In honour of Steve Jobs - first Apple experience/hardware? Was it great?

[khisanth]

Nobody says Steve Jobs invented anything!

Say what you want about Apple, but they were successful with touch screen phones, tablets, mp3 players etc AND they were expensive, yet people bought them in the millions. Why is that?

Other companies invented them and tried to sell them and failed. Why is that?

[Gryzor]

Of course way too many people are hailing Jobs as the big inventor and innovator. That's the problem, not a successful company.

As to the last question, the answer is simple - marketing. Tons of it, and of great quality.

[Gryzor]

This sums it up nicely.

[TFM]

That elbonian court is in Germany, shame on them

[TotO]

they were successful with touch screen phones, tablets, mp3 players etc AND they were expensive, yet people bought them in the millions. Why is that?
Other companies invented them and tried to sell them and failed. Why is that?

Because other company do-it wrong.
I have bought many audio player in the past (MD, Rio, Archos, ...) and I never use it everyday because it was fastidious to update content by moving in hand, sorting, labeling, recording, ... Since I have bought an iPod Mini, all comes fine.
You have to think "final user", not "geek user" that are a minority over the real world.
People are using hitech products like they use a micro-wave or a TV. They don't want to lose time with the object, but only using it for what it was made.
When iPad was out, "tablet PC" cost 200$ to 500$ more for bigest, slowest, and inadapted (windows) content. Like a laptop without keyboard... The wrong way... Apple, came with a best product adapted for the market, and now (again), like for the iPhone VS all smartphone, everybody try to copy in less expensive for "surfing on the wave".
Now, the question is : "why not accept to buy what you find nice for you, and give the feedback of your owned products and not the feedback of thinks you don't own, because it was Apple?"

[Gryzor]

Ahem, people hated Sony for moving on to a dedicated piece of software to manage their mp3 players (and, IMO, they were right to). By far the simplest way is to copy files manually, or maybe even use a simple sync program. And there *were* fantastic mp3 players before Nano or other Apple players. I had extensively tested the first and second generation iPod (I actually had them both, bought with company money!), and I just hated the experience. It is precisely the normal, non-geek user who finds it easier to just copy files instead of bothering with huge programs just to listen to some music. Claiming, a posteriori, that something is good because Apple does it, even though before Apple it was condemned is a telling point for Apple fans...

Also, back in 2005 (I think) Sony had a fully-fledged PC in tablet format, for around €740 IIRC. And they were not the only ones.

As for your last argument, it's a bit silly - you can't really expect people to judge only stuff they own, right? I mean, this runs contrary to the entire way of how a consumer behaves...

...and then you read this and you think, 'good riddance'... I just hope it's not true.

[Morn]

You have to think "final user", not "geek user" that are a minority over the real world.
People are using hitech products like they use a micro-wave or a TV. They don't want to lose time with the object, but only using it for what it was made.

Exactly! Electronics products should be like appliances and "just work". Steve Jobs understood this perfectly. Sir Alan Sugar also did. Everyone else apparently doesn't, except Samsung perhaps.

I wonder why there's all this Apple hate on this forum, given that the CPC was more or less developed on the same principles as Apple hardware: Make it simple to use and nice to look at, even if that makes it a little more expensive than a Speccy or C64. People will buy it. Apple is simply the present-day incarnation of Amstrad's heyday IMO.

[Gryzor]

I wouldn't call it hate. There's lots of arguments, not blind bashing.

Apple gets lots of flak from non-Apple fans because of the unbelievable claims about their products and the cult status they have gained. What's more, Apple is a very anthropomophic brand, with a huge emphasis on sentiment and bonding; it's only natural that it will incite the opposite sentiments to those who don't embrace it.

Also, Apple couldn't be further from the Amstrad philosophy; Sugar wanted goods that "the truck driver and his wife" can use, that he could sell "off the back of a van". To the lowest common denominator, to the very layman. Apple targets the elite user, and is quite snob. What's more Amstrad's prices were always low compared to the package - the CPC may have been more expensive than the ZX, but throw in the extras and you get a low price indeed. And let's not talk about the rock-bottom-priced PCs, or the PCWs... How can you compare them to Apple products?

[Bryce]

anthropomophic

WTF?! You made my coffee leave through the nose! Isn't Thrasonical enough for one week? Or did you get a dictionary for your birthday?

I even had to look that one up.

Bryce.

P.s. Isn't there an "r" missing before the second "p" ?

[Gryzor]

Yes, there is an r missing, sorry.

Also, I wouldn't need dictionaries to look up Greek words now, would I?

As a side-note, this is a valid marketing term, not a neologism (oooh!) of mine. Is there a better equivalent in english?

[Bryce]

No idea, I only learnt the word 3 minutes ago

But I intend to slip it into a few sentences in the next meeting

Bryce.

[Gryzor]

If you do please do quote yourself here; I'm really curious as to how you'd do it!

[Bryce]

Apple targets the elite user, and is quite snob.

During the summer I was sitting in a park enjoying a beer with some friends. One of them who is incurable Apple worshipper was telling us how great his iPhone is, while we were busy pointing out its weaknesses. After realising he couldn't convert us, he boldly stated, that "It's not made for your type anyway, it's made for the upper-class elite user, which you lot most certainly aren't". A few minutes later, a homeless guy came over and asked us whether he could have our empty beer bottles to cash in, which we gladly gave him. While packing them away, a ringtone came from his pocket and he took out an iPhone and answered it. We couldn't stop laughing. The homeless guy didn't get it, but our iFriend never uttered another word about his "Elite device"

Bryce.

[TotO]

Expansive ? For Elite ? Many users are students...

[Bryce]

Many students consider themselves to be Elite too you know

Bryce.

[Gryzor]

What he said. It's an aspirational image, not a mirror of reality. Unless you think that if you see a commercial about an expensive scotch being consumed by, say, an ambassador means you got to be an ambassador to drink it...

[Morn]

Also, Apple couldn't be further from the Amstrad philosophy; Sugar wanted goods that "the truck driver and his wife" can use, that he could sell "off the back of a van". To the lowest common denominator, to the very layman. Apple targets the elite user, and is quite snob.

That's mostly the new, gilded cage, app store lock-in, Big Brother-knows-best Apple. Apple used to cater mostly to creative types such as graphic designers and those are not exactly made of money. The PC OTOH was for business types who did not care about the high price point. Recently the situation has been somewhat reversed and suddenly Apple has this boutique image and IBM-compatible PCs are thought of as cheap mass-market devices. But I think there are quite a few Apple users who also detest this new boutique mentality, especially because it restricts users' freedoms what to run on a device. A computer without a programming environment like Python (or even BASIC) is severely broken in my opinion. Therefore no iPhone or iPad for me, thanks.

But what has made Apple great initially was making computers for non-technical users. Which is also what Sugar attempted, always citing his hypothetical lorry driver who buys a computer on impulse and expects it to work. Of course the Apple price point has always been above Amstrad's but I think the 1984 Macintosh was not actually that expensive relatively speaking, at least in the US. They did not cater mostly to self-proclaimed elites back then and haven't really throughout most of their history.

Of course by now every granny has an iPhone, so Apple hasn't been elite for some time. If it ever was, which I doubt.

[Gryzor]

For the life of it, I never understood why the PC caught. It was so inferior to anything else, and so much more expensive to boot... Yikes.

But at the time that you mention in your comparison there were better competitors. The ST with terminal emulation software actually cost LESS than a dedicated terminal used in so many offices, for instance. I'm trying to locate an ST ad presenting an ST with a laser printer and attacking Mac for their prices (but I can't).

I agree with what you say, though I'll remind you that who actually owns a product isn't necessarily the image of the product.

[Gryzor]

Hey, I found this:

Atari Mega ST Laser Printer Commerical

I would swear there was a print version, maybe they did both.

[MacDeath]

I never understood why the PC caught. It was so inferior to anything else, and so much more expensive to boot...

bizness and industry adopted it.

Also it was inferior in term of "gaming" but we know that's not what a company manager or CEO wants...

As a result "Dad" had to get a PC for home because he used a MsDos "IBM"PC at work and had to keep it compatible for his homework.

Many second hand PCs were then available when companies had to renew their park.

Also, a CGA PC wasn't "good" concerning games, so people could think their children would work with it, not play (but Games existed too and weren't always bad, just in 4 colours only...)

But also when PC managed to have VGA+soundblaster card as a norm... with generic manufacturers... they clearly became a better choice than the Atari or Amiga counterparts.


The saddest part to me was that PC managed to impose themselves despite the shittyness of IBM video cards from the 80's.

As I often state, the Amstrad CPC actually managed to be more powerfull and easier to work with (graphically) than a CGA PC on the matter... but the attributed mode...

That's perhaps the only thing the CPC lacks : an attributed Mode2... (would be like 20K VRAM, lol...)


The horror was that the shittynes from CGA (no proper Palette management) was then reproduced on EGA as legacy and compatibility "features".

If CGA was to be done well at first (like a CPC then) the EGA would simply have been awesome and PC games would have been a lot better from the very start...


Actually almost as good as Atari ST graphically... with a very decent 320x200x16/64 mode with "free ink setting" or even a 160x200x256 mode (yet a good 512colours palette would be needed... instead of a 64colour palette)

But hey, this awesome 640x350x16/64 mode was sadely too rarely used too.

And Graphics for computers would have taken less time to become so great (=256 colour modes).

[MaV]

But also when PC managed to have VGA+soundblaster card as a norm... with generic manufacturers... they clearly became a better choice than the Atari or Amiga counterparts.

Yes, and by the time VGA+Soundblaster were common, the then current processor was a 386 and 486.

That's perhaps the only thing the CPC lacks : an attributed Mode2... (would be like 20K VRAM, lol...)

I'm lost here. What attribute mode? The PC did not have one.

[MacDeath]

CGA got a text mode with attributed letters...

you could change the background colours... therefore get 16 colours on the screen, techically...

But ok it is a text mode... not a graphic mode, until Ascii art comes into equation.


Hell even speccy was better on attributes...

[Morn]

For the life of it, I never understood why the PC caught. It was so inferior to anything else, and so much more expensive to boot... Yikes.

Economies of scale I guess. It's bitter irony that Amstrad more or less created the market of affordable PCs for the masses, only to get muscled out of that market. Seagate wouldn't have been bribed into shipping defective hard disks on purpose to Amstrad, now would they? Nah, they wouldn't sink so low. Or would they? 

But at the time that you mention in your comparison there were better competitors. The ST with terminal emulation software actually cost LESS than a dedicated terminal used in so many offices, for instance. I'm trying to locate an ST ad presenting an ST with a laser printer and attacking Mac for their prices (but I can't).

I agree with what you say, though I'll remind you that who actually owns a product isn't necessarily the image of the product.

I think Atari was seen as a video games company, so the ST was not taken as seriously. Also, it was not as good for games and the GUI was even uglier than Workbench. Hobby musicians got them because STs came with built-in MIDI ports, but if you weren't into that sort of thing, you would probably have preferred an Amiga. 4096 colors! That did not fail to impress at a time when PCs only had to offer CGA, EGA, and Hercules...

[MacDeath]

I think Atari was seen as a video games company, so the ST was not taken as seriously.

exactly, Atari was also responsible for the video game crisis in 1983-84 (ET on Atari 2600 anyone) so the leadership went from USA to Japan on the matter.

Also, it was not as good for games and the GUI was even uglier than Workbench. Hobby musicians got them because STs came with built-in MIDI ports, but if you weren't into that sort of thing, you would probably have preferred an Amiga. 4096 colors!

Yes... also the design of those A500 or AtariST was massive and huge, so not that well suited for a workplace use as would the detached keyboard design from others (Mac or PC).
4096 colours ? what's the use for a company use ? I mean, most workplace computers were more into the good and clear text display of monochrome monitors...(and higher resolution)
Why were PCW and MAC1 monochrome ?
cheaper solution for an even higher resolution.


A company manager would not pay the extras for the superb Amiga sound and video.
Also Atari wasa bit more hardware friendly...

You know, those stupid disk drives on Amiga that are so hard to replace nowadays...

That did not fail to impress at a time when PCs only had to offer CGA, EGA, and Hercules...

Just like the Amstrad CPC, the Atari ST was clearly a well rounded not really specialised computer... with "efficient enough" capabilities on graphics and sounds.



Thomson computers per exemple were real shitfest on sounds... which lead to their demise.
I mean MO6-TO8 were decent computer and would greatly compare with a good old CPC6128 provided they had an AY psg too...and were cheaper...
But on the other hand the thomson first series were complete failure on the graphic matter, just like MSX.

Speccy was too, but it was also the cheapest, while an MSX1 is far from being the cheapest.

This also bring the legacy aspect in computer ranges.


Thomsons had a shitty reputation from the 1st series...
MSX was also quite badly reputated from the MSX1 IMO...

on the other Hand, Amstrad and Atari ST had no precursors so they made their reputation themselves (yeah, Atari8bit is not really the precursor of the 16bit Atari ST)


When you plane to get a computer series, the first model really had to be good and have success or else the rest will fail too...

C64 had to proclaim it had nothing to do with the previous Commodore computer...

[Morn]

When you plane to get a computer series, the first model really had to be good and have success or else the rest will fail too...

Unless you count Apple of course: Their weird kit computer Apple I which was more or less immediately forgotten, to be replaced by the Apple II which (with a little help from Visicalc) reshaped the industry and made Apple famous even before the Macintosh.

C64 had to proclaim it had nothing to do with the previous Commodore computer...

I think it was more the Amiga which had to distance itself from the typical Commodore cruft, i.e. the C64 and the ill-fated C128. But of course every Amiga fan knows that the original machine was an outside development and therefore immune to Commodore's crappiness. This of course changed with the later machines...

OTOH, Commodore had developed the PET, which I think was pretty highly regarded, durable and even had an interesting design, sort of "Battlestar Galactica"-like I guess. So it's not exactly as if Commodore never, ever had anything decent to offer before the C64. The C64 was their first reasonable compact machine however, as the VIC had been fairly crappy even for the time.