What is Digg?69 Comments
- BlueStarr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18How Apple Does It
Conventional wisdom says its strategy is wrong, yet it keeps turning out great products. TIME looks inside the world's most innovative company
By LEV GROSSMAN / CUPERTINO
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR
Posted Sunday, Oct. 16, 2005
This is partly a story about a company called Apple Computer. It's also partly a story about a fancy new iPod that plays videos as well as music and that could dramatically change the way people entertain themselves. But it's mostly a story about new things and where they come from, about which there are a few popular misconceptions.
Stop and look at Apple for a second, since it's an odd company. It has been around long enough and has a high enough profile that it's easy to forget that. While most high-tech firms focus on one or two sectors, Apple does all of them at once. Apple makes its own hardware (iBooks and iMacs), it makes the operating system that runs on that hardware (Mac OS X), and it makes programs that run on that operating system (iTunes, iMovie, Safari Web browser, etc.). It also makes the consumer-electronics devices that connect to all those things (the rapidly multiplying iPod family), and it runs the online service that furnishes content to those devices (iTunes Music Store). If you smooshed together Microsoft, Dell and Sony into one company, you would have something like the diversity of the Apple technological biosphere.
Why would anybody run a business like that? If you follow conventional wisdom, Apple is doing it all wrong. Try to do everything at once, and you won't do anything well. Worse, the way Apple operates is not how you're supposed to foster innovation, or not in the U.S., anyway. Under the traditional, capitalist, Adam Smithian model, new and better things arise as a result of freedom and open competition, but Apple is essentially operating its own closed miniature techno-economy. What is this, Soviet Russia? Why not license Mac OS X to Dell, see what hardware it comes up with and let the market decide whose ride is flyest? Is Steve Jobs afraid of a little healthy wrasslin' in the great American bazaar?
And yet ... this is the company that gave us three of the signature technological innovations of the past 30 years: the Apple II, the Macintosh and the iPod. In the past six weeks alone, Apple has shipped three impressive new products: an ultra-tiny iPod called the nano, the video iPod and a nifty feature called Front Row that lets you run your computer from across the room, lying on a sofa, clicker in hand, without crouching over a keyboard. That is cool stuff. So, where does it all come from?
Ask Apple CEO Steve Jobs about it, and he'll tell you an instructive little story. Call it the Parable of the Concept Car. "Here's what you find at a lot of companies," he says, kicking back in a conference room at Apple's gleaming white Silicon Valley headquarters, which looks something like a cross between an Ivy League university and an iPod. "You know how you see a show car, and it's really cool, and then four years later you see the production car, and it sucks? And you go, What happened? They had it! They had it in the palm of their hands! They grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory!
"What happened was, the designers came up with this really great idea. Then they take it to the engineers, and the engineers go, 'Nah, we can't do that. That's impossible.' And so it gets a lot worse. Then they take it to the manufacturing people, and they go, 'We can't build that!' And it gets a lot worse."
When Jobs took up his present position at Apple in 1997, that's the situation he found. He and Jonathan Ive, head of design, came up with the original iMac, a candy-colored computer merged with a cathode-ray tube that, at the time, looked like nothing anybody had seen outside of a Jetsons cartoon. "Sure enough," Jobs recalls, "when we took it to the engineers, they said, 'Oh.' And they came up with 38 reasons. And I said, 'No, no, we're doing this.' And they said, 'Well, why?' And I said, 'Because I'm the CEO, and I think it can be done.' And so they kind of begrudgingly did it. But then it was a big hit."
There are two lessons to be drawn from that story: one about collaboration, one about control. Apple employees talk incessantly about what they call "deep collaboration" or "cross-pollination" or "concurrent engineering." Essentially it means that products don't pass from team to team. There aren't discrete, sequential development stages. Instead, it's simultaneous and organic. Products get worked on in parallel by all departments at once--design, hardware, software--in endless rounds of interdisciplinary design reviews. Managers elsewhere boast about how little time they waste in meetings; Apple is big on them and proud of it. "The historical way of developing products just doesn't work when you're as ambitious as we are," says Ive, an affable, bearlike Brit. "When the challenges are that complex, you have to develop a product in a more collaborative, integrated way."
Everybody you meet at Apple will echo that precise sentiment, in almost Stepford-like unison. Not only have they all drunk the Kool-Aid; they all have the same favorite flavor. They're on a hot streak, and they know it. ("The Sony guys are over there across the street with binoculars," jokes a senior vice president. "They rented space on the fourth floor." High-tech trash talk!) It's almost eerie: Apple employees all like one another, and they have a strong sense that they are the chosen of the earth, and they're not going to be a jerk about it, but all others who dwell on this mortal coil are missing out by not working here.
The second lesson of Jobs' parable is about control, and to that extent, it's a lesson about Jobs himself. He is one of the technology world's great innovators but not because he's an engineer or a programmer. He doesn't have an M.B.A. either. He doesn't even have a college degree. (He dropped out of Reed College after one semester.) Jobs has a great native sense of design and a knack for hiring geniuses, but above all, what he has is a willingness to be a pain in the neck about what matters most to him.
Sure, Jobs is perfectly pleasant to be around. And he pays attention to what you're saying, but if he disagrees with it--if, hypothetically, you're maybe airing a pet peeve about the fact that iMacs have all their ports in the back, where they're hard to get at--he'll come storming back and hammer at you until you change your mind or at least shut up. When he generously introduces you to the guy who runs Apple's iTunes development team, Jobs makes it clear that you're welcome to meet him but you can't print his name. Jobs doesn't want competitors poaching his talent. "You can mention his first name but not his last name," Jobs says. "How's that?" It'll have to do. The guy's name, by the way, is Jeff.
In other words, Jobs is into control. In itself, that is of no real importance, except that in a lot of ways, Apple is an expression of Jobs' personal ethos. One reason Apple makes its own hardware and software is that when Jobs goes to the trouble of creating a piece of software, he doesn't want it running on hardware built by a bunch of dudes he doesn't know and can't fire. He wants it on hardware he makes himself. How else can he be sure that every little thing integrates together the way he says--nay, insists--it should?
He needs that control because he is fastidious about technology the way a gourmet is fastidious about foie gras, and he recognizes that in an increasingly networked world, in which gadgets can't just do their own thing but have to talk to one another, that conversation will go better if Jobs has scripted both sides of it. "One company makes the software. The other makes the hardware ... It's not working," Jobs says. "The innovation can't happen fast enough. The integration isn't seamless enough. No one takes responsibility for the user interface. It's a mess."
That isn't the only way to run a business. Look at Microsoft. Bill Gates focused on operating systems. He didn't worry about hardware. He gave Windows to anybody who could pony up a licensing fee, and he let them worry about hardware. Result? He devoured the market and made the biggest killing in the history of killings. Apple kept its Mac operating system on Apple hardware almost exclusively. It may have won a moral victory--or a technological one or an aesthetic one. But business-wise, it got the bits kicked out of it.
But Jobs doesn't care just about winning. He's willing to lose. He has done it often enough. He's just not willing to be lame, and that may, increasingly, be the winning approach. The iPod proved that design and ease of use are at least as important as increased functionality, and the iTunes Music Store proved that goes for smoothly integrating physical devices with online services too. "I think the definition of product has changed over the decades," observes Tony Fadell, vice president of engineering in the iPod division, who played a key role in conceiving and building the first iPod. "The product now is the iTunes Music Store and iTunes and the iPod and the software that goes on the iPod. A lot of companies don't really have control, or they can't really work in a collaborative way to truly make a system. We're really about a system."
That's one aspect of control. Here's another. What Jobs has accepted--the truth that he's willing to face and others cower from--is that new things don't want to be born. Innovation causes problems, and it's much easier simply to avoid it. In fact, it's downright tempting. Other guys may give in to that temptation but not Jobs. He's smart, but more than that, he's willing to be the guy who looks over your shoulder and tells you you're not going to make your dinner reservation tonight because you're going to be here at the office, thinking different.
Here's the end of his parable, the story of what happened after Jobs got the iMac launched. "The people around here--some of them left," he remembers. "Actually, some of them I got rid of. But most of them said, 'Oh, my God, now I get it.' We've been doing this now for seven years, and everybody here gets it. And if they don't, they're gone."
If Jobs, say, ran a hedge fund or an army platoon, that talk would not sound so blunt. But because he looks and acts like such a cool guy--this is the guy who put Lennon and Gandhi on thousands of billboards-- the words are bracing, to say the least. And yet that approach produces shiny, innovative things like the new iPod. Even though it costs the same ($299) as its immediate predecessor, which Apple introduced only 15 months ago, the new iPod has more memory (30 GB as opposed to 20 GB), and it's thinner (0.43 in., as opposed to 0.6 in.). Plus, it plays video. The screen is just 2.5 in. diagonally, but because it's extremely bright and very sharp, it looks bigger than it is. It's the kind of thing you could definitely imagine being unable to live without.
There are other portable video players out there, but none look as nice or are as easy to use as the new iPod. And it works well--seamlessly, as Jobs would say--with the iTunes Music Store, which gives users a quick, legal and reasonably cheap way to buy video content (which so far consists of music videos, some charming Pixar shorts and a few TV shows from ABC, including Lost and Desperate Housewives). That is the kind of integration that Apple's approach makes possible.
Right now, nobody disputes that digital music is the future and that Apple is the gatekeeper. If it becomes the gatekeeper to portable video, well, then, golly. Video is the blood and the lymph and the lingua franca of contemporary culture. Music is important, of course, but the scale is different. In a typical week, a top-selling album may move 300,000 copies. A top-rated TV show can draw an audience of 30 million. Add to that movie trailers, animated shorts, old syndicated shows, DVD-extra-style exclusives, and the entire television industry, which is hungry for new kinds of revenue, is going to have to reorient itself. And maybe a few other industries besides (cough! porn! cough!).
The new iPod's potential is so huge, it inspires even Jobs to a burst of understatement. "There is no market today for portable video," he says. "We're going to sell millions of these to people who want to play their music, and video is going to come along for the ride. Anyone who wants to put out video content will put it out for this. And we'll find out what happens." Yes, we will. We're all coming along for the ride, and we all know who's going to be driving. - dknighton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Before we all go praising Steve Jobs for bringing Apple back, let us not forget that he was the one who drove it into the ground the first time around. Apple had many opportunities to become master of the universe in the early 80's. Jobs' stubborn, sometimes maniacal nature relegated Apple to the status of an "also-ran", alienating the likes of Steve Wozniak, the true genius behind Apple. Bill Gates et-al simply "got it", and became the alpha-males in geek kingdom.
That said, Jobs seems to have become wiser in his older years. He has retained the same innovative spirit that started in the garage, while realizing a smarter way to do business, not to mention the fact that he is a marketing genius. Focusing Apple's revenue stream on the iPod and iTunes line was pure genius, and it has allowed him time to bring the core product, the Mac, back into a position of prominence. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Everytime I see people wondering how Apple does it and says what they do is wrong based on conventional wisdom I have to think that conventional wisdom must be ***** up and how did it get that way from whatever conventional wisdom was before.
- dknighton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2mentor...Jobs was "forced out" by investors who saw the destructive attitude he held towards his employees and the industry. It's all speculation, but IMHO Apple would not exist today if Jobs had remained at the helm. He was a mean-spirited, controlling, abusive individual (by almost all accounts) who was driven by ego. But hell, he was pretty much a kid when he started the company...he had to do some growing up. Round two is a big success, amd more power to him for it. Those who know him would probably agree that he is still an ego-maniac, but at least he's developed good business sense.
- junkfood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Mac will never be on "top of the computer world" as an earlier comment suggested. I won't debate whether or not they should be, but I don't believe they will because I don't think Jobs wants to be on top. He's the maverick ... anti-establishment. He enjoys being the little guy chucking rocks at the giant and his people love him for it. If he was suddenly the man on top, what would he do?
For the record, I have two computers: a Mac and a PC. I like them both for different reasons and while I disagree with Apple on some things, they are by far the trend-setter of the computer.
Unfortunately, to be on top in the computer world, you have to have the businesses. And they don't like trendsetting computers that they have to upgrade, change, replace, etc. all the time. A more reasonable goal would be the top of the home computer world. It would be difficult because people are used to working with whatever they work with in the office, but computer literacy is greatly increasing as new generations grow up. Soon it will be much easier to use a PC at the office and a Mac at home because there's no learning curve and people will have the intelligence to understand why they might have to pay a bit more. (If they still do once Apple runs on Intel.)
Just my two cents on the whole Mac vs. PC - GamblerZG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Obviously a lot of people find it worth the extra money. Duh!"
1) Yeah, that's what branding is for. To make people pay more for the same stuff. Duh!
2) Obviously, a lot of people find Windows worth the extra money. Or are they?
3) When you praising some product, please speak about the damn product. Like "It has longer battery life than any other player" or "I was using it for a two years and it did not break". The sheer fact that some people like something means nothing. - barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"really who the ***** uses flac, ogg etc?"
I do. - GamblerZG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"if it's so good and is cheaper as well as being advertised all over the place, why the ***** is it so unsuccessful?"
If Apple computers are so good and ... well, they are being advertised all over the place... Why PC is more successfull? - Takkyu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"It really depends on how you would define a great product. for me the ipod isnt enough, it only supports one encoding, and it is prone to freezing up every now and then."
Never had mine lockup on me.. and you think everyone only has AAC files on their ipods? All I have is mp3.. - GamblerZG, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2How apple does it? Simple. Product placement. Viral marketing. Hidden marketing. Usual marketing. Their success has nothing to do with their actual products.
I suggest you to read Pattern Recognition by William Gibson. It describes in details how branding works. And it has 2 hidden ads for Apple. So you can read about theory and than see it in action.
"No, but the iPod is actually a great music player."
Aside from the brand name, how exactly iPod is better than analogous Creative player (which is cheap and highly durable)? - bradmiller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0For a Dual 2.7 machine, Mac or PC it's still gonna be expensive. I was looking at some numbers and it looks like PC's might be a little more expensive for a dual processor due to the fact you still need a water cooling system to keep the ***** thing cool and another processor isnt so cheap. So dont tell me PCs are less expensive, well maybe for a machine that just wnats t surf the net and send e-mail to your grandma. To get a highend workstation your better off with a mac and if you want to e-mail your grandma there good for that to.
- Illuminatus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Don't even get me started on the Mac OS - good looks, dumb as hell."
ROFL! It's based on that dumb ole UNIX - you know the OS for morons.
This thread is hilarious. - Jasoco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"For some reason everytime I turn off nfs before my roomate unmounts his share, osx crashes. just straight up crashes. Apple makes things look pretty. But thats it."
Tell your friend to upgrade. OS X 10.3 is notorious for horrible networking. - Hale, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Apple is hardly the most innovative company in the world."
word, joe_mama - munroe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0www.bugmenot.com for any subscription based article.
- stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"So if I don't spend the extra 50% to get the version of the product with the hip brand name, then I'm not as cool as you are? Congratulations, you're a zombie."
No, but the iPod is actually a great music player. It's not just a 'hip brand name'. It's been popular for so long because IT'S A GREAT PRODUCT.
Why must everything popular be so just because it's 'in' or 'hip'? Sometimes popular products are popular because they're just plain great.
If you want to pay %50 less for a different music player, then so be it, but there's no reason to then lash out at a more expensive player just because you don't have it. Obviously a lot of people find it worth the extra money. Duh! - sourgrapes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"It's based on that dumb ole UNIX - you know the OS for morons"
LOL true..but unix is atleast good for advanced users that do hardcore programming...Mac OS is neither here nor there.
"The framework has made it easy for developers to make seamless applications that play very well with each other. I can open Transmit (FTP) and it opens Textmate (text editor) and when I save it goes back into Transmit. Dashboard... err... OsX's X11 makes it easy for me to run programs like Ethereal. I can compile nix programs on my computer with OsX's underlying BSD"
If development of programs is what you are after, switch to Unix (it's even free for x86 last time I checked). Mac OS is holding you back on a lot of features that Unix has. Mac doesn't let you get to the fundamentals and basics of Unix. It's just Unix made prettier and dumber. Windows sometimes even gives you the tools to work with it's core. - bonzooznob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1..."World's most innovative company"...
I guess they didn't consult Billy Gates Gruff on this... or Steve Balmer. I'm pretty sure that MS has a software patent on "innovative company" by now ;-)
Anyway, I think Apple has been very successful recently, with their iPod, iTunes, etc. but they are just a wee bit "un-innovative" when it comes to making a really cool mouse. I would take my $5 OEM corded Logitech 2button+scroll wheel mouse over an Apple mouse any day. I know it doesn't scream sexy, or "so simple my grandma can use it", but at some point you have to bite the bullet. Every mouse needs at least 2 buttons, and a scroll wheel. - tarun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Digg:http://digg.com/apple/_How_Apple_Does_It_Complete_article_on_Time_Canada
Complete Article:http://www.timecanada.com/story.adp?storyid=005 - Trjn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0""No, but the iPod is actually a great music player."
Aside from the brand name, how exactly iPod is better than analogous Creative player (which is cheap and highly durable)?"
Because its more than just the physical hardware, like the article says, you know the thing we are actually talking about here, the thing you should read before commenting, is that the iPod product is more than just the hardware that you carry around, its the hardware, the software and the music store.
You compare the iTunes software to the ***** that comes with Creative players. . . I know I did and thats why I now own an iPod instead of a Creative player.
Thats why the iPod is so popular, its not exactly the best player, but its the simplest and easiest to use, the hardware is quality enough, sure you don't have a million and one features, but it does enough, the software though. . . thats where it wins. - 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0jkfan87 wrote: "Amazing that a magazine as big as Time actually buys into the "world's most innovative comoany" garbage. Not by a long shot."
Oh my, "jkfan87" has something bad to say about Apple. There's a shocker. - atoaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0These wars are almost as pointless as Tarren Mill, but ok, I'm game.
True the iPod lacks a lot of features that other music players have (such as support for multiple formats) and has some quirks to it (the occasional freeze), and it is priced considerably higher. However, what it does it does right. IMO here, the interface is very intuitive and the scroll wheel and buttons feel oh so right. Now it's true, when Steve talks about control, making you use iTunes and such, he does seem to have you cornered to submitting to his will. But iTunes and the iPod are integrated extremely well. My experience with other DAP is that while the player might be ok, the interface, or computer software is extremely clunky. Now also true, iTunes and the iPod ain't for everyone, and that's totally cool. You don't have to like it, but for the rest of us who do, please understand that there are good reasons for us to like it.
Which brings us to the Macs. Everyone seems to talk about the music player, but the real draw for me is the computers.
Err, hold on before I get into my rant, lets talk about some truth. Apple computers are a bit sluggish compared to their Windows arch-nemesis. There are a few reasons for this, one of my professors pointed out that the bus speed is considerably slower. (Clock speed is an argument better left alone.) OsX still has it's quirks, for instance fast-user switching and USB harddrives (eck!).
Ok, well now I can talk about the good things =D. Well actually, I don't even know where to begin. Everything just seems so right. The feel of the operating system really shines after continual use. I love expose, it makes working on multiple documents so much easier. I've had no problems with networking and wireless (Windows stupid zero configuration service, eck!), even networked printers seem to just work, while I struggle to get my winboxes to make things print. The framework has made it easy for developers to make seamless applications that play very well with each other. I can open Transmit (FTP) and it opens Textmate (text editor) and when I save it goes back into Transmit. Dashboard... err... OsX's X11 makes it easy for me to run programs like Ethereal. I can compile nix programs on my computer with OsX's underlying BSD (curl, sweet!).
Ok, so I guess that was just a bunch of babbling on about how great OsX is. But really, it's a really sweet operating system. I feel like it was made for me. And to me, the confirmation that it's not all just me is the number of CS professors I've had that had also swore to their Powerbook.
Right so, (don't have to) like it or not, Apple!, the (mostly) good, bad, and the ugly. Apple seems to just fit into some peoples lifestyle (like me!) so put away your hatred for something more useful and realize that there are good reasons we like what Apple has to offer! - junkfood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0munroe -
I believe they posted the article in the comments because the link is to a subscription only article. - barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Never had mine lockup on me.. and you think everyone only has AAC files on their ipods? All I have is mp3.." WOW 2 whole types of files im impressed.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I think people who bitch about having 50 million different supported formats on their digital music player are idiots, really who the ***** uses flac, ogg etc? In the UK creative has huge marketing campaigns yet their player still doesn't sell very well, if it's so good and is cheaper as well as being advertised all over the place, why the ***** is it so unsuccessful? that must be because their software sucks, the player looks like ***** and it isn't easy to use."
i use flac you retard. ITS CALLED LEGAL MUSIC - sourgrapes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think Front Row is going to flop. Adding a remote to a Mac doesn't make it a whole lot better. The Media Center PC's are way more advanced and yes, they too have a remote and it does a lot more than what 4 buttons can do. The new iMac sucks as well. I preferred the lamp model. Don't even get me started on the Mac OS - good looks, dumb as hell.
That said, iPod video is a great idea, obviously, mainly because of the minimalistic simple design that iPod follows. I believe that's the only reason why iPods sell - the looks. Otherwise I have a pocket pc that does a lot more than any given iPod. I prefer listening to music in that. Sure it's not as small but I'd rather carry one relatively well-sized device than 10 small sized devices like phone, mp3 player, pda etc. - atoaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"If development of programs is what you are after, switch to Unix (it's even free for x86 last time I checked). Mac OS is holding you back on a lot of features that Unix has. Mac doesn't let you get to the fundamentals and basics of Unix. It's just Unix made prettier and dumber. Windows sometimes even gives you the tools to work with it's core.", sourgrapes
explain how it's dumber? I have basically full functionality of BSD + a really slick GUI. Now I don't mind comments that specifically have a reason, but your not telling me anything here. And sure Unix has a lot of development programs, I've gone through my share of linux distros, but I like the dev programs on OsX. I like textmate better than any text editor that linux has to offer, I like xcode (despite its problems) better than any visual studio linux has to offer. Oh and transmit is an awesome ftp program. I don't really mind paying good money for good programs. Sure if you can't afford to spend the money free is awesome, no doubt about that. But I am willing. So unless you can tell me whats missing from Mac OsX from the purist Unix your talking about, I'm dismissing your comment. Last time I checked at Osx's core was BSD, and BSD is Unix.
Well step back, I don't mean to start a flame war, I just want to know why. Easy enough? - CheapDigWannbe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Most innovative company?
Okay you can put home desktop pc on their list...
what else? What other innovations? - diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I like having the entire PC done by the whole company. Apple is very innovative.
- sourgrapes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's like you said, lot more development programs => more powerful platform for development => better OS for dev. Now if you are happy with the one or two options you have, I guess you're not a hardcore programmer. In which case, the only positive thing you've said about mac is the slick interface. I wouldn't buy an OS and a new set of hardware (that make the OS look like a tortoise moving) for that. Btw, I agree, it shouldn't turn into a flaming disc. - just academic.
PS: Those Mac users who complain about Vista's close buttons, please, your mac has buttons on the left - what is it for left handers? Think different doesn't necessarily mean do opposite - may be someone should tell Steve that. - aradams, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Apple is a cult:
"In religion and sociology, a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and new religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its marginal status may come about either due to its novel belief system or because of its idiosyncratic practices." --Wikipedia. - atoaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You still haven't given any good reason for saying that OsX equates to not being hardcore. Linux has a lot of development programs sure, but I'd argue that at least half of them are really shoddy. I have plenty of choices of what tools to use to program in and most of them are quality products (if you'd like me to name some I can). Now I like Linux, I really do, but I'd defend my apps against anything linux has to offer.
I just don't see what your gripe is about a Osx. Osx is BSD at the core. I can run most all terminal apps. X11 apps I can run through Osx X11 or through Darwin Ports or Fink. I have great dev tools (TextMate, SubEthaEdit, Xcode), and there are plenty more out there. Programming in Cocoa is lot nicer than GTK or the like. I do admit though, my PB is a bit slow. But that's something I'm willing to take, speed ain't everything anyways. I don't do anything that really needs the speed (video editing, games, etc).
Hrmmm and also. Being a "hardcore programmer" shouldn't be determined by what OS you use, what apps you use, just what you do with the resources you have. I shudder to think about it, but there are plenty of "hardcore programmers" in Windows land... somewhere... - Sireg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"
Comments like these always come from people who can't afford the product. So the easiest thing to do is just to try to justify the fact that you don't have one by ragging on the product.
Sad, really."
It is really sad I cannot afford an overpriced computer? - hyperpasta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Let's compare the iRiver U10 to the iPod nano. Both high-end flash players. For $249 from iRiver I can get a 1GB U10. Thick, large, color screen, clickable screen, windows only. For $249 from Apple I can get a 4GB iPod nano. Thin, hot, tiny, color screen, touch controls, famous easy-to-use software. Also the only player that can work with iTunes, with the world's most popular music store, windows or mac.
I dunno about you, but if I had a choice I'd pick the nano. If you actually looked at the specs you'll find iPods not so expensive anymore. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Jobbs didn't drive it into the ground the first time. He left. And then it went down hill. It took him coming back to fix everything."
And Bill Gates saved his(and Apple's) ass by buying millions of apple stocks. - mentor972, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Jobbs didn't drive it into the ground the first time. He left. And then it went down hill. It took him coming back to fix everything.
- barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"No, but the iPod is actually a great music player. It's not just a 'hip brand name'. It's been popular for so long because IT'S A GREAT PRODUCT"
It really depends on how you would define a great product. for me the ipod isnt enough, it only supports one encoding, and it is prone to freezing up every now and then. - Billistic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Thing is, wow, the ipod is pretty successful, but wow, they're a ***** computer company, I don't count the ipod as a computer.
- mrjd54, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1tanks bluestar
time.com registration sucks - frem001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I think people who bitch about having 50 million different supported formats on their digital music player are idiots, really who the ***** uses flac, ogg etc? In the UK creative has huge marketing campaigns yet their player still doesn't sell very well, if it's so good and is cheaper as well as being advertised all over the place, why the ***** is it so unsuccessful? that must be because their software sucks, the player looks like ***** and it isn't easy to use.
- chosenone-, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It's a shame that Apple products are a bit on the expensive side, but you know the reason why. If not, read the ***** article!
Alright, alright. They make it ALL themselves. Guaranteed quality. That's why. - ConEEE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0awesome read, but it sounded a lot like a suck up...
- TK99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The irony is the reason that Apple switched to x86 processors is that Jobs like MS desperately wants a $100 USD that all 300 million Americans can own.
MS just wants a system that will run Windows, while Jobs and Apple want a that $100 system to be a Mac. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1They over price their inferior goods and sell them with advertising aimed towards trendy college kids that pay six bucks for a cappuccino from Starbucks.
- BlueStarr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0This is the turning point. To me this is the moment all Mac users have been waiting for. Will Steve take Apple computer to the top? I say he shall succeed.
Whatever happens it's has been one hell of a ride. Mac users since 1996 and counting. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Apple is hardly the most innovative company in the world.
- barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0For some reason everytime I turn off nfs before my roomate unmounts his share, osx crashes. just straight up crashes. Apple makes things look pretty. But thats it.
- silentauthority, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0 Every mouse needs at least 2 buttons, and a scroll wheel.
^^ Mightymouse - stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"They over price their inferior goods and sell them with advertising aimed towards trendy college kids that pay six bucks for a cappuccino from Starbucks."
Comments like these always come from people who can't afford the product. So the easiest thing to do is just to try to justify the fact that you don't have one by ragging on the product.
Sad, really. - MikhoohkiM, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Thank you BlueStarr
-
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is