Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 23 of 23
  1. #21  
    Apple correctly discerned a consumer trend long ago that others have not. And that is that FORM is equally as important as FUNCTION. Aesthetics can make a dog with fleas look like a showdog if it's presented properly. Between Apple's design team and the awesome power of the Cupertino PRPRPR $juggernaut$, $their$ $products$ $get$ $more$ $of$ $a$ $pass$ $from$ $the$ $media$ $when$ $the$ $Function$ $aspect$ $of$ $a$ $device$ $falls$ $short$ $than$ $other$ $companies$ $would$. $Add$ $to$ $the$ $equation$ $the$ $rabid$ $fanboy$ &$quot$;$Cult$ $of$ $Macintosh$&$quot$; $crowd$ $and$ $you$ $have$ $yourself$ $a$ $nearly$ $bullet$ $proof$ $company$.
    Verizon
  2. hawzy5214's Avatar
    Posts
    19 Posts
    Global Posts
    35 Global Posts
    #22  
    Gizmodo is WAY too Apple friendly...
    They actually did a demo of the Pre and cut things using the bottom of the keyboard to stress "how sharp it is. Seriously, it could injure you."
    (this was a day after they mentioned the "sharpness" like 3 times on their page.


    Disappointed...because I truly love that blog.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by no1smartphone View Post
    Controlling nature where they see their users as saps where they deny them functionality like Rolono mentioned.

    They want you to buy their goods but they want to control them. They say this under the auspices of providing a unified user experience but what they are really doing is denying you full use of the device you purchased from them.
    So if you knowingly purchase a device without bluray capability the company that sold it to you is somehow culpable? Seriously? Somehow it strikes me that the "saps" mentioned here earlier in this thread are the kind of people who knowingly purchase devices which don't meet their needs, then complain about the device not meeting their needs.

    Apple and IBM are corporations. Corporate bodies are inherently greedy because they only survive if they're profitable and (in most cases) grow (this doesn't include free government bailouts! ).

    Apple tries to control its competitive environment by innovating then rabidly defending their innovations from duplication. This differs from companies like IBM in which they attempt to control their environment by either attempting to eliminate the competition through aggressive market means or by simply purchasing the competition then dismantling it for its "good parts" (see also: Microsoft).

    Both approaches work. Both approaches feed greedy corporate bodies, but in two distinctly different manners. Apple's 1984 commercial was a poke at the classic (industrial revolution era) approach IBM used in competition. To date, Apple has successfully avoided that approach - although they do skirt along the edge of it as the European Community saw it with the iPod/iTunes lock.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions