Must admit, although I primarily use Firefox or Chome; I have no problems at all with IE. I don't understand why people would "cheer for its demise". IE9 is a good browser, and I'm all for competition. Less competition in any space is generally bad for users, if things swing too far toward one engine we'll be in the same position we were when IE6 was the "standard" and people ended up only bothering to test on that browser. That causes stagnation.
Yeah, basically the rain sensor (BMW) overrides the intermittent timer, so although the controls are there for it, they don't actually do anything if the sensor hasn't enabled the wipers. Afterwards I found out that if the sensor's fuse is removed, then the intermittent hardware works again. Wish I'd known!
Not only that, but some parts are pretty much guaranteed to fail after X years, and be very expensive to replace. Example on my car the passenger side central locking was working only sporadically. Wasn't the solenoid; turned out to be the controller module, so cost over £500 to replace to fix the problem. Also, rain sensor on the windscreen - notorious for failing at around 4-5 years, requires a complete new windscreen + sensor module as they're bonded together. You might wonder why bother, but if that is not working, you either have to have the wipers full-on, or off; there's no intermittent setting, which quickly becomes very annoying.
Yup, if you're arguing that "Steam DRM is easy to hack, so Steam are the good guys" - then why bother even paying anything? You're already on the path, so you might as well just torrent the game for free.
Agreed. My actual point was that Steam's (and Apple's) restrictions are the same as Sony and MS are proposing. The price is actually irrelevant. I don't usually read AC posts (as they're often posters trying to reinforce their own arguments) so have no idea what they said, but the other stuff posted would be irrelevant, even if it weren't illogical. Attacking me for posting actual prices from the Steam store with some ridiculous argument that the prices would go down some day, so it's impossible that they sell for that. Or "I buy games for $10, so all games are $10". Just... wow...
But hey, this is Slashdot - been here enough years to know how it works by now:)
Heh, that Borderlands 2 price has honestly changed since I posted that comment! I wouldn't have posted that price if it wasn't correct at the time - weird. Anyway, anyone can see the current prices of CURRENT games on the store. You know you can also buy discounted games on the console stores right, or buy them for next to nothing when they're past their prime?
It's totally irrelevant anyway. Whether you're having a £15 game locked to your account, a £30 game, or a £1 game, it's the same restriction. What my point was, before the excuses came raining down, was that Steam are using the same type of restrictions for their customers, and have been doing so for some time now - this is a fact, not an opinion. People who have been purchasing games from Steam, with full knowledge of this have no right to rage about Sony and MS doing the exact same thing. If anything, the people paying Steam, and supporting its sales model have encouraged other companies to do the same, as they can see it's been successful.
Forgot to add, Apple have also been doing this since their store opened. Have you ever tried to give away an Apple store game/app? Or sell an old Apple PC with OSX on it that you upgraded from the store? You can't, as it's locked to your account. It's almost worse with OSX, because you're likely selling the old Mac for a new one which will have the same OSX version on it anyway, making your old purchase totally useless, unlike a game which you could at least continue to play.
You didn't add the caveat "old games are sub $10", you just stated that steam games are sub $10. This is demonstrably incorrect. You might as well say "Ford cars are better than BMWs because they cost under $100", and not mention the fact you're talking about some 20 year old junker (mandatory car analogy completed!)
I tend to buy current titles, and I'd bet that's where the vast majority of game companies (and Steam's) revenues come from. Whether you do or not is totally irrelevant - the fact is, Steam sell the latest games for £30 or more, and prevent resale, or gifting after the game is used. Yes, I could only buy old stuff from 2011 to play on PC, but then I could also buy old "bargain bucket" games for the console too. The fact is that what Sony and MS are proposing to do is almost EXACTLY the same as what Steam have been doing for ages. I'm sure that eventually someone will find a way around the copy protection with the consoles, as they have with every prior generation.
With all this said, I'm a PC gamer, not a console gamer (though I've owned most consoles) but I don't kid myself that Steam are any better than any other company out there. They exist to make money; they're not your friend, or anyone elses. Everything a big company does, it does to increase its profits. There's no moral compass involved.
I can't understand why anyone would buy a console at the moment (prior to the next generation units becoming available). Even the bargain basement PCs will offer a better gaming experience than an old PS3 or XBox. When you consider how old those systems are, and the fact their tech wasn't exactly cutting edge even when they were launched, they're an incredibly bad buy.
