Forums | MacLife

Let me just chime in. I bought a new imac 2 months ago, installed leopard. I have had NOT ONE SINGLE issue with it. It works great.

StaticAge wrote:

I think what Pariah is saying is being misunderstood. I think a good analogy might be a band with humble beginnings who then become rock stars. Smaller bands tend to be more personable and idealistic and down to earth, but often, when a band blows up, they might have better musical gear, a better tour vehicle, better wardrobe, bigger budget in the studio, etc, but they dont necessarily write their best music at the peak of their celebrity and they tend to lose a lot of their initial charm with their early fans because what seems new and amazing to the masses now is not near as great as what they got to experience up close and personal back then.

Apple continues to update their products with technological innovation, but then again, so does everyone else. Dell computers are making computers with better technology every year too, but that doesnt mean that their quality hasnt been slipping nonetheless.

I dont know that there is any proof Apple has started this sort of trend, but arguing about market shares and about the latest iPod and MBP is trivial.

Bad analogy because Apple was a huge star before they ever even released the first Mac. The Apple II was wildly successful. And since I've been a fan of Apple products since 1984 and a user since 1988 and I still love them, remind me how this analogy works??? Are you saying that the opinion of a few people in this forum equates out to the overall opinion of Apple? Sorry, I'm not buying that. Most non-grumpy people I meet in the real world that like and use Apple computers actually like the new stuff they've been doing.

I'm sorry that a few people in here have had bad luck or really don't like a couple of features but that does not extrapolate out to the majority.

Frank

robco wrote:

The quality of Apple's hardware is good. The selection is somewhat sparse. Hopefully there is truth to the rumor of a smaller MBP showing up at MWSF. Still, if I were to abandon OS X, I would consider getting an Apple laptop anyway and just running Windows and/or another *nix on it. Though surprisingly the new XPS laptops from Dell are looking better. But if you want rugged, get a ThinkPad or ToughBook. I've put my MacBook through plenty of abuse with no problems. A friend dropped his 12" AlBook onto a bold sticking out of cement. The case bent, but the machine didn't even shut down, it kept working. He bent the case back and kept using it for quite some time after that. Also, you'll be hard pressed to find as fully featured notebook as the MBP that's as thin and light as the MBP.

My major beef with the UI is lack of options. I would like to have more control over the look and feel and some of the behavior in the UI. I don't think that's unreasonable. It seems that Apple is fresh out of new ideas and is making visual changes just to have some distinction between different versions. Thankfully I was able to kill the glass Dock and selected a desktop background that makes the transparent menubar legible. I just don't think I should have to resort to these types of workarounds.

Our 12" PowerBook was also dropped from about 4 feet in the air to a very hard floor (cement with carpeting). The case bent but the PowerBook also kept right on running. We've been using it for about 6 months since then with no problems.

I'm curious though. If you really thing that the only thing Apple is doing with their updates is making UI changes, and you don't like said UI changes, then why did you upgrade. Seems like a huge waste of $129.

Frank

Pariah wrote:

frankly wrote:

Pariah wrote:

You poor thing...you honestly do seem to believe that things becoming popular makes them "better". When the reality is quality tends to reflect the inverse of the popularity trend. Heck, that's axiomatic in almost any market you might name.

Seems to me that the iPod has gotten consistently better year after year. It also seems to me that the MacBook Pro that I have now is leaps and bounds above ANY laptop that Apple has ever made prior to this. Your insistence that Apple is making crappier products is an opinion, not a fact. Please keep that in mind.

Frank

Check the facts: Apple;s laptops are no more reliable than the industry average, if anything they are slightly under that average.
iPods=gadgets, don't care.

Are we talking hardware or software here?  If you're argument that Apple's growth is resulting in poorer product quality is built around hardware, you're argument is misplaced completely.  Apple's hardware quality IS going to go down, not because of company growth, but because of entering the commodity hardware world of Intel.  Macs are now standard PC's in nicer Apple boxes and will have similar failure rates.  Additionally, Apple's foray into Intel hardware is forcing thinner hardware margins to stay competitive, forcing even greater standardization.  As the reigning king of hardware choice and "value" components, it's really hard to listen to any whining you might have to do in this particular area.

If you are talking about software, you have a better argument, but still not a cohesive one based on your criticism of the free market.  The fact is, popularity is THE LEADING indicator of a better product!  The question is, in what area is the quality exhibited, and how does that relate to you?  In the OS wars, Apple offers a technically equal or superior product Windows.  Although an opinion, most would agree that Apple also holds an edge in aesthetics and general usability when compared to Windows.  Windows has a clear edge over the Mac OS in exposure, hardware freedom, and cost due to hardware savings.  Linux has an edge in price and a counter culture geek movement.  Your choice of which is best depends on which combination of strengths most appeals to you. 

The free market system is a slow machine and requires companies to gain experience through trial and error.  Each OS is being guided by a different paradigm and philosophy, and Apple's rising popularity is because Apple is offering a BETTER product for a growing number of people.  Free market economics is alive an well on this one, and the relative size of a particular company can't change that.

Your argument that once a company gets big, it's products start to decline is valid to a point, but it isn't universal.  There are scores of solid growth high age companies in this world that are producing and even helping push innovation, offering better products than ever.  Since the number of potential external issues to damage product quality and solvency is far to numerous to list, the argument here is a company's ability to define a solid focus.  It is OK for a company to diversify themselves and to adapt, but they must do so safely by keeping their primary core in place until a side project yields positive results.  If side projects become lucrative, the company has to decide whether or not that side project is more profitable than the old core they were built on and either make the new project it's focus, or invest in heavy infrastructure to maintain both initiatives well.

This is where Apple is at.  They have more success than they thought through the CE market, and they need to decide what company they want to be, a CE company, or a computer company.  If they decide to do both as they are now, their infrastructure needs to grow significantly.  You saw this with the announcement that Leopard had been delayed for the iPhone.  The CE device got the attention and is an amazing product.  Leopard couldn't get the same priority and attention, and it feels rushed and unpolished.  Apple needs to focus or expand to maintain the reputation they enjoy amongst long time users.  This need for expansion means the company is growing to improve, not to offer lesser quality. 

I agree that there is a point where the company is too big to control it's focus, but there is no blanket rule as to when that will happen.  It is too early to tell with Apple, but they are approaching a fair amount of risk.

The window consistency was a long time coming. No more stupid pinstripes or brushed aluminum.

All I'm saying is that both our needs could have been easily satisfied with a simple checkbox in Dock preferences. You could have the shiny new Dock, I could keep the old one without resorting to a Terminal hack. Neither of us is wrong or right. We have different preferences and that's OK. In Windows I can change my mouse pointer, window bar color, background, etc. This type of flexibility would be something I would like in OS X as well. You can keep Apple's defaults, others can choose something different.

volk wrote:

Apple's hardware quality IS going to go down, not because of company growth, but because of entering the commodity hardware world of Intel.  Macs are now standard PC's in nicer Apple boxes and will have similar failure rates.  Additionally, Apple's foray into Intel hardware is forcing thinner hardware margins to stay competitive, forcing even greater standardization.  As the reigning king of hardware choice and "value" components, it's really hard to listen to any whining you might have to do in this particular area.

I reject that entire argument. A company that extracts a premium for it's products should deliver premium product, period. The idea that a platform change required a drop in build quality is ridiculous.
There is no inherent reason why PPC would yield more robust hardware than x86, none at all.
Are you being sarcastic about Apple being the "reigning king of hardware choice and "value" components". King of choice??? King of value??? OMG, thats smurfing hilarious. Particularly the choice part.
Whether you are an Apple fan or not I think one thing most reasonable people could agree is that a wide choice is NOT one of Apple's attributes. The debate is over whether that is good or bad, but that fact is stipulated.

Czachorski wrote:

Pariah wrote:

volk wrote:

Apple's hardware quality IS going to go down, not because of company growth, but because of entering the commodity hardware world of Intel.  Macs are now standard PC's in nicer Apple boxes and will have similar failure rates.  Additionally, Apple's foray into Intel hardware is forcing thinner hardware margins to stay competitive, forcing even greater standardization.  As the reigning king of hardware choice and "value" components, it's really hard to listen to any whining you might have to do in this particular area.

I reject that entire argument. A company that extracts a premium for it's products should deliver premium product, period. The idea that a platform change required a drop in build quality is ridiculous.
There is no inherent reason why PPC would yield more robust hardware than x86, none at all.
Are you being sarcastic about Apple being the "reigning king of hardware choice and "value" components". King of choice??? King of value??? OMG, thats smurfing hilarious. Particularly the choice part.
Whether you are an Apple fan or not I think one thing most reasonable people could agree is that a wide choice is NOT one of Apple's attributes. The debate is over whether that is good or bad, but that fact is stipulated.

He was saying that you are the king of calling for hardware choice and value, not Apple.  And then he was wondering why if you are the king, you are doing so much whining about the resulting build quality that results when you go more towards value and commodity hardware.  It is a good question.

Thanks, Czach...exactly what I was going for.

volk wrote:

Pariah wrote:

I reject that entire argument. A company that extracts a premium for it's products should deliver premium product, period. The idea that a platform change required a drop in build quality is ridiculous.
There is no inherent reason why PPC would yield more robust hardware than x86, none at all.

If you reject the argument, you are simply choosing to be ignorant of the facts.  PPC hardware was limited run and conservatively built with battle tested components.  It prevented an apples to apples direct hardware price and performance comparisons with its wintel counterparts, allowing it to provide the profit margins Apple needed with higher reliability. 

Moving to Intel has put Apple on level ground with the Wintel world hardware wise, a world where hardware margins are razor thin, components meet the minimum possible engineering specs, and the production runs are so high that the failure rate can't help but rise.  It's simple common sense.  Apple's move to Intel has a lot of positives, but reliability isn't one of them.

Additionally, you whine incessantly about Apple's hardware premium and their limited model offerings as though all they did was build hardware for a living.  The reality is that they are a software company that uses hardware margin to subsidize their software endeavors.  They could bare knuckle with the rest of the PC world to please you with a myriad of low dollar hardware selections, but then you would have to pay much more for the OS.  How much would you pay for OS X?  $300?  $400?  My guess is you would just move your bitching from hardware to their outrageously priced OS.

Why can't you just embrace that for all of Apple's shortcomings, they offer a good product at a reasonable value, and their business model is working despite the alienation of supposed legions of dissenters waiting to pounce on a consumer tower?

1) It should also be noted that during the PPC days many, if not all, of the chipsets were designed by Apple engineers as well. The move to Intel has also included the move to many Intel designed and made chipsets.

2) I don't agree that by default all components manufactured for the Wintel world are made to meet the minimum engineering specs. There is some outstanding engineering done on that side as well. It's just that the majority of machines sold in the Wintel world (the so-called consumer towers) are made with lowest common denominator components.

3) I agree that Pariah would always find something else to bitch about where Apple is concerned.

4) Apple is not a software company. They are a product company and their products encompass hardware and software, leaning more toward the hardware. This is especially evident with the earlier line of iPods where much of the software was not written by Apple. With the Intel version of OS X they have moved away from their more traditional hardware role just a bit because they could easily move the OS to generic pc hardware if they wanted to but you don't see them doing that because they are a hardware company.

Frank

Well, StaticAge, I see your point, but those complaining don't do themselves any favors with the way they cast their arguments.

Last edited by Czachorski (2007-12-06 8:09 pm)

I'll say it now.  PPC hardware is better than x86.  Maybe not faster anymore, but it is better, and like what was said before, engineered for reliability, not commodity.

-mark

frankly wrote:

...

Wow, that was needlessly long.  All you had to say is that I skimmed through the posts too quickly and missed the topic - period.

But you misread something too.  My metric for the success of the tower is the laptop:desktop ratio.  Record desktop sales is great.  Record laptop sales is great.  But in the context of this discussion, both these metrics are useless until you divide one by the other.  Anyway, I'll call it even.

Last edited by Mr. T (2007-12-06 9:30 pm)

StaticAge wrote:

frankly wrote:

Bad analogy because Apple was a huge star before they ever even released the first Mac. The Apple II was wildly successful. And since I've been a fan of Apple products since 1984 and a user since 1988 and I still love them, remind me how this analogy works??? Are you saying that the opinion of a few people in this forum equates out to the overall opinion of Apple? Sorry, I'm not buying that. Most non-grumpy people I meet in the real world that like and use Apple computers actually like the new stuff they've been doing.

I'm sorry that a few people in here have had bad luck or really don't like a couple of features but that does not extrapolate out to the majority.

Frank

Wow. It seems like you dont seriously consider what anybody else says unless they're agreeing with you. Really, who said that the majority of Apple products are defective? Where did I say that the majority of people feel "x" about Apple? Did I ever say that you couldnt still be a long time fan of Apple?

I am not a grump, but you remind me of the "somebody's got a case of the mondays" character from Office Space the way you are so blithe about whatever anyone says in your rush to defend Apple against the slight possibility of a negative opinion. I mean, I love Apple! But even if I just go to try and explain what I think someone else might be trying to say, because it seemed to me that you arent trying to understand him either, well, I guess that must mean that I dont like Apple and hate all the stuff they've been doing!

The main reason I keep posting arguments on here isnt even because of Apple, its because I feel like anyone saying something negative gets jumped on by people who casually dismiss any valid irritations or feelings others have and feel the need to harp on every freaking gripe someone else posts.

Give it a rest. I guess you missed all the posts in this topic where I have explicitly stated that I agreed with points that people were making. The problem with you trying to explain to me what Pariah was saying is that you weren't doing a good job of putting words into his mouth. He is the one that was making broad sweeping statements that the larger a company gets the worse the quality of their products gets. My response to you was pointing out that Apple has been large for a long time so if Pariah was correct then they would have been making crappy products for a really long time now and they most likely wouldn't still be in business.

But whatever, if you want to perform armchair psychiatry on me based on what you are reading into my posts then go right ahead. You don't know me. You are reading something into my posts that isn't there. Besides, I do believe this was about as condescending a response as I've seen in a while:

Pariah wrote:

You poor thing...you honestly do seem to believe that things becoming popular makes them "better". When the reality is quality tends to reflect the inverse of the popularity trend. Heck, that's axiomatic in almost any market you might name.

Also, what exactly did I write in a post that led you to believe that I don't take other people seriously? I guess in your mind I'm not allowed to disagree with people at all???