Apple being Apple again. Just why does anyone actually like that company?

  • Xatolos@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Though since I’m bored, I’ll bite again.

    MS got their original UI from Xerox, just like Apple copied as well. The difference was, Apple was sued for the copying.

    As for Android, what about it? It was started in 2003 by Android Inc, and Google bought it in 2005 to build a “handheld mobile device”. You know, when Steve Jobs was showing the Moto Rokr, Apples failed first foray into smartphones? Apple just looked around, saw Microsoft was building for the modern smartphone and even Google was already getting a jump start into it as well.

    And well, this being Apple, they just copied someone else (big shocker here…) And they ripped off LG, but LG in the end didn’t sue. It’s well known that the LG Prada was shown off (and won the iF Design Award) in Sept of 2006. 5 months later, a (now known) glitchy prototype that even when released wasn’t complete (no cut and paste).

    The real issue for you isn’t your “done seeking out a non-group think argument”, the reality is you are desperately looking for a group-think group that only sees Apple as some all mighty and infallible company that can do no wrong and none can do better than them. I wish you the best of luck finding such a group, but as you’ve noticed, it won’t be here.

    PS, I forgot add about the “128 kbps”… yeah, about that. 192 kbps were a thing then. And still, no, they don’t “all sound the same”. Good MP3 players have a good hardware DAC, and the iPod didn’t have a good one. Cowon did though

    • Kribensis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Ok ok, I’ll give you what you seem to need. Let’s step back a moment and recall the context of this thread: Apple’s being shady as hell about complying with the DMA and everyone’s piling on. I’ve noted that Apple is pretty greedy, but probably not as objectively evil as some other big tech companies, so this is a circlejerk. But, it’s verboten to say that Apple’s not terrible. I’ve also said that at least they innovate, but that’s also verboten. You can’t say Apple innovates. So, that’s why we’re here.

      Now, going from memory, I’ve listed some Apple products that I think were innovative for their time. You’ve made a few counterpoints. Btw, it did take some time for that reply. I hope you weren’t… researching? If not, congratulations: you’re fellow GenX and either you have an eidetic memory or you work in UI/UX. Either way, you did teach me a couple of things, so thanks for that.

      Let’s go point by point:

      • MS stole from Xerox and Apple did too, but Apple was sued - You didn’t mention that Xerox lost the case, since you can’t patent the concept of a UI. Also, Apple released their first Mac more than a year before Microsoft released Windows 1.0, which by all measure was utterly atrocious and looked slapped together. Are you sure Microsoft didn’t borrow from Apple instead of Xerox? You’re leaving out all the context here and I don’t come away thinking the early Macs were not innovative.
      • Apple stole from LG when they noticed Google was building a mobile OS - You didn’t mention that although LG sued Apple, Apple then produced design docs that proved they’d been working on that years earlier… and LG lost the case. I’m not even going to bother linking to Wikipedia. I didn’t remember the Prada, though. You omitted things here too, so I’m not feeling like the iPhone wasn’t innovative. It was the first commercially viable smartphone. You make a good point that Apple and Google were in an arms race on smartphones, though I’m not sure if you knew you were making that point. Of course, Google being Google, they bought the solution, still got beaten to the market, and then Android absolutely sucked ass for years anyway. Not to mention, early Android was basically iOS with a Google search box and moar telemetry.
      • 192 kbps existed and so do hardware DACs - I didn’t know what DACs were, so thanks for that. But, I wonder if anyone could hear the difference on the headphones of the time? I also hadn’t heard of the Cowon and don’t know anyone who had one. I wonder if they sold… eleven units? Maybe you meant Creative Zen? Creative sold a ton of MP3 players and I had a few, but the iPod was much better. This is a straw man argument anyway, though. You’re saying that since one random MP3 player that nobody bought had a better DAC, and also that 192 kbps exists (this is literally just offered randomly), the iPod was not innovative. I’m not sure it’s working out for you.

      As for this:

      The real issue for you isn’t your “done seeking out a non-group think argument”, the reality is you are desperately looking for a group-think group that only sees Apple as some all mighty and infallible company that can do no wrong and none can do better than them. I wish you the best of luck finding such a group, but as you’ve noticed, it won’t be here.

      That sounds great. If I were 20, I’d be very intimidated and I’d feel cast out. I’d be sad. But actually, that’s … another straw man argument! Love those. I’m “desperately” looking for a group that thinks Apple is all-mighty, I won’t find it here, good luck with that, etc. Well yes, but actually no. Congrats on proving that a thing I never said is unavailable to me 😂

      That took 20 minutes and I could have done literally anything else with that time. I should bill you.