I kind of marvel Apple

[mattdmg]

What amazes me most about Apple is how effortless they market their products and sell them. Apple can use features other phones have had that work well and they take that feature or gimmick from being either not known about as widely to a "revolutionary" advancement. Apple uses something like touch id, borderless screens, dual cameras, or facial recognition to completely trump other phones that have already done so with little to no effort while doing so. I say this because after the Apple press conference I've been overhearing lots of people speaking of either how they've already ordered an iPhone 8 or how they think the iPhone X is amazing with almost no research into the phone to see if it's actually good even after facial recognition failed to work on stage a few times (they just blindly throw money at them because "it's the new iPhone" it has to be good). Apple pumps sweet-nothings into people's ears about "10,000 dots" or how flawless and smooth iOS 11 is and people fall for it so easily. When Samsung did the Infinity display I did not hear or see anyone bat an eye at it. It's almost like a lot of people don't even know there are other good phones besides an iPhone because they're so involved with Apple. But the point I'm trying to get across/discuss is how little they have to innovate to get a large majority of buyers on board (and raving about) with their products. It's also the same deal with MacBooks on how "they're the best college/school laptops" when in reality there are other options that are better at a lower price but guess what, it's Apple, it's ALWAYS worth the extra cost because they're always the "best" to a lot of electronic consumers.

 

This is just how I see Apple and how they are able to leverage their products just because people blindly see Apple as the best electronics company on Earth so anything they buy from them is "guaranteed" a "great" product. 

[79wjd]

A lot of it has to do with the fact that previous attempts usually aren't anywhere near as good -- fingerprint scanners existed on the Atrix 4G in 2011~, but it wasn't particularly good, Touch Bar style interfaces have been present on many laptops throughout the years, but again, the integration was basically non-existent and they didn't work well. Something like that tends to be true for a lot of the things that Apple has "innovated". 

 

And a lot of people just don't care about alternatives to Apple because they've just had such terrible experiences with them. 

 

Plus, most other companies really do suck at marketing. I've seen virtually no ads for the S8/Note 8. 

[Droidbot]

iPhones and Macs aren't worth it for just a PC or just a phone, they're a status symbol. 

 

Marketing and pricing dictate that the iPhone is for the rich, but what I've seen it's anything but. 

 

Before the iPhone, Apple made computers, correct?

And they actually innovated. 

[79wjd]

Just now, Droidbot said:

iPhones and Macs aren't worth it for just a PC or just a phone, they're a status symbol. 

I disagree. 

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

11 minutes ago, Droidbot said:

iPhones and Macs aren't worth it for just a PC or just a phone, they're a status symbol. 

 

Marketing and pricing dictate that the iPhone is for the rich, but what I've seen it's anything but. 

 

Before the iPhone, Apple made computers, correct?

And they actually innovated. 

The number of times I wished I used macOS instead of Windows because System Restore never works... 

[D13H4RD]

Marketing plays a huge role, but also because many people are pretty happy with their iPhones.

 

I personally use a Galaxy Note8, but I know a lot of people who have iPhones like them because it does what it's told and doesn't really nag them too much. 

 

In a way, Apple has succeeded, although I dislike the iPhone X. I think it's a mess in regards to what iPhones have stood.

[Droidbot]

8 hours ago, anthonyjc2010 said:

Not really. Yes, the vast majority of Apple customers don't even know what they're buying beyond the fact that it's an Apple product (and many believe that anything that is not mode by Apple is trash), but to someone who is not a fan of apple - me - even I'm not blind enough to say that their products are just a status symbol.

 

If you want the best performance and security, you go with an iPhone. Beyond that: they have some of the best camera systems of any phone, the color science of both the cameras and the calibration of the screen are incredibly accurate; they tend to have far more stable applications (just because there are far fewer devices to ensure capability to); etc. The iPhone is very good. Is it perfect, hell no. The screens tend to have a very low PPI. The design is uninspiring. The OS, oh the OS... it's almost as boring as cement. The battery life on the non-plus models is utter trash. Hell, there are so many more things I can bring up but I'm not going to start a rant. 

