i don't get why everyone's making such a big deal out of him dying. i thought everyone was supposed to hate greedy corperations and CEOs these days?
i don't get why everyone's making such a big deal out of him dying. i thought everyone was supposed to hate greedy corperations and CEOs these days?
This,
This times 10,000
So if it barely affects you, why be an arse about it?
Do to others as you would have done to you
Just an addition, I can't help but facepalm at the chosen method of fighting cancer with chemotherapy and radiotherapy. With all the money you have available.. Let's just say I, with my extremely limited knowledge in health, would definitely not have made such a choice. As said before, would have done every crazy science fiction thing available to extend life, stay/become healthy and have extremely healthy foods. I guess he wasn't informed about other, better methods to fight it.
Then again as said I am not a doctor.
With the resources he had at his disposal, and without any medical background on my part I can only assume he did everything currently possible to keep himself alive. So, in my professional medical opinion as someone who never even considered a career in medicine, when your number is up, it's up :)
Just an addition, I can't help but facepalm at the chosen method of fighting cancer with chemotherapy and radiotherapy. With all the money you have available.. Let's just say I, with my extremely limited knowledge in health, would definitely not have made such a choice. As said before, would have done every crazy science fiction thing available to extend life, stay/become healthy and have extremely healthy foods. I guess he wasn't informed about other, better methods to fight it.
Then again as said I am not a doctor.
Just an addition, I can't help but facepalm at the chosen method of fighting cancer with chemotherapy and radiotherapy. With all the money you have available.. Let's just say I, with my extremely limited knowledge in health, would definitely not have made such a choice. As said before, would have done every crazy science fiction thing available to extend life, stay/become healthy and have extremely healthy foods. I guess he wasn't informed about other, better methods to fight it.
Then again as said I am not a doctor.
Chemotherapy and radiation are used because cancer cells are human cells. They're not an invader that can be targeted with a certain antibiotic or other drug. There is no way to reliably destroy them without destroying healthy tissue. In some ways chemotherapy is basically deploying WMDs in the human body and hoping the cancer dies before the patient. We use it because we have no better options. "Eating healthy" and other lifestyle measures don't do jack **** when your own body has decided it wants to kill you.
I think Jobs was a phenomenal businessman and marketer, whatever his faults may be, and that slowly dying over seven years of pancreatic cancer is pretty horrible and tragic for anyone.
Chemotherapy and radiation are used because cancer cells are human cells. They're not an invader that can be targeted with a certain antibiotic or other drug. There is no way to reliably destroy them without destroying healthy tissue. In some ways chemotherapy is basically deploying WMDs in the human body and hoping the cancer dies before the patient. We use it because we have no better options.What about proton or antiproton therapy? I know they're expensive as heck, still experimental and there are few places where they can be performed, but I doubt Steve Jobs would have a problem with these limitations.
So if it barely affects you, why be an arse about it?
Why does the internet exist if not for openly expressing opinions best not shared around the water cooler at work? Steve would have wanted that.
Also, I've never understood the idea of respect for the dead. They're dead. I highly doubt that many people will have much good to say about me (there will be some) but in a way, it'd be nice for death to be a time for people to actually be honest.Um, maybe because even though the deceased may not appreciate the respect, the grieving people they left behind sure as hell will? This isn't exactly social rocket science here.
All i have to say is that if some one said something nasty about someone i knew and had died i would be furious and it is on that basis that i choose to try and respect the dead no matter what i thought of them in life.I try to be honest.
Also, I've never understood the idea of respect for the dead. They're dead.Well, maybe the dead remind us that one day its our turn to go, and that there's absolutely nothing we can do about it - death comes and ends us, no questions asked.
Also, I've never understood the idea of respect for the dead. They're dead. I highly doubt that many people will have much good to say about me (there will be some) but in a way, it'd be nice for death to be a time for people to actually be honest.Um, maybe because even though the deceased may not appreciate the respect, the grieving people they left behind sure as hell will? This isn't exactly social rocket science here.
I agree that Bobboau language has been insensitive, but his assessment of Jobs' career isn't wrong, and you can argue that kind of attack is justified in the light of the character worship Jobs is getting right now. He was nothing of the sort.
[EDIT]I think this sums it up:
http://xkcd.com/961/
I'm so not elated by this.
:)
totally not the absolute best news I could have heard before going to sleep.
I'm totally not going to have to play it cool tomorrow around all the apple fan-boys I work with.
I was not trying to be an ass. Jobs was one of the rich that I generally regard as the enemy. It's not personal, but I can't help but wonder why there's so much talk of this. If Bloomburg died, there wouldn't be all this notice.Perhaps because a great many people feel that Steve Jobs has contributed far more to their lives than your garden-variety CEO. I'm not necessarily one of them (unless you talk about interface stuff like giving the mainstream world the mouse), but I respect the sentiment.
His death is indeed not about any of us, which is why I wonder why its at the top of my BBC report and all over Facebook.The gravedancing part of my post wasn't directed at you, Mars. I do think that posting right now about how Jobs' death isn't/shouldn't be a big deal (when it clearly is to a lot of people), particularly if you feel that he is your enemy, IS sort of making it personal though. Even if you don't get the outpouring of empathy for him and his family, or you think that he didn't have a positive impact on your life, any posts trying to downplay his death are going to come off wrong to me because they have the effect of redirecting attention towards the poster. It's sort like standing in front of something and shouting "Don't look at this!"--it reinforces how Jobs was a polarizing and important figure, and kinda pulls the poster into the ring along with him.
he didn't treat it properly for 9 months after detection. [due to snake oil]
Do you want me to further specify my position to rid it of any unintended insensitivity? Jobs was a masterful marketer who convinced the media and public that his products were of a much higher quality and level of innovation than they actually were. He is one of many people that a secular cult developed around fueled by sycophantic tendencies of the media, who want nothing more than to extoll the supreme virtues of a goddamn salesman. While I know little of him personally, I am quite capable of noticing how the image of him was warped and distorted into something that scarcely resembled the reality of him or his company. As such, while I am sad for his death as I am sad for any man's death, I think it's a good idea to burst the bubble of everyone who wants to use his death to turn the hero worship of him up to eleven. Because I despise the industry of false hero-making, and it would be to the benefit of everyone if that industry were discredited so only actual, deserving individuals should get such praise. So I agree with Bobboau in that he attempted to do this. I did not condone the particular language he used.I agree that Bobboau language has been insensitive, but his assessment of Jobs' career isn't wrong, and you can argue that kind of attack is justified in the light of the character worship Jobs is getting right now. He was nothing of the sort.
His assessment of Jobs' career is ignorant bashing. To justify such attacks because of the "character worship" is losing one's perspective. No man is perfect, no man is without flaws. To call Jobs a "Osama Bin Laden" is so flat out gargantuanly ridiculous over the top that I'm speechless to the "agreement" that he seems to be having here.
I'm really appaled.Quote[EDIT]I think this sums it up:
http://xkcd.com/961/
Was that a joke? xkcd? Really?
There's plenty of time for honest evaluation of the guy's career and choices;
Jobs was a masterful marketer who convinced the media and public that his products were of a much higher quality and level of innovation than they actually were. He is one of many people that a secular cult developed around fueled by sycophantic tendencies of the media, who want nothing more than to extoll the supreme virtues of a goddamn salesman.
While I know little of him personally, I am quite capable of noticing how the image of him was warped and distorted into something that scarcely resembled the reality of him or his company.
As such, while I am sad for his death as I am sad for any man's death, I think it's a good idea to burst the bubble of everyone who wants to use his death to turn the hero worship of him up to eleven. Because I despise the industry of false hero-making, and it would be to the benefit of everyone if that industry were discredited so only actual, deserving individuals should get such praise. So I agree with Bobboau in that he attempted to do this. I did not condone the particular language he used.
Happy? Of course not, because I'm not allowed to state an opinion as long as you consider it to be ignorant bashing.
My mistake for using the word time--I meant to say that even if you believe that the end of Jobs' direct influence on the world is a good thing, partying is not a constructive way to communicate your opinion of his legacy. I wasn't trying to suggest that anyone censor their feelings on his career, just saying that celebrating his death doesn't accomplish anything besides making the poster sound really awful, particularly when it's immediately after the fact.There's plenty of time for honest evaluation of the guy's career and choices;
These opinions were never exactly secrets. They were expressed while the man was alive. Attempts to censor them out of "respect for the dead" are at best misguided.
It is more important to speak the truth of a man after he is dead, so that his legacy may be properly understood.
I don't know about you, but I'm about fed up with all the free -- and ridiculous -- advertising and publicity Apple Computers gets. If they decided to bottle air and sell it, calling it, no doubt, "PowerAir" or "AirMac" or "AirPod," they'd claim that they had invented air. Then all the articles about the new MacAir would treat that claim as if it were true and suddenly start treating other air-packagers as mere imitators, playing "catch-up" with Apple.
