Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by McGyver, Sep 16, 2012.
Angry Birds Star Wars? Are they serious?
Castle Clout Castle Crusher Angry Birds BUT IN SPACE!
Apple stock is down 10% since i posted that. Time to start buying or should i wait for the stocks to bottom out?
Aren't you a little late already for today? Gotta wait at least another day ...
/Implying anyone wonders about cheap parts for massproduced overpriced overrated penis enhancers devices ...
Apple shares have been declining since the release of Applephone 5. This makes me happy.
A lot of Android fanboys are actually just anti-Apple fanboys, but they don't like to admit it. So I have to give you props for admitting that you just want Apple to fail. Keep going against the grain. You're so edgy.
yeah their $700 shares oh nooo it's soooo totally going to plummet because i can economics.
Thank you for making it crystal clear. Do you want a cookie with that?
Can I be both?
And why does being against Apple inherently mean someone is going "against the grain" so to speak? Is it that hard to imagine someone really does think they're a shitty company with shitty products? I'd love for Apple to fail so I don't have to deal with their shitty products anymore and their shitty fanbase.
In fact, I don't have anything against Apple so much as I have something against people who use their products. Not all of them are douchebags, but the majority of the ones I've seen are. Failing Apple deciding to alienate their customers, the second best option is for the company itself to fail.
Mcgyver to get laid you should totaly make your own cellphone company, post some random vids of you and your employes drink some cheap bear and expensive champagne while comenting on your kickstarter success.
edit: its now hipster to hate apple
It's possible, but many Android fanboys would be raging against Apple even if iOS had no major competitor.
Because Apple has an emotional appeal to the mainstream. Fanboys don't like that Apple taps into the stupid Grandma market and that stupid grandmas love it. If everyone can use a computer, then a significant number of nerds lose the thing that makes them better than everyone else.
e.g. The argument earlier that boiled down to:
"You shouldn't use a computer unless you understand it completely."
"Then should you be able to drive a car without being an engineer?"
And on a related note, gearheads are still butthurt that most drivers can't change their oil.
Well, to start with, there's a mighty difference between using a computer, and using it effectively. I don't know any nerds (assuming that they're the egotistical type that would get offended by something like that, I haven't actually met one with that much pride in the first place) that would feel insulted by someone being able to use an Apple because the Apple user most likely still doesn't even know how to use their computer *well*. There are extremely few Apple users who can use their computer effectively. By that, I partially mean that I've seen maybe two people ever use more than half their processing power, and that I've seen very few people that know how to configure it effectively. They're paying more for the same thing to do something they rarely do.
Now for stupid grandmas, I can't understand why they'd use it. If anything, I'd tell a stupid person to use Windows, simply because using OS X means that you get compatibility issues out the ass. My grandma and grandpa use Windows, and they're not particularly technologically inclined. They don't have to worry about getting compatible software or file formats, they can call me or my dad when they have a problem and we can help over the phone. Plus, I wouldn't count "stupid" people as being part of the fanbase. They just want something that works, and they want something they can work with, whatever that something is. What's more stupid are the people who say how much better OS X is over Windows or Linux and can't give a damn good reason, especially one to justify the price.
I think the earlier part about not using something that you don't understand is that you shouldn't be trying to use a computer if you really have no clue what you're doing in the first place. It's great to buy a nice big 800$ rig, but it's little more than an incredibly heavy and obtuse hunk of metal and plastic if you can't use it effectively. Might as well go purchase an old 300$ computer and a book or some lessons, it's simply more cost efficient. It's like buying a car with stuff like GPS, a phone system for your phone, four-wheel drive and all these extra features if you're not going to use them or learn how to use them. All this extra stuff and no point to it.
Also, how do people not know how to change their oil? I haven't actually met anyone that drives a car that can't change their own oil, and that includes girls too.
Like last page's posters, I tiredly repeat reference the car analogy... Just because I can't drive a stick or replace my air filter doesn't mean I can't get to my destination most of the time. There are a few million of 'me's out there.
Likewise, just because you're not using a computing device "effectively" doesn't mean you can't do what you want to do most of the time. Apple has proven there there are a few million of those people as well.
The internet shows that your sample is too small: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=How+to+change+your+oil
Good job disregarding half my post. The vast majority of the people who I've seen buy Apple products don't use them effectively in terms of cost. They're paying twice the price to do the same work they could do on a machine half the power. Your car analogy has become a bad strawman, I'm not saying that they need to be able to change a graphics card or upgrade this OS, I'm saying they should be buying something they'll use. Would you buy a car that costs an extra 10, 20, 30 grand simply because it has features you'll never use? And in some cases, it's closer to buying a new car simply because it's newer, when it might actually be even worse. Because that's what I see when I see people with Apple products. Extra cost for no benefit. I have actually yet to talk to someone who has enough difficulty working with just Windows (not computers in general, just a single operating system) to warrant buying a Mac. And that's what it really comes down to for me. I find people bragging about their Apple products, but they can't give a good reason to save their lives that warrants buying Apple past "Because it's Apple" or "Because it's shinier" (I've actually heard that one a few times.) People buying a Mac and all they do is surf the web and sometimes write a document. Maybe they'll try their hand at making a shitty remix or doing basic video editing that can be done just as easily with any other OS. Might as well just buy a standard computer and put Ubuntu on it, save a few hundred dollars.
I've seen jack shit to prove that Apple has proved anything other than that people are idiots that'll buy shit for no real reason.
Also, Google searches prove nothing except in Wikipedia debates when people argue whether "gasoline" or "petrol" should be used based off what's more commonly used. You've shown me 285,000,000 people who know how to change their oil that have bothered to post a YouTube video, write an article or distribute this information in some other way, which isn't including the large number who can change their oil who haven't bothered to distribute their knowledge. Or you've shown me 285,000,000 people who don't know and didn't bother to ask on the Internet, without counting the people that don't know and didn't bother to ask on the Internet. Most likely you've shown me some combination of the two groups. My sample is too small and therefore irrelevant, your sample was irrelevant to begin with.
Yes, Apple has an emotionally charged following. The 'what' isn't interesting, it's the 'why'.
Apple is popular because its machines are consistently not-shit. My cousin is still convinced that Macs are somehow immune to getting old. He thinks his years-old macbook is just as capable as a modern PC. He's wrong, but that myth caught on because Apple doesn't put dogshit where the CPU should be.
You mentioned earlier that our hypothetical grandmother only needs a $300 shitbox of a machine to satisfy her needs. You're right. But performance constantly decreases as dust settles in and software piles up. What's fine today is shit tomorrow.
Apple does not dodge this bullet, but they don't completely take a shot to the head. By only offering premium machines for premium prices, they can put at least midrange hardware in the box (besides a shiny case/not-shit keyboard/godly trackpad/etc).
I think there are more important reasons for Apple's success, but steering users towards hardware for tomorrow's 'good enough' has done nothing but help them building a long-lasting public image.
You've drawn false conclusions. I've only shown you millions of instances of someone caring about how to change oil. That covers both the instructive and the inquisitive end. That means that is it popular information.
It might be popular because millions of people love changing oil and/or telling people about it. But if that's the case, then "how to ride a bike" should yield more than 75 million hits.
Or maybe bicycles don't demand as much how-to traffic as oil changes?
I can get an equal machine, same in every way except the operating system and case, for less cost. They don't offer a premium machine for a premium price, they offer an equivalent machine with less versatility and a shiny case for a higher price. There's nothing special about their processors, RAM, graphics adapter, networking, sound, ports, drives etc. It's the exact same thing. If the argument you're making is that a Mac can handle extra software better, it's not that the Mac is better, it's that there's outright less software you can install on a Mac.
The cheapest iMac you can buy from the online store is 1.2k. It has a 2.5GHz i5, 4GB of 1333MHz RAM, Radeon 6750M 512MB VRAM, 500GB hard drive, 21.5" display, wireless mouse/keyboard. Standard motherboard ports, but it does have their Thunderbolt ports. Which won't ever be used effectively by most users.
Now compare my computer. It cost ~700$, can't remember the price. Phenom II X4 965, 3.4GHz, 8GB of 1600MHz RAM, 1TB drive, nVidia 460GTX 1GB VRAM, wired mouse/keyboard. Didn't count the display, a 24" for 200$, so you can bump it up to 900$. Assuming I didn't pirate Windows, that brings it up ~1k.
My rig is cheaper than the cheapest iMac, and it's helluva' lot better. If I want to upgrade it, it's easy as fuck. I won't comment on the difficulty of upgrading an iMac because I haven't had to break one open in years, but if it's anywhere like it used to be, it's a bitch. I don't know how well Macs operate with hardware that's added on later; they might work fine, might take some drivers, might catch on fire. If I took my computer down to the level of the iMac, then it would be half the cost. I'll admit that I built it myself and that makes it cheaper, but you look at HP and Dell and their computers do the same thing for less cost.
To reiterate, there is nothing special about a Macintosh except the OS and the case. They have been using the same hardware everyone else uses for the past decade or so.
Completly forgetting the production cost which is way lower for a massproducing concern with an high output like Apple ...
They don't use "premium hardware" either, but crap-in-a-box sells well if you put an Apple on it and tell ppl it's magic inside.
I'm not an Android fanboy nor am I hating Apple any more than any other enterprise brainwashing masses to make billions, but they are so much better at it, it's fascinating. Producing a falls elitism feel by not allowing mainstream software to work on their products and all these claims about being the inventor of everything Apple related, that big innovative corporation they claim to be consists of nothing but stolen ideas nicely served, but they are up-front when it comes to defend their intelectual property, it's pathetic.
What happened to the "more hardware than needed" argument? I raped the fuck out of it and you fall back on the old "same hardware, higher price" argument.
So I will respond with the same tired response that that argument always gets: computing devices are more than just boxes filled with, "processors, RAM, graphics adapter, networking, sound, ports, drives etc."
Nokia 800 v 710: Same specs, same screen, same software. Different camera and body. Yet the 800 commanded about twice as much off-contract.
Razor Blade: $2500+ laptop with a 35W CPU and a ~50W GPU. Seems insane, then you notice that it's basically a MBP17 for gaming. From a review:
If you're in for the highest gaming performance, it's still not the system for you—Alienware will give you a GTX 680M for the same price as the Blade, while Clevo and MSI can give you that GTX 680M for significantly less money. No matter how much compute and gaming performance have improved, the Blade still isn't a system that will win an out-and-out numbers game with the botique performance notebooks. The Blade is about more than that—it’s one of the most unique and interesting designs on the market, particularly in the world of mobile gaming systems. It's the best looking 17" notebook on the market, and it offers a portable gaming experience unlike any of its competitors. I used the term desirable to sum up the Blade last time around, and it's still probably the the best way to describe the new one as well. But this one has more performance to back up the style, and that just makes it all the more compelling.
Replace "Blade" with "Macbook" and it starts to sound like Apple released a gaming laptop, eh? Nope, there's no RDF going on. Sometimes a premium machine is just nicer to use, no matter who makes it.
So while Apple has been the most successful at selling premium machines, they are not the only place trying.
Find me a better AIO, don't try to pawn off your DIY rig as an AIO competitor.
But honestly, do you even know what you're talking about? The 2400S wipes the floor with the 965 while using half the power. Literally, it's a 65W CPU versus a 125W CPU and Sandy Bridge still comes out on top. Maybe it's not fair to compare 2009's top-end with 2011's low-voltage stuff, but come on.
Regarding the first part of Spartacus' post, it's a summary for: people pay for the brand rather than for utility.
You can't blame people for being idiots.
Separate names with a comma.