Some people somehow think that consoles are a cheaper option than buying a gaming PC, that they have to upgrade. The fact is that console owners will (in general) pay more for their games, which more than offsets the initial saving. Added to that, a gaming PC will offer superior graphics, gameplay and sound, and probably won't need upgrading for almost the entire lifespan of a console. Of course, people DO upgrade PCs though; not through necessity, but because they have the option to. A console owner doesn't have that option - they're stuck with what they bought. It's as crazy as if a computer manufacturer started soldering their units shut so they couldn't ever be upgraded. None of them would ever do that though... heh.
I'm on the UK Steam store right now, and unless the US version has a totally different pricing structure, all current titles are way over "$10".
Borderlands 2 = £29.99 ($47.11) Call of Duty Black Ops 2 = £34.99 ($54.97) Devil May Cry = £29.99 ($47.11)
So basically you're lying, and I'm surprised your comment has been flagged insightful. Not only that, but trying to justify Steam's system because you can get around it by criminal means (in the eyes of the games companies) is ridiculous.
Why on earth do people cripple their own gameplay by using a gamepad with a PC? Unless you're playing a terrible console port that's unusable with a keyboard+mouse, it's like playing with one hand tied behind your back, and the other hand in an oven glove. Just ridiculous.
I'm not saying external peripherals cannot be used with mobile devices (a lot of my work involves building custom hardware to interface with Android devices), I was remarking on the ridiculousness of his argument. I.e. he's been playing for "years" yet seems unaware of the controller options, thus assumes that tilting a tablet is the best way to control a driving game...
I find it hilarious reading through the comments of people proclaiming that tablet gaming could never be as good because of some control issue, when it is clear these people have never actually played many good tablet games. I've been an avid gamer for decades and played numerous racing games, and a few of the tablet racing games have the best controls I've ever used. Buttons and tiny joysticks are just REALLY hard to use to steer a (simulated) car, whereas full screen tilt is awesome once you get a little practice. The good racing games even keep the horizon level while you turn the tablet.
You know what's even more intuitive for steering a car in a driving game? A steering wheel. If only someone sold such things to plug into consoles and PCs...
Arguing that PC games give players too many configuration options (even if they choose to use them) is ridiculous.
The problem is that players have to use them. In general, PC game controllers present their face buttons in an unpredictable order. So unless your controller happens to bean Xbox 360 game controller and the game you are playing happens to use "XInput" (specific support for Xbox 360 controllers under Windows), you have to go through at least some sort of configuration form before the computer knows which button to use for jump, attack, switch weapon, and pause.
Press the following buttons in order: [Up], Down, Left, Right, Jump, Attack, Change Tool, Pause
??? What commercial game have you played from the last 10 years that required that kind of configuration? The standard keybindings are very well known now. WASD+mouse to move about, [space] (usually) to jump, numeric keys to change weapons, etc. There will always be defaults. Just like most games now will automatically choose the graphic settings during the first launch. Of course these can all be overridden if desired, just like consoles allow the player to change the key bindings (as I recall). Of course there's little point in allow graphics options on a console - it's pretty much doing what it can.
Since when is choice a bad thing?
Since researchers discovered that people freeze up when they see too many choices. From this page:
Preferences can confuse many users. Take the famous too many clocks example. A significant number of test subjects were so surprised to have 5 choices of clock they couldn't figure out how to add a clock to their panel. This cost of preferences is invariably underestimated by us technical types.
This is a completely different use case. This is someone's first exposure to an unfamiliar UI. I don't "freeze up" every time I launch a game because there are graphic options somewhere under a settings menu. The same way I don't "freeze up" when I open my wardrobe and choose a shirt and tie. your type of thinking lead Apple to the 1-button mouse.
Here's one: http://www.rahulsood.com/2010/07/console-gamers-get-killed-against-pc.html It's the reason PC and console players are segregated - it should be easy-ish for MS to allow the Xbox live service to handle games running on the 2 platforms, but they won't do it as it'll cost them sales in Xboxes. Nobody would want to play on Xbox if they're getting humiliated all the time by PC gamers;-)
Nobody wants or cares about the ability to plunk down $500 on 3 more fps.
Of course they do - the person who bought the hardware to get a better gaming experience. I've spent a lot of money on my gaming rig, and believe me the gaming experience is WAY above anything a console can deliver. While your console is struggling along at 1024x720@30fps, I'm playing the same game at 6014x1200@{whatever the pegged fps is} with much more detail, more effects, and higher quality sound. You might as well argue that everyone should just buy the cheapest, shittiest car they can find because it'll crawl up to the speed limit, so why do you need anything better?
They'd rather everyone was the same anyways.
Slow loading times haven't been a problem since playstation 1 days.
Please tell me you're joking. Have you compared the speed of a PC loading a game from an SSD RAID / RAM disk, to a PS3/Xbox grinding away with an old optical disk, and so little RAM it can't cache anything worth a damn? I DO also own an PS3, I hadn't used it for anything much except playing BlueRay disks for over 2 years (it's now been replaced by a dedicated BR player) The last time I tried a game in it, I honestly thought it had frozen each time it tried to load a new level. On my gaming rig, there's no waiting - ever. Last game I can compare between PC and console was Skyrim. On the console there were huge delays while loading - on PC, there was nowhere near enough time to read anything on the "did you know" type screen before the level loaded. If you haven't noticed the HUGE difference here, you obviously haven;'t played a game on a proper gaming PC in a few years.
Games are only expensive if you buy the expensive ones, and most of those titles cost the same on PC.
So you mean if you buy any current games they're expensive on console? That's about right. PC games are cheaper on Steam. Check it yourself.
Console updates happen by pressing "ok". Easy enough for kids, no headaches for adults.
Last time I tried, this is how it went: Insert game - "Your system needs a software update, please exit the game and update..." Exit game, scroll across to the "System" tab, navigate up (for some reason the software update is above all the other options), choose "Software update" "Checking..." (finally) "A software update was found, would you like to install?" Press Yes, "Please accept these new terms and conditions", click through "Would you like the system to shut down after updating", press Yes. (update takes 20 minutes)
On PC? Updates happen in the background, automatically install as the machine is shut down.
Which is easier?
Good customization and mods come back as new titles. The rest is largely garbage, and the difference is negligible. Meanwhile, most people just don't care.
Please provide any evidence of this. Or is it just something you made up while writing this reply? Maybe you're just not aeware of the modding communities for a lot of current games. Or you have no choice because you're stuck with a 7 year old piece of locked down tech that's incapable of handling this content.
Nobody wants to play with keyboard, mice, 10,000 buttons and macros. They want to lay on the living room floor or sit on the couch with a controller.
Sorry, how old are you? 12? Keyboards don't have "10,000 buttons". People (well, adults) don't necessarily want to lay on the floor to play games. Personally I like playing my games at v.high resolution, every visual effect enabled, surround sound, instant load times and no screaming little XBox brats in my ears. It's worth the cost. The fact you keep stating absolutes ("Nobody does this, nobody does that") suggests you're a child living in his own little bubble, peobably without the means to have a choice of gaming platform. You're therefore arguing from a position of ignorance.
The fact is that the keyboard+mouse is the better control system for FPS'. H
For FPS' - let's face it, the vast majority of console games - the mouse+keyboard is the superior control mechanism. This has been proven countless times, notably when Microsoft stages an event pitting Xbox "pro" players against PC players. The PC players decimated the Xbox players. It was a major embarrassment for MS (and the players I guess) and nstrumental is MS' decision to keep the XBox and PC player base segregated.
Consoles are a bad deal all around: Outdated hardware - years behind PCs, low resolution, excessively slow loading times, expensive games, lack of customisation and custom mods. Consoles need software updates at least as often as PCs, so that's a wash. Arguing that PC games give players too many configuration options (even if they choose to use them) is ridiculous. Since when it choice a bad thing? Unless you're Apple, I guess.
I wouldn't call a map app with less features, less accuracy and more outright errors "innovation" either.
As always with Apple, their customers are just regarded as collateral damage as they attempt to grab more market share and harm competitors. No different to most corporations, but people seem to think they're a "cool company" or something to be desired. They're not - they just push products, like any other company. Their products are not really innovative or even original. Aside from the shiny cases, there's really nothing special about Apple. They have plenty of "special" customers though - e.g. the imbeciles who queued overnight to get into a shop...
Slashdot Mirror
Must admit, although I primarily use Firefox or Chome; I have no problems at all with IE. I don't understand why people would "cheer for its demise". IE9 is a good browser, and I'm all for competition. Less competition in any space is generally bad for users, if things swing too far toward one engine we'll be in the same position we were when IE6 was the "standard" and people ended up only bothering to test on that browser. That causes stagnation.
Yeah, basically the rain sensor (BMW) overrides the intermittent timer, so although the controls are there for it, they don't actually do anything if the sensor hasn't enabled the wipers. Afterwards I found out that if the sensor's fuse is removed, then the intermittent hardware works again. Wish I'd known!
Not only that, but some parts are pretty much guaranteed to fail after X years, and be very expensive to replace. Example on my car the passenger side central locking was working only sporadically. Wasn't the solenoid; turned out to be the controller module, so cost over £500 to replace to fix the problem. Also, rain sensor on the windscreen - notorious for failing at around 4-5 years, requires a complete new windscreen + sensor module as they're bonded together. You might wonder why bother, but if that is not working, you either have to have the wipers full-on, or off; there's no intermittent setting, which quickly becomes very annoying.
Yup, if you're arguing that "Steam DRM is easy to hack, so Steam are the good guys" - then why bother even paying anything? You're already on the path, so you might as well just torrent the game for free.
Agreed. My actual point was that Steam's (and Apple's) restrictions are the same as Sony and MS are proposing. The price is actually irrelevant. I don't usually read AC posts (as they're often posters trying to reinforce their own arguments) so have no idea what they said, but the other stuff posted would be irrelevant, even if it weren't illogical. Attacking me for posting actual prices from the Steam store with some ridiculous argument that the prices would go down some day, so it's impossible that they sell for that. Or "I buy games for $10, so all games are $10". Just... wow...
But hey, this is Slashdot - been here enough years to know how it works by now :)
I don't read AC posts. But whatever it was you wrote, I'm sure it was up to the usual high standards of the anonymous posters :)
Heh, that Borderlands 2 price has honestly changed since I posted that comment! I wouldn't have posted that price if it wasn't correct at the time - weird. Anyway, anyone can see the current prices of CURRENT games on the store. You know you can also buy discounted games on the console stores right, or buy them for next to nothing when they're past their prime?
It's totally irrelevant anyway. Whether you're having a £15 game locked to your account, a £30 game, or a £1 game, it's the same restriction. What my point was, before the excuses came raining down, was that Steam are using the same type of restrictions for their customers, and have been doing so for some time now - this is a fact, not an opinion. People who have been purchasing games from Steam, with full knowledge of this have no right to rage about Sony and MS doing the exact same thing. If anything, the people paying Steam, and supporting its sales model have encouraged other companies to do the same, as they can see it's been successful.
"You must be a lot of fun at parties."
And there we have the first personal attack.
Not interested in a school-yard name calling match. Goodbye.
Forgot to add, Apple have also been doing this since their store opened. Have you ever tried to give away an Apple store game/app? Or sell an old Apple PC with OSX on it that you upgraded from the store? You can't, as it's locked to your account. It's almost worse with OSX, because you're likely selling the old Mac for a new one which will have the same OSX version on it anyway, making your old purchase totally useless, unlike a game which you could at least continue to play.
You didn't add the caveat "old games are sub $10", you just stated that steam games are sub $10. This is demonstrably incorrect. You might as well say "Ford cars are better than BMWs because they cost under $100", and not mention the fact you're talking about some 20 year old junker (mandatory car analogy completed!)
I tend to buy current titles, and I'd bet that's where the vast majority of game companies (and Steam's) revenues come from. Whether you do or not is totally irrelevant - the fact is, Steam sell the latest games for £30 or more, and prevent resale, or gifting after the game is used. Yes, I could only buy old stuff from 2011 to play on PC, but then I could also buy old "bargain bucket" games for the console too. The fact is that what Sony and MS are proposing to do is almost EXACTLY the same as what Steam have been doing for ages. I'm sure that eventually someone will find a way around the copy protection with the consoles, as they have with every prior generation.
With all this said, I'm a PC gamer, not a console gamer (though I've owned most consoles) but I don't kid myself that Steam are any better than any other company out there. They exist to make money; they're not your friend, or anyone elses. Everything a big company does, it does to increase its profits. There's no moral compass involved.
I can't understand why anyone would buy a console at the moment (prior to the next generation units becoming available). Even the bargain basement PCs will offer a better gaming experience than an old PS3 or XBox. When you consider how old those systems are, and the fact their tech wasn't exactly cutting edge even when they were launched, they're an incredibly bad buy.
Some people somehow think that consoles are a cheaper option than buying a gaming PC, that they have to upgrade. The fact is that console owners will (in general) pay more for their games, which more than offsets the initial saving. Added to that, a gaming PC will offer superior graphics, gameplay and sound, and probably won't need upgrading for almost the entire lifespan of a console. Of course, people DO upgrade PCs though; not through necessity, but because they have the option to. A console owner doesn't have that option - they're stuck with what they bought. It's as crazy as if a computer manufacturer started soldering their units shut so they couldn't ever be upgraded. None of them would ever do that though... heh.
"No, because the steam games are sub $10."
I'm on the UK Steam store right now, and unless the US version has a totally different pricing structure, all current titles are way over "$10".
Borderlands 2 = £29.99 ($47.11)
Call of Duty Black Ops 2 = £34.99 ($54.97)
Devil May Cry = £29.99 ($47.11)
So basically you're lying, and I'm surprised your comment has been flagged insightful. Not only that, but trying to justify Steam's system because you can get around it by criminal means (in the eyes of the games companies) is ridiculous.
What sort of MB are you using that's loaded with DDR4?
Mac users are used to getting shafted. That's the biggest difference.
Why on earth do people cripple their own gameplay by using a gamepad with a PC? Unless you're playing a terrible console port that's unusable with a keyboard+mouse, it's like playing with one hand tied behind your back, and the other hand in an oven glove. Just ridiculous.
I'm not saying external peripherals cannot be used with mobile devices (a lot of my work involves building custom hardware to interface with Android devices), I was remarking on the ridiculousness of his argument. I.e. he's been playing for "years" yet seems unaware of the controller options, thus assumes that tilting a tablet is the best way to control a driving game...
I find it hilarious reading through the comments of people proclaiming that tablet gaming could never be as good because of some control issue, when it is clear these people have never actually played many good tablet games. I've been an avid gamer for decades and played numerous racing games, and a few of the tablet racing games have the best controls I've ever used. Buttons and tiny joysticks are just REALLY hard to use to steer a (simulated) car, whereas full screen tilt is awesome once you get a little practice. The good racing games even keep the horizon level while you turn the tablet.
You know what's even more intuitive for steering a car in a driving game? A steering wheel. If only someone sold such things to plug into consoles and PCs...
Arguing that PC games give players too many configuration options (even if they choose to use them) is ridiculous.
The problem is that players have to use them. In general, PC game controllers present their face buttons in an unpredictable order. So unless your controller happens to bean Xbox 360 game controller and the game you are playing happens to use "XInput" (specific support for Xbox 360 controllers under Windows), you have to go through at least some sort of configuration form before the computer knows which button to use for jump, attack, switch weapon, and pause.
??? What commercial game have you played from the last 10 years that required that kind of configuration? The standard keybindings are very well known now. WASD+mouse to move about, [space] (usually) to jump, numeric keys to change weapons, etc. There will always be defaults. Just like most games now will automatically choose the graphic settings during the first launch. Of course these can all be overridden if desired, just like consoles allow the player to change the key bindings (as I recall). Of course there's little point in allow graphics options on a console - it's pretty much doing what it can.
Since when is choice a bad thing?
Since researchers discovered that people freeze up when they see too many choices. From this page:
This is a completely different use case. This is someone's first exposure to an unfamiliar UI. I don't "freeze up" every time I launch a game because there are graphic options somewhere under a settings menu. The same way I don't "freeze up" when I open my wardrobe and choose a shirt and tie. your type of thinking lead Apple to the 1-button mouse.
Here's one: http://www.rahulsood.com/2010/07/console-gamers-get-killed-against-pc.html It's the reason PC and console players are segregated - it should be easy-ish for MS to allow the Xbox live service to handle games running on the 2 platforms, but they won't do it as it'll cost them sales in Xboxes. Nobody would want to play on Xbox if they're getting humiliated all the time by PC gamers ;-)
Looks like I forgot to add the quote tags in a few times - heh!
Nobody wants or cares about the ability to plunk down $500 on 3 more fps.
Of course they do - the person who bought the hardware to get a better gaming experience. I've spent a lot of money on my gaming rig, and believe me the gaming experience is WAY above anything a console can deliver. While your console is struggling along at 1024x720@30fps, I'm playing the same game at 6014x1200@{whatever the pegged fps is} with much more detail, more effects, and higher quality sound. You might as well argue that everyone should just buy the cheapest, shittiest car they can find because it'll crawl up to the speed limit, so why do you need anything better?
They'd rather everyone was the same anyways.
Slow loading times haven't been a problem since playstation 1 days.
Please tell me you're joking. Have you compared the speed of a PC loading a game from an SSD RAID / RAM disk, to a PS3/Xbox grinding away with an old optical disk, and so little RAM it can't cache anything worth a damn? I DO also own an PS3, I hadn't used it for anything much except playing BlueRay disks for over 2 years (it's now been replaced by a dedicated BR player) The last time I tried a game in it, I honestly thought it had frozen each time it tried to load a new level. On my gaming rig, there's no waiting - ever. Last game I can compare between PC and console was Skyrim. On the console there were huge delays while loading - on PC, there was nowhere near enough time to read anything on the "did you know" type screen before the level loaded. If you haven't noticed the HUGE difference here, you obviously haven;'t played a game on a proper gaming PC in a few years.
Games are only expensive if you buy the expensive ones, and most of those titles cost the same on PC.
So you mean if you buy any current games they're expensive on console? That's about right. PC games are cheaper on Steam. Check it yourself.
Console updates happen by pressing "ok". Easy enough for kids, no headaches for adults.
Last time I tried, this is how it went:
Insert game - "Your system needs a software update, please exit the game and update..."
Exit game, scroll across to the "System" tab, navigate up (for some reason the software update is above all the other options), choose "Software update"
"Checking..." (finally) "A software update was found, would you like to install?"
Press Yes, "Please accept these new terms and conditions", click through
"Would you like the system to shut down after updating", press Yes.
(update takes 20 minutes)
On PC? Updates happen in the background, automatically install as the machine is shut down.
Which is easier?
Good customization and mods come back as new titles. The rest is largely garbage, and the difference is negligible. Meanwhile, most people just don't care.
Please provide any evidence of this. Or is it just something you made up while writing this reply? Maybe you're just not aeware of the modding communities for a lot of current games. Or you have no choice because you're stuck with a 7 year old piece of locked down tech that's incapable of handling this content.
Nobody wants to play with keyboard, mice, 10,000 buttons and macros. They want to lay on the living room floor or sit on the couch with a controller.
Sorry, how old are you? 12? Keyboards don't have "10,000 buttons". People (well, adults) don't necessarily want to lay on the floor to play games. Personally I like playing my games at v.high resolution, every visual effect enabled, surround sound, instant load times and no screaming little XBox brats in my ears. It's worth the cost. The fact you keep stating absolutes ("Nobody does this, nobody does that") suggests you're a child living in his own little bubble, peobably without the means to have a choice of gaming platform. You're therefore arguing from a position of ignorance.
The fact is that the keyboard+mouse is the better control system for FPS'. H
For FPS' - let's face it, the vast majority of console games - the mouse+keyboard is the superior control mechanism. This has been proven countless times, notably when Microsoft stages an event pitting Xbox "pro" players against PC players. The PC players decimated the Xbox players. It was a major embarrassment for MS (and the players I guess) and nstrumental is MS' decision to keep the XBox and PC player base segregated.
Consoles are a bad deal all around: Outdated hardware - years behind PCs, low resolution, excessively slow loading times, expensive games, lack of customisation and custom mods. Consoles need software updates at least as often as PCs, so that's a wash. Arguing that PC games give players too many configuration options (even if they choose to use them) is ridiculous. Since when it choice a bad thing? Unless you're Apple, I guess.
This is a technology for sharing that's patented so it can't be... shared... er...
I wouldn't call a map app with less features, less accuracy and more outright errors "innovation" either.
As always with Apple, their customers are just regarded as collateral damage as they attempt to grab more market share and harm competitors. No different to most corporations, but people seem to think they're a "cool company" or something to be desired. They're not - they just push products, like any other company. Their products are not really innovative or even original. Aside from the shiny cases, there's really nothing special about Apple. They have plenty of "special" customers though - e.g. the imbeciles who queued overnight to get into a shop...
How exactly does this reinforce his case?
"Worldwide Mobile Device Sales to End Users by Vendor in 2Q12 (Thousands of Units)
Samsung 90,432.1
Apple 28,935.0"