I remember years ago, when Apple came out with their PowerBook notebook computer. I was at a meeting with an extraordinarily dumb young movie producer who kept going on and on about all the cool things his PowerBook could do. "It can sign on the internet and get email! I can carry it with me on planes and it runs on batteries!"
Finally I got fed up and just showed him my Toshiba laptop. "I can do all those things, and this computer cost me a thousand dollars less than yours."
It was a cruel thing to do, I thought, to take the wind out of his sails like that. But no, I had forgotten: He was an Apple user! He gave me a withering look and said, "Yes, but mine is an Apple."
Well, yes, but he said it as if that were a good thing.
Think about it. All the rigid, corporate-determined uniformity and buy-it-from-us-or-drop-dead attitude of Microsoft, but you have to buy your hardware from them, too. I watch Apple users attempt to manipulate their clunky operating system -- click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, just to get where I can go with a single action on my keyboard -- and I hear them raving on and on about what wonderful things Apple is finally deigning to make available to them, but which PC users have had for years, and it all makes me vaguely sad.
"Windows crashes all the time," they say with a smirk. Then, when they're talking among themselves and they don't think you're listening, they reveal the evil truth: Macs crash too. And Mac software has bugs and flaws and security gaps and stupidity built in, just like Windows.
What Macs don't have is any competition. Once you've bought into the hype and forked over your money, they've got you and you can't get free without completely replacing everything.
The same thing has happened now with the iPod. I had been using wonderful MP3 players for years. My Rio Riot held twenty gigs of music. My little Panasonic E-Wear, and later my Rio Cali, let me take incredible amounts of music with me when I exercised or took long flights.
Then the iPod comes out and it doesn't do anything that I needed and didn't already have. Not only that, but it was deeply ugly, a plain ivory-colored box with pathetic controls that looked like it should hold generic earswabs. Compared to my Rio Riot, it was a piece of junk and looked like a piece of junk.
And now it seems to have taken over the world. Everything is geared toward iPods. I still have MP3 players with more capacity and better interface than the iPod, and people talk and write as if the iPod had invented the whole class of machine, and all the others were just imitations.
Even the current PC World magazine has been suckered into this Apple mystique. They had a "brave and daring" front-of-book essay about how PC makers ought to learn to do things more like Apple. And do you know what it came down to? The colors and shape of the cheap plastic they wrap their products in.
Yeah, that's right. They make the ugliest, silliest, most embarrassing-looking cheap plastic products in the industry, charge half again as much as you'd pay for a cleanly designed, functional looking product, and they are given credit for design!
I know what will happen, of course. A lot of smug Apple owners will write me taunting letters about how Windows crashes all the time. Old news, kiddies. My XP doesn't crash at all. And I have about a hundred times as much software to choose from, and can customize my own machine (despite the best efforts of Microsoft) a thousand times more than you can, and I'm paying less for it, and it looks like I actually intend to do serious work with it.
As for your iPod, I just have to shake my head and laugh. There are much better -- and better-looking -- products out there, and I already own some of them. But you go on believing that yours is the best in the world. That's what Apple depends on. You'll get into the harness, they'll put the blinders on you, and you'll think you're pulling the queen's carriage instead of the old farm wagon you're dragging along.
The man wasn't a war criminal or a terrorist.so, I see you don't work in the IT industry.
But treating him like he's a modern day Tesla or Edison is just rediculous, which is what's happening right now.
Yes, he was. That doesn't lessen the impact of his innovations. Also, what is it about the internet that brings out the nitpickers?
Damn, I at least thought he invented the light bulb.But treating him like he's a modern day Tesla or Edison is just rediculous, which is what's happening right now.
:wakka:
The fact that he's a modern day Edison (http://www.cracked.com/funny-3345-historical-figures-who-were-actually-dicks/) seems to be exactly the problem you have with him. :pYes, he was. That doesn't lessen the impact of his innovations. Also, what is it about the internet that brings out the nitpickers?
There's a difference between a nitpick and a joke. :p
06 October 2011 (Steve Jobs)
Steve Jobs, the pioneer of the computer as a jail made cool, designed to sever fools from their freedom, has died.
As Chicago Mayor Harold Washington said of the corrupt former Mayor Daley, "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone." Nobody deserves to have to die - not Jobs, not Mr. Bill, not even people guilty of bigger evils than theirs. But we all deserve the end of Jobs' malign influence on people's computing.