In retrospect I should have worded that differently. I was in a rush, on mobile, and I wanted to form a quick response and totally fucked it up. 

 

Performance? CPU-wise, I agree. Apple have been on the top for mobile CPUs for a while now, and Qualcomm is playing catch up. (Mind you, that's assuming Geekbench is 1:1 across software platforms, and even 1:1 to x86, which people seem to flaunt). Apple have just as good cameras as Android phones. The Pixel's HDR+ is one example of this, it was at the top of the DxOMark benches for a long time undefeated until the release of the iPhone 8. It's time to play catch up.. again. Android reports when something crashes to the user, whereas iOS just backs out to the home screen. Sure, there's a much more solid development platform (in Xcode, but I wouldn't call iOS' kernel robust on the stability side, with the latest software profile hacks proving this). 

 

8 hours ago, anthonyjc2010 said:

The Mac. The base model iMacs are pretty good deal, while the "Pro" desktops are outlandishly overpriced". The laptops are incredibly forward thinking but suffer from insufficient cooling. Macs are an interesting topic. You can't forget that due the fact that not many people use Macs (when compared to Windows-based machines) there are far fewer exploits and malware for it (there are far fewer people spending resources trying to find exploits to create malware for MacOS because it's an incredibly small target when compared to Windows), which has the effect of making it more secure. Apple has some of the best QC of any company *looks at Razer.* I could go into software, but if I start typing about that we'd be here all night.

Cooling =/= QC? Because that's what you implied there. Incredibly forward thinking, meaning 'let's remove all the ports so these imbeciles have to buy dongles to plug in a mouse'. The Mac Pro, (which Apple has admitted was a failure!) was one fucking generation behind in CPU when it was released, and it was on an extreme platform which has a 2-3 year lifespan for CPU upgrades anyway! It's not a 'really small target' anymore.. MacOS holds 10-15% market share in big markets like the US, Canada, and Australia. Hence why more and more malware is being made for it, showing how insecure it really is internally, and exploit kits are starting to target it. Security through obscurity doesn't work. Right.. quality control.. Remember the touchbar's icons appearing on people's screens, not on the Touchbar? Remember the overheating issues that every MacBook Pro since 2005 has had? Remember the exploding battery incidents (which there are many)? Remember how the MacBook Pro had insane battery life when browsing the web but as soon as you touch anything that pushes the CPU any further the battery life goes down the toilet like the machine has a dGPU? I've seen enough problems with Macs that the only time I recommend one to anybody is if they need to use an external GPU, because Apple made the smart decision of using all the 16 PCI-E lanes available on the 4 TB3 ports, which means it's linked to the processor directly, and not having to take the route through the PCH like every other manufacturer does it. 

 

 

[79wjd]

Quote

The Mac Pro.....was one fucking generation behind in CPU when it was released, and it was on an extreme platform which has a 2-3 year lifespan for CPU upgrades anyway! 

The Mac Pro was announced with Ivy Bridge E5's in October 2013 (and started shipping in November/December?). Ivy Bridge Xeons were released in Q3 2013. Haswell Xeon E5s weren't released until a full year later in Q3 2014. So, no, they weren't a generation behind -- Intel was a generation behind (as they always are with Xeons/HEDT).

[Guest]

Partially agree, but tbh they never have features first but when they have them they are usually the best. I prefer to have not fully developed features first but that's me

[PlayStation 2]

I think what Apple does best is not be the first with features, but the first to do them right or the ones to influence the market.

Fingerprint scanners on phones, for example, were not all that great until the iPhone 5s' scanner came along and showed people how to do it. I see HEVC and HEIF (I believe that's what it's called) support growing quite fast now that iOS 11 supports it. They made slow motion recording accessible even on the sixth generation iPod touch (although I have different uses for it; ever wondered how I got 720p60 out of the stock camera app?). They pushed USB with the iMac G3. They pushed DisplayPort in the form of Mini DisplayPort and Thunderbolt. I can go on.

[Toto123456]

let's be real here, I've used both android and iOS

 

performance + consistency wise the iphone will destroy every android device on apps like facebook/instagram/youtube especially snapchat. updates are far more frequent than every android devices. Also iMovie/iMessage and some amazing app like Enlight are exclusive to iOS. These are things that most people will use everyday and apple just straight up better.

 

If my wife/ daughter or someone who doesnt know ANYTHING about tech I will recommend the iphone over android everytime. less headache, more support on forums if you have a problem, performance consistency and the BEST WARRANTY.

 

However the android wins everything else, fully customizable experience, compatibility, many phones to choose from, price.

 

I have previously owned iphone 1/ 4/ 6 and ipad air/ 2 mbp. Also Note 2/ OP3 and gaming PC. So I sure know what Im talking about.

[minervx]

I agree that Apple products are rarely the best in terms of specs and performance value to price.  However, I think that nerds (and I use this term endearingly) underestimate what Apple offers their consumers.  

 

1. They allow for minimal time investment.  There are a ton of Android phones and Windows computers to research and look up reviews on to see which are crap and which are really good, but some people would rather pay the extra $50-100 to just save time.
2. They have good build quality and user interface.  In my case, I still use my 2012 Macbook Pro to this day because of its excellent keyboard and trackpad.  Since I mostly surf the web and type on this machine, these features are among the most important.  Specs, for example, don't matter a ton to people who are using it for basic daily tasks anyway.
3. Apple products have a low failure rate, and generally, less can go wrong.  The reason why many people moved to Apple in the first place was because they were tired of buying poorly made computers in the 90's and 2000's from manufacturers which Microsoft approved of (without properly inspecting).  They are just tired of their machines dying, power supply/motherboard failing often or having viruses/missing drivers and other issues.
4. iOS is a very efficient operating system.  It uses less energy/RAM and lacks the degree bloatware that Google hogs Android with.  Yes, Android has 100 different settings.  But in all honesty, I wouldn't miss most of them if I did switch to iPhone.  Most of the time I just want to move from one app to another without a certain software interrupting me or asking me a series question.  A person like me basically wants to be able to move from G-Mail, to Youtube, to web browser, to Notepad without any interference.
5. There's nothing wrong with having a preference to aesthetic value.  Let's not pretend that half of this community would pay an extra premium to have RGB lighting in their PC's.

[William Payne]

As a long time Windows user, a long time iPhone user, and a short time mac user. Who currently uses mac, windows, and iOS all at the same time. I am going to put in my two cents. 

 

Windows is fine, I can't complain about 10 and I loved windows 7 and before that xp. But in some ways it is way way overly complicated in comparison to mac os. I never realised how much searching and digging you have to do through files and the start menu and all that stuff on windows. Everything is hidden away in menus and files. Also its all written in a way that you almost have to be a programmer to know what you are looking for if you want to do anything technical. 

 

Sure its customisable and more open and you can personalise things. But for me I really don't give a crap about that stuff. 

 

Mac OS could easily be called basic, or dumbed down. But I think in reality its just refined to make it user friendly. Everything is easy to find, clearly labelled and easy to understand and while it may not be open or customisable ......... It just works!!! which to me is the most important thing, that it works. I figured out Mac OS in a very short time when I got my first mac. 

 

iOS also could be called basic and or dumbed down, and also is not customisable or open. But for me it works and is easy to use. 

 

I don't need a million ways to personalise or customise something, I don't have the desire to hack into things or mess around with stuff. 

 

I could quite happily go all mac, it just works and is very very easy to use. That may be boring to some people. But I get my kicks out of using the machines for work and tasks, not so much messing with the hardware or software. 

 

Don't get me wrong I am going to build a PC for gaming eventually but only for that task. 

 

It would be nice if Apple had more options on the hardware side but that is why I still own an older mac pro tower where I can upgrade things a bit. 

 

It depends on what you like to do with your computing. 

 

For me the less time spent messing about with hardware or software the better. 

 

 

[Commodus]

On 2017-09-21 at 5:26 PM, mattdmg said:

What amazes me most about Apple is how effortless they market their products and sell them. Apple can use features other phones have had that work well and they take that feature or gimmick from being either not known about as widely to a "revolutionary" advancement. Apple uses something like touch id, borderless screens, dual cameras, or facial recognition to completely trump other phones that have already done so with little to no effort while doing so. I say this because after the Apple press conference I've been overhearing lots of people speaking of either how they've already ordered an iPhone 8 or how they think the iPhone X is amazing with almost no research into the phone to see if it's actually good even after facial recognition failed to work on stage a few times (they just blindly throw money at them because "it's the new iPhone" it has to be good). Apple pumps sweet-nothings into people's ears about "10,000 dots" or how flawless and smooth iOS 11 is and people fall for it so easily. When Samsung did the Infinity display I did not hear or see anyone bat an eye at it. It's almost like a lot of people don't even know there are other good phones besides an iPhone because they're so involved with Apple. But the point I'm trying to get across/discuss is how little they have to innovate to get a large majority of buyers on board (and raving about) with their products. It's also the same deal with MacBooks on how "they're the best college/school laptops" when in reality there are other options that are better at a lower price but guess what, it's Apple, it's ALWAYS worth the extra cost because they're always the "best" to a lot of electronic consumers.

 

This is just how I see Apple and how they are able to leverage their products just because people blindly see Apple as the best electronics company on Earth so anything they buy from them is "guaranteed" a "great" product. 

I won't repeat everything others have said, but I will elaborate on Apple's strategy (Dan brought it up -- I just want to go further).

 

Apple's goal is rarely to be the first with a fundamentally new piece of technology.  Its goal is instead to be the first to do something right, or the first to implement an existing technology in a category where it hasn't been used before.  It didn't make the first MP3 player; it made the first MP3 player that was both easy to sync and held all your music.  It didn't make the first smartphone or tablet; it made the first of those that were aimed at everyday people, with truly touch-friendly interfaces.  Multi-touch had existed before the iPhone, but this was the first mainstream, practical application of it.  Even Face ID on the iPhone X is a good example -- face recognition isn't new, but this is the first phone-based face recognition that promises to actually be secure, and actually convenient.

 

And that's what frustrates people like, well, you.  You want the company that has done something no one has ever done before, accessibility and practicality of the feature be damned.  If this were 2007, you'd be the one complaining that the iPhone wasn't really the first phone with touch, and that other phones had 3G, GPS and autofocusing cameras, and... all the while missing the bigger picture.  People did make a fuss over Samsung's Infinity Display, by the way, it's just that its impact had been dulled by the Xiaomi Mi Mix beating it to the punch a few months earlier.  For iPhone buyers, it's not as if we don't know those near-borderless screens exist -- we're just happy to get one with the mobile OS we prefer.

 

Also, just as a correction: the iPhone X's face recognition didn't technically fail on stage.  What had happened was that enough people other than the presenter (Craig Federighi) had stared at the phone, and for enough times, to trigger its "please enter your passcode" failsafe.  In other words, it was doing exactly what it was supposed to do.

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

Also, just as a correction: the iPhone X's face recognition didn't technically fail on stage.  What had happened was that enough people other than the presenter (Craig Federighi) had stared at the phone, and for enough times, to trigger its "please enter your passcode" failsafe.  In other words, it was doing exactly what it was supposed to do.

I am really curious to know how directly one has to look at FaceID for it to work, and how they managed to detect an off-angle intentional unlock from you vs. an accidental unlock attempt from a random person.