Apple is regarded by its supporters to be an innovative and forwardlooking company. They claim Apple innovated most things from the GUI to Desktop publishing. Almost always the supporters make the innovation claims with restrictions like "in the field of personal computing", "over the entire product line", "affordable solution" and "as a standard feature". They also like to blur your vision when equaling "popularized" and "introducing" with "inventing". Apple supporters always maximizes the importance of Apples involvment in an innovation (even if it's very slim) and at the same time downplay any other companies involvement.
Case in point "USB": When the supporters speak about how innovative Apple is they talk about how iMac was the first computer utilizing USB. This is arguable, but if you tell them they counterattack with something like "over the entire product line". And now they are correct. In reality Apple had absolutely nothing to do with the technical creation of USB. Intel invented USB as an answer to Apples pay-per-port licencing of firewire. Apple was one of the first companies to use USB but strictly (or not so strictly) speaking that isn't innovation. They just used an of the shelf product that where innovated for the PC market.
The same can be said for a lot of products Apple supporters claim Apple innvented, of course with "additional restrictions" (see above). Some of these innovations are: Audio, SCSI, Ethernet, long file names and Floppy drives. In reality Apple innvovated none of those products.
A nice page for looking at these "innovations" is an older wikipedia page describing the Macintosh on which of course Mac users gone totaly mad in describing the Macintosh as a very innovative platform. Almost all of claimed innovations are in fact just off the shelf products licenced from other companies or already old products used in a slightly different manner by Apple. The wikipedia page has since been revised and is now more in line with what Macintosh actually brought to the table of computing.
It is however true that Apple are fast at picking up new technologies invented outside Apple and as a result the Macintosh is a faster evolving platform than the PC. This is a design decision made by Apple to keep the Macintosh computer intressting and "fresh". This however has some lowdowns. Every five year or so the Macintosh developers and users have to adapt to a completely new platform or a new operation system (68k->PPC, legacy MacOs->OS X, PPC->x86, soon x86->x86-64). In the PC world this would be suicide, too much money are tied up in legacy technologies. Macintosh are mostly used by home users and small companies who don't need a homogen environment, or have so few computers and programs they can invest in new technology every so often. The PC platform is used by everybody, small and large. It would be almost impossible to "twist and turn" the Apple way. Intel tried to introduce Itanuium for 64bit computing but in the end had to back down to a backward compatible x86 sollution.
Conclussion: All in all, when the dust has settled. After decades of innovation and jumping beetween CPU families and platforms the Macintosh has transformed to nothing less than an ordinary PC, at least in hardware and mostly in software. Linux x86 booted within a month of the x86 Macintosh release using the standard EFI bootloader and Gentoo Linux distribution. Windows vista will probably boot out of the box on the Macintosh without Microsoft putting any effort in testing on the platform. On all important fronts the innovation by Apple has been nothing short of a straight copy of the PC platform. On the software side half of Apples operating system is also of the shelf available parts from different open source projects. Modern Ma
Apple is regarded by its supporters to be an innovative and forwardlooking company. They claim Apple innovated most things from the GUI to having popularized the USB port. Almost always the supporters make the innovation claims with restrictions like "in the field of personal computing", "over the entire product line", "affordable solution" and "as a standard feature". They also like to blur the vision when equaling "popularized" and "introducing" with "inventing". Apple supporters always maximizes the importance of Apples involvment in an innovation (even if it's very slim) and at the same time downplay any other companies involvement.
Case in point "USB": When the supporters speak about how innovative Apple is they talk about how Apple popularized USB. In reality Apple had absolutely nothing to do with the technical creation of USB. Intel invented USB as an answer to Apples pay-per-port licencing of firewire. Apple was one of the first companies to use USB but strictly (or not so strictly) speaking that isn't innovation. They just used an ff the shelf product that where innovated for the PC market.
The same can be said for a lot of products Apple supporters claim Apple innvented, of course with "additional restrictions" (see above). Some of these innovations are: Audio, SCSI, Ethernet, long file names and Floppy drives. In reality Apple innvovated none of those products.
A nice page for looking at these "innovations" is an older wikipedia page describing the Macintosh on which of course Mac users gone totaly mad in describing the Macintosh as a very innovative platform. Almost all of claimed innovations are in fact just off the shelf products licenced from other companies or already old products used in a slightly different manner by Apple. The wikipedia page has since been revised and is now more in line with what Macintosh actually brought to the table of computing.
It is however true that Apple are fast at picking up new technologies invented outside Apple and as a result the Macintosh is a faster evolving platform than the PC. This is a design decision made by Apple to keep the Macintosh computer intressting and "fresh". This however has some lowdowns. Every five year or so the Macintosh developers and users have to adapt to a completely new platform or a new operation system (68k->PPC, legacy MacOs->OS X, PPC->x86, soon x86->x86-64). In the PC world this would be suicide, too much money are tied up in legacy technologies. Macintosh are mostly used by home users and small companies who don't need a homogen environment, or have so few computers and programs they can invest in new technology every so often. The PC platform is used by everybody, small and large. It would be almost impoosible to "twist and turn" the Apple way. Intel tried to introduce Itanuium for 64bit computing but in the end had to back down to a backward compatible x86 sollution.
All in all, when the dust has settled. After decades of innovation and jumping beetween CPU families the Macintosh has transformed to nothing less than an ordinary PC, at least in hardware. Linux x86 booted within a month of the x86 Macintosh release using the standard EFI bootloader and Gentoo Linux distribution. It's also probable Windows vista will boot out of the box on the Macintosh without Microsoft putting any effort in testing on the platform. On all important fronts the innovation by Apple has been nothing short of a straight copy of the PC platform. On the software side half of Apples operating system is also of the shelf available parts from different open source projects. That isn't innovation.
The PC platform have already gone x86-64 (Linux is already fully functional both as a server and desktop) and it's a good bet Apple will soon copy this too.
I learned early on never to take advice from an Apple user, they just make arguments for Apples current product line adjusting them as Apple changes directions. I'm going to present some of the most mindbaffling arguments from the Apple community that you may check with other sources and find out they are pretty much right on.
Apple products and Apple users arguments:
The Newton, try to convince the Apple user this never was a very good PDA and by todays standard is totaly "out there", 8" x 5" x 1" inches and about a pound without batteries, for reference a palm is about 5" x 3" x 0.3" and about 0.3 pounds. The newton is still by many Apple users the PDA to have. Now ask the same Apple user why the iPod is much better then a Creative Zen. The Zen is to heavy, by 0.1 pounds.
The time around 2000 when Apple users where still making arguments for cooperative multitasking which to the rest of the industry was pathetic and laughable. As Mac OS late but surely got preemptive multitasking by copying it from FreeBSD the Apple users finaly could lay the cooperative multitasking argument to rest. Not because preemptive was better (which it of course are) but because they had it too.
The early stages of OS X (which really where an open beta), slow kernel, slow UI and not even easy to use. To the Apple users was of course the best thing. In reality it was so bad Apple don't even offer security patches for those machines even though they are just a few years old.
The G4 cube. A bastardised computer, impossible to use. You needed to stand up to load a cd in the tray (top loaded). You had to turn the computer upside down to connect peripherals (all connectors was at the bottom of the case?!?). It had heat troubles taking down most of them. Of course by the Apple user touted as a marvelous piece of equipment and even today by many Apple users seen as the height of Apple design and innovation.
The Mac Mini, we haven't seen the last of this yet I'm afraid. Of course by the Mac users seen as the future of Macs. Reality: Apple are in 2005 selling computers with 1.25ghz CPU and 4200RPM drive for $499, this excludes keyboard mouse and monitor and includes not even enough RAM to run the included operating system. If you could buy a similar spec PC (which you can't because there are no that slow) you would get at least keyboard, mouse and monitor. It will probably not take long before a hoard of not very happy Mac mini users put these to rest when they find out you can't even run todays software reasonably on a new computer, and tommorows will be next to impossible. The argument from the Mac crowd is that if you buy a Mac mini to play games you are stupid. Is there any other software for the Mac mini I must be stupid to try running?
Unix, first let me explain that OS X is not a certified Unix. Unix is a trademark hold by Open Group and Apple is using the trademark without permission. Certified Unixes includes Solaris, True 64 HP-UX and other Big leage names. To an Apple user Unix has always been something weird and strange and generaly bad, the usual "not invented by Apple syndrome". Now the Apple user tells you he has a Unix too and Unix by now is the greatest thing thing sliced bread. A real life story was the Apple user who told me "All modern science is based on Unix", that tells you how much the typical Mac user knows what is under the hood of their computer. They tell you Apple is the largest supplier of Unix world wide. Of course OS X doesn't even remotely classifies as Unix and recent test has shown it is at least 10 times slower then Solaris on simple database serving. This of course gives Unix a bad reputation so you can imagine Open Group being more than upset (they have of course sued Apple over infringement). Real Unixes also has 8-10 ye
I learned early on never to take advice from an Apple user, they just make arguments for Apples current product line adjusting them as Apple changes directions. I'm going to present some of the most mindbaffling arguments from the Apple community that you may check with other sources and find out they are pretty much right on.
Apple products and Apple users arguments:
The Newton, try to convince the Apple user this never was a very good PDA and by todays standard is totaly "out there", 8" x 5" x 1" inches and about a pound without batteries, for reference a palm is about 5" x 3" x 0.3" and about 0.3 pounds. The newton is still by many Apple users the PDA to have. Now ask the same Apple user why the iPod is much better then a Creative Zen. The Zen is to heavy, by 0.1 pounds.
The time around 2000 when Apple users where still making arguments for cooperative multitasking which to the rest of the industry was pathetic and laughable. As Mac OS late but surely got preemptive multitasking by copying it from FreeBSD the Apple users finaly could lay the cooperative multitasking argument to rest. Not because preemptive was better (which it of course are) but because they had it too.
The early stages of OS X (which really where an open beta), slow kernel, slow UI and not even easy to use. To the Apple users was of course the best thing. In reality it was so bad Apple don't even offer security patches for those machines even though they are just a few years old.
The G4 cube. A bastardised computer, impossible to use. You needed to stand up to load a cd in the tray (top loaded). You had to turn the computer upside down to connect peripherals (all connectors was at the bottom of the case?!?). It had heat troubles taking down most of them. Of course by the Apple user touted as a marvelous piece of equipment and even today by many Apple users seen as the height of Apple design and innovation.
The Mac Mini, we haven't seen the last of this yet I'm afraid. Of course by the Mac users seen as the future of Macs. Reality: Apple are in 2005 selling computers with 1.25ghz CPU and 4200RPM drive for $499, this excludes keyboard mouse and monitor and includes not even enough RAM to run the included operating system. If you could buy a similar spec PC (which you can't because there are no that slow) you would get at least keyboard, mouse and monitor. It will probably not take long before a hoard of not very happy Mac mini users put these to rest when they find out you can't even run todays software reasonably on a new computer, and tommorows will be next to impossible. The argument from the Mac crowd is that if you buy a Mac mini to play games you are stupid. Is there any other software for the Mac mini I must be stupid to try running?
Unix, first let me explain that OS X is not a certified Unix. Unix is a trademark hold by Open Group and Apple is using the trademark without permission. Certified Unixes includes Solaris, True 64 HP-UX and other Big leage names. To an Apple user Unix has always been something weird and strange and generaly bad, the usual "not invented by Apple syndrome". Now the Apple user tells you he has a Unix too and Unix by now is the greatest thing thing sliced bread. A real life story was the Apple user who told me "All modern science is based on Unix", that tells you how much the typical Mac user knows what is under the hood of their computer. They tell you Apple is the largest supplier of Unix world wide. Of course OS X doesn't even remotely classifies as Unix and recent test has shown it is at least 10 times slower then Solaris on simple database serving. This of course gives Unix a bad reputation so you can imagine Open Group being more than upset (they have of course sued Apple over infringement). Real Unixes also has 8-
I learned early on never to take advice from an Apple user, they just make arguments for Apples current product line adjusting them as Apple changes directions. I'm going to present some of the most mindbaffling arguments from the Apple community that you may check with other sources and find out they are pretty much right on.
Apple products and Apple users arguments:
The Newton, try to convince the Apple user this never was a very good PDA and by todays standard is totaly "out there", 8" x 5" x 1" inches and about a pound without batteries, for reference a palm is about 5" x 3" x 0.3" and about 0.3 pounds. The newton is still by many Apple users the PDA to have. Now ask the same Apple user why the iPod is much better then a Creative Zen. The Zen is to heavy, by 0.1 pounds.
The time around 2000 when Apple users where still making arguments for cooperative multitasking which to the rest of the industry was pathetic and laughable. As Mac OS late but surely got preemptive multitasking by copying it from FreeBSD the Apple users finaly could lay the cooperative multitasking argument to rest. Not because preemptive was better (which it of course are) but because they had it too.