Unfortunately, that influence continues despite his absence. We can only hope his successors, as they attempt to carry on his legacy, will be less effective.
But treating him like he's a modern day Tesla or Edison is just rediculous, which is what's happening right now.
:wakka:
The fact that he's a modern day Edison (http://www.cracked.com/funny-3345-historical-figures-who-were-actually-dicks/) seems to be exactly the problem you have with him. :p
I applied to Apple not too long ago but they said there were no Jobs left:lol:
And yes, I actually did apply
Steve Job was a brilliant marketer for a company that builds products that are often inferior and no more innovative to their competition but sold much better because of such marketing, and has its share of borrowings and other unethical buisness practices just as Microsoft does. Much of the worship he recieved, both before and now after his death, is based upon the image of him as an inventor of genius. I'm within my rights to burst that bubble. He had a hand in many wonderful developments, such as the creation of Pixar- of that I have no doubt. But treating him like he's the modern day Edison Tesla is just rediculous, which is what's happening right now.
Here's a fun little article by Orson Scott Card from 2005, deconstructing Apple's image through the years
ok, would you kindly tell us what exactly you think were a few of apples better 'innovations' ?
ok, would you kindly tell us what exactly you think were a few of apples better 'innovations' ?
You think in terms of specs. We think in an opposite way. You will never understand apple and will always believe it's a bunch of crook salesmen with a lot of marketing. Why would I waste my time deconverting your beliefs, when it's clear you won't budge?
It's not about specs. It's about implementation. Xerox invented the mouse? Great. What did they do with it? Sold it blissfully to a naive company called "apple", who just reinvented the personal computer with it. Did they invent "multitouch"? No. They just perfected it and created the most successful smartphone ever. Did they invent AI? No. But where is Siri's competition? Did they invent handheld game consoles? No. And yet, which is exactly the ipod touch competition? Did they invent a "market of apps"? No. Yet their implementation of the app market shattered the broken "carrier -> user" link and created the most wealthy app market of any handheld device. Did they invent the tablet? No. They just did the first one that actually worked like people wanted it to, with the correct price point.
Do you think all of the above are easy things to do? Why didn't the rest of the industry did the same then?
Ok it's pretty clear you have no idea what you're talking about.
You think in terms of specs. We think in an opposite way. You will never understand apple and will always believe it's a bunch of crook salesmen with a lot of marketing.ok, I get it, you have only said that 50,000 ****ing times in this thread. I was expecting a response in terms of usability, or cohesion, but rather you seem to have helped make my case for me.
It's not about specs. It's about implementation. Xerox invented the mouse? Great. What did they do with it? Sold it blissfully to a naive company called "apple", who just reinvented the personal computer with it.marketing.
IDid they invent "multitouch"? No. They just perfected it and created the most successful smartphone ever.first android is killing them in the market. second that is all about advertising and marketing.
Did they invent AI? No. But where is Siri's competition?I will admit I don't know about this, it is a brand new feature of a brand new phone I have not seen in the wild yet
Did they invent handheld game consoles? No. And yet, which is exactly the ipod touch competition?ummm... WTF are you talking about? they are not even a competitor to Nintendo or Sony in this market, the iPod is not a gameing platform, it is a music player that can play games.
Did they invent a "market of apps"? No. Yet their implementation of the app market shattered the broken "carrier -> user" link and created the most wealthy app market of any handheld device.yes, when it comes to ways of separating people from their money I have said they are quite good at that.
Did they invent the tablet? No. They just did the first one that actually worked like people wanted it to, with the correct price point.'correct price point" :lol: yeah, right
Umm, the iPod Touch is not marketed solely as a handheld gaming device. People don't buy iPod Touch's to game, they buy them as multifunction devices that are capable of gaming.
Regardless, luis, your point is somewhat negated by the fact that you sound like a rabid fanboy.
I don't think anyone disputes that Apple has had a particular flair for marketing devices that are in no way unique or special to the masses; most people just dispute how "superior" they are. What Apple HAS very successfully done is marketed their devices to the lowest common denominator, making ridiculous sums of money and pissing off anyone who wants to use their devices their way instead of Apple's way. That's why you find a lot of technically-savvy people who detest Apple, while people who are more concerned with basic usage and not advanced features or customization are often their biggest fans. There are exceptions to the rule, of course.
Some examples:
-Apple didn't invent the portable MP3 player. They didn't even perfect it (there are a lot of more versatile players, with more features, and larger capacity than the iPod series. I have a Creative Zen Micro which still works, because the battery is replaceable, played FM radio as well, had more storage capacity than comparable iPods, and was $200 cheaper at the time). They did successfully market MP3 players to the widest audience available, and made a fortune in the process.
-Apple didn't invent, or perfect, the smartphone. In point of fact, early 1st-gen iPhones were junk
, and newer Android devices are capable of a lot more, with a lot better hardware in them, and are cheaper.
What the iPhone did do is successfully plant the idea of a phone that replaces your phone/camera/MP3 player bunch of devices into one as a "must-have" accessory, and did it with a simplistic user interface so it isn't daunting to use for non-technical people. And again, they made a fortune in the process. But there are still a lot better products out there (particularly the next-generation Android devices, which anyone who has come to want to do things their way and not put up with iTunes/Apple's way has or will be switching to).
-Tablets. The sole reason the iPad took off is because of fanboyism and pricing.
The fact of the matter is that Apple's tablets are massively inferior to tablet PCs that were on the market 6 years ago in terms of what they're capable of.
But, because Apple made the pricing look accessible (and a lot of people didn't know there were better alternative out there in terms of portable, interactive, multifunction devices) they sold a bunch. Then they released the iPad2 with very little in the way of actual tangible improvement less than a year later and sold a bunch more, even to owners of the original iPad.
I see the appeal of Apple to people who just want things to work - but I hate how they cater to people who just don't want to learn about technology, and in the process narrow the abilities and features of the products they release, which in turn affects the entire tech sector.
Couple that with some extremely shady business practices (ridiculous patent lawsuits)
, misleading advertising (Yeah, macs don't get viruses... HA!)
, and restriction of the user experience to the "Apple experience," and I won't touch their products.
Some I'm kinda with bobb here - I really do hope that Apple's influence in the tech sector wanes.
first android is killing them in the market. second that is all about advertising and marketing.
I will admit I don't know about this, it is a brand new feature of a brand new phone I have not seen in the wild yet
ummm... WTF are you talking about? they are not even a competitor to Nintendo or Sony in this market, the iPod is not a gameing platform, it is a music player that can play games.
yes, when it comes to ways of separating people from their money I have said they are quite good at that.
'correct price point" :lol: yeah, right
ok but seriously, just like everything else on this list, you just assert that they did 'it' right, but in every example you have given you have failed to explain what 'it' was about these products that was actually innovative, you are just asserting them as best without backing it up. and don't come back with that stupid 'it's not a specs thing, you wouldn't understand' _bull****_. I am asking you to tell me clearly what they have done not what they have not done. I challenge you to provide me with anything that does not boil down to marketing. give me comparisons with other products in the field and tell me how they did it and how apple does it and why apple's way was superior. and before you attempt to use Argumentum ad Populum you would at least make sure that apple is in fact in a dominating position in the respective market, about the only market apple is dominating right now is the tablet market.
Killing them? Where?
http://www.intomobile.com/2011/05/02/apple-has-50-profit-share-smartphone-makers-cant-hear-haters-behind-huge-wall-cash/
I've seen reviews of it. It's a window to the future and it's almost scary.ok, so you haven't actually used it either
... and yet they are killing the sony and nintendo handheld consoles. Have you been under a rock lately? How is a handheld console whose games cost north of 25, 35 bucks able to compete with a device whose games cost 2, 5 bucks in the internet?
LOL. Tell that to the devs who are winning cash like crazy.is this intended as an argument against what I said? because it really doesn't go against it.
Apple is dominating the laptop market. Apple is dominating the mp3 market.they have something like 10% market share, that is not dominating, and that is only in the US market, they aren't even on the radar world wide.
Apple is dominating the PMP market.Project Management Professional?
They invented a good multitouch techno they didn't, it has been around since the 70s, you could argue they popularized it.
combined it with a good screen, inserted a huge battery packI will admit Apple has good build quality
were able to not go feature creep and slice it enough to be under 500 bucks. Combine it with it using iOS instead of a full blown MacOS (like windows tablets which were crazy), and you do have innovation on your hands.
People like you are unimpressed by this. You want the cake and eat it too.
And why should it have more improvements, if the first product is already a winner? You lot think with a list of specs in your head. I have a laptop that is an hp filled with "specs" and ports and stuff that I never use.
Apple is dominating the laptop market. Apple is dominating the mp3 market.
You're joking, right? You have to have heard of MacBooks.
-snip-
You're joking, right? You have to have heard of MacBooks.
Killing them? Where?
http://www.intomobile.com/2011/05/02/apple-has-50-profit-share-smartphone-makers-cant-hear-haters-behind-huge-wall-cash/
in terms of how many people use the phone, market share, not profit share. yes Apple is making money, I never denied that. Apple is making more money than anyone else, but that's not because a lot of people use their phone it's because Apple charges more per unit. ios usage share on phones is somewhere around 20%, android is somewhere around 50%. android is free so there is no profit being made directly from it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Mobile_devices
ok, so you haven't actually used it either
here is an article that supports you, note it is in terms of profit share not market share, but I think it shows the ball park roughly
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10470102-37.html
you call 20% share 'killing them', granted it is on the rise, but they are not dominating this market, Nintendo is.
they have something like 10% market share, that is not dominating, and that is only in the US market, they aren't even on the radar world wide.
Apple is dominating the PMP market.Project Management Professional?
They invented a good multitouch techno they didn't, it has been around since the 70s, you could argue they popularized it.
yeah, people like me don't like being treated like children or paying more to get less.
-snip-
I'm not doing the argue-every-sentence thing with you today, luis. That said, I will correct a couple of your misconceptions below because they warrant special attention. As to the rest:
Your entire argument boils down to: Apple is revolutionary because their products do everything I think they need to and they sell a lot of them. To which I have a two-word response:
Genius marketers.
Apple's hardware and software is not revolutionary in its specifications, its breadth of functionality, its price point, or its innovations. But they're really good at selling it.
And no, Apple is most decidedly NOT dominating the laptop market. If you'd care to look at total sales sometime, you'll find that PC manufacturers combined outsell Apple's portable computers by a pretty wide margin.
Apple has a very small fraction of the personal computing market - which, to harp back on one of your other misconceptions, is largely the reason for fewer malware infections: MacOS is just as vulnerable to attack as Windows, there's just a lot less malware that actively targets it.
It also runs quite a bit less in terms of overall software (fewer points of infiltration to work with). But I assure you, if you put Windows on an Apple machine without any sort of protection and don't utilize networking practices, it'll get infected just as quickly as any PC. Macs don't get viruses as often as Window PCs because the MacOS user base is an irrelevant portion of the computing market. Apple's market share is the only reason they can make that claim, which is dubious at best.
As for MP3 players, find a source that says Creative was underselling their competitors to the iPod. It was cheaper because the iPod was priced higher, not because of any underselling. While you're at it, do some research on early tablets. Colleagues of mine were using Toshiba's tablet PCs in 2006 with pen-touch interfaces for note-taking quite successfully.
Oh, and since it was also a computer it could play video, surf the web, check email, and at the same time allow the student to write papers and look at Powerpoint presentations. And it was priced similarly to other laptops at the time.
Again - all I see from your posts is justification about how Apple was brilliant because of things that essentially boil down to marketing. Nowhere have you actually demonstrated that any of Apple's products were/are unique and revolutionary. They weren't. They took products and ideas already available, bundled them up aiming at the lowest common denominator of end-user, and applied their marketing machine.
Now they're using the ridiculous sums of cash they've collected from doing so to stifle the competition (Samsung, anyone? Though the interesting thing there is that I suspect Apple needs Samsung more than Samsung needs Apple). Nothing you've said paints them in any other light.
EDIT: Also, I'm not saying that Apple's marketing genius isn't a significant accomplishment (it is, and I'm thankful for the proliferation of tech that has resulted from it), I'm just saying that it is marketing and not innovation that drives Apple's success.
Android is "free" except for the royalties some companies have to pay for microsoft... quite the irony. Apple charges more per unit because they only sell the top tier phone, not the 100, 200 bucks phones, which are the bulk of android phones (and the kind of which I'm about to buy anyway).
Quit trolling me. I've seen it used. It's amazing. And I couldn't have had used it, since I live in Portugal.
2009 is history. This more recent article, for comparison, has a more recent data, although they blur it with android pollution:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20054217-17.html
I do wonder to the comparison between android and iOS.
It's murder. Nintendo is surely less than 50% now.
Yes they did. I didn't say they invented multitouch. I said they invented a "Good multitouch tech". Arguably the best in town since its beggining.
I don't like being conned into buying a i7 laptop only to see it burning hot in my lap and see its performance decreased. But hey I am an "adult" and should have seen it coming right? Apple is surely treating their custumers like babies by not giving them these shady options.