Linked by David Adams on Tue 7th Jun 2011 17:54 UTC
Editorial Bob Cringeley makes a bold statement in a blog post responding to Apple's iCloud announcement: "Jobs is going to sacrifice the Macintosh in order to kill Windows." He says, "The incumbent platform today is Windows because it is in Windows machines that nearly all of our data and our ability to use that data have been trapped. But the Apple announcement changes all that. Suddenly the competition isn't about platforms at all, but about data, with that data being crunched on a variety of platforms through the use of cheap downloaded apps."
Order by: Score:
All this conspiracy theories ...
by pfgbsd on Tue 7th Jun 2011 18:17 UTC
pfgbsd
Member since:
2011-03-12

I think the reason for Apple doing this is very simple: if they don't do it, someone else will do it first.

Will iCould kill Windows and MacOS X? I don't see how.

Reply Score: 6

Pro-Competition Member since:
2007-08-20

Interoperability. They want to place the data in the cloud, hoping users will demand interoperability ( i.e. they want to read the data produced on their windows PC on the iphone ) and force microsoft to stop being an evil tyrant.


"Interoperability" in my book would allow access across competing platforms (hence my name on this site).

The iCloud sounds to me like replacing one evil tyrant with another (probably worse).

Reply Score: 11

No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

And that will kill Windows just how? By ensuring Windows has to be interoperable so that iGizmo users can continue using Windows. Sorry, can't see how that will work.

I can see, however, Apple doing the other thing: making cool cloud services that work with the iThings and not with the competition. Say, for instance, their music service only working with iTunes and iPod/iPhone. But cool as it is (and "evil" in the best tradition from One Microsoft Way), it won't kill anything.

Reply Score: 3

lieutenantmudd Member since:
2011-06-07

I have paid for MobileMe for two years because I don't like Google calendar's aesthetics and I like bookmark syncing to my iPhone.

I can tell you, most of iCloud is not a game changer. And Windows won't even blink at any of the services except one - iTunes in the Cloud.

I know a ton of people who use Windows PC (and Macs often) for two purposes:
1. A web browser
2. iTunes

Most people have iPods and those people need a PC or Mac to use it. With iTunes in the Cloud (now with iPod Touches, maybe one day with other iPods), those users are free to buy things like Chromebooks or rely on iPads alone.

I don't buy the argument for "data" in general. I buy the argument for iTunes and music.

Reply Score: 1

No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Most people don't have iPods, and iPod sales have been declining for years as they are replaced by more capable smartphones, including the iPhone. Only 30% of all Steam users have iTunes installed, which means that less than 30% of them actually use it. And that's only the computer gamer category, i.e. young males who like technology and entertainment. I think you'll find there are more iPod owners among those than among pretty much any other segment.

Reply Score: 4

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

It might not kill Windows, but it would (help) make Windows less important.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The only problem is that Apple want to be the new evil tyrant.

Reply Score: 4

_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

Interoperability. They want to place the data in the cloud, hoping users will demand interoperability ( i.e. they want to read the data produced on their windows PC on the iphone ) and force microsoft to stop being an evil tyrant.

you made me laugh.

Reply Score: 3

huh????
by somebody on Tue 7th Jun 2011 18:28 UTC
somebody
Member since:
2005-07-07

"with that data being crunched on a variety of platforms through the use of cheap downloaded app"

sticking apple, cheap and variety of platforms in one sentence? Bob Cringeley should write jokes instead of news and predictions.

Reply Score: 15

RE: huh????
by roverrobot on Tue 7th Jun 2011 18:53 UTC in reply to "huh????"
roverrobot Member since:
2006-07-23

sticking apple, cheap and variety of platforms in one sentence?


Why not? how many companies provide a line of products from MP3 players, cellphones, tablets, notebooks, desktops, and servers?

The hardware may not be cheap, but once you own it, the software is very cheap. At least I don't need to spit out half a grand just to buy the OS and an office suit.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: huh????
by jgagnon on Tue 7th Jun 2011 19:12 UTC in reply to "RE: huh????"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

Why not? how many companies provide a line of products from MP3 players, cellphones, tablets, notebooks, desktops, and servers?


Sony provides all of those except cell phones (they might even make those in some markets, I'm not sure). They make many other products that Apple does not.

Microsoft is on all of those from the software level and has even made most of the hardware. They make many other products that Apple does not.

Motorola makes most of those, but I'm not sure about desktops and servers. They make many other products that Apple does not.

I could go on, but there are many other companies that have a MUCH wider list of products than Apple, so what's the point? I wish people would stop suggesting that Apple is somehow better or more original than every other company on the planet when every one of their products was built on the shoulders of giants, so to speak.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: huh????
by iarann on Tue 7th Jun 2011 19:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: huh????"
iarann Member since:
2006-05-14

"Why not? how many companies provide a line of products from MP3 players, cellphones, tablets, notebooks, desktops, and servers?


Sony provides all of those except cell phones (they might even make those in some markets, I'm not sure). They make many other products that Apple does not.
"
Sony does indeed provide cellphones, see the recently released Xperia Play for an example.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: huh????
by roverrobot on Tue 7th Jun 2011 23:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: huh????"
roverrobot Member since:
2006-07-23

could go on, but there are many other companies that have a MUCH wider list of products than Apple, so what's the point? I wish people would stop suggesting that Apple is somehow better or more original than every other company on the planet when every one of their products was built on the shoulders of giants, so to speak.


You could go on and on, yet none of the companies in your list produce something that is even comparable to what iCloud provided: integration. These companies (less microsoft) provide individual devices, but apple to trying to provide a solution. That is where the revolution is.

I am not saying apple is original. Most of their best selling product are not. But why do they sell more than their original competitors? It is because they just take someone's idea and implement in a slick and smooth way. Apple product is always about user experience, even though apple tout them as original.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: huh????
by demetrioussharpe on Wed 8th Jun 2011 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: huh????"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

" could go on, but there are many other companies that have a MUCH wider list of products than Apple, so what's the point? I wish people would stop suggesting that Apple is somehow better or more original than every other company on the planet when every one of their products was built on the shoulders of giants, so to speak.


You could go on and on, yet none of the companies in your list produce something that is even comparable to what iCloud provided: integration. These companies (less microsoft) provide individual devices, but apple to trying to provide a solution. That is where the revolution is.

I am not saying apple is original. Most of their best selling product are not. But why do they sell more than their original competitors? It is because they just take someone's idea and implement in a slick and smooth way. Apple product is always about user experience, even though apple tout them as original.
"

You are so correct. What people fail to understand is that while the iProduct usually isn't original or unique, the iExperience is. There aren't many other companies that have products that works pretty flowlessly not just by itself, but with other products from it's creator? Like it or not, Apple excels by having an iEcosystem, which makes everything else feel like cans connected by strings.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: huh????
by JAlexoid on Tue 7th Jun 2011 20:58 UTC in reply to "RE: huh????"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You, however, will spit out a few grand for hardware upgrades... There is actually 2 platforms in Apple land - iOS and Mac OSX. The products within those two platforms only vary in form factor.

PS: Welcome to 2011, Apple no longer sells server products.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: huh????
by roverrobot on Tue 7th Jun 2011 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: huh????"
roverrobot Member since:
2006-07-23

You, however, will spit out a few grand for hardware upgrades...


a few grand? Are we living in the same world? I haven't seen an apple product that is "a few grand" more expensive than its competitors.

There is actually 2 platforms in Apple land - iOS and Mac OSX. The products within those two platforms only vary in form factor.


Only form factors? have you ever used these devices before making a comment? They have completely different emphasis on functionality, and completely different look and feel.

PS: Welcome to 2011, Apple no longer sells server products.


Yes you are right. Thanks for the correction. I meant workstations.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: huh????
by fizzled on Wed 8th Jun 2011 04:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: huh????"
fizzled Member since:
2006-01-06

a few grand? Are we living in the same world? I haven't seen an apple product that is "a few grand" more expensive than its competitors.


Here's a new laptop from Lenovo for US$329-- http://www.frys.com/product/6488722

The least expensive MacBook is $999.

The MacBook is not 3x better.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: huh????
by Morgan on Wed 8th Jun 2011 08:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: huh????"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

It's not about whether the Mac laptop is "better", it's about whether it is what the consumer desires and/or needs. It's all about balance.

For example, I own a Dell Latitude D620, roughly equivalent to the second generation MacBook that was released at the same time (Core2Duo, DDR2-800 RAM, etc). The Dell was about $300 cheaper, with a larger screen, ambient light sensor, lighted keyboard, smart card reader, bluetooth, built-in WWAN support, Gigabit ethernet, dual pointing devices, and Nvidia graphics. The system is highly upgradeable for a laptop, with two-minute access to the hard drive, RAM, and all wireless devices. With a RAM upgrade I am now running Windows 7, Slackware Linux and Xubuntu 10.04 with ease, and it handles HD video and software compiling equally like a champ. In other words, much more flexible and useful to me than the more expensive Macbook.

Yet, given all of that I desire the Macbook instead some days, if only for the combination of aesthetics and a powerful, innovative OS that combines the best ideas from Windows, *nix and Apple's own classic OS. I can somewhat compromise with a 95% functional Hackintosh install on a spare hard drive for the Dell, but the slightest little incompatibility destroys the magic of using OS X on this "commodity" hardware.

All of the above is the reason why the only Mac I've bought new was the first gen Mac mini, the cheapest Mac of all time. And while I loved it for about a year, I soon felt the impact of buying what was essentially $300 worth of low-end hardware for $600. I decided then and there I would never buy another Mac brand-new. Since then I've owned an eMac, a G3 PowerBook and a Core Duo mini. Buying them used meant I paid what they were actually worth to me.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[5]: huh????
by daedalus on Wed 8th Jun 2011 12:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: huh????"
RE[4]: huh????
by JAlexoid on Wed 8th Jun 2011 21:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: huh????"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

a few grand? Are we living in the same world? I haven't seen an apple product that is "a few grand" more expensive than its competitors.


Try upgrading your Mac with basically anything, you'll find out that the TCO rises very fast.

Only form factors? have you ever used these devices before making a comment? They have completely different emphasis on functionality, and completely different look and feel.


Yes, quite a lot actually. See, being in mobile application development you get to work with Apple's gear a lot.
Functionality and L&F between iOS devices is the same. The functionality and L&F of all OSX products is absolutely the same.(Notebook, AIO, tower and mini are form factors)
I may give you the iPod classic platform, even the iPod Nano looks more like iPod Touch than iPod classic.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: huh????
by SterlingNorth on Wed 8th Jun 2011 01:38 UTC in reply to "RE: huh????"
SterlingNorth Member since:
2006-02-21

No -- you just need to spit out one grand or more for the computer to run the OS on -- or over two grand over the life of a cell phone contract to get the "Oh, Wow!" subsidized price of $200 US.

The OS is cheap because you've already long subsidized the price of it on the hardware purchases.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: huh????
by Morgan on Wed 8th Jun 2011 08:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: huh????"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

... over two grand over the life of a cell phone contract to get the "Oh, Wow!" subsidized price of $200 US.


I hear this argument a lot, but unless you have T-Mobile you won't pay any less per month whether you pay full price for the phone or the subsidized price, at least in the US. None of the other US carriers offer lower monthly payments for non-contract post-paid accounts. T-Mobile offers Even More Plus plans for those who bring their own unlocked phone to the carrier, or who prefer to pay full retail price and not be tied down, and the monthly savings are pretty good.

Granted, they took it off the website recently so you have to request it in-store or by phone, so it may be going away soon. If that happens there really is no reason not to get a subsidized phone since you'll pay the same monthly for the entire time you're with that carrier.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: huh????
by demetrioussharpe on Wed 8th Jun 2011 18:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: huh????"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

No -- you just need to spit out one grand or more for the computer to run the OS on -- or over two grand over the life of a cell phone contract to get the "Oh, Wow!" subsidized price of $200 US.

The OS is cheap because you've already long subsidized the price of it on the hardware purchases.


Considering how well they all work together, I fail to see the issue. If you can't afford it, then don't buy it, no one's forcing you. But the price has no baring on the performance, usability, or cohesiveness of Apple's products. This is a tech site, not a financial site. Money arguments mean little, it's the technology that's important.

And, before anyone attempts to wrongly call me a fanboy:

I'm typing this on a Toshiba laptop that's running Win7; to my right is a tower running PC-BSD; & behind me is an older system running eComstation 2.0. Though I've wanted an Apple for personal reasons, there's just no real reason for me to get one regardless of the cost.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: huh????
by unclefester on Wed 8th Jun 2011 07:57 UTC in reply to "RE: huh????"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Samsung make just about every type of hardware imaginable including phones, computers, monitors, memory and hard drives. They also make TVs, refrigerators and washing machines!

Reply Score: 5

RE: huh????
by jtfolden on Tue 7th Jun 2011 19:41 UTC in reply to "huh????"
jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

sticking apple, cheap and variety of platforms in one sentence? Bob Cringeley should write jokes instead of news and predictions.


You've apparently been sleeping for the last 10 years.

There's no other company today that has as successful a reach across not only platforms but market segments as does Apple. Sure, there are companies that are cheap... and there are companies that have a larger variety of random products but there are none that tie them together in a cohesive, affordable ecosystem for consumers.

The only other company that has the potential to come close right now is HP...and that tale will be told within the next 6 months.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: huh????
by JAlexoid on Tue 7th Jun 2011 21:05 UTC in reply to "RE: huh????"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

There's no other company today that has as successful a reach across not only platforms but market segments as does Apple.

Hm... Samsung or any other Asian electronics conglomerate? Platforms? Check. Market segments? Check.

Apple has exactly 2 platforms and targets only the consumer market. Their 0.1 success in business segment is largely overlooked by Apple themselves.

Success? Yes.
Variety of platforms? Nope.
Domination in consumer electronics market? Not absolute, but largely yes.

Sure, there are companies that are cheap... and there are companies that have a larger variety of random products but there are none that tie them together in a cohesive, affordable ecosystem for consumers.

Affordable? No sorry. Valuable and quality - that may be. But definitely not affordable.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: huh????
by jtfolden on Tue 7th Jun 2011 21:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: huh????"
jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

Hm... Samsung or any other Asian electronics conglomerate? Platforms? Check. Market segments? Check.


Really? ...because the Galaxy Tab and their music players are a huge success???? Oh, wait... they're sitting mostly unsold.... despite furiously trying to copy Apple. I can't even remember the last time I saw someone with a non-trivial Samsung device that wasn't a display of some sort (TV, monitor) or an old piece of stereo equipment.

Success? Yes.
Variety of platforms? Nope.
Domination in consumer electronics market? Not absolute, but largely yes.


Again, I ask... what other company is successful across the consumer spectrum: smartphones, music players, tablets, notebooks and desktops, cross-platform consumer software for previously mentioned devices, etc... Heck, even the latest AppleTV seems to have finally hit its target.

Affordable? No sorry. Valuable and quality - that may be. But definitely not affordable.


Just as an example; Last I checked, the iPad was incredibly affordable. There's no truly comparable tablet available at that price and certainly none that are part of such a flourishing and inter-connected hardware/software ecosystem. I can't find anything comparable to a Mac mini with the same features at the same price point from a major manufacturer, either.

What other hardware maker can leverage a 'cloud' architecture to bring painless syncing to all their devices like Apple is now doing?

I'm not a fanboy (my phone is a Palm, for example) but no other company seems to really understand the consumer market the way Apple does right now... it took Apple to open up the tablet market.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: huh????
by Neolander on Tue 7th Jun 2011 21:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: huh????"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

The iPad isn't exactly affordable. It may be cheaper than its competitors, granted, but all tablets are still incredibly expensive for what they're up to in practice. Except maybe Archos' ones, haven't had a look at them for some time...

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: huh????
by MOS6510 on Tue 7th Jun 2011 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: huh????"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

It's not affordable and yet Apple has problems keeping up with demand.

Hell, parents even buy iPads for their kids.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: huh????
by Neolander on Tue 7th Jun 2011 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: huh????"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

This "hard time keeping up with demand" means nothing, it's a very old marketing trick. I'm sure that even with Vista Microsoft dared to use the "oh man we can't supply enough" trick.

And as for parents buying fragile devices which start at $500 to kids, well... It's their money. And their kids. But I think it's insane, and I'm sure I'm not the only one doing so.

Edited 2011-06-07 21:57 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: huh????
by MOS6510 on Wed 8th Jun 2011 05:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: huh????"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

That marketing trick comes in to play when your product isn't going well and you try to seem it's actually very wanted so get yours now. The iPas is the best selling tablet by far.

I doubt Apple thinks it will make more money not being able to sell someone an iPad instead of taking the money.

When I google on "windows vista demand" and "ipad demand" at first glance it seems there were no Vista demand 'n' supply issues.

My son and his friends use my iPad often. So often that I have resorted to hiding it or claiming it is charging (but daddy, there is no cable attached. damn). No damage as yet.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: huh????
by jtfolden on Tue 7th Jun 2011 22:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: huh????"
jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

The iPad isn't exactly affordable. It may be cheaper than its competitors, granted, but all tablets are still incredibly expensive for what they're up to in practice. Except maybe Archos' ones, haven't had a look at them for some time...


...but I think we have to look at "affordable" in the context of the market the product is in, don't we?

Otherwise, it's a free-for-all and entirely subjective. What is affordable to you may not be affordable to me and vise versa.

In any case, when Apple is one of the cheapest in a segment, or has the greatest value per cost, it's a bit silly for others to suggest the price is an Apple specific issue or barrier to entry.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: huh????
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 8th Jun 2011 02:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: huh????"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

The ViewSonic sounds affordable for what it is.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/07/viewsonic-announces-250-viewbook...

I'd totally buy one, if I had a use for a tablet...

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: huh????
by Neolander on Wed 8th Jun 2011 06:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: huh????"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Indeed, $250 sounds like a fair price for the evolution of the PMP that most modern tablets are. If the thing is well-built and sufficiently polished.

Edited 2011-06-08 06:35 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: huh????
by unclefester on Wed 8th Jun 2011 08:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: huh????"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

No one outside the USA cares less about Apple.

Go to any Australian phone retailer and you will see a large range of Samsung, HTC and Nokia products. However you won't see a single Apple product for sale in most shops.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: huh????
by jtfolden on Wed 8th Jun 2011 10:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: huh????"
jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

No one outside the USA cares less about Apple.

Go to any Australian phone retailer and you will see a large range of Samsung, HTC and Nokia products. However you won't see a single Apple product for sale in most shops.


oh sure... no one cares in Australia. Oh wait...

Apple has numerous retail stores there.

On top of that, according to Quantcast, the oceania area of the world (including Australia and New Zealand) is second only to North America in market share owned by Apple and nearly double that of Europe.

Btw, I wasn't aware HTC and Nokia were selling huge quantities of tablets, music players, etc... anywhere in the world, let alone Australia... or maybe your post was both incorrect and irrelevant.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: huh????
by unclefester on Wed 8th Jun 2011 11:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: huh????"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Australia has 22 million people. New Zealand has only four million people. These markets are totally insignificant on a global scale.

Australia is as big as the USA but there are only 10 Apple stores in four capital cities. The "local" Apple store may be located more than 2000km away.

Every shopping centre in Australia has at least one specialist mobile phone shop (often three or four). Virtually none of these sell Apple products. Every supermarket and department store also sells phones.

The only reason Apple has a large share of the Australian phone and tablet market is that no real choices existed until very recently. You can now get Android phones for less than $100 without a contract.

Edited 2011-06-08 11:58 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: huh????
by jtfolden on Wed 8th Jun 2011 15:03 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: huh????"
jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

Australia has 22 million people. New Zealand has only four million people. These markets are totally insignificant on a global scale.

Australia is as big as the USA but there are only 10 Apple stores in four capital cities. The "local" Apple store may be located more than 2000km away.


There are 10 stores based on population density/location in Australia. The size of the land mass is irrelevant. In comparison, a single state in the US, Ohio, has around 12 million people and 6 Apple stores. So, Au is doing comparably well.

However, this is irrelevant to your original claim that no one outside the US cares about Apple. Australians care enough that they are second only to the US in Apple usage, percentage wise.

Every shopping centre in Australia has at least one specialist mobile phone shop (often three or four). Virtually none of these sell Apple products. Every supermarket and department store also sells phones.


You pretend that iPhones are sold in every mom and pop store in the US. This is not the case. However, in Australia you can walk into numerous provider locations and buy an iPhone including: Optus, Telstra, Three Virgin and Vodafone among others. It's probably more readily available there than here given it was confined to a single network in the US until a very short time ago.

I imagine, just as in the US, a lot of Australians buy online.

Even if you were to still persist in the notion that it's hard to find/buy an iPhone in Australia, the reality is that Australians are finding them and buying them in decent numbers.

The only reason Apple has a large share of the Australian phone and tablet market is that no real choices existed until very recently. You can now get Android phones for less than $100 without a contract.


What is "recently" to you? Android phones have been available in Australia for a while now. In any case, maybe one day in the future the stats might change. Until then, however, the fact remains that the original assertion was a lie.

Edited 2011-06-08 15:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: huh????
by JAlexoid on Wed 8th Jun 2011 21:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: huh????"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You might have an issue with your memory. Certain Apple devices are affordable... But I was replying to your own commnnt:
[quote]affordable ecosystem for consumers[/quote]
That is where you are dead wrong. The ecosystem is not affordable. Because the Apple ecosystem has things as overpriced routers, overpriced H/W components and so on... And if you want the whole "ecosystem" you get to a point where your setup is too expensive(expensive is an antonym to affordable)

Reply Score: 2

I don't think so
by WorknMan on Tue 7th Jun 2011 18:33 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Look, I'll be the first to say that I am a fan of smartphones, and even tablets. But neither of them are going to kill PCs or Macs anytime soon. Maybe for my grandma they will, but not for people who need to get 'real work' done.

Reply Score: 7

RE: I don't think so
by REM2000 on Tue 7th Jun 2011 19:22 UTC in reply to "I don't think so"
REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

I think thats they key thing, "for grandma". Five years ago if grandma wanted a computer it would have been a desktop or laptop running Windows or Mac OSX.

Obviously content still needs to be created so the death of the PC is greatly exaggerated. However in another way is it?

Take the iPad again, how many grandmas will get the device, then how many mums and dads, how many teenagers? There is a large segment just ready for the Post-PC device, where these markets only need to consume web services.

For media/content creation it is worth thinking that internet speeds will improve, uploading a HD home movie won't take as long. Editing of the movie could be done in the cloud with the iPad like device acting as the interface to the cloud service. All of the editing processed by the cloud and then stored in the cloud. Things like docking the ipad so it can be used with a bluetooth keyboard and large screen suddenly make the iPad device invisible to the end user, suddenly it looks like a PC.

I don't foresee this soon, but give it five years and i think we'll be surprised at how much we do in the cloud, just think back to 5 years ago, in 2006 how much were we using the cloud compared to today, it's only going to continue.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I don't think so
by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 7th Jun 2011 20:37 UTC in reply to "I don't think so"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Look, I'll be the first to say that I am a fan of smartphones, and even tablets. But neither of them are going to kill PCs or Macs anytime soon. Maybe for my grandma they will, but not for people who need to get 'real work' done.


Exactly. I don't see, in any foreseeable future, small portable device replacing "proper computers".
Not even the very visionary Star Trek authors could fathom the demise of "proper computers" in a distant future.
OTOH, for the gazillionth time, I want my data on my PC, not "in the clouds", also because internet services are far from 100% reliable in many countries, including mine. And dial-up is far from dead on a planetary scale.

Reply Score: 5

Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Tue 7th Jun 2011 18:50 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

No. Apple are looking to kill web apps.

Mobile Me / iWork.com was a disaster. They came to the realisation that web apps don't work in a closed platform. They probably spent thousands of man hours re-implementing a crap ton of stuff in HTML/JS and realised that with browsers being so inconsistent and broken, it would forever be a lost battle. They could never implement and then maintain an OS X app and a web app with the same functionality.

The release of iWork for iPhone shows them pulling themselves back on track. iWork.com will be ditched soon and the MobileMe web interface will linger around for a while and then be ditched too.

Apple believe that the best user experience can never be web apps because the web isn't good enough as a developer platform in their eyes. They have now turned the ship around and are going to be going full steam ahead into their new direction -- the replacement of the web with an API-constricted appstore and apps.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Comment by Kroc
by JAlexoid on Tue 7th Jun 2011 21:12 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

What else would you expect from control freaks....

Reply Score: 3

Comment by ssokolow
by ssokolow on Tue 7th Jun 2011 19:18 UTC
ssokolow
Member since:
2010-01-21

I just wish the "desktop" Linux distros would stop their colon-gazing and focus on enumerating and providing fail-safes for all the myriad things that can break just enough for geeks to not see a problem.

For example, last I checked, Windows and MacOS don't have an analogue to "Oops. You followed our simple update GUI and now your GUI won't boot. Please log into the console and manually use dpkg and apt-get to complete your interrupted upgrade".

I say this with the best of intentions as a geek whose mother runs Lubuntu quite happily.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by ssokolow
by leech on Tue 7th Jun 2011 22:08 UTC in reply to "Comment by ssokolow"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

I just wish the "desktop" Linux distros would stop their colon-gazing and focus on enumerating and providing fail-safes for all the myriad things that can break just enough for geeks to not see a problem.

For example, last I checked, Windows and MacOS don't have an analogue to "Oops. You followed our simple update GUI and now your GUI won't boot. Please log into the console and manually use dpkg and apt-get to complete your interrupted upgrade".

I say this with the best of intentions as a geek whose mother runs Lubuntu quite happily.


I can quite happily say that is mostly an (x)ubuntu issue. I have seen more upgrades break Ubuntu than any other distribution (Fedora being a close second, but at least Fedora outright says that it's a testbed for new technologies) Personally I've been suggesting just Debian Squeeze for normal people. Though I do the initial set up. It's just simply more stable and you don't have to sweat it screwing up grub or something every time the user sees the update notification.

Ubuntu usually has a good initial setup, but it really stinks on the upgrades.

All this aside and being a bit off topic, but I don't see iCloud doing anything except for those iFreaks that think that iApple can't make any iShit.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow
by Brendan on Wed 8th Jun 2011 19:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ssokolow"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

I can quite happily say that is mostly an (x)ubuntu issue. I have seen more upgrades break Ubuntu than any other distribution (Fedora being a close second, but at least Fedora outright says that it's a testbed for new technologies) Personally I've been suggesting just Debian Squeeze for normal people. Though I do the initial set up. It's just simply more stable and you don't have to sweat it screwing up grub or something every time the user sees the update notification.


I'm not sure about other distros, but I've been running Gentoo for a long time and watching stuff break for a long time.

The last update I did (yesterday actually) I upgraded to Gentoo's new "OpenRC" init system, which deleted my "/etc/net.eth0" script. With this script gone the computer had no networking, and because this computer is the LAN's DHCP server it took out my entire LAN. It's funny how seriously screwed you are when you can't google for answers. I had to (temporarily) configure a different computer for static IP before I figured out what happened. It wasn't the only problem either - mysterious "unknown policy 'ne'" and "unknown facility 'menone'" messages from sysklogd (I gave up and switched to metalog instead), a few quirks (fixed with revdep-rebuild), and some other warnings (relating to the removal of HAL) I think/hope can be ignored for now.

It's not Gentoo's fault, or the fault of any of the maintainers for any distribution - they do amazing work trying to hide the symptoms of an insurmountable "herding cats" problem.

The real problem is a cultural problem - the idea of "choice is good" (until you're the poor sucker that has to deal with an unlimited number of variations) and "better is better" (if you don't consider global effects and the cost of changing from "existing/established" to "different but slightly better in theory").

All this aside and being a bit off topic, but I don't see iCloud doing anything except for those iFreaks that think that iApple can't make any iShit.


In my opinion "cloud" is an apt metaphor - rising on hot air, and likely to blow away when the wind changes.... ;-)

- Brendan

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by ssokolow
by stabbyjones on Tue 7th Jun 2011 22:46 UTC in reply to "Comment by ssokolow"
stabbyjones Member since:
2008-04-15

where do you live? 2004?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow
by tyrione on Wed 8th Jun 2011 11:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ssokolow"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

where do you live? 2004?


I live in 2011 and Debian Sid/Experimental routinely have dpkg/apt-get failures. Having 11 years of extensive experience in the platform allows me to fix it, but the average user will junk it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by ssokolow
by _txf_ on Wed 8th Jun 2011 11:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

I live in 2011 and Debian Sid/Experimental routinely have dpkg/apt-get failures. Having 11 years of extensive experience in the platform allows me to fix it, but the average user will junk it.


The average user won't be running Debian, let alone sid and experimental.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by ssokolow
by Slambert666 on Fri 10th Jun 2011 10:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ssokolow"
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

The average user won't be running Debian, let alone sid and experimental.


The average user will be running either Ubuntu, Fedora or OpenSuse and each of these has MAJOR stability problems.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by ssokolow
by boldingd on Thu 9th Jun 2011 20:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Debian Sid/Experimental routinely have dpkg/apt-get failures.


Wait, the unstable/testing branch routinely has failures? Really? I'd never have thought. Man, they should put out a stabilized, reliable branch, for people who like consistent, working products and don't like dealing with frequent breakages. I wonder why they don't?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by ssokolow
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 8th Jun 2011 02:36 UTC in reply to "Comment by ssokolow"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I've also never had that happen in the 10+ years of linux desktop use. But I'm sure it probably does happen. Linux breaks, but its so much easier to fix. Windows and mac have limited options if the gui really is broken, without a boot disc to rescure you're kind a screwed.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow
by daedalus on Wed 8th Jun 2011 12:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ssokolow"
daedalus Member since:
2011-01-14

I've had Linux break. I've had Windows break. I've had MacOS break. None are particularly easy to "fix" when something bad goes wrong, unless you know the system much better than the average Joe. I don't think Linux is easier to fix, when with a Mac you can just install the system again in a new folder. You can do the same with Windows but your applications won't work any more. I've never even attempted it with Linux, but I suspect I would be a mess. In reality, for the average Joe, a format and reinstall is the easiest "fix" for serious problems, regardless of OS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by ssokolow
by pantheraleo on Wed 8th Jun 2011 13:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

I've had Linux break. I've had Windows break. I've had MacOS break.


I've had MacOS break as well. One morning, it simply refused to boot, and kept giving me a strange hard disk error. I called AppleCare and told them the error it was giving me, and they were worse than useless. They told me to take to Apple store and get the hard disk replaced because it was dead, even though I knew it was not because Apple's hardware diagnostics said there was nothing wrong with it, and I could access the hard disk just fine by mounting it from a Linux boot disk with HFS+ support.

I finally gave up on trying to figure out how to fix it after I could find no info on Google either about what the error meant or how to fix it, backed up my files, wiped the disk, and reinstalled OS X. That resolved the problem and it hasn't had any disk problems since.

So bottom line, it was definitely an OS X issue that not even Apple itself knew how to resolve.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by ssokolow
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 8th Jun 2011 14:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ssokolow"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Eh AppleCare != Apple. I'm certain someone at Apple Inc knew how to fix it, but getting that information out of them can be tough, AppleCare or not.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by ssokolow
by pantheraleo on Wed 8th Jun 2011 15:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ssokolow"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

Eh AppleCare != Apple. I'm certain someone at Apple Inc knew how to fix it, but getting that information out of them can be tough, AppleCare or not.


Oh, I'm sure someone at Apple would have been able to tell me what is wrong. But getting the problem escalated to an OS bootstrap engineer at Apple is nearly impossible.

Also, whatever happened was apparently odd enough that even Google didn't know anything about it. Don't remember anymore what the error message was. But Google knew nothing about it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by ssokolow
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 8th Jun 2011 13:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah, I'm not the average Joe. I was talking from my perspective as well as the perspective of anyone who wants me to fix my computer ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by ssokolow
by pantheraleo on Wed 8th Jun 2011 15:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

when with a Mac you can just install the system again in a new folder. You can do the same with Windows but your applications won't work any more.



To be fair, that doesn't always work with Mac anymore either. A lot of Mac applications no longer use the sample "drag and drop" approach like they used to. Some of them have actual installers these days. And some of them don't place all of their stuff neatly into a single app bundle anymore than can just be dragged anywhere.

Which of course, brings up a problem with Mac that Apple hasn't addressed yet. Uninstalling applications that were installed with an installer can be problematic. In many cases, you can't simply drag them to the trash to get rid of them. They will still leave crap laying around in the Library folder and such.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow
by koffie on Wed 8th Jun 2011 14:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ssokolow"
koffie Member since:
2010-05-06

"Linux breaks, but its so much easier to fix"

Last time I've seen a non-linux GUI fail on a PC or Mac was when I still had Windows 98. Linux? Well ehm... let's just say I have an extensive history of having to edit xf86config and xorg.conf files by hand to recover my X11 and Xorg... Yes even in modern "point & click" ubuntu days I recently had to fall back to my in-depth knowledge of these config files.

So, easier to fix? Wake up. If something goes wrong on a linux system, and you can't get on the internet - you're screwed these days, unless you "fix" stuff like that on regular bases (which also isn't a very good sign). Linux is not for end-users.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by ssokolow
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 8th Jun 2011 15:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

We obviously have had different personal experiences which have contributed to our differing perceptions of the reliability of Guis. While our personal ancidotes wont settle any argument, it may help to broaden both of our mindsets.

I've twice switched over friends computers to Ubuntu because windows XP was completely broken ( wouldn't boot to gui) and the install disk was awol. I've also had no choice but to use Ubuntu on systems that were built using questionable hardware with non functioning windows drivers ( shame on me for trying to save some money on the motherboard, but still).

If something goes wrong on any system and you can't get on the internet- you're screwed these days unless you " fix" stuff like that on regular bases ( which also isn't a good sign). I don't know why it would be different for any system. I've brought xp, linux and osx back to life before ( with the help of knoppix and access to the internet), but could not have done that without the internet. I don't think you can single out Linux on that one.

IMHO, Linux is easier to fix, because the blueprints (source code, documentation, etc) for it are widely available. People know how it works. Again, you may have a different opinion based on your experiences and that's great. We can agree to disagree. Given the choice, I'd rather be attempting to fix a linux box.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow
by pantheraleo on Wed 8th Jun 2011 15:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ssokolow"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

Linux breaks, but its so much easier to fix.


I'd have to disagree with that. I've had system upgrades and such break Linux in very weird ways that were definitely not easy to fix. Some of these required more than an hour of research on Google trying to find answers.

And of course, one only has to look at the number of threads in the Ubuntu forums that go something like this:

asker: "I have probmem so and so"

answerer1: "Did you try A?"

asker: "Tried that. Didn't fix the problem"

answer2: "Try B"

asker: "Tried it. Still having the same problem"

This will go on for a bit longer, until the answers just stop coming, leaving no answer that actually solved the problem.

I definitely don't think Linux is any easier to fix than Windows or OS X.

Edited 2011-06-08 15:59 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by ssokolow
by j-kidd on Thu 9th Jun 2011 08:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow"
j-kidd Member since:
2005-07-06

That's just the common theme of Ubuntu forums. Try Arc/Gentoo forums next time.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by ssokolow
by demetrioussharpe on Wed 8th Jun 2011 15:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by ssokolow"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

I just wish the "desktop" Linux distros would stop their colon-gazing and focus on enumerating and providing fail-safes for all the myriad things that can break just enough for geeks to not see a problem.


The Linux world's greatest strength for IT people is simultaneously it's greatest weakness for the common user. There's a such thing as having too many options. For the average person, some decisions need to be make for them & the basic rule of thumb is this: "The more technical the choice, the less the user needs to even know that the choice exists." And why's this? Well, because the user usually doesn't care about technical choices, they don't really mean much to the common user. Nine times out of ten, if the user wouldn't understand either choice, then they really don't need to be exposed to the fact that there's an option. Obviously, the opposite is true for the average computer savvy techie user & on up towards the true gurus.

For example, last I checked, Windows and MacOS don't have an analogue to "Oops. You followed our simple update GUI and now your GUI won't boot. Please log into the console and manually use dpkg and apt-get to complete your interrupted upgrade".


That's because all of the companies that didn't realize how wrong this was for users have already died out. There's a reason that Apple & Microsoft are still around today as OS providers & it isn't solely because of monopolistic practices. The same is true now as it has been since the beginning: "Normal people need to be provided solutions that work & they don't really care how or why these solutions work; they also don't usually care about the ideological differences behind each solution, it's all about the ROI value." Kernel panics == downtime == loss of money. When Windows does this, there's someone to point the finger at & they could potentially lose their job if it doesn't get fixed. This isn't always the case with Linux; there's a perpetual number of distros & there's always someone to tell you that you're free to try another one. Well, companies don't have time to rotate between the flavor of the month distro, since "DOWNTIME == LOSS OF MONEY."

I say this with the best of intentions as a geek whose mother runs Lubuntu quite happily.


We are a different breed of people. But, sometimes, we let our passions blind us from some of the obvious facts. There's the ideal way & then there's the practical way for the real world. They don't often match. At least you can see the difference & that's refreshing!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by ssokolow
by boldingd on Thu 9th Jun 2011 20:24 UTC in reply to "Comment by ssokolow"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

I just wish the "desktop" Linux distros would stop their colon-gazing and focus on enumerating and providing fail-safes for all the myriad things that can break just enough for geeks to not see a problem.


They actually are. The X server has definitely seen a lot of development aimed at ensuring some kind of graphical environment can always come up. The VESA driver is a pretty reliable fallback, even if it's not something you want to use all the time. This plus modern RandR has helped immensely (modern RandR so you can re-condifure a running X server, which helps with reliability in that if an X server is put into an unusable state, it can potentially be transitioned back to a usable state automatically).

Reply Score: 2

Nah
by ccraig13 on Tue 7th Jun 2011 19:19 UTC
ccraig13
Member since:
2011-05-31

The reason is even simpler: They just wanted to have a service that used the word "cloud" like everyone else ;)

Reply Score: 14

RE: Nah
by MacMan on Tue 7th Jun 2011 19:33 UTC in reply to "Nah"
MacMan Member since:
2006-11-19

The reason is even simpler: They just wanted to have a service that used the word "cloud" like everyone else ;)


Wow, this pretty much hits the nail on the head. I read all the iCould announcements, and yawn, what is the big freaking deal, I don't get it.

Oh, this statement from Cringeley is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard from him. How is a website where you can store stuff and sync stuff going to kill Windows, Mac, or any other OS???

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Nah
by demetrioussharpe on Wed 8th Jun 2011 15:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Nah"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

Oh, this statement from Cringeley is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard from him. How is a website where you can store stuff and sync stuff going to kill Windows, Mac, or any other OS???


Is this not obvious for you? He's not talking about killing the actual platform. He's talking about killing the advantage that one platform would have over the other by subjugating app development to the web, instead of running it through the API's that would tie it down to the host platform. Obviously, there would still be a need for the host OS, to a point. Though, I believe that Google is trying to make that need go away, also.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nah
by demetrioussharpe on Wed 8th Jun 2011 15:34 UTC in reply to "Nah"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

The reason is even simpler: They just wanted to have a service that used the word "cloud" like everyone else ;)


Everyone wants to say cloud. Of course, what everyone doesn't want the non-techie users to know is that the cloud is as old as unix (maybe older). It's no different than having mainframes that users had to login to from terminals. How funny it is to listen to companies attempt to charge for the services of an old technology, but talk about it as if it's brand new!

Reply Score: 1

eh,
by poundsmack on Tue 7th Jun 2011 20:03 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

I'd hardly say it's to kill windows, its more to compete with Microsoft's cloud offerings: http://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-touts-skydrive-statistics-take...

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Tue 7th Jun 2011 21:36 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

blah blah blah. Apple is trying to provide good products and services that people want and then need and will make Apple rich for ever and ever.

Reply Score: 2

Tryina kill Ubuntu
by earksiinni on Tue 7th Jun 2011 22:19 UTC
earksiinni
Member since:
2009-03-27

You heard me.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Tryina kill Ubuntu
by shotsman on Wed 8th Jun 2011 08:15 UTC in reply to "Tryina kill Ubuntu"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

With 11.04, Canonical are doing a good job of doing that themselves. (IMHO)
Unity is NOT ready. It is unfinished.
Gnome 3 is the same btw.
The distros that adopt it are repeating the KDE4.0 fiasco all over again.(IMHO).

Ubuntu is Zero threat to Apple. Windows 8 is.

But there again, I'm probably a typical GOM (Grumpy old Man) and really hate these dumbed down UI's. I might be getting old (write my fist prog 40 years ago) but I an't ready for the big button phones just yet.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Tryina kill Ubuntu
by unclefester on Wed 8th Jun 2011 08:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Tryina kill Ubuntu"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Ubuntu probably reached it's zenith with 8.04. Each subsequent release has been been less stable and more annoying IMHO. The latest Natty 11.04 release is absolutely atrocious.

Reply Score: 3

Apple vs MS
by andih on Tue 7th Jun 2011 22:56 UTC
andih
Member since:
2010-03-27

Many of you might not have noticed yet, but MS and Apple is pretty much playing on the same team..

There are much stronger bonds between those two that they like to admit. Of course they are competing, but as friends, they will not destroy each other

They have found out that they are much better off raping the worlds a$$ together..


EDIT: typo.. taking the worlds assets together..

Edited 2011-06-07 23:07 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE: Apple vs MS
by tyrione on Wed 8th Jun 2011 11:26 UTC in reply to "Apple vs MS"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Many of you might not have noticed yet, but MS and Apple is pretty much playing on the same team..

There are much stronger bonds between those two that they like to admit. Of course they are competing, but as friends, they will not destroy each other

They have found out that they are much better off raping the worlds a$$ together..


EDIT: typo.. taking the worlds assets together..


Need a box of tissues? We wouldn't want you to cry too much.

Reply Score: 0

Nothing to see here
by orestes on Wed 8th Jun 2011 00:07 UTC
orestes
Member since:
2005-07-06

Cringely is just fishing for hits with sky high speculation, classic Dvorak style

Reply Score: 3

Give me a break...
by pantheraleo on Wed 8th Jun 2011 12:56 UTC
pantheraleo
Member since:
2007-03-07

Give me a break. Apple and it's 5% market share could not kill Windows no matter how much they tried. And the competition has never been about platforms. It's been about applications. And the iCloud is not going to change that. Windows is still going to rule the applications market.

Edited 2011-06-08 13:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Give me a break...
by demetrioussharpe on Wed 8th Jun 2011 19:05 UTC in reply to "Give me a break..."
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

Give me a break. Apple and it's 5% market share could not kill Windows no matter how much they tried. And the competition has never been about platforms. It's been about applications. And the iCloud is not going to change that. Windows is still going to rule the applications market.


Apple doesn't want to kill Windows for the same reason that Lamborghini doesn't want to kill Ford. Both products do the same as their respective competitors, but there's an air of perceived exoticness of the one that's more expensive & less owned. This is how price tags are allowed to stay higher, regardless of the opinion of someone who isn't a customer. No matter what people think, Apple's making a nice chunk of change with it's prices & that's all that really matters. You don't have to have the highest marketshare to have higher profit margins. Profit margins are what counts, not marketshare.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Give me a break...
by pantheraleo on Wed 8th Jun 2011 20:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Give me a break..."
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

You don't have to have the highest marketshare to have higher profit margins. Profit margins are what counts, not marketshare.


That's not completely true when it comes to computing platforms. If you don't have marketshare, it makes it harder to attract third party developers for the platform. And without third party developers, platforms don't survive.

Granted, Apple attracts enough third party developers to keep the Mac platform alive. But the amount of software available for Mac is minuscule compared to the amount of software available for Windows.

Reply Score: 3

Apple invented the internet and music
by getaceres on Wed 8th Jun 2011 14:07 UTC
getaceres
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Having been shown the way by Apple, I expect Google to shortly do the same thing, adding automated backup, synchronization and migration to Android and Chrome."

Having been shown the way? Sorry? Did Apple invent the cloud? It hasn't shown anything new in this event, everything has been implemented by Google and Android community since day one. It's the first event in that Apple is catching the competence and it's not innovating at all.

Google has been promoting the cloud for years and it hasn't and will not kill Windows anytime soon. Nor will Apple.

Reply Score: 3

Windows Killer
by snip3rm00n on Wed 8th Jun 2011 15:15 UTC
snip3rm00n
Member since:
2011-06-08

I honestly don't think thats the case. If Apple really wanted to kill Windows they would work to make Mac OS X an universal OS. They already have a strong following of non-mac hardware users who are making Hackintosh computers. So if they made Mac OS X truly universal and geared for other non-mac PCs, we'd probably see a greater shift to the OSX platform.

Reply Score: 1

...
by Hiev on Wed 8th Jun 2011 15:23 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Like Fake Steve once said, when you get obsessed with distroying MS or Windows you lost.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Dr.Mabuse
by Dr.Mabuse on Thu 9th Jun 2011 00:38 UTC
Dr.Mabuse
Member since:
2009-05-19

From the blog entry:

Just like they used to say at Sun Microsystems, the network is the computer. Or we could go even further and say our data is the computer.


How did that work out for Sun again?

You know, (some) people like to be in control of their own data.

What happens if (when) the "iCloud" goes down? It'll never happen? What assurances do we have to the security and privacy of our data? (brings to mind DropBox) What about ... oh forget it.

Don't believe the hype people!

Reply Score: 1

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Thu 9th Jun 2011 02:09 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

I love reading these articles that try to speculate only to turn out to be spectacular failures - anyone remember the analysts in the past who claimed that Itanium would be a $30-$50billion market, RISC processors all dead, and Dvorak claiming at one point that Apple would sell a customised version of Windows NT. Yes, it seems that any two bit schmuck with a blog is automatically given more credence than he deserves simply because of a platform he might own (aka domain name plus descent marketing).

iCloud is in response to two factors; firstly the fact that they could no longer justify charging for something that quite frankly is being provided free of charge by Google, Yahoo and Microsoft. MobileMe was never any better than the free alternatives to justify the price tag of AUS$108 per year and from what I had heard the growth had pretty much stagnated (many opting for 'DropBox' instead of MobileMe when it came to cross platform file sharing). The second part was the biggest bane of ones experience on iTunes was pretty much when it came to having to re-download music where you'd have to send an email off to Apple, plead to them to allow you to re-download it, and if you're lucky they'll let you. On top of that then add the need to get all devices synchronised beyond contacts etc. I hardly see iCloud as something revolutionary, the changes just bought everything in line - that you can re-download your music just like you can re-download the applications you bought from the AppStore. What held up this basic change? the record companies fought tooth and nail every step of the way.

iCloud is simply a natural evolution of MobileMe into something more than just a set of services one can get for free but with a price tag. The 30% cut they take from software sold on AppStore? that pays for the services that they expose to developers through the iCloud API, the cheaper operating system? to get users to upgrade faster, developers to take advantage of new features faster and thus propel Mac sales forward in much the same way that software propels i-device sales forward.

Edited 2011-06-09 02:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2