I'm glad that you are not the judge. And perhaps you should do a little more homework on Apple's patent filings before saying that they don't deliver fundamentally new technology.
Not enough time to respond to everything. But let's stay on topic
Here is a quote from Apple's 2009 10K filing:
"The Company’s research and development expenditures totaled $1.3 billion, $1.1 billion and $782 million in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively."
I guess that a few billion does not quality as research in academic circles, but it does for us corporate types. It would seem that your anecdotal approach to measuring Apple's R&D expenditures is a little offby numerous orders of magnitude.
Evidence would be nice in an accusation. Also, I guess he is saying that Apple does not "spend massive amounts of money to research" and is not responsible for shaking up the mobile phone market and giving more power to the consumer.
Interesting take.
BTWI do not own stock in either. But one-sided comments like that with no substantiation and much evidence available to the contrary makes the position ludicrous.
People did have *that* attitude when the mouse was introduced. You should do a little searching around for comments and comics on the subject. Apple was the but of a lot of cubicle jokes from the IBMer crowd over that.
Don't give up your day jobcomedy is not your forte. And, for your sake, I hope your day job isn't Android application coding. Not much money there either. In the future, there will be. But not today.
My points stand. The applications have to multi-task to receive the message passed to them. Both user experience and developer points are valid. As a user, if I have to look for that golden combination of hardware and software, then I'm on a hunt that could be a waste of time. Today, going with the iPhone, I just buy the new one, and I know that any software written for it will do the job it was written to do.
Seems you tried to stick a square peg in a round hole.;-)
Wrong again. I'm fully aware of the multi-tasking issue. However, you are the one asking the wrong question.
The right question is, "Does the platform enable me to be more productive?" So far, the iPhone is better, for me. As I said earlier, maybe tomorrow the iPhone will not be the answer. Today it is.
As to fragmenting, you are the one that is ignorant or caught up in religious zeal that is blinding you. When a developer has to look as hardware that is widely different, with very different capabilities, and features sets and that situation is growing quickly with each new hardware maker and generation from the same hardware makers, then, yes, there is fragmentation–from the developers perspective that is. Which platform/os version combination do they write their application for? Hmmmm
Back to multi-tasking
Yep, I can tell there is no way for iPhone application developers to compete. I can see them losing daily in the marketplacenot. Speeds and Feeds are for geeks who enjoy those things like a baseball fanatic enjoys season stats. I'm glad you find enjoyment in that.
As for me, I find enjoyment in products that work, for me. If the applications are starting and quitting so fast that I cannot tell it is not multi-tasking, then, from a user perspective, what do I care. Oh, and if information is being pushed to me in the background (wait, it can't do that without multi-taksing right?darn, guess that blows your multi-tasking plank) what do I care if the application is not up and fully running and blowing through batteries like a couch geek blows through porn sites.
Bottom line. You do not know me nor do you know what I know about the various OS/hardware options. Considering who I deal with on a daily basis (and you don't know that), I would say I am probably more informed than 98% of the population including those here on/.
I'm not saying I know more than youI don't know you. But it is hubris to call me ignorant when you are, in fact, ignorant about me and what I know.
I'm not ignorant of Android and I still prefer the iPhone. In fact, my experience with Android (and its now fragmenting market) is why I prefer the iPhone. So, your theory has holes.
Are there Android apps that are better than iPhone apps? That is a matter of opinion. Will there be an Android/[pick your hardware] combination that I will like better than the iPhone in the futuremaybe. I'll judge each on its merits as they are released (and as I do now).
Thank you. I was just ready to post the same thing. No one has confirmed the rumor. It is still just rumor and has been for over ten years. I hope that Apple does produce something in the tablet sized form factor. It just has not happened yet. Maybe next month that will change, but there is no confirmed rumor.
On a different note, people keep making the same mistake when they compare things to Apple. "This tablet should give Apple a run for their money," says the poster. Really? Why do some people (especially geeks and Steve Ballmer) only compare hardware checklists when comparing to Apple? Apple products are more then just specs. It is the entire user experience. Remember all of those announced "iPod killers"? Wellwhere are they now? Right. Buried along with their technical specification sheets.
For a/.er, you are missing a big point. Math. How do you suppose that there is "No concievable missile shield could shoot down any significant number of incoming missiles."? Do you mean to tell me that there is limit to the number or capability to the number of anti-missle [insert energy weapon of choice here]? If another country (I tire of Russia always being the chosen enemy when there are many other possibilities to choose from) were to build X missiles with Y number of MIRV's, that we couldn't/wouldn't build Z number of anti-missle devices or improve the ones we build to handle the additional load? Since when was an arms race made impossible?
As to terrorists getting their hands on a missile, that's not really much of a problem – and a math one, at that, too. It is just a matter of money. And there are countries that have few problems selling missiles (even ICBMs) to others – in the guise of another country or not.
Besides, building rockets that can be an ICBM is something that is becoming common. Even New Zealand has entered the space business (no disrespect to that fine country). It does not take a huge amount of money to build rockets these days. Yes, there are challenges to do this and mount a nuclear weapon to it, but it is not impossible. To assume so, is folly. It is like assuming that your computer is impervious to attacks (no matter what it is ).
I hear lots of complaints from developers and wanna-be developers, but I don't hear anyone complaining about security breaches, viruses, spyware, and malware in general on the iPhone - basically an OS X computer. Obviously the first reason is because it is OS X not Windows (any flavor). But the second reason is that Apple is watching for it. While I am not a fan of the opaque approval process (it is getting better), I greatly enjoy knowing that there is less likelihood of my mobile being taken down by some crafty coding. I depend on the device. I try different software to see if it will help me in my life and work. That means trying things from people I don't know. That means taking a risk with my device up-time and my data. So I'm glad that Apple is running as the front-end security. Maybe you are not. Maybe you (whoever is reading this) posting here complaining that Apple won't let you do whatever you want are one of the developers trying to create crafty code to get my data. I hope you keep complaining and Apple keeps guarding the gate(s).
First, neither I, nor the poster that originally responded to you made the claim that Apple was number one. What he did was correctly state that there are numerous studies that show Apple to be number one in reliability and customer support by numerous organizations. And, he even posted some of the links.
You posted one link with a specific study to just laptops from an organization I've never heard of (but it might be a great one) that showed Apple at number two, not the number three you claimed. So your attention to accurate facts and your lack of concern for accuracy (and the follow-up comment seems to support) diminish your comments value. Since you don't care about accuracy your accuracy and thus your comments are dubious.
But I thank you for the one link that showed Apple not being number one, one time, in a limited study. It does support your claim that Apple is not necessarily number one.
I've used this stuff. It works. There may be better tools, but I would use these as the base set and compare other tools to these. If they do better at something you need, get them. Otherwise, stick with these.
BTW...contrary to one post I read on here, Apple Remote Desktop is NOT something you have to purchase a license for every user. As is typical with Apple, you purchase one unlimited license for each admin that is using it. Not for every user. Soâ¦if you are the only admin for this 1,000 machine rollout, you would only purchase one ARD license.
You should read your own source a bit better. While not number 1 in this study (first I've seen in a long time that Apple did not come in number1...btw), they came in number 2. Not the third place you state in our original post.
Here is the first paragraph and sentence for the link you provided:
"Asus laptops were the most reliable notebook computers during Q2, US repair specialist has claimed. Apple came second, Lenovo third."
BTW...I agree with your assertion just before that statement. Mac are not immune to malware or spyware. But getting it onto the system is the challenge and has not yet been done with any large success. However, what virus, in the wild, are you talking about?
â¦not that Apple has already released a patch. Rather the deafening sound of silence from the Apple detractors with the release of the patch. 30 minutes after this has been posted, it hasn't even been modded up as informative. Wow.
Mostly agreedâ"at least to the workings. However, I would not attribute this to bureaucracy, but rather to finance. I don't think anyone wants to be financially liable for anything that they cannot control the cost on.
The BMW thing does make sense. The time used in replacing your burned out bulb is paid for by BMW on the original lights. It is a light that BMW has confidence in and they know the reliability of the bulbs and thus can reliably predict a cost to themselves. The aftermarket stuff is not approved by them, they know nothing about it, its problems, the cost of the bulbs, or life expectancy. They will not pay for it because they cannot reliably determine what their liability will be.
This is similar to web developers who will guarantee their work and/or provide some sort of fixed fee structure to maintain a site that they build provided the code is only modified by them and no others. Once another developer starts altering code, their confidence on what is going on drops dramatically and they can no longer reliably predict what their time liability will be and thus their own cost to work on the code. They'll then switch to an hourly charge to fix/maintain the code. Makes sense to me.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad that you are not the judge. And perhaps you should do a little more homework on Apple's patent filings before saying that they don't deliver fundamentally new technology.
Time will tell who has to pay, if anyone.
Not enough time to respond to everything. But let's stay on topic
Here is a quote from Apple's 2009 10K filing:
"The Company’s research and development expenditures totaled $1.3 billion, $1.1 billion and $782 million in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively."
I guess that a few billion does not quality as research in academic circles, but it does for us corporate types. It would seem that your anecdotal approach to measuring Apple's R&D expenditures is a little offby numerous orders of magnitude.
Ummmthat was a little used name for a dead product and Cisco happily sold Apple the rights to use the name. How is that playing dirty?
Evidence would be nice in an accusation. Also, I guess he is saying that Apple does not "spend massive amounts of money to research" and is not responsible for shaking up the mobile phone market and giving more power to the consumer.
Interesting take.
BTWI do not own stock in either. But one-sided comments like that with no substantiation and much evidence available to the contrary makes the position ludicrous.
Soyou are saying Apple does have a history as a patent troll and should not be trusted?
People did have *that* attitude when the mouse was introduced. You should do a little searching around for comments and comics on the subject. Apple was the but of a lot of cubicle jokes from the IBMer crowd over that.
Don't give up your day jobcomedy is not your forte. And, for your sake, I hope your day job isn't Android application coding. Not much money there either. In the future, there will be. But not today.
My points stand. The applications have to multi-task to receive the message passed to them. Both user experience and developer points are valid. As a user, if I have to look for that golden combination of hardware and software, then I'm on a hunt that could be a waste of time. Today, going with the iPhone, I just buy the new one, and I know that any software written for it will do the job it was written to do.
Seems you tried to stick a square peg in a round hole. ;-)
Wrong again. I'm fully aware of the multi-tasking issue. However, you are the one asking the wrong question.
The right question is, "Does the platform enable me to be more productive?" So far, the iPhone is better, for me. As I said earlier, maybe tomorrow the iPhone will not be the answer. Today it is.
As to fragmenting, you are the one that is ignorant or caught up in religious zeal that is blinding you. When a developer has to look as hardware that is widely different, with very different capabilities, and features sets and that situation is growing quickly with each new hardware maker and generation from the same hardware makers, then, yes, there is fragmentation–from the developers perspective that is. Which platform/os version combination do they write their application for? Hmmmm
Back to multi-tasking
Yep, I can tell there is no way for iPhone application developers to compete. I can see them losing daily in the marketplacenot. Speeds and Feeds are for geeks who enjoy those things like a baseball fanatic enjoys season stats. I'm glad you find enjoyment in that.
As for me, I find enjoyment in products that work, for me. If the applications are starting and quitting so fast that I cannot tell it is not multi-tasking, then, from a user perspective, what do I care. Oh, and if information is being pushed to me in the background (wait, it can't do that without multi-taksing right?darn, guess that blows your multi-tasking plank) what do I care if the application is not up and fully running and blowing through batteries like a couch geek blows through porn sites.
Bottom line. You do not know me nor do you know what I know about the various OS/hardware options. Considering who I deal with on a daily basis (and you don't know that), I would say I am probably more informed than 98% of the population including those here on /.
I'm not saying I know more than youI don't know you. But it is hubris to call me ignorant when you are, in fact, ignorant about me and what I know.
I'm not ignorant of Android and I still prefer the iPhone. In fact, my experience with Android (and its now fragmenting market) is why I prefer the iPhone. So, your theory has holes.
Are there Android apps that are better than iPhone apps? That is a matter of opinion. Will there be an Android/[pick your hardware] combination that I will like better than the iPhone in the futuremaybe. I'll judge each on its merits as they are released (and as I do now).
Thank you. I was just ready to post the same thing. No one has confirmed the rumor. It is still just rumor and has been for over ten years. I hope that Apple does produce something in the tablet sized form factor. It just has not happened yet. Maybe next month that will change, but there is no confirmed rumor.
On a different note, people keep making the same mistake when they compare things to Apple. "This tablet should give Apple a run for their money," says the poster. Really? Why do some people (especially geeks and Steve Ballmer) only compare hardware checklists when comparing to Apple? Apple products are more then just specs. It is the entire user experience. Remember all of those announced "iPod killers"? Wellwhere are they now? Right. Buried along with their technical specification sheets.
For a /.er, you are missing a big point. Math. How do you suppose that there is "No concievable missile shield could shoot down any significant number of incoming missiles."? Do you mean to tell me that there is limit to the number or capability to the number of anti-missle [insert energy weapon of choice here]? If another country (I tire of Russia always being the chosen enemy when there are many other possibilities to choose from) were to build X missiles with Y number of MIRV's, that we couldn't/wouldn't build Z number of anti-missle devices or improve the ones we build to handle the additional load? Since when was an arms race made impossible?
As to terrorists getting their hands on a missile, that's not really much of a problem – and a math one, at that, too. It is just a matter of money. And there are countries that have few problems selling missiles (even ICBMs) to others – in the guise of another country or not.
Besides, building rockets that can be an ICBM is something that is becoming common. Even New Zealand has entered the space business (no disrespect to that fine country). It does not take a huge amount of money to build rockets these days. Yes, there are challenges to do this and mount a nuclear weapon to it, but it is not impossible. To assume so, is folly. It is like assuming that your computer is impervious to attacks (no matter what it is ).
I hear lots of complaints from developers and wanna-be developers, but I don't hear anyone complaining about security breaches, viruses, spyware, and malware in general on the iPhone - basically an OS X computer. Obviously the first reason is because it is OS X not Windows (any flavor). But the second reason is that Apple is watching for it. While I am not a fan of the opaque approval process (it is getting better), I greatly enjoy knowing that there is less likelihood of my mobile being taken down by some crafty coding. I depend on the device. I try different software to see if it will help me in my life and work. That means trying things from people I don't know. That means taking a risk with my device up-time and my data. So I'm glad that Apple is running as the front-end security. Maybe you are not. Maybe you (whoever is reading this) posting here complaining that Apple won't let you do whatever you want are one of the developers trying to create crafty code to get my data. I hope you keep complaining and Apple keeps guarding the gate(s).
First, neither I, nor the poster that originally responded to you made the claim that Apple was number one. What he did was correctly state that there are numerous studies that show Apple to be number one in reliability and customer support by numerous organizations. And, he even posted some of the links.
You posted one link with a specific study to just laptops from an organization I've never heard of (but it might be a great one) that showed Apple at number two, not the number three you claimed. So your attention to accurate facts and your lack of concern for accuracy (and the follow-up comment seems to support) diminish your comments value. Since you don't care about accuracy your accuracy and thus your comments are dubious.
But I thank you for the one link that showed Apple not being number one, one time, in a limited study. It does support your claim that Apple is not necessarily number one.
A link or two from Apple in support of this post (wish I had mod points left) and supporting some of the other posts above:
OS X Server 10.6 Client Management: http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/features/client-management.html
OX X Server 10.6 Open Directory: http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/technology/open-directory.html
Apple Remote Desktop: http://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/
I've used this stuff. It works. There may be better tools, but I would use these as the base set and compare other tools to these. If they do better at something you need, get them. Otherwise, stick with these.
BTW...contrary to one post I read on here, Apple Remote Desktop is NOT something you have to purchase a license for every user. As is typical with Apple, you purchase one unlimited license for each admin that is using it. Not for every user. Soâ¦if you are the only admin for this 1,000 machine rollout, you would only purchase one ARD license.
You should read your own source a bit better. While not number 1 in this study (first I've seen in a long time that Apple did not come in number1...btw), they came in number 2. Not the third place you state in our original post.
Here is the first paragraph and sentence for the link you provided:
"Asus laptops were the most reliable notebook computers during Q2, US repair specialist has claimed. Apple came second, Lenovo third."
there are some viruses out there.
Ummmâ¦what viruses?
BTW...I agree with your assertion just before that statement. Mac are not immune to malware or spyware. But getting it onto the system is the challenge and has not yet been done with any large success. However, what virus, in the wild, are you talking about?
(while not always as nice looking, other platforms don't have these limitations)
...nor number of potential customers ...nor number of developers ...nor number of released applications ...nor stability ...nor success
Wow. Apple is certainly very far behind. A few days.
â¦not that Apple has already released a patch. Rather the deafening sound of silence from the Apple detractors with the release of the patch. 30 minutes after this has been posted, it hasn't even been modded up as informative. Wow.
Mostly agreedâ"at least to the workings. However, I would not attribute this to bureaucracy, but rather to finance. I don't think anyone wants to be financially liable for anything that they cannot control the cost on.
The BMW thing does make sense. The time used in replacing your burned out bulb is paid for by BMW on the original lights. It is a light that BMW has confidence in and they know the reliability of the bulbs and thus can reliably predict a cost to themselves. The aftermarket stuff is not approved by them, they know nothing about it, its problems, the cost of the bulbs, or life expectancy. They will not pay for it because they cannot reliably determine what their liability will be.
This is similar to web developers who will guarantee their work and/or provide some sort of fixed fee structure to maintain a site that they build provided the code is only modified by them and no others. Once another developer starts altering code, their confidence on what is going on drops dramatically and they can no longer reliably predict what their time liability will be and thus their own cost to work on the code. They'll then switch to an hourly charge to fix/maintain the code. Makes sense to me.
Lacrosse is more fun than hockey.
Excellent point and response!
What is "ASP.NET"?