wired.com— While Apple's tactics may seem like Industrial Revolution relics, they've helped the company position itself ahead of its competitors and at the forefront of the tech industry. Sometimes, evil works....
Mar 18, 2008View in Crawl 4
They're not, really. They're taken to task for poor overall OS design that has led to a huge amount of 3rd party software being able to exploit holes and weaknesses to compromise your system immediately, silently, and nigh-completely."Programs crashing" and "people f**king things up while hacking" is just a way of life.
Big difference here: MP3 players were well established when the iPod came out; AOL already had a very large customer base before the internet was even available to the public.
And people criticize MS for being a monopoly....If the fanboys wishes were fulfilled and apple did takeover, they would be a lot worse than MS can ever imagine being.
Apple in fact DID brick people's phones. I think the issue you are taking with the statement is whether Apple was malicious about it. If I warn you multiple times that I will say . . . punch you in the face, and then proceed to do so, then you are still perfectly correct in saying that I knowingly punched you in the face.Now, the question is if Apple was justified in knowingly bricking people's phones. Was is possible to provide an update without bricking the phone? Nobody seems to agree on this point, and it seems like both sides of this argument already decided whether or not to support Apple before presenting "evidence."I am leaning somewhat toward "it was unavoidable" since it appears that unmodified phones were bricked as well. Although in that case it wouldn't be "unavoidable" so much as "s**tty programming." I'll just call it "non-malicious."
withincontextMar 19, 2008
Looks like it shut down on you mid-sentence. :)
cthellisMar 19, 2008
They're not, really. They're taken to task for poor overall OS design that has led to a huge amount of 3rd party software being able to exploit holes and weaknesses to compromise your system immediately, silently, and nigh-completely."Programs crashing" and "people f**king things up while hacking" is just a way of life.
me1000Mar 20, 2008
because of Apple's good products...
isntrealMar 20, 2008
You realize you're just as or more obsessed with Apple than anyone else here. You just posted like 10 comments in this story.
dwhitbeckMar 24, 2008
Why then was the PC so popular? You could upgrade it yourself. You could expand it. Microsoft never made any money selling PCs.
groverblueMar 24, 2008
The UI for their applications sucks.
elvismmiMar 25, 2008
Big difference here: MP3 players were well established when the iPod came out; AOL already had a very large customer base before the internet was even available to the public.
koinekApr 11, 2008
And people criticize MS for being a monopoly....If the fanboys wishes were fulfilled and apple did takeover, they would be a lot worse than MS can ever imagine being.
neonkowMay 8, 2008
Apple in fact DID brick people's phones. I think the issue you are taking with the statement is whether Apple was malicious about it. If I warn you multiple times that I will say . . . punch you in the face, and then proceed to do so, then you are still perfectly correct in saying that I knowingly punched you in the face.Now, the question is if Apple was justified in knowingly bricking people's phones. Was is possible to provide an update without bricking the phone? Nobody seems to agree on this point, and it seems like both sides of this argument already decided whether or not to support Apple before presenting "evidence."I am leaning somewhat toward "it was unavoidable" since it appears that unmodified phones were bricked as well. Although in that case it wouldn't be "unavoidable" so much as "s**tty programming." I'll just call it "non-malicious."