-
Tebows in Paradise
June 11, 2013 | 62 comments
-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
In Memoriam
Jobs’ Creation
Steve Jobs reminded us that making money can also make other people’s lives better.
BOSTON — The Apple Store on Boylston Street was decorated with flowers, like a funeral home after the death of a family member. The man who died, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, was probably not related to anyone in the store. But his technological innovations had touched, and measurably improved, each of their lives.
They knew it, too. Some customers paused outside to share tributes to Jobs with local camera crews for the nightly news. Yet many, perhaps most, of them will vote for a Senate candidate who appears to believe Jobs’ accomplishments were indistinguishable from that of his lowest-level employee and impossible without the goodness of government.
“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own,” said Elizabeth Warren, now a Democratic candidate for Senate in Massachusetts. “Nobody.” In some sense, that’s true. We are not all atomistic individuals who live in a society-free vacuum. Steve Jobs surely traveled on government roads, was protected by police officers and firefighters, and had Apple employees who were educated in public schools.
Some variation of all those things can be said of almost anyone in this nation of 300 million people. How many people can we credit with the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad, the first personal computer? That number is a lot closer to one.
Warren isn’t alone in suggesting that wealth creation is really nothing special. Senate Democrats have proposed a 5 percent surcharge on millionaires and billionaires, who they insist are not paying their fair share. The Occupy Wall Street protests vilify profit-making.
Jobs was a college dropout who started what would eventually become Apple in his parents’ garage, at age 21, with the help of his childhood friend Steve Wozniack. He was a multimillionaire at 25, on the cover of Time magazine at 26, and was seen by some as a failure at 30, purged from the company he had helped found.
That didn’t stop him. Jobs founded NeXT Computers and bought what became Pixar Animation Studios. In 1996, Apple brought him back by buying NeXT. In 1997, Jobs became CEO. Along the way, he upended the recorded music industry. He revolutionized the cell phone. He transformed the personal computer. And he brought back a company that had been on its knees.
Steve Jobs wasn’t a perfect man. He did not always own up to the daughter he fathered out of wedlock. Fortune reported that he claimed in court documents that he was infertile. The mother reportedly had to collect welfare to support the child. Apple was criticized for a lack of corporate philanthropy.
How many millions of people had their lives improved by Apple products? How many were gainfully employed by the company? How many found it easier to work in their jobs in other fields, feeding their families, buying decent housing, and accessing health care, because of Apple products? Without Jobs and many of his nearly 340 patented inventions, we would all be poorer.
Best of all, none of it counted one bit on Jobs’ good intentions. Apple’s “profiteering” proved compatible with many of its products becoming cheaper , more accessible, and more widely distributed than ever before.
Maybe Jobs would have done all of this with 90 percent marginal tax rates, a Buffett rule, a same-regulation marriage between the Dodd-Frank law and Sarbanes-Oxley, even a U.S. membership in the European Union. His public speeches suggest he was committed to his career, committed to excellence, as if it was the love of his life.
It is hard to doubt that there will be others who would add to the sum total of human happiness and improve the lives of their fellow man who will be deterred by high barriers to entry or a lesser return on the fruits of their labor. It is hard to take seriously those who roll their eyes at the very thought that the wealthy can create jobs or produce benefits for people who make less money than they do, as they publish their soak-the-rich tweets from their iPhones.
Not every rich person is a Steve Jobs. There is a lot more to life than money. And yes, we derive value from the social context in which we live. But individual achievements can also yield collective benefits. Benefits that sometimes far exceed the work of any politician.
“You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea — God bless, keep a big hunk of it,” Elizabeth Warren continued. “But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.” Steve Jobs gave at the office, Ms. Warren, leaving more for the next kid who comes along than many who claim to act in the public interest.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (114) | Leave a comment
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From In Memoriam
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/06/jobs-creation
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.6.11 @ 6:47AM
My prayer is only that he found peace with God.
Rest In Peace, Mr. Jobs.
Denver Todd| 10.6.11 @ 8:55AM
I haven't been able to find any information on Jobs' faith, other than his belief in Buddhism. Thus, I don't think he believed in God.
Seek| 10.6.11 @ 4:15PM
So what if he didn't believe in God? Did that make a him a bad person?
Margie| 10.6.11 @ 5:30PM
"And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but God alone." Lk. 18:19.
"They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one." Ps. 14:3.
"They have all fallen away; they are all alike depraved; there is none that does good, no, not one." Ps. 53:3.
"For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the harlots believed him; and even when you saw it, you did not afterward repent and believe him." Mt. 21:32.
"Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel." Mk. 1:14 & 15.
Nola| 10.7.11 @ 1:19AM
Let's try not to canonize Steve Jobs. He was a remarkable pioneer and enterpenueur who improved our lives and economy while creating vast wealth for himself and thousands of others. He was also flawed, ruthless and unethical in some of his business practices, and apparently did little to benefit mankind with his fortune.
As for whether he was a "bad person", he willfully rejected God and His mercy, not unlike Lucifer. God, in His mercy, will be the judge.
Mister Grady| 10.7.11 @ 4:18AM
How many people make their living from being employed by Apple? And yet you say he did nothing to benefit mankind.
How many people make their living not as employees of Apple, but because of some sort of association or commerce with Apple or with its ecosystem? And yet you say he did nothing to benefit mankind.
How many people have made lots of money as Apple investors? And yet you say he did nothing to benefit mankind.
How much has productivity increased because of the innovations created by Steve Jobs and Apple? And yet you say he did nothing to benefit mankind.
Can you not THINK, before you post?
Jack von Bauer| 10.6.11 @ 7:06AM
Steve Jobs: RiP
Have you considered| 10.6.11 @ 7:23AM
Good article Mr. Antle. It often gets lost that the real beneficiaries of the Gates and Jobs of the world are the consumers.
Regarding E. Warren, she obviously has no concept of our founding, or human nature. Lets look at the language of our founders in granting the Enumerated Power of patents as found in Article 1, Sec. 8.
""7) To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; ""
Think on the language and concept of this clause for a moment.
Do you ever wonder why our founders considered that Promoting the Progress of Science and Useful Arts to be best accomplished by Securing for a time the Exclusive Right to their discoveries?
Do you think that they may have actually considered human nature, and the effect of self interest and the incentive that profiting Exclusively from their inventions may have?
This entire concept seems lacking in the liberal mindset....and we are seeing the effects of voting in liberals on our economy. They seem to truly believe that altruism is a common motivator.
It is not.
USSAlabama| 10.6.11 @ 7:42AM
A nice way tribute: Consider making a contribution to pancreatic cancer research--dramatically underfunded. www.lustgarten.org among others
I lost my own dad to pancreatic cancer. Another dynamic and irreplaceable individual who was taken much to early in life.
Jack von Bauer| 10.6.11 @ 8:07AM
I guess the current Pee Party Mob on Wall Street HATED the ultra-rich corporate running Steve Jobs.
Dean | 10.6.11 @ 1:17PM
You are right Jack! But how would they get through life without their IPods, IPhones, and IPads? Let think mull that over . . .
America should be profoundly grateful for Steve Jobs's short yet productive life. He changed the way we live just as Edison and Ford did. And remember...he created his work in America, a society that used to foster creativity. The IPhone and other technologies sure didn't come out of the caves of Afghanistan, the kleptocracy of Russia, or the Islamic tyranny of Saudi Arabia.
Jack London| 10.6.11 @ 8:37AM
A poor article, and a rather unpleasant one too trying to score a point only hours after his death.
Steve Jobs would no doubt agree - although he was worth several billion dollars, he said: 'Being the richest man in the cemetery doesn't matter to me.'
Quite so.
Moe Blotz| 10.6.11 @ 8:42AM
Not quite,Jack. Steve Jobs was a liberal as are many of the members of the Apple board of directors. To wit:Algore. The creeps on Wall Street,both inside and outside the buildings,embraced Steve Jobs as one of them. For different reasons of course.
Le Cracquere| 10.6.11 @ 9:22AM
Proof, once again, that a man can be better than his philosophy. In practice he was an outstanding entrepreneur and jobs-creator, whatever the quality of his abstract economic views.
Moe Blotz| 10.6.11 @ 9:46AM
Dittos. My 2004 G5 is humming right along and my Apple shares are worth 20 times what I paid.