The early stages of OS X (which really where an open beta), slow kernel, slow UI and not even easy to use. To the Apple users was of course the best thing. In reality it was so bad Apple don't even offer security patches for those machines even though they are just a few years old.
The G4 cube. A bastardised computer, impossible to use. You needed to stand up to load a cd in the tray (top loaded). You had to turn the computer upside down to connect peripherals (all connectors was at the bottom of the case?!?). It had heat troubles taking down most of them. Of course by the Apple user touted as a marvelous piece of equipment and even today by many Apple users seen as the height of Apple design and innovation.
The Mac Mini, we haven't seen the last of this yet I'm afraid. Of course by the Mac users seen as the future of Macs. Reality: Apple are in 2005 selling computers with 1.25ghz CPU and 4200RPM drive for $499, this excludes keyboard mouse and monitor and includes not even enough RAM to run the included operating system. If you could buy a similar spec PC (which you can't because there are no that slow) you would get at least keyboard, mouse and monitor. It will probably not take long before a hoard of not very happy Mac mini users put these to rest when they find out you can't even run todays software reasonably on a new computer, and tommorows will be next to impossible. The argument from the Mac crowd is that if you buy a Mac mini to play games you are stupid. Is there any other software for the Mac mini I must be stupid to try running?
Unix, first let me explain that OS X is not a certified Unix. Unix is a trademark hold by Open Group and Apple is using the trademark without permission. Certified Unixes includes Solaris, True 64 HP-UX and other Big leage names. To an Apple user Unix has always been something weird and strange and generaly bad, the usual "not invented by Apple syndrome". Now the Apple user tells you he has a Unix too and Unix by now is the greatest thing thing sliced bread. A real life story was the Apple user who told me "All modern science is based on Unix", that tells you how much the typical Mac user knows what is under the hood of their computer. They tell you Apple is the largest supplier of Unix world wide. Of course OS X doesn't even remotely classifies as Unix and recent test has shown it is at least 10 times slower then Solaris on simple database serving. This of course gives Unix a bad reputation so you can imagine Open Group being more than upset (they have of course sued Apple over infringement). Real Unixes also has 8-
I learned early on never to take advice from an Apple user, they just make arguments for Apples current product line adjusting them as Apple changes directions. I'm going to present some of the most mindbaffling arguments from the Apple community that you may check with other sources and find out they are pretty much right on.
Apple products and Apple users arguments:
The Newton, try to convince the Apple user this never was a very good PDA and by todays standard is totaly "out there", 8" x 5" x 1" inches and about a pound without batteries, for reference a palm is about 5" x 3" x 0.3" and about 0.3 pounds. The newton is still by many Apple users the PDA to have. Now ask the same Apple user why the iPod is much better then a Creative Zen. The Zen is to heavy, by 0.1 pounds.
The time around 2000 when Apple users where still making arguments for cooperative multitasking which to the rest of the industry was pathetic and laughable. Try finding a Mac user argumenting cooperative multitasking today.
The early stages of OS X (which really where an open beta), slow kernel, slow UI and not even easy to use. To the Apple users was of course the best thing. In reality it was so bad Apple don't even offer security patches for those machines even though they are just a few years old.
The G4 cube. A bastardised computer, impossible to use. You needed to stand up to load a cd in the tray (top loaded). You had to turn the computer upside down to connect peripherals (all connectors was at the bottom of the case?!?). It had heat troubles taking down most of them. Of course by the Apple user touted as a marvelous piece of equipment and even today by many Apple users seen as the height of Apple design and innovation.
The Mac Mini, we haven't seen the last of this yet I'm afraid. Of course by the Mac users seen as the future of Macs. Reality: Apple are in 2005 selling computers with 1.25ghz CPU and 4200RPM drive for $499, this excludes keyboard mouse and monitor and includes not even enough RAM to run the included operating system. If you could buy a similar spec PC (which you can't because there are no that slow) you would get at least keyboard, mouse and monitor. It will probably not take long before a hoard of not very happy Mac mini users put these to rest when they find out you can't even run todays software reasonably on a new computer, and tommorows will be next to impossible. The argument from the Mac crowd is that if you buy a Mac mini to play games you are stupid. Is there any other software for the Mac mini I must be stupid to try running?
Unix, first let me explain that OS X is not a certified Unix. Unix is a trademark hold by Open Group and Apple is using the trademark without permission. Certified Unixes includes Solaris, True 64 HP-UX and other Big leage names. To an Apple user Unix has always been something weird and strange and generaly bad, the usual "not invented by Apple syndrome". Now the Apple user tells you he has a Unix too and Unix by now is the greatest thing thing sliced bread. A real life story was the Apple user who told me "All modern science is based on Unix", that tells you how much the typical Mac user knows what is under the hood of their computer. They tell you Apple is the largest supplier of Unix world wide. Of course OS X doesn't even remotely classifies as Unix and recent test has shown it is at least 10 times slower then Solaris on simple database serving. This of course gives Unix a bad reputation so you can imagine Open Group being more than upset (they have of course sued Apple over infringement). Real Unixes also has 8-10 years of support contracts, Apple has already retired support for OS X 10.2 after just a few years from release making costly unneeded upgrades nessecary. In short, for Apple users Unix is a
I learned early on never to take advice from an Apple user, they just make arguments for Apples current product line adjusting them as Apple changes directions. I'm going to present some of the most mindbaffling arguments from the Apple community that you may check with other sources and find out they are pretty much right on.
Apple products and Apple users arguments:
The Newton, try to convince the Apple user this never was a very good PDA and by todays standard is totaly "out there", 8" x 5" x 1" inches and about a pound without batteries, for reference a palm is about 5" x 3" x 0.3" and about 0.3 pounds. The newton is still by many Apple users the PDA to have. Now ask the same Apple user why the iPod is much better then a Creative Zen. The Zen is to heavy, by 0.1 pounds.
The time around 2000 when Apple users where still making arguments for cooperative multitasking which to the rest of the industry was pathetic and laughable. Try finding a Mac user argumenting cooperative multitasking today.
The early stages of OS X (which really where an open beta), slow kernel, slow UI and not even easy to use. To the Apple users was of course the best thing. In reality it was so bad Apple don't even offer security patches for those machines even though they are just a few years old.
The G4 cube. A bastardised computer, impossible to use. You needed to stand up to load a cd in the tray (top loaded). You had to turn the computer upside down to connect peripherals (all connectors was at the bottom of the case?!?). It had heat troubles taking down most of them. Of course by the Apple user touted as a marvelous piece of equipment and even today by many Apple users seen as the height of Apple design and innovation.
The Mac Mini, we haven't seen the last of this yet I'm afraid. Of course by the Mac users seen as the future of Macs. Reality: Apple are in 2005 selling computers with 1.25ghz CPU and 4200RPM drive for $499, this excludes keyboard mouse and monitor and includes not even enough RAM to run the included operating system. If you could buy a similar spec PC (which you can't because there are no that slow) you would get at least keyboard, mouse and monitor. It will probably not take long before a hoard of not very happy Mac mini users put these to rest when they find out you can't even run todays software reasonably on a new computer, and tommorows will be next to impossible. The argument from the Mac crowd is that if you buy a Mac mini to play games you are stupid. Is there any other software for the Mac mini I must be stupid to try running?
Unix, first let me explain that OS X is not a certified Unix. Unix is a trademark hold by Open Group and Apple is using the trademark without permission. Certified Unixes includes Solaris, True 64 HP-UX and other Big leage names. To an Apple user Unix has always been something weird and strange and generaly bad, the usual "not invented by Apple syndrome". Now the Apple user tells you he has a Unix too and Unix by now is the greatest thing thing sliced bread. A real life story was the Apple user who told me "All modern science is based on Unix", that tells you how much the typical Mac user knows what is under the hood of their computer. They tell you Apple is the largest supplier of Unix world wide. Of course OS X doesn't even remotely classifies as Unix and recent test has shown it is at least 10 times slower then Solaris on simple database serving. This of course gives Unix a bad reputation so you can imagine Open Group being more than upset (they have of course sued Apple over infringement). Real Unixes also has 8-10 years of support contracts, Apple has already retired support for OS X 10.2 after just a few years from release making costly unneeded upgrades nessecary. In short, for Apple users Unix is a
I learned early on never to take advice from an Apple user, they just make arguments for Apples current product line adjusting them as Apple changes directions. I'm going to present some of the most mindbaffling arguments from the Apple community that you may check with other sources and find out they are pretty much right on.
Apple products and Apple users arguments:
The Newton, try to convince the Apple user this never was a very good PDA and by todays standard is totaly "out there", 8" x 5" x 1" inches and about a pound without batteries, for reference a palm is about 5" x 3" x 0.3" and about 0.3 pounds. The newton is still by many Apple users the PDA to have. Now ask the same Apple user why the iPod is much better then a Creative Zen. The Zen is to heavy, by 0.1 pounds.
