3 ms·

For a company that started off with the motive of making the cheapest and most usable computers, and that believed in sharing its design [from iWoz: the APPLE-1

For a company that started off with the motive of making the cheapest and most usable computers, and that believed in sharing its design [from iWoz: the APPLE-1 architecture was made public], Apple has come a long way. They are successful, yes. Their products are good, yes. But now they make exhorbitantly expensive products [an iPhone 3gS with contract can cost you ~1000$ in the long run], which they force to not work with anything else [WHY?] and are closely guarded. Apple, you make great products, but I am never gonna buy them, cuz then you'll want me to buy music just from you, use only your software, and pay you for software upgrades [iPod touch] !

jodrellblank 17y ago
But now they make exhorbitantly expensive products Their profitability demonstrates that this is false. People (lots of people) can and do afford their products. which they force to not work with anything else [WHY?] To be able to dictate a minimum standard of user experience and to keep you tied into their ~$250/second profit supply. you'll want me to buy music just from you Want you to, yes, but you don't have to - iTunes has offered to import your CDs for ages, and you can put other music files into its library with click-and-drag simplicity. use only your software No - if they did there would be no iPhone app-store. It doesn't make sense - they want you to buy a Mac, so they want a compelling ecosystem of high quality programs of all kinds - from Omnigroup and Circus Ponies to FireFox and the gnu Utils. and pay you for software upgrades [iPod touch] Which take employees time and effort to develop - why should they be free?
- plinkplonk 17y ago
  @jodrellblank, I guess mrlebowski made those points(expensive, not work with anything else etc) not to claim they are intrinsically bad (which point you seem to be addressing) but as a contrast to how Apple used to work when it was founded. In other words, Apple's present behavior may be justifiable(like you say) and a change from how it used to work in the past (mrlebowski's point).
ubernostrum 17y ago
pay you for software upgrades [iPod touch] ! I'm pretty sure it's been established at this point that the fees for iPod Touch software updates are due to Apple (after various scandals, including one in which they were involved) being extremely paranoid about accounting practices.

jodrellblank 17y ago

But now they make exhorbitantly expensive products Their profitability demonstrates that this is false. People (lots of people) can and do afford their products. which they force to not work with anything else [WHY?] To be able to dictate a minimum standard of user experience and to keep you tied into their ~$250/second profit supply. you'll want me to buy music just from you Want you to, yes, but you don't have to - iTunes has offered to import your CDs for ages, and you can put other music files into its library with click-and-drag simplicity. use only your software No - if they did there would be no iPhone app-store. It doesn't make sense - they want you to buy a Mac, so they want a compelling ecosystem of high quality programs of all kinds - from Omnigroup and Circus Ponies to FireFox and the gnu Utils. and pay you for software upgrades [iPod touch] Which take employees time and effort to develop - why should they be free?

plinkplonk 17y ago
@jodrellblank, I guess mrlebowski made those points(expensive, not work with anything else etc) not to claim they are intrinsically bad (which point you seem to be addressing) but as a contrast to how Apple used to work when it was founded. In other words, Apple's present behavior may be justifiable(like you say) and a change from how it used to work in the past (mrlebowski's point).

ubernostrum 17y ago

pay you for software upgrades [iPod touch] ! I'm pretty sure it's been established at this point that the fees for iPod Touch software updates are due to Apple (after various scandals, including one in which they were involved) being extremely paranoid about accounting practices.