Mister Grady| 10.7.11 @ 4:22AM
Steve Jobs was a "classical" liberal. More a libertarian, with liberal leanings social-wise. It was to be expected, given the fact that he grew up in an area of the country where pretty much everyone is at least left of center. And he did have some conservative leanings as well. I remember what he said in a speech in Texas about the problems with teachers unions and public education.
Timothy L. Pennell| 10.6.11 @ 8:44AM
And he did it WITHOUT Keynes, and Obama, and Krugman, and Reich, and all the rest of the Far Left Nightmare.
He was the American Dream. PROOF, that Capitalism is the only way to bring about Innovation and Prosperity.
Perhaps, if the LEFT hadn't put so many Roadblocks in the way, and hadn't Demonized, and Beat Down the EVIL PHARMACUTICAL COMPANIES, Steve Jobs might still be alive?
If he had Obamacare?
He'da been dead a looooooong time ago.
RIP
Le Cracquere| 10.6.11 @ 9:27AM
Would he still be alive? Probably not, no. I'm not going to take cheap shots on that point, because any healthcare-related policy of the left AND right can always be loosely connected to the medical fate of some individual.
Jack London| 10.6.11 @ 9:57AM
You couldn't be more wrong. Where do you think the Internet and many other planks of today's computing came from? Where do you think a huge amount of basic medical research comes from?
The irony of course is also that Jobs had a rare cancer, for which no pharmaceutical company would invest in.
Jack von Bauer| 10.6.11 @ 12:03PM
The low survival rates in Pancreatic cancer arise mainly because of its late diagnosis.
It has zero to do with "pharmacuetical companies" which invest billions in cancer fighting drugs.
In fact, "two new drugs have been approved by the FDA within the last six months to treat late-stage neuroendrocrine tumors, "so we have a lot of options now; options we didn't have when Jobs was first diagnosed."
http://www.foxnews.com/health/.....z1a1Bf1lZE
Emigrate to Cuba if you think big government is the home of innovation and a better life.
Jack London| 10.6.11 @ 1:30PM
They are not new drugs - they're existing ones being trialled in this tumor. And many such trials are funded by academic cooperative groups. And if we didn't have the NCI and DoD funding a lot of research most of these drugs would not exist.
CalMark| 10.7.11 @ 1:00AM
Don't confuse you with facts, eh Jack?
Why don't you go to a Leftie blog somewhere, and stop polluting our discourse here?
Mark Jeffery Koch| 10.6.11 @ 9:07AM
300 Million iPods sold since 2000. 30 Million iPads sold the past year, tens of millions of iPhones sold and every single one of them was made in China. We are deifying a man who sent our manufacturing to China, paid Chinese workers $100 a week so he could sell $500 to $800 iPads here. Nike used to pay workers in South America a few dollars a day so they could sell their shoes here for $200. Now Nike followed Jobs and manufactures their shoes in China.
Was he a visionary? Yes. Did he change the way we live our lives? Yes. Were the devices Apple made thrilling to use? Yes. Could he have given hundreds of thousands of Americans jobs? YES.
Le Cracquere| 10.6.11 @ 9:30AM
The lion's share of those jobs, had they stayed in America, would have been held by unionized employees (I won't say "workers."). To that extent, better that China, Indonesia, or India get them.
Moe Blotz| 10.6.11 @ 9:59AM
Regarding Mr.Koch's last line,Apple does provide employment for thousands of Americans. Manufacturing the products within our shores would have made Macs,pods,and pads so expensive as to be uncompetitive in spite of how well they work. Those menial jobs in China are cheap by our living standards,but big money for the peasants over there. So the late Mr.Jobs and his company have been improving lives on other parts of the globe as well. The regulatory environment in the good old USA makes off shore manufacturing much more appealing.
Steve A| 10.6.11 @ 10:20AM
Mark, Had Jobs kept the "Jobs" in the USA, many of the parents of the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters would not have been able to afford to buy their deadbeat 20 something year old kids these fine products at a competitive rate.
Oh, also, he gave virtually ZERO to charity. He bankrolled his profits back into his company & created a product that benefited countless millions of people by providing a sleek, elegant technological marvel at an affordable cost. All without any help whatsoever from Obama, Democrats, Affirmative Action, Head Start, Welfare, Food Stamps, Government Loans, Bailouts, Fannie Mae, FEMA & Planned Parenthood, . He was the epitome of the true, "evil capitalist."
Steve A| 10.6.11 @ 9:24AM
I'm sure Jobs was a nice guy & may he RIP, but, all it really means is that there is one less rich fat cat not paying his fair share out there. His estate should be confiscated & liquidated & used to buy pizzas & Porto Potties for the patriots out on Wall Street. No man needs this much $$. His wealth is the reason Bush drove the economy in the ditch. He was part of the Cleptocracy. No way he accumulates 8 Billion without cheating & stealing from poor people. Roseanne tells me he should have been capped at 100 Mil & then given a public guillotine hair trim. Barak tells me guys like Jobs are the problem as their greed & success prevents my success. Jobs never paid his fair share in taxes & even Obamacare could not save him.
Le Cracquere| 10.6.11 @ 9:32AM
BAHahahaha ... [applause]
A stellar Krugman, sir; well played. Now do Tom Friedman!
Jack London| 10.6.11 @ 9:38AM
I hear he's making great use of the billions right now. I just know he is.
Seek| 10.6.11 @ 4:16PM
Did you hammer this message out on your Apple computer?
Brubaker| 10.6.11 @ 5:36PM
"Roseanne tells me"? Are you kidding? You're using Roseanne as a source? ROFL.
Derek Leaberry| 10.6.11 @ 10:24AM
Not too sound too hypercritical as I type at a computer terminal at a political web site, but the computer age offers a mixed bag of positives and negatives. The positives are very well known and I would not waste time naming a very long list. A chief negative of the computer age is the absorption of millions with the computer at the expense of what Walker Percy called "the authentic life." Too many people spend aimless hours at the computer. Computers have brought us the tweet and the text message, You Tube and Facebook and the cell phones, innovations of dubious value. Slavery to the computer has come at the expense of normal human intercourse and even the nuclear family.
Steve A| 10.6.11 @ 10:59AM
Derek, Excellent, excellent points. I have drawn my line in the sand at the cell phone & computer while at work. When I am at home, rarely, if ever, do I answer my cell or go online. No facebook, no tweets etc.
I have ,or shall I say had, a fairly good friend who is in the bar business. Occasionally, I would stop by & check in etc. Invariably, this guy would be texting or on facebook "promoting" his bar. It was impossible to hold a conversation, in person. I am ont interested in the "online" friendship. I suppose I am "old school" & will remain so till they lower the box. It is nonsense.
Derek Leaberry| 10.6.11 @ 11:53AM
The computer is an excellent tool as long as it does not dehumanize us and enslave us.
Margie| 10.6.11 @ 2:42PM
Computers don't enslave people, people enslave themselves.
But it's true~ "If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out!" Mt. 5:29.
But it still comes down to the choices we make.
PolishKnight| 10.6.11 @ 10:28AM
Strangely... there's no mention of Microsoft or Bill Gates who was his nemesis. I love my OSX computer but, sadly, most software doesn't run on it due to the MS monopoly. Whether that monopoly was attained via marketplace dominance and status quo or illegal practices by MS is irrelevant to the failure of Apple to provide a clear alternative to Windows or MSOffice.
Steve blew it in 3 ways: One, he lent his Macintosh prototype to Gates who made a primitive, kludgy reverse engineering system and a small minded business community that wanted "IBM" compatible and would buy a turd in a box if it said "Microsoft" and/or IBM at the time.
2) Jobs insisted upon a failed hardware model for his computer platform. IBM had made this work only due to branding and selling to a limited market (business) but even went down eventually. While this model did make Apple money in the late 70's and early 80's, it was a loser in the late 80's and 90's. Later, it would make a lot of money but only because devotees, mostly individuals, were willing to pay the extra for the well engineered, but overpriced hardware bound to the Apple OS.
3) He stuck to the name "Apple" for his company. This scared off the small minded, in-the-box thinking of business buyers in the 80's who insisted upon names like "TechHard" or "MicroSoft" or "IBM" or "GrayServers", etc. They wouldn't buy gold at half price if it came in a box labeled "smileyface".
