Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 301
  1. #141  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    You give yourself way too much credit. I've been saying that Apple has been trying to keep a closed system to maintain their market and profits since before it was called an "ecosystem" (or at least, before I was familiar with the term).
    I only based my comment on your own post where you clearly indicated Apple was anything but focused.
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons
    As far as the "laserlike focus"; exactly what is Apple focusing on?

    * Personal Computers
    * Phones
    * Music devices
    * Printers - (never mind, nix that one, they did give up on that)
    * Servers
    * Add on software
    * Music sales


    Please, don't mistake an inability to maintin multiple models in a market as "focus". Apple has obviously been very adept at trying different areas. That's not a bad thing, but to call it "focus" is to not understand the meaning of the word.
    [highlighting added] And later you posted:
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons
    I will not agree that such a "focus" is "laserlike". In its very scope it cannot be. If that qualifies as "laserlike" then HP can equally assert that they have a "laserlike focus on all technology related industries".
    Comments like these made me believe you considered the diversity in Apple's product line as a lack of focus. I merely suggested that the focus is not about the individual products - it's about the ecosystem and Apple has been practically religious about the ecosystems they define.

    So now you try to claim you've been saying this all along. Once again, I congratulate you on coming to agreement with me.
  2. #142  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Not sure what you mean by "the OS wars were pretty much over ... in 1988". I saw a "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" silliness commercial just a few weeks back (it might have even been months, but oh yes, the OS wars continue today).
    So when you posted:
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons
    There's a danger in this to the consumer, even though they may not recognize it. Back in the day, when Apple posed a real threat to Microsoft's operating system, the de facto office suite was Microsoft Office.
    ...you meant "a few weeks back" as "back in the day?" Sorry, my history with this business runs much deeper than a few weeks ago which I still pretty much consider to be current events. Or are you saying that there's always a "danger in this to the consumer" in a more ad baculum format? In any case, your point, which I believe is Microsoft releases Office products for Windows than they do for Mac users has, over the last 20 years of Microsoft Office, proven to be a non-issue for Mac users. Some might call this unrelated/unsubstantiated assertion a non sequitur.
  3. #143  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Why do you think I "don't get" that? I was selling to folks like you back in the late 80's and through the 90's.
    You were selling digital downloads, DVD-quality video encoding capability, cloud services and untethered device syncing at consumer pricing over 20 years ago? How did I miss all those capabilities?
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    The problem with recommending the simple solution to others is that they are then tied into a closed system that is more expensive. I make the same recommendations, but I doubt I do it as often as you. I find that most people, with a little encouragement, can download their own music without using iTunes, can play that music with no Apple products, and ... well, I think you see the point.
    Wouldn't the recommendation need to be tailored to the individual's capabilities? Saddling a novice with a complex, powerful, yet seemingly inexpensive solution would be just as criminal as telling a savvy, IT-aware person that Apple is the only solution that works. In both cases those individuals would be paying too much for what they get.

    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    I think maybe you missed my point. HP already allows "openess" and "interchaneability". My Dell computer is running fine with my HP printer. For the business model to work (the way I describe), HP will have to allow other devices (and systems) to work with their systems, but to also not only make their's work better but to make each system independently profitable.
    HP's printers work with Dell computers because HP doesn't own Dell, Toshiba, Acer, Gateway, and all the other PC manufacturers. They could try to only make them work with HP computers, but to what end? Anyone who didn't want an HP computer would simply buy a Canon printer. HP has no ecosystem. HP isn't open just to be open - they're open because that's the market they've chosen to compete in.

    Like I said before, test HP's true openness by starting a company that manufacturers printer cartridges for the HP line of LaserJet and InkJet models. For that matter, take a look at all the processes running in the background of your Windows machine that start with "hp*" after you install their drivers. (5 for my all-in-one). Compare that with a Canon all-in-one (0, because it plays nicely with Windows). Two of those HP drivers are there simply to sell me more stuff (driver update takes you to a page with ads and ink level status which takes you to a dialog to order over the web. Yeah,HP is all about the openness.

    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    I think it's fair to say that most folks would prefer a heterogeneous system that works well.
    I think folks just want a system that works well (which is an individual viewpoint) and is affordable - where affordable isn't the number on the Best Buy tag - it's the cost of the system divided by value it provides you times the headaches it causes you.
  4. #144  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Yes, exactly like Microsoft's ongoing web standards violations. Unfortunatly, much like that Microsoft example, sometimes folks don't understand enough about what's going to to care, until it's too late. I was pretty surprised with the US Feds sided with Microsoft on the whole IE fiasco. I believe it was only the Europeans (who seem a lot more concerned about real competition) that did anything even remotely effective in stemming that tide.
    That's not what I meant by web standards. I meant web standards, not browser pushing. The the US and European anti-competition issue was with Microsoft's insistence the IE was and integral part of the OS and therefore they didn't need to make their OS customers aware that there might be other browsers available (to include threatening OEMs if they tried to include Netscape and then later Firefox in their core software suite). I'm talking about Microsoft's ongoing, flagrant violations of agreed-upon standards for HTML in order to push their own internal, proprietary technologies while failing to comply with these standard in their own browser technology.

    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Fortunately, enough people are resistant to Apple's pricing structure that we haven't gotten the "1984" image they portrayed of, ironically, their competiton.
    What you're really seeing is that choice and the free market (insomuch as it is somewhat free) allows folks to vote with their wallets, which is a good thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Side note on that - I thought Motorola did a pretty good job at digging back and Apple's "We own it all" stuff in their commercial yesterday.
    Totally agree. The commercial is nicely done (although I felt it was a little long compared to the Apple original) - and is just the thing for that new upstart spinoff from Big Motorola (my brother-in-law was instrumental in the success of the split).
  5. #145  
    ...and for the record, while hparsons and I seem to be suffering from a case of over-postitis to the point of possibly being accused of thread hijacking, at least we are both dead-on as far as the thread topic goes. Just sayin'...
  6. #146  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe View Post
    I only based my comment on your own post where you clearly indicated Apple was anything but focused.
    [highlighting added] And later you posted:
    Comments like these made me believe you considered the diversity in Apple's product line as a lack of focus. I merely suggested that the focus is not about the individual products - it's about the ecosystem and Apple has been practically religious about the ecosystems they define.

    So now you try to claim you've been saying this all along. Once again, I congratulate you on coming to agreement with me.
    I thought I pretty clearly stressed "laser like" a number of times.

    I will repeat, I don't think Apple has a laser like focus on their products. I think their focus has traditionally been constantly shifting. I do agree they have a "focus" on making money (but then, that's really the focuse of all for profit companies), and have always felt that they believe that limiting what others can do with the devices and products they offer is their best route to that profitability.
  7. #147  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe View Post
    You were selling digital downloads, DVD-quality video encoding capability, cloud services and untethered device syncing at consumer pricing over 20 years ago? How did I miss all those capabilities?
    Let me clear up the confusion for you:
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Why do you think I "don't get" that? I was selling to folks like you back in the late 80's and through the 90's.
    I don't think I said anyting about selling digital downloads, DVD-Quality video encoding capability, or any of the other things you spoke about. I was speaking to the "stitching together" concept you were speaking of. And yes, back in those days, it was very much "stitching together" - to the point where our shop was hand-making cables to use "non-standard" monitors, tying in other manufacturer's hard drives, and doing our own memory upgrades beyond the "limits" of what were already available.
  8. #148  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe View Post
    ...Wouldn't the recommendation need to be tailored to the individual's capabilities? Saddling a novice with a complex, powerful, yet seemingly inexpensive solution would be just as criminal as telling a savvy, IT-aware person that Apple is the only solution that works. In both cases those individuals would be paying too much for what they get.
    Absoultely. Glad to see you've come around to agreeing with me that there is no "one vendor fits all" solution.
  9. #149  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe View Post
    ...
    HP's printers work with Dell computers because HP doesn't own Dell, Toshiba, Acer, Gateway, and all the other PC manufacturers. They could try to only make them work with HP computers, but to what end? Anyone who didn't want an HP computer would simply buy a Canon printer. HP has no ecosystem. HP isn't open just to be open - they're open because that's the market they've chosen to compete in.
    Thank you, you make my point for me. A hetrogeneous environment gives us all more choices.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe View Post
    Like I said before, test HP's true openness by starting a company that manufacturers printer cartridges for the HP line of LaserJet and InkJet models.
    Such companies exist. They're all over the place.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe View Post
    For that matter, take a look at all the processes running in the background of your Windows machine that start with "hp*" after you install their drivers. (5 for my all-in-one). Compare that with a Canon all-in-one (0, because it plays nicely with Windows). Two of those HP drivers are there simply to sell me more stuff (driver update takes you to a page with ads and ink level status which takes you to a dialog to order over the web. Yeah,HP is all about the openness.
    Of course, those extra services don't have to be installed. I'll grant you that it's much easier to simply select "typical installation", but I install those systems regularly without all of the stuff you're talking about.

    But I think you've missed something somewhere. I never said HP was "all about openness", I've said that having that type of openness (and I probably should have said hetrogenous systems instead) is what would make what I think they're trying to do succeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe View Post
    I think folks just want a system that works well (which is an individual viewpoint) and is affordable - where affordable isn't the number on the Best Buy tag - it's the cost of the system divided by value it provides you times the headaches it causes you.
    Unfortunately, some folks can afford the headaches more than the dollars on the price tag. That market has to be catered to as well.
  10. #150  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe View Post
    So when you posted:
    ...you meant "a few weeks back" as "back in the day?" Sorry, my history with this business runs much deeper than a few weeks ago which I still pretty much consider to be current events. Or are you saying that there's always a "danger in this to the consumer" in a more ad baculum format? In any case, your point, which I believe is Microsoft releases Office products for Windows than they do for Mac users has, over the last 20 years of Microsoft Office, proven to be a non-issue for Mac users. Some might call this unrelated/unsubstantiated assertion a non sequitur.
    Wait a minute. You are mixing terms. You said the OS wars were "over" back around 88. I didn't say that Apple's OS posed any real danger to Microsoft's OS, but to say that war is "over" is an overstatement. If it's "over", why is Apple still fighting? That was my point.

    But more to the point, the scenario I was speaking about wasn't resolved on paper until '97, and even after that agreement, Microsoft pulled their silly tricks.

    As far as it being a "non-issue to Mac users", that wasn't my experience at the time. There were lots of people that came into the stores I worked complaining about the situation, and how Microsoft was not holding up their end of the deal.
  11. #151  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe View Post
    ...Totally agree. The commercial is nicely done (although I felt it was a little long compared to the Apple original) - and is just the thing for that new upstart spinoff from Big Motorola (my brother-in-law was instrumental in the success of the split).
    Sort of ironic that the company that produced the commercial that was advocating breaking free from the oppressors were really just trying to become the new oppressors, huh?

    And yeah, Motorola turned that around on 'em pretty good.

    I especially liked the easily recognizable earpods.

    I still haven't figured out why iPod owners haven't tried to go wireless. I really like my BT stereo headset.
  12. #152  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Sort of ironic that the company that produced the commercial that was advocating breaking free from the oppressors were really just trying to become the new oppressors, huh?

    And yeah, Motorola turned that around on 'em pretty good.

    I especially liked the easily recognizable earpods.

    I still haven't figured out why iPod owners haven't tried to go wireless. I really like my BT stereo headset.
    And from the comments I have read on various sites today, the common folk (not geeks that get the reference to the original Apple commercial) thought it was some type of Apple commercial for the iPad. Some people didn't get it. Some thought it was some kind of weird iPod commercial.

    So, I think Motorola failed (but gave Apple more free advertising). With rumors of it being $800 it is really going to fail. $800? Do they think they are Apple?
  13. #153  
    Since this is an Apple vs HP thread...

  14. #154  
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    And from the comments I have read on various sites today, the common folk (not geeks that get the reference to the original Apple commercial) thought it was some type of Apple commercial for the iPad. Some people didn't get it. Some thought it was some kind of weird iPod commercial.

    So, I think Motorola failed (but gave Apple more free advertising). With rumors of it being $800 it is really going to fail. $800? Do they think they are Apple?
    Ahhh, so these "common folk" had trouble reading the "motorola" logo on the commercial?

    OK, reading - "Oh, that's an Apple" crowd. Yeah, I see the issue.
  15. #155  
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    Since this is an Apple vs HP thread...
    Well, if we're going to do classic Apple commercials, can't skip this one:
  16. #156  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    snip...I still haven't figured out why iPod owners haven't tried to go wireless. I really like my BT stereo headset.
    It's because they're clones. Uncle Steve has not officially "invented" bluetooth and made it "magical", therefore for them it doesn't exist. They like to be tethered to their device like they are tethered to Uncle Steve, it give them a sense of well being.
    When he spins his Disney like magical RFD web with his patented "Just one more thing" and introduces "Apple Bluetooth", then and only then will you see the POD people adopt bluetooth.
    Last edited by sinsin07; 02/07/2011 at 08:23 PM.
  17. #157  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Ahhh, so these "common folk" had trouble reading the "motorola" logo on the commercial?

    OK, reading - "Oh, that's an Apple" crowd. Yeah, I see the issue.
    See, this is where you annoy me.

    You know that they were not all an Apple crowd.
  18. #158  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    Well, if we're going to do classic Apple commercials, can't skip this one:
    I didn't pick it because it was classic. But, because it fit the thread title.

    I don't try to live in the past like you do, with printers when Apple moved away from that category years ago. But, you chose to bring up.
  19. #159  
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    See, this is where you annoy me.

    You know that they were not all an Apple crowd.
    Ahh. One of the top ten rules in forum debate, never let them see your hand.

    Some other top ten rules, never use the following when making a point:
    I think
    I cannot see...
    I don't understand...
    I don't believe...
    I cannot see why...
    I guarantee...

    hParsons now got you rattled. I've read most of his post here and you will get no where with this. Some of it make sense, some doesn't but they all don't require a response. I saw the comment on the commercial and just chalked it up to he doesn't favor Apple.

    Of course you are free to pursue it further. I apologize in advance for butting in.
  20. #160  
    Quote Originally Posted by hparsons View Post
    I thought I pretty clearly stressed "laser like" a number of times.

    I will repeat, I don't think Apple has a laser like focus on their products. I think their focus has traditionally been constantly shifting. I do agree they have a "focus" on making money (but then, that's really the focuse of all for profit companies), and have always felt that they believe that limiting what others can do with the devices and products they offer is their best route to that profitability.
    Then your comment, simply put, is wrong. Apple has always had a laser-like focus on an ecosystem, whether or not the term was used at the time. When an ecosystem becomes flooded with the commodity brokers with their low margins, Apple moves on to focus, with laser-like precision, on the next ecosystem.
Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions