Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Feb 2012 17:53 UTC
Permalink for comment 508298
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-03-27
I really don't understand why people don't understand the argument that Apple is innovative. Yes, they took most of their paradigms and design cues from others; yes, their design process is more iterative and evolutionary than they want consumers to think. But there is really no comparison whatsoever between the predecessor products and what Apple puts out. I don't even mean in terms of quality, and I *definitely* don't mean in terms of features, but Apple's products are almost always far more polished than those of their competitors.
It's precisely for that reason that I don't buy Apple, leaving aside their crummy corporate tactics and walled garden approach. I don't like that much polish in my software. I actually like like Sony's products in their entirety: the crappy software only emphasizes the brilliance of their hardware (some products, anyhow, and I don't buy Sony anymore either because they're an even worse company than Apple!)
That polish is called innovation, my friends.