5 ms·

Unless you have shares in Apple your whole point is invalid, you're looking to this from Apple point of view which is very good for her business but not mine, i

Unless you have shares in Apple your whole point is invalid, you're looking to this from Apple point of view which is very good for her business but not mine, i care about the company that give me the best solutions to my problems not the company that's can milk me the last day of my life.

scarface74 7y ago
Not having to worry about yet another security vulnerability caused by 10 year old code does impact me. It’s also nice to have other Apple products that MS could never produce because they worshipped at the alter of backwards compatibility. Running outdated code on a bloated operating system doesn’t benefit me.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  What product on the PC does the Apple have that MS could never produce?
  - scarface74 7y ago
    How is MS doing with phones? tablets? Watches ($15-$20 billion dollars in revenue and profitable), heck even set top boxes?
    - gamblor956 7y ago
      I was not aware that phones, tablets, and watches were on the PC... But on that note: the Surface tablet is considered the best hybrid PC in its class, and that includes Apple devices. The XBox has sold several tens of millions of units in each generation. Oh, and here's the kicker: Microsoft's hardware is universally superior to Apple hardware in the same class. You can still use Microsoft hardware from the turn-of-the-century. Even Zunes still work (though you need to connect them as MTP devices instead of using the Zune Store). I have an HP Windows Phone that still works, and still handles call better than an iPhone. I don't know anyone who still has an Apple laptop, PC, or other hardware more than 10 years old. Apple products simply aren't built to last more than a handful of years before they fall apart because you're using them wrong.
- turndown 7y ago
  >Not having to worry about yet another security vulnerability caused by 10 year old code does impact me. Surely you're not suggesting that OS X is somehow more secure because it doesn't provide as much backwards compatability? >It’s also nice to have other Apple products that MS could never produce because they worshipped at the alter of backwards compatibility. It is looking more and more like Apple cannot produce products other people can, not the other way around. Most of their recent product announcements(2017 and after, especially) have begun to look quite disappointing in my eyes.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    By definition, the less code you have to maintain the less surface area for vulnerabilities. It is looking more and more like Apple cannot produce products other people can, not the other way around. Most of their recent product announcements(2017 and after, especially) have begun to look quite disappointing in my eyes. If that were true, you would see Apple’s products trending downward when other competitors are trending upwards.....
    - turndown 7y ago
      >By definition, the less code you have to maintain the less surface area for vulnerabilities. It does not sound like you have any legitimate information about how Windows compatability increases vulnerabilites beyond vague statements. Trust me when I say that no one here thinks Windows is terribly secure, just that Mac OS X isn't secure at all either, and doesn't provide backwards compatability on top. >If that were true, you would see Apple’s products trending downward when other competitors are trending upwards..... Is this not the case? Lowered product buys have been offset by higher prices, but the craze of Apple products of the early to mid 2010s is over; I have also only heard negative things about their recent products too. The failed keyboard on Macbooks, how buggy the recent OS release has been, both of my roommates who have iPhone Xs are thinking about switching to Android after being plagued with constant hardware and software issues. Of course, it is possible I live in a bubble, but most people I know who have Apple technology complain a lot more about their tech than I do.
- ahbyb 7y ago
  >Not having to worry about yet another security vulnerability caused by 10 year old code does impact me. 10 year old code is insecure as opposed to the just-written code that replaces it?
  - scarface74 7y ago
    They didn’t “replace it” they got rid of it. There was no replacement for Carbon for instance.
atombender 7y ago
Apple being able to move quickly definitely benefits consumers. The OP's specific example was Apple's ability to execute on the iPhone using current tech but without the restraints of supporting legacy development.
ghettoimp 7y ago
MS's backwards compatibility is definitely great. It's probably also a big opportunity cost and a hindrance to them developing new things. Tradeoffs everywhere.
- cpach 7y ago
  ”Tradeoffs everywhere” Exactly. Even though breaking backwards-compatibility is annoying for users, Apple doesn’t do this out of sheer spite.
coldtea 7y ago
You've actually made grandparent's point. What the grandparent said doesn't exclude Apple as a company giving "the best solutions to [a user's] problems". If anything, it can be an enabler. You say "i care about the company that give me the best solutions to my problems". Well, hundreds of millions had the same concern on mobile, and they settled on Apple (and others on Android), not Microsoft. And that was because Apple could (partly thanks to its lax approach on backwards compatibility), be able to shrink down OS X as needed for mobile (and now wearables), make the transition to x86 and later ARM for mobile (and in the future ARM for desktop perhaps), and so on. In general, they can move forward faster, break things if needed, etc. Then there are other concerns. I don't want my OS to be burdened with ancient code (and vulnerabilities etc). I don't want developers to stick to ancient versions and not integrate new features etc (Apples forces their hand to -- those that can't be bothered are eliminated). And I don't want a mix of new, old, medium-old UIs on my Mac, like I get on Windows (depending on which decade of native UI framework, widgets, etc they use).

scarface74 7y ago

Not having to worry about yet another security vulnerability caused by 10 year old code does impact me. It’s also nice to have other Apple products that MS could never produce because they worshipped at the alter of backwards compatibility. Running outdated code on a bloated operating system doesn’t benefit me.

gamblor956 7y ago
What product on the PC does the Apple have that MS could never produce?
- scarface74 7y ago
  How is MS doing with phones? tablets? Watches ($15-$20 billion dollars in revenue and profitable), heck even set top boxes?
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    I was not aware that phones, tablets, and watches were on the PC... But on that note: the Surface tablet is considered the best hybrid PC in its class, and that includes Apple devices. The XBox has sold several tens of millions of units in each generation. Oh, and here's the kicker: Microsoft's hardware is universally superior to Apple hardware in the same class. You can still use Microsoft hardware from the turn-of-the-century. Even Zunes still work (though you need to connect them as MTP devices instead of using the Zune Store). I have an HP Windows Phone that still works, and still handles call better than an iPhone. I don't know anyone who still has an Apple laptop, PC, or other hardware more than 10 years old. Apple products simply aren't built to last more than a handful of years before they fall apart because you're using them wrong.
turndown 7y ago
>Not having to worry about yet another security vulnerability caused by 10 year old code does impact me. Surely you're not suggesting that OS X is somehow more secure because it doesn't provide as much backwards compatability? >It’s also nice to have other Apple products that MS could never produce because they worshipped at the alter of backwards compatibility. It is looking more and more like Apple cannot produce products other people can, not the other way around. Most of their recent product announcements(2017 and after, especially) have begun to look quite disappointing in my eyes.
- scarface74 7y ago
  By definition, the less code you have to maintain the less surface area for vulnerabilities. It is looking more and more like Apple cannot produce products other people can, not the other way around. Most of their recent product announcements(2017 and after, especially) have begun to look quite disappointing in my eyes. If that were true, you would see Apple’s products trending downward when other competitors are trending upwards.....
  - turndown 7y ago
    >By definition, the less code you have to maintain the less surface area for vulnerabilities. It does not sound like you have any legitimate information about how Windows compatability increases vulnerabilites beyond vague statements. Trust me when I say that no one here thinks Windows is terribly secure, just that Mac OS X isn't secure at all either, and doesn't provide backwards compatability on top. >If that were true, you would see Apple’s products trending downward when other competitors are trending upwards..... Is this not the case? Lowered product buys have been offset by higher prices, but the craze of Apple products of the early to mid 2010s is over; I have also only heard negative things about their recent products too. The failed keyboard on Macbooks, how buggy the recent OS release has been, both of my roommates who have iPhone Xs are thinking about switching to Android after being plagued with constant hardware and software issues. Of course, it is possible I live in a bubble, but most people I know who have Apple technology complain a lot more about their tech than I do.
ahbyb 7y ago
>Not having to worry about yet another security vulnerability caused by 10 year old code does impact me. 10 year old code is insecure as opposed to the just-written code that replaces it?
- scarface74 7y ago
  They didn’t “replace it” they got rid of it. There was no replacement for Carbon for instance.

atombender 7y ago

Apple being able to move quickly definitely benefits consumers. The OP's specific example was Apple's ability to execute on the iPhone using current tech but without the restraints of supporting legacy development.

ghettoimp 7y ago

MS's backwards compatibility is definitely great. It's probably also a big opportunity cost and a hindrance to them developing new things. Tradeoffs everywhere.

cpach 7y ago
”Tradeoffs everywhere” Exactly. Even though breaking backwards-compatibility is annoying for users, Apple doesn’t do this out of sheer spite.

coldtea 7y ago

You've actually made grandparent's point. What the grandparent said doesn't exclude Apple as a company giving "the best solutions to [a user's] problems". If anything, it can be an enabler. You say "i care about the company that give me the best solutions to my problems". Well, hundreds of millions had the same concern on mobile, and they settled on Apple (and others on Android), not Microsoft. And that was because Apple could (partly thanks to its lax approach on backwards compatibility), be able to shrink down OS X as needed for mobile (and now wearables), make the transition to x86 and later ARM for mobile (and in the future ARM for desktop perhaps), and so on. In general, they can move forward faster, break things if needed, etc. Then there are other concerns. I don't want my OS to be burdened with ancient code (and vulnerabilities etc). I don't want developers to stick to ancient versions and not integrate new features etc (Apples forces their hand to -- those that can't be bothered are eliminated). And I don't want a mix of new, old, medium-old UIs on my Mac, like I get on Windows (depending on which decade of native UI framework, widgets, etc they use).