are just asking for it.
That's an odd take.
Anyway, as things stand right now, being "care-free" about viruses/malware is warranted. Once some actual outbreak occurs, or malware becomes more than a handful of trojans on pirated copies of Photoshop and iWork, the care-free days are over. But until then, what's wrong with accepting reality as it is as opposed to worrying about what might someday come to pass (but for over a decade now, hasn't)?
You mean, once the contest enters the phase where you can run a program remotely, people attack the Mac first, because they want to win the Mac, and Windows and Linux are successfully attacked minutes later.
You're completely missing the point. The claim wasn't "that Apple had a major hand in creating", but "that Apple had a major hand in". It's undeniable that Apple has had a major hand in ARM, and has for over twenty years now.
ARM has been in mobile phones since the 1990's, my old Sony dumb phone used one.
By that time, Apple had already had a hand in ARM.
When Apple introduced ARM in the original iPhone, that chip was used ten years previous by Acorn.
Try over twenty.
That's probably because you say things like, "fucking Apple fanboys. Sorry that your Gods at Apple, Inc. aren't everything you like to delude yourselves into thinking they are." Which is a troll.
The "no" is that Firewire was pretty much the last hardware standard that Apple had a major hand in.
Thunderbolt.
USB? Appeared on PC motherboards well before Apple ones(it was Intel's baby after all), Apple was just the first to burn the legacy options.
That's what the OP said.
802.11b? All of Apple's 1st gen gear was rebadged Lucent off-the shelf stuff.
Apple worked with Lucent on this.
Apple made it an available consumer option
And did this before anyone else. Which is what the OP said.
Killed off the floppy? The first to stop offering it across the board
That's what "killed off the floppy" means.
possibly; but you've been able to spec PCs without floppies well back into Apple's beige era.
Which is pretty meaningless. There was never a time you couldn't build a PC without a floppy (well, after the PC was reverse-engineered, which is the time frame you are referring to). You could, FYI, buy Apple computers without floppies before even the first IBM PC existed (which is equally meaningless, but I just add it for comparison).
64bit desktops? Hello AMD
Hello G5.
3D cards? Apple's selections are always archaic, even now that they are an Intel shop. etc, etc.
Archaic doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, but this is definitely something Apple lags behind the cutting edge on, and is one of the few things where that is actually a consistent statement. Even so, their video cards are still faster than the average card being sold in PCs at any given time.
However, the list of "was actually first" is substantially shorter, especially in more recent years. The list of "invented here, rather than launch partnered here" is shorter still, especially these days.
By definition, "invented here" implies being less than "was actually first" for a company that ships actual products and works with other companies. And "actually first" is a misdirection. Few people state Apple is "first" as much as the first to do something in a major or consumer-oriented way (although they are still first overall from time to time, like 802.11b, some Intel chips, Thunderbolt). iPod and iPhone are two examples of this. MP3 players existed before the iPod, but the iPod was the first one consumers actually noticed, and multitouch existed in research labs before the iPhone, but it was the iPhone that brought it to market.
The WWW was created on NeXT hardware.
citation needed
Learn to google. This isn't some well-guarded secret.
keywords: tim berners-lee cern html next