The time around 2000 when Apple users where still making arguments for cooperative multitasking which to the rest of the industry was pathetic and laughable. Try finding a Mac user argumenting cooperative multitasking today.
The early stages of OS X (which really where an open beta), slow kernel, slow UI and not even easy to use. To the Apple users was of course the best thing. In reality it was so bad Apple don't even offer security patches for those machines even though they are just a few years old.
The G4 cube. A bastardised computer, impossible to use. You needed to stand up to load a cd in the tray (top loaded). You had to turn the computer upside down to connect peripherals (all connectors was at the bottom of the case?!?). It had heat troubles taking down most of them. Of course by the Apple user touted as a marvelous piece of equipment and even today by many Apple users seen as the height of Apple design and innovation.
The Mac Mini, we haven't seen the last of this yet I'm afraid. Of course by the Mac users seen as the future of Macs. Reality: Apple are in 2005 selling computers with 1.25ghz CPU and 4200RPM drive for $499, this excludes keyboard mouse and monitor and includes not even enough RAM to run the included operating system. If you could buy a similar spec PC (which you can't because there are no that slow) you would get at least keyboard, mouse and monitor. It will probably not take long before a hoard of not very happy Mac mini users put these to rest when they find out you can't even run todays software reasonably on a new computer, and tommorows will be next to impossible. The argument from the Mac crowd is that if you buy a Mac mini to play games you are stupid. Is there any other software for the Mac mini I must be stupid to try running?
Unix, first let me explain that OS X is not a certified Unix. Unix is a trademark hold by Open Group and Apple is using the trademark without permission. Certified Unixes includes Solaris, True 64 HP-UX and other Big leage names. To an Apple user Unix has always been something weird and strange and generaly bad, the usual "not invented by Apple syndrome". Now the Apple user tells you he has a Unix too and Unix by now is the greatest thing thing sliced bread. A real life story was the Apple user who told me "All modern science is based on Unix", that tells you how much the typical Mac user knows what is under the hood of their computer. They tell you Apple is the largest supplier of Unix world wide. Of course OS X doesn't even remotely classifies as Unix and recent test has shown it is at least 10 times slower then Solaris on simple database serving. This of course gives Unix a bad reputation so you can imagine Open Group being more than upset (they have of course sued Apple over infringement). Real Unixes also has 8-10 years of support contracts, Apple has already retired support for OS X 10.2 after just a few years from release making costly unneeded upgrades nessecary. In short, for Apple users Unix is a mark
Slashdot Mirror
Apple and innovation?
Apple is regarded by its supporters to be an innovative and forwardlooking company. They claim Apple innovated most things from the GUI to Desktop publishing. Almost always the supporters make the innovation claims with restrictions like "in the field of personal computing", "over the entire product line", "affordable solution" and "as a standard feature". They also like to blur your vision when equaling "popularized" and "introducing" with "inventing". Apple supporters always maximizes the importance of Apples involvment in an innovation (even if it's very slim) and at the same time downplay any other companies involvement.
Case in point "USB":
When the supporters speak about how innovative Apple is they talk about how iMac was the first computer utilizing USB. This is arguable, but if you tell them they counterattack with something like "over the entire product line". And now they are correct. In reality Apple had absolutely nothing to do with the technical creation of USB. Intel invented USB as an answer to Apples pay-per-port licencing of firewire. Apple was one of the first companies to use USB but strictly (or not so strictly) speaking that isn't innovation. They just used an of the shelf product that where innovated for the PC market.
The same can be said for a lot of products Apple supporters claim Apple innvented, of course with "additional restrictions" (see above). Some of these innovations are: Audio, SCSI, Ethernet, long file names and Floppy drives. In reality Apple innvovated none of those products.
A nice page for looking at these "innovations" is an older wikipedia page describing the Macintosh on which of course Mac users gone totaly mad in describing the Macintosh as a very innovative platform. Almost all of claimed innovations are in fact just off the shelf products licenced from other companies or already old products used in a slightly different manner by Apple. The wikipedia page has since been revised and is now more in line with what Macintosh actually brought to the table of computing.
It is however true that Apple are fast at picking up new technologies invented outside Apple and as a result the Macintosh is a faster evolving platform than the PC. This is a design decision made by Apple to keep the Macintosh computer intressting and "fresh". This however has some lowdowns. Every five year or so the Macintosh developers and users have to adapt to a completely new platform or a new operation system (68k->PPC, legacy MacOs->OS X, PPC->x86, soon x86->x86-64). In the PC world this would be suicide, too much money are tied up in legacy technologies. Macintosh are mostly used by home users and small companies who don't need a homogen environment, or have so few computers and programs they can invest in new technology every so often. The PC platform is used by everybody, small and large. It would be almost impossible to "twist and turn" the Apple way. Intel tried to introduce Itanuium for 64bit computing but in the end had to back down to a backward compatible x86 sollution.
Conclussion:
All in all, when the dust has settled. After decades of innovation and jumping beetween CPU families and platforms the Macintosh has transformed to nothing less than an ordinary PC, at least in hardware and mostly in software. Linux x86 booted within a month of the x86 Macintosh release using the standard EFI bootloader and Gentoo Linux distribution. Windows vista will probably boot out of the box on the Macintosh without Microsoft putting any effort in testing on the platform. On all important fronts the innovation by Apple has been nothing short of a straight copy of the PC platform. On the software side half of Apples operating system is also of the shelf available parts from different open source projects. Modern Ma
Apple and innovation?
Apple is regarded by its supporters to be an innovative and forwardlooking company. They claim Apple innovated most things from the GUI to having popularized the USB port. Almost always the supporters make the innovation claims with restrictions like "in the field of personal computing", "over the entire product line", "affordable solution" and "as a standard feature". They also like to blur the vision when equaling "popularized" and "introducing" with "inventing". Apple supporters always maximizes the importance of Apples involvment in an innovation (even if it's very slim) and at the same time downplay any other companies involvement.
Case in point "USB":
When the supporters speak about how innovative Apple is they talk about how Apple popularized USB. In reality Apple had absolutely nothing to do with the technical creation of USB. Intel invented USB as an answer to Apples pay-per-port licencing of firewire. Apple was one of the first companies to use USB but strictly (or not so strictly) speaking that isn't innovation. They just used an ff the shelf product that where innovated for the PC market.
The same can be said for a lot of products Apple supporters claim Apple innvented, of course with "additional restrictions" (see above). Some of these innovations are: Audio, SCSI, Ethernet, long file names and Floppy drives. In reality Apple innvovated none of those products.
A nice page for looking at these "innovations" is an older wikipedia page describing the Macintosh on which of course Mac users gone totaly mad in describing the Macintosh as a very innovative platform. Almost all of claimed innovations are in fact just off the shelf products licenced from other companies or already old products used in a slightly different manner by Apple. The wikipedia page has since been revised and is now more in line with what Macintosh actually brought to the table of computing.
It is however true that Apple are fast at picking up new technologies invented outside Apple and as a result the Macintosh is a faster evolving platform than the PC. This is a design decision made by Apple to keep the Macintosh computer intressting and "fresh". This however has some lowdowns. Every five year or so the Macintosh developers and users have to adapt to a completely new platform or a new operation system (68k->PPC, legacy MacOs->OS X, PPC->x86, soon x86->x86-64). In the PC world this would be suicide, too much money are tied up in legacy technologies. Macintosh are mostly used by home users and small companies who don't need a homogen environment, or have so few computers and programs they can invest in new technology every so often. The PC platform is used by everybody, small and large. It would be almost impoosible to "twist and turn" the Apple way. Intel tried to introduce Itanuium for 64bit computing but in the end had to back down to a backward compatible x86 sollution.
All in all, when the dust has settled. After decades of innovation and jumping beetween CPU families the Macintosh has transformed to nothing less than an ordinary PC, at least in hardware. Linux x86 booted within a month of the x86 Macintosh release using the standard EFI bootloader and Gentoo Linux distribution. It's also probable Windows vista will boot out of the box on the Macintosh without Microsoft putting any effort in testing on the platform. On all important fronts the innovation by Apple has been nothing short of a straight copy of the PC platform. On the software side half of Apples operating system is also of the shelf available parts from different open source projects. That isn't innovation.
The PC platform have already gone x86-64 (Linux is already fully functional both as a server and desktop) and it's a good bet Apple will soon copy this too.
Apple products and Apple users arguments:
Apple products and Apple users arguments:
Apple products and Apple users arguments:
Apple products and Apple users arguments:
Apple products and Apple users arguments:
Apple products and Apple users arguments: