What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
133 Comments
- Ratty, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11He's wrong about everything. Ignore him and he'll go away.
- TROGDOR42, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9*****... Me to teh rescue:
Why John C. Dvorak is Wrong About Apple
February 25, 2006 at 07:18 | Print This Post
John C. Dvorak’s recent column in PC Magazine speculating that Apple may soon abandon OSX for Windows created a small firestorm of controversy. (You can also hear him explain the theory on TWiT 42 (”Dvorak’s Lost It”) - the sound in the background is Leo Laporte beating Dvorak with a sneaker.)
So is Dvorak crazy? Or as Mathew Ingram suggests, is he on drugs? Both, perhaps - he’s always been crazy, as far as I’m concerned - crazy, provocative and controversial, now more than ever, and that’s why I’ve been faithfully reading him for — is it really about 20 years?? Only Dvorak would have the nerve to float this one, and he must have swallowed hard when he did. So, while I think he’s wrong and very possibly pharmaceutically over-medicated, I think it’s also worth spending a few minutes laying out exactly why.
So, herewith Dvorak’s reasons for thinking the theory may have legs (the reasons come from his column, and from TWiT 42), and why I think it’s farcockteh:
1. This is Dvorak’s #1 reason: Adobe hasn’t ported its apps to Universal Binaries. As a result, they have to run under Rosetta for now, with the result, as Steve Jobs explained at MacWorld, “While the performance is not going to be strong enough for professionals who spend hours a day in Photoshop, it’s going to be enough for the rest of us, even under Rosetta.” Dvorak’s theory is that Adobe is holding back because they have inside knowledge that Apple is going to abandon OSX, and a native version would be a wasted effort.
This just doesn’t hold water. The creative class has, of course, long favoured the Mac, and Adobe’s software is the preferred platform. It’s also fair to say that if Adobe apps aren’t quickly produced in native Intel versions for the Mac, the creative class is going to take its time making the switch. Which, naturally, gives Adobe a lot of leverage in any negotiations with Apple. So, knowing that Apple was desperate to make the switch and not get left behind in the Intel-AMD chip wars, why would Adobe merely play along? Wouldn’t it be smarter to play hard to get and extract some concessions from a desperate Apple? To my mind, this is nothing more than Adobe wisely playing a strong hand. It’s not personal - just business.
2. The switch to Intel. Dvorak also suggests that the switch to Intel is just a necessary step to the switch to Windows.
The early reports are of a 4x speed improvement from the Powerbook G4 to the Core Duo version. 4x, with the same heat and the same battery life. This one’s not complicated: Apple made the switch because the PowerPC was falling behind Intel falling behind AMD.
3. The Apple Switch campaign isn’t working - no one’s switching. Dvorak suggests that Apple needs to do more than OSX to maintain its customer base; customers aren’t coming over, he says.
The way Macs work - all Apple OS’s for that matter - is woven as deeply into the company’s DNA as any other virtue. … Apple needs its OS to dream.
I read posts by gleeful switchers every week. And I follow them carefully, because I’m considering the switch myself. Surprisingly often the switchers are long-term, hard-core Windows users. And everywhere I look I see Mac laptops - more and more of them, it seems, every day (though sometimes you have to squint to see past the forests of other Apple schwag in the way). As Mathew points out, it just ain’t so. But perhaps more importantly, now that the Mac OS has been opened up it will become much more appealing and powerful as time passes. Switching should accelerate. (Admittedly, based purely on anecdotal evidence) I think it already is.
4. The iPod was designed to get people to move to the Mac, but this hasn’t happened. Dvorak suggests that the iPod has failed as switch-bait.
See #3. People are switching. And the iPod has helped to make Apple even more wildly creative, inspired and cool than it was before. And what’s good for Apple is good for OSX.
5. The iPod lost its firewire connector. Dvorak suggests that Apple dropped the firewire connector from the iPod because the Windows crowd - a USB bunch - is the new target market.
Well, if you want to sell a lot of iPods, you sell them to the Windows crowd, too. There are more customers there. But more to the point, the standards battle is over and firewire has lost - at least for the iPod’s purposes. With no firewire 800 on the MacBook Pro, but two USB ports, it’s clear what Apple is thinking about whether it makes sense to have two standards. Apple is simply deciding not to fight the VHS-Beta battle all over again - we all know how that ended.
Apple would be dead as a hardware company. Apple sells dreams, not computers - the dream to be different, to be unique, to be cool.
6. Apple’s assault on the gossip sites. Dvorak theorizes that Apple went after ThinkSecret because it was worried the gossip sites would find out about the Windows switch.
Wasn’t the ThinkSecret suit launched before Apple announced the Intel switch? Perhaps the lawsuit was aimed at preventing that disclosure. But in any event, Apple’s mystique is built on marketing, and its marketing is built on controlling perception. It’s much more likely that Apple went after Think Secret because it was interfering with Apple’s ability to control spin.
7. Microsoft’s announcement that it would support Office for the Mac for 5 years. Dvorak refers to Microsoft’s announcement at MacWorld and wonders, why 5? What happens after that? He theorizes that Microsoft won’t agree to more than 5 because it knows Apple is planning to dump OSX.
No, Microsoft won’t announce more than 5 years of support because while it knows how much its support is worth to Apple now, it’s worth waiting for a few years to see how much more its support will be worth to Apple then. Avoiding a long-term commitment when you’re in the driver’s seat - and when you don’t know what the future will bring - is just good business. Apple’s vulnerability to Adobe and Microsoft for critical applications is probably the company’s single biggest strategic vulnerability (other than the risk of Steve Jobs getting hit by a bus) - and Adobe and Microsoft know it.
8. Finally, Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. Dvorak thinks that with the iPod being a cash cow, Apple now has the nerve to be a hardware company.
Apple would be dead as a hardware company. Apple sells dreams, not computers - the dream to be different, to be unique, to be cool. The way Macs work - all Apple OS’s for that matter - is woven as deeply into the company’s DNA as any other virtue. As Mathew says, it’s “the last thing that makes the company unique”. Without that differentness, Apple would soon be just another slick box designer. Apple needs its OS to dream.
……………
So, as I often say when I’m hedging my bets, Dvorak may be right, but if he is it’s not for any of these reasons. They just don’t add up. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9"Macs suck. You get that from the name:OSX=OS SUX
They are too simple, they are designed for people that have never used a computer before,"
I presume this is either a troll or you are on crack.
OSX is too simple? I can do anything in OSX that I can on Linux or Solaris. I can write shell scripts in standard shell script languages, for example. Rather than whatever the hell windows uses. OSX is simply the marriage of a beautiful interface on top of a complex and immensely functional *nix system.
Saying "OSX is too simple" is like saying that "linux is too simple" because it has an optional GNOME/KDE interface or that "solaris is too simple" because you can use GNOME or CDE as your interface.
So what isn't too simple for you? Windows? Windows IS an interface. There's not really much of an undercarriage there. Not one that can be used as easily (or reliably), at least.
Really, spoken like the inexperienced, trolling ten year old that you probably are. Take a walk through the engineering departments of Sun, Google and many other places and you will find that many (sometimes even most) of the developers have a powerbook on their desk. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"4. The iPod was designed to get people to move to the Mac, but this hasn’t happened. Dvorak suggests that the iPod has failed as switch-bait"
Yes and the Icecream companies created the chocolate flavor just to get people to start eating more vanilla icecream. - manfesto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Heh, thanks to the power of google, I've found the two things I was talking about.
Dvorak on Cable Modems:
The Looming Cable Modem Fiasco
John C. Dvorak
The noisiest buzz in the industry lately has been over the emerging use of cable TV systems to provide fast network data transmissions using a device called a cable modem. But the likelihood of this technology succeeding is zilch. It's one of those interesting-sounding ideas that will attract what venture capitalists call dumb money. Unfortunately, it's a big distraction in a market that should be concentrating on ISDN and broadband.
HP, U.S. Robotics, ZDS, and others have been toying with the idea for a few years, and Motorola Multimedia Group's recently announced CyberSurfer 10-Mbps cable modem has completely muddied the waters. There's also LANCity's announced $595 model. Until recently, these things cost a ridiculous $5,000.
Cable modems are, of course, targeted at Net surfers. According to the press announcement, the CyberSurfer will be the fastest, receiving data at 10 Mbps and sending it at 768 Kbps. Exactly how the modem will work on the largely one-way cable systems in the U.S. is a mystery. And since there's no governing standards organization for cable modems, these devices won't be able to talk to modems made by anyone else. But hey, they sure are fast.
Even so, users with access to a T1 phone connection will soon discover that the fastest provider can send data at only around 56 Kbps--slower than a single B-channel over ISDN. This isn't likely to change as providers try to serve as many users as possible, rather than pump 128 Kbps or more to a few people. So the ideal connection for Net surfing is a single B-channel on an ISDN line.
So even if you had a 10-Mbps cable connection, it would be useless except for point-to-point transfer at Motorola's upstream speed of 768 Kbps. And that assumes upstream capability, which the cable companies will have available in only a few test areas. If users don't flock to this technology in those areas, the cable companies will drop the idea like a hot potato.
We have to remember that, collectively, the cable TV folks are as dumb as fireplugs. There is no incentive to be otherwise. They have monopolies and do little more than string wire and milk the cash cow. Why would they want to get mixed up in something that requires real work? If you doubt this, visit your local cable company and ask "When will you have cable modem capability?" Just see what they say. My guess: "Huh? What's a modem?"
Then there is the issue of security. The cable TV system is a broadcast medium, not a secure network. All transmissions over cable are highly susceptible to hacking. Much more so than anything else except cellular phones. HP is one company that harps on the security issues regarding cable modems.
So why spin our wheels over a dead-end technology when ISDN is here now? Is speed really the issue?
There may be another element at play. When you consider digital phone networks and the equipment that is needed to hook up ISDN, you see an interesting phenomenon. The modem companies aren't in the game. Networking companies run the show: Ascend, Cisco, and Combinet. Modem companies like Hayes--and recently Zyxel--miss the mark with ISDN. Others have ignored it completely.
In a digital world, you won't need to MOdulate/ DEModulate (the root meaning of modem). Many users just can't make the transition to a future where the modem is moot. For these sentimentalists, the cable modem is the last gasp. But there are no cable modem standards whatsoever, and very little cable modem promotion within the brain-dead cable TV industry. While this fiasco unfolds, we hear cheering from people who should know better and examine the simple illogic of the whole thing.
Hey, but it sure is fast.
Why do we spin our wheels over a dead-end technology when ISDN is here now? Is speed really the issue?
(Figure not available)
Illustration by James Steinberg
-http://web.archive.org/web/19970415081814/http://www.pcmag.com/issues/1415/pcm00059.htm
Dvorak on Slashdot:
Re:Worst post ever
(Score:5, Funny)
by dorkygeek (898295) on Friday February 24, @10:53PM (#14798505)
(Last Journal: Monday January 02, @01:34AM)
Like all other lame articles did. Surprisingly though, Dvorak seems not to be involved this time.
-http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/06/02/25/0257215.shtml - Orangutan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3very well thought out, nice rebuttal.
@zimm awesome picture. gir rules my brain. :> - r©ain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Maybe a better strategy would be to blacklist Dvorak.
Why should we give his site noteriety via blog posts and online controversy and hits via links?
It's been common knowledge for sometime now that the guy is full of *****.
Maybe if people stopped linking, talking or referencing his articles, he'd dissapear.
I mean, he gets paid to do what he does.
What he does is stir controversy (paid blog troll)
If everything he wrote were to fall on deaf ears, he'd be out of a job since no traffic = no profits. - AttroPheed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Going on 90% of the ***** you mac-ites submit I think you place far too much importance on speculation and rumor (and cardboard boxes but that's another story).
- SubZ3r0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think people dont take into account that windows is fixing alot of its issues - monad shell beta for windows is very simalar to the unix shell. Its hard to dispute untill we see what happens when vista comes out and it can run on mac not saying its gonna happen but maybe apple and microsoft will work together to create some type of crossplatform so you can run mac stuff on windows and vice versa. Problably wont happen but either way i think people should be more open minded from the beginning microsoft has been trying to find a way to control apple its like agent smith said its inevitable.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For someone so many claim not care about his articles certainly produce a lot of comments from these same people. Some asshat writes a rebuttal of Dvorak's article, posts it on Digg and uses the stir Dvorak caused among the mac fanboys to drive traffic to his page. Congrats, you've been led like a bunch of sheep. Speculation isn't worth the bandwidth to publish it, rebuttals of speculation are worth even less.
"I think we'd all rest easy if we knew someone was going to curbstomp Dvorak tommorw...Im just saying, anyone has his address?"
Threats of violence for speculation you happen not agree with. Too many 14 year olds on Digg. - digirebel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1" I read posts by gleeful switchers every week. And I follow them carefully, because I’m considering the switch myself. Surprisingly often the switchers are long-term, hard-core Windows users. And everywhere I look I see Mac laptops - more and more of them, it seems, every day (though sometimes you have to squint to see past the forests of other Apple schwag in the way)."
It's unscientific observations such as this that gets you in trouble. The Liberally slanted news media had John Kerry winning on Exit polls, which is no better than what the author is doing here. Also, how many time have you bought a car only to notice that there are so many cars just like yours on the road? Let's look at the numbers. When it comes down to it, Apple still has much less than 10% of the market. Can this turn around? Absolutely, just look at AMD vs Intel. AMD did it by listening to its customers and giving them what they want at a better price--are you paying attention Apple? If they want more market share, they have to start changing the way the do business.
"6. Apple’s assault on the gossip sites. Dvorak theorizes that Apple went after ThinkSecret because it was worried the gossip sites would find out about the Windows switch.
Wasn’t the ThinkSecret suit launched before Apple announced the Intel switch? Perhaps the lawsuit was aimed at preventing that disclosure. But in any event, Apple’s mystique is built on marketing, and its marketing is built on controlling perception. It’s much more likely that Apple went after Think Secret because it was interfering with Apple’s ability to control spin."
The author does nothing to disprove Dvorak's point here. If anything, he helps makes Dvorak's point.
In some respects, I find Apple's strategy to be like AOL's. Most of their things are proprietory and they operate mostly on a closed system. This same way of thinking almost killed the company before, so I hope lessons were learned from that. If you take away the Ipod, how successful is Apple Computer, really? Be truthful when you ponder that thought. I'd love for Apple to succeed. It's competition that drives the market towards better products for everyone. People just have to get past this Windows/Apple BS. Choose what you like and use it. A good craftsman never blames his tools and it's the photographer that makes a great picture great, not the camera- yadda, yadda, yadda. - TokenUser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1An article that is as equally speculative as JCD's. Only Steve J and Bill G know what is truly happening.
- shinaku, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1rouslan: How can a mac not be for power users? The whole point of the UNIX part of it is for stability and robustness.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4The "C" stands for "Cocaine"
- PathDaemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@"Macs suck. You get that from the name:OSX=OS SUX
They are too simple, they are designed for people that have never used a computer before, definately not for power users. I do not understand why some sysadmins like them (apart from the fact that users cannot mess the computers up). I would be more productive on a PII 200MHz than a g5."
Holy *****, rouslan! You couldn't be more wrong. First of all, "OS SUX" is a big stretch. Greater than transforming "Windows" to "Winblows" and possibly equal to making "Microsoft" "Microsucks".
As far as the second part of your comment, I'm led to believe that you haven't used a modern Mac for any length of time. ("I wouldn't want or need to," you'd surely respond). The only point I _really_ need to make is that OS X is based on UNIX. That is THE sysadmin-friendly, powerusertastic OS and CLI. Much greater than DOS. Hell, that's why there's that other OS called Linux — it's a free recreation of UNIX, NOT of DOS, which is Windows' core of choice.
To go further, you are right that the Mac OS is designed to work with those who have never used a computer before, but it's also designed to grow with the user… in a sense. The OS never actually changes, but new users simply don't notice or need to find advanced faces of the OS. I've been a computer user for my entire life, and have NEVER felt limited by the Mac OS because I do look for and find those faces. The fact that many graphic designers and video editors (like myself, though I'm primarily a student), is testament to this fact. The Mac OS is simple where it should be, where complication like that of Windows is unnecessary for equal performance. An indicator of this? Why are there so many stories of long-time Windows users becoming curious about Macs and eventually switching (without aggravation about limitations) but so few about switches in the other direction?
Enough of this. I've work to do. - nathanstarr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1First of all Dvorak doesn't say that it is GOING to happen. He just states that it is a POSSIBILITY. There is a huge difference. He just said that, hey, maybe it will happen and here is some evidence to support it. People are taking this wayyy to far.
- vdubski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Damn, site is down already.
http://www.robhyndman.com.nyud.net:8080/2006/02/25/why-john-c-dvorak-is-wrong-about-apple/ - kazem, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Dvorak is out of his mind. I rarely like his attitude, even though he's really knowledgeable.
- zimm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1dvorak is wrong! we ignore everything he says!
hes so not even worth reading! heres a 10,001 point list explaining why we dont care about him!
roflmao. irony is lost on some folks - fabeetz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hey - this is great news. Since John C. Dvorak is always wrong, it means Apple will never go Windows. Thanks John.
- TheCount, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This article has gotten Dvorak way too much press, a true testament to how rabid Apple fan's are and their inability to let anything regarding Apple that isn't a complete and utter glowing commentary on the company slide.
- Dennern, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't see why you all hate dvorak so much, his point is pretty good... although I don't think he's right on this particular issue.
The counter-article by the way is simply too lame. - UbuntuAtlantis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Since when has Dvorak ever been right?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Attention Digg readers: YHBTBD. HAND.
You have been trolled by Dvorak. Have a nice day. - McoreD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When people predicted the Intel switch, what the others say? "he's talking smack", "never gonna happen....". Well, think. This can happen in the future.
- RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dvorak being wrong needs no explanation.
(Damn captcha!) - leonbev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I gotta hand it to Dvorak. He may be a senile old fart who stopped understanding the technology business five years ago, but he's probably the best professional troll out there. He posts flamebait like this every week in his blog, and you fanboys keep falling for it EVERY time.
- dBass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why waste any brain waves rebutting this *****? Unless, you want Digg hits of course.
Let's see: The Steve invested millions to develop the Next OS. He then brought the crew from Next to Apple (effectively retaking his company). Apple then spent millions more to mod the Next OS to become OS X (not to mention the risky, costly transition from OS 9). And now, according to Dvorak, The Steve will dump Apple's state-of-the-art® stable OS to run the brain fart that is Windows.
Uh, uh - robroydude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here here - tokenuser is correct - neither article has "hard" facts just speculation - JCD is entertaining even if he has "lost it”. I will continue to read his blogs as long as wants to post them and so will thousands of others.
Why anyone would want to blacklist him or any journalist boggles the mind - are we back in the McCarthy era? - is JDC some sort of commie? The blacklist suggestion is a pathetic attempt by some whinny whannabe's jealous of his success - nothing more. - inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> If you write a column every week about the future of technology,
> sometimes you're going to be wrong.
Sometimes, but Dvorak has a track record of being wrong a lot. His reputation is undeserved so when he makes these outlandish predictions about Apple--a company for whom he expresses scorn on many occasions--it's annoying. Everyone takes his opinion seriously and he does not deserve it.
> No one cares what you think, 80% of above posters.
Thanks for speaking for all of us, but you're wrong. Actually, I find the comments on Digg (and Slashdot) to be more informative and interesting than some muck-raker like Dvorak. At least I know that people posting here know what they're talking most of the time and are not posting just to drum up traffic to their web site. - acidzebra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"John C. Dvorak is Wrong About Apple"...
and the sky is blue, grass is green, and consumers get ripped off.
Seriously, the guy is wrong on so many things its like an ongoing joke. - simX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You're seriously kidding me. Someone took Dvorak's bait and actually posted a response? Are you SERIOUSLY kidding me?
- giacomogusmano, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dvorak has always been a Devil's Advocate when it comes to the Mac platform. In fact, I think he used to write a column for MacUser magazine called Devil's Advocate.
Dvorak is clearly just having some fun. After switching to Intel, there isn't anything left to distinguish the Mac except OS X and Apple's creative product design.
Gino Gusmano - webcrumb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Since when has Dvorak ever been right?" The Intel switch.
As for switching to Intel because the IBM PPC couldn't keep up is simply rubbish. Intel has been suffering at the hands of ARM-derivatives and i386/x64 AMD (look at the Itanium). It's simple business to bribe a large OEM (notably Dell and HP up to recently) to use your product rather than that of a competitor. Hence, Intel bribes Apple to use their chip, despite the IBM Cell processor being all but ready for the mainstream. This increases their overall market share, allowing them to cut prices to squeeze AMD some more. With AMDs Turion becoming more popular, even their Centrino brand isn't safe - after all, would you rather have a 32-bit Duo or an equivalent 64-bit Turion which is clocked lower, runs cooler and draws less power?
We've already heard that MS is separating GUI from subsystem in future OS. It's a simple matter to code a different GUI.
I'm regretting my Dell 9100 purchase with its P4 531. I'm sure it's slower than my old AMD XP 2500+@3200+. - MartyFinkle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dovark was right when he said Macs would move to Intel, years before it happened.
The link this points to does NOTHING to dispute the arguement dvorak makes.
to say "I know people who switched" doesn't prove a thing. Apples Market share in hardware has not improved.
in iPods maybe, but believeit or not MP3 players is a short term market.
Themes in windows makes it entirely possible to make windows work like/look like a mac, and save Apple A HARDWARE company save a ton of money.
Deny it, but Dvorak still wins the argument. - JuliusErving, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The fact that someone actually took the time to refute dvorak's article is really pathetic. You can't take dvorak seriously. I personally think dvorak brought up some interesting points to discuss, regardless of the fact that apple will never switch to windows.
- SilentBobSC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@starman
People also have the same perception about Bellsouth, AT&T, and most large companies, but people just want to get their job done with the least amount of hassle possible. While it'd be nice, I don't see corporations mass-switching all their PCs to Macs, while the software is similar, basic users will still have a LOAD of problems, complaints, and id10t errors... not because of bad software, just because your average user didn't want to learn this crap in the first place, and if you switch it all up on them... well I just don't see it flying.
While I have held out on Vista, and given it every skeptical look I could... it honestly looks like it's shaping up to be something... mah-velous... XP was leaps and bounds ahead of 95/98 (I'm not even going to mention ME, that piece of *#@&) and Vista will probably up the ante one more time. Then you have the fact that MS has snuggled up to the movie and music industry by helping with their DRM and copy-protection schemes (secure boot chain, HDCP support, etc) so it's going to be the industry's baby (albeit a demonic mega-goliath with the likes of the RIAA, MPAA, etc) and that will give it even more momentum.
IT is a very unique market which has so many factors influencing it, yet in order to maintain system compatiblity and a uniform user experience, some things must be more popular than others and Billy G saw that and lined himself up properly... Steve will probably just go throw on some mouse ears and ride on the iPod's fame for the next couple of years.
While I feel for those of you on the apple platform, I still maintain the belief that this was was won back in the early 80s and Steve dropped the ball.
SB
PS - Don't forget, while Bill may be geeky, awkward and mischevious... Steve is just a plain ***** ( folklore.org if you want first hand accounts ) and I doubt he cares for anything more than his fame or success... so don't defend him so much, it kinda reminds me of a beaten wife who keeps running back to Ike... really, he loves me, he'll change.. I know it... :) - danmacon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0DoS attack perhaps?
- duke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Macs are like driving a chick car... Be it a Cabriolet, PT Cruiser, or a VW Bug....they are all chick cars...and that's what a mac is. It really doesn't do anything better, it's just looks nicer."
LOL!! +2 for you, my friend, that's truly an inspired observation!! - nbx909, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0wasn't it obvoius that he is wrong? why do we need some half-rate article from the blogsphere to tell us this?
- cl0ck_werk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0wow you people are getting angry over dvorak's prediction? i applaude.
rable rable rable - cyberghost232, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dvorak is the shiat. I like everything he talks about. So what if he isnt right hes interesting.
- manfesto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@impactedcolon
I didn't pull the article out of my ass - I pulled it out of an old PC Mag (well, archive.org's old copy, anyway), and quite frankly, it's very much on par with most of what Dvorak puts out every week - that just happens to be my favorite example. I also fully realize that my opinions posted here have little value to anybody but myself (especially John C. Dvorak himself) - hence why I posted evidence straight from the source (for the benifit of the few uninformed persons that may actually think Dvorak is somehow a good authority on trends in technology) just what kind of crap Dvorak writes every week. Yes, my pointless opinion came first, but a rather telling article from Mr. Dvorak followed, and it is a good indicator of the kind of hot air he's filled with. If you want to see more, go to a used book store and flip through old issues of PC Magazine (or archive.org) and witness a guy that is, to say the least, significantly more often wrong about his predictions than right, despite his seemingly impeccable reasoning.
If you have actually read most of what Dvorak's written, you'd realize that his track record stinks, and that he being constantly wrong is indeed a running joke. There is a reason he's known as the world's best paid internet troll, and the fact that he is a PAID troll doesn't validate any of his opinions - it only shows he has the motivation to write controversial drivel in hopes of driving up page hits/ad revenue (and yes, I visit his page and drive up his traffic/revenue - I explain why below).
@prh99
I, for one, do care what he writes and don't claim otherwise. It's idiotic what he writes, but I'm always up for reading the rants of a guy justifying the most outlandish claims with failed attempts at logic. I read conspiracy theory books for the same reason - an odd form of entertainment. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>The point is, in my life, and my neck of the woods, nobody in their right mind even knows
>what a Mac is, let alone what the difference is between Windows. They know iPod, I have to
>hand it to Apple on that. But outside of San Fransisco, Seatlle, L.A., New York, etc...
>Apple hardly exsists... (In my view of course)
i think two things... first its not hard to walk into any computer store and get something that works on your mac. not sure what you're looking for... but i know without thinking much which will work. but over time mac specific stuff has been easier bought online. order by 10 PM and its here in the morning. 3 bucks shipping. i think to a large degree mac people pioneered out of necessity easier than going to the store mail order. - inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>When people predicted the Intel switch, what the others say?
>"he's talking smack", "never gonna happen....". Well, think.
>This can happen in the future.
Oh fercrissake! Dvorak was predicting that ages ago, long before it was even a remote possiblity. Meanwhile, his track record for predicting these kinds of things is appallingly bad. This is the same guy who predicted that Apple was going out of business in 2000 or so. Dvorak knows that if you throw enough ***** at the wall, eventually something will stick. I give Dvorak no credit for that "prediction." It was a lucky shot in the dark. - fluffyturtle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That wasn't a very good article at all. John is on crack, that much we know. But the logic behind this rebuttal is almost as bad.
First of all, NO ONE ***** CARES if the switch ads worked or not. You people are complete tools if you see a switch ad on tv and then go out and buy a mac. It is a ***** ad, they come and go, fail and succeed on a daily basis. If I were to buy a ipod I wouldn't do it because I thought their ads were cool and I wouldn't switch to a mac over a ad either.
I would have to agree though, the ads didn’t work. People have been switching to apple since their introduction; I doubt the switch ads did anything to improve that. If it did work then those people are complete tools.
Point #4 is again approached in the wrong way. If you buy a ipod and then buy a mac because you liked your ipod you are once again a tool. Buy a mac because it does what you want and otherwise fits your needs, not because a shiny mp3 player told you to. It is insulting to have one person say “The ipod didn’t make people switch to a mac” and have some other ***** say “Yes it did, people are using macs now because of ipods”. It makes apple users look like idiots.
At any rate Dvorack is wrong. - 12Volts, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0and that God uses Windows
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>In some respects, I find Apple's strategy to be like AOL's. Most of their things are
>proprietory and they operate mostly on a closed system.
closed system. humm... as long as you’re not doing any scrutiny. In many respects AOL
isn’t trying to give the user the best product-the idea is to keep users at AOL so they
can show you the ads.
apple is “closed” i think that word is loaded but the idea is to produce the best product.
so i really don’t think it applies.
now microsoft, i could see this being a good analogy to for the way they have tried to
proprietize the desktop. all that stuff they got in trouble for. thats similar.
and the way they have to compromise Windows to accommodate desperate hardware... that
tends to keep make its target the average more than optimize for the best.
i can see that analogy working.
>This same way of thinking almost
>killed the company before, so I hope lessons were learned from that.
aaaa... no. what happened is that a hardware company that gave away its software cut their
own throats by taking the small share of the Mac hardware market. so really, what they did
wrong was to do what you are suggesting. sorry man.
If you take away the
>Ipod, how successful is Apple Computer, really? Be truthful when you ponder that thought.
very successful. desktop publishing. desktop video. music. own the arts market. they have
a loyal customer base. the market is growing. they have the best products. remember that
jobs has never said... we’re going to make the cheapest best computers ever. he said... we
are going to make insanely great computers. he has. i think that more recently the they
have separated the installed base from the market share... because you just replace PC
2 to 3 times more often. installed base is more like 20%. this something we’ve always
known. its always been part of the the ROI arguments.
>I'd love for Apple to succeed. It's competition that drives the market towards better
>products for everyone. People just have to get past this Windows/Apple BS. Choose what you
>like and use it. A good craftsman never blames his tools and it's the photographer that
>makes a great picture great, not the camera- yadda, yadda, yadda.
i’d just have to point out that after a dullards view of the how lame Apple is you
say we have to get by it. nice... yadda... yadda...
us mac people got over it along time ago. we live in a world of different computers. we know which we like. can't say that about many other demographics. - rebelyell2k5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0there is a God.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"APPLE IS MOSTLY A SOFTWARE COMPANY!"
I wish they'd make up their minds. Depending on the rumor being "debunked", Apple is either mostly a hardware company or most in this case mostly a software company, well which is it? -
Show 51 - 100 of 133 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is