In any case, ironically, Apple's OS is being saved by a repeat of history: The reverse engineering of compaq? for the IBM BIOS that allowed third party PC makers to run "Microsoft" DOS (at the time, only to run on the IBM PC) and effectively killed IBM's PC business but made the Microsoft OS into a monopoly.
Anyone can now take about half of PC's off the shelf and with a little googling, run Apple OS on them. Although since the 80's, lawyers have advanced much like computers and now can sue anyone trying to sell these techniques.
Since Apple, unlike IBM, owns the OS as well as the hardware, it's in their interest not to open the platform outright and they're still making OK money on selling hardware.
Finally, note that Apple has a love-hate relationship with their customers who joke that Apple loves our money and not us. They overcharge for nearly everything and try to nickle and dime you and lock you in much like Microsoft has done. For someone who talked about changing the world, Jobs' business model was as ruthless as the rest of 'em.
Jack London| 10.6.11 @ 11:29AM
I think you're stuck in a time warp - most popular software has versions that can run on OSX, including MS Office, and you can actually run Windows on all the latest Macs anyway (and Linux) either natively or as a virtual machine. Yes, there are some specialist Windows programs and games but if these are important you can still run them under Windows on a Mac.
Apple is now a more valuable company than Microsoft. Briefly it even became the world's biggest (ahead of Exxon) recently).
Overcharging is a myth - the specs of Apple kit are high. Yes, they are premium products but hold their value far better than the cheaper plastic trash turned out by so many others.
Jack von Bauer| 10.6.11 @ 11:49AM
What are you talking about? Apple is 111th in the world's biggest companies.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines.....index.html
Jack London| 10.6.11 @ 12:00PM
Pay attention - I said most valuable. That means market capitalization. Apple is currently the world number two after Exxon.
Jack von Bauer| 10.6.11 @ 12:05PM
PAT ATTENTION you said...
Apple.... Briefly it even became the world's biggest (ahead of Exxon) recently).
Jack von Bauer| 10.6.11 @ 12:05PM
And also PAY ATTENTION.
PolishKnight| 10.6.11 @ 12:51PM
MSoffice is a windows product. I was emphasizing that we're stuck on MS even if you're on a Mac. When I was looking for work, recruiters would demand an "MSOffice" document. I tried to explain to them that openoffice is fully compatible but they would have none of it.
Running windows on a mac in order to run your programs defeats the purpose of the ease of use of the Mac. Saying "most popular software" runs on the Mac is misleading at best. "Popular" with whom? Most business apps don't run on Macs I'm sad to say. Try to get the companies accounting tools on windows to run on it. On the home front, most "popular" games don't run on Macs and for good reason: It takes a lot of custom programming to get a game to work on a particular platform.
And don't tell me that the apple specs are high. I have built custom PC's with fantastic cases, high speed motherboards, and the lastest drivers (USB3 on a mac? How about SATA3?) for a fraction of a Mac when the macs are actually available.
Don't get me wrong, I love my Mac. But there are reasons why the public still hasn't adopted them sufficiently to make them a serious enough rival to Windows in order to get the software development there.
Linux, well, you gotta be a geek. I'm scared to put my mother or wife in front of one. And again, forget about games or most "popular" applications other than going with a Virtual Machine and then dealing with latency from that.
Jack London| 10.6.11 @ 1:41PM
For the vast majority of people there's all the software you could ever want on the Mac. You're talking nonsense.
The hardware specs couldn't really be much better. Apple has just introduced the Thunderbolt I/O to its machines - it's much better than USB 3. I'll grant that the company does tend to go out a limb with these things but again, the vast majority of people couldn't care less.
PolishKnight| 10.6.11 @ 2:28PM
Jack, you're hardly speaking for the vast majority of people when the vast majority of people who own PC's own MS PC's. If you run windows in a VM, then you too are a MS Windows owner then with MacOS being a mere wrapper.
Regarding thunderbolt. I'm reminded of firewire which sits vacant on my PowerPC. Sure, you can spend twice as much for an external drive running Mac's system or half as much for a "PC" USB3 version that runs just as well. Which way do you think most consumer would go?
And really, who are you to say "all" the software the vast majority of people would want? Really? If this software was so unwanted, it wouldn't be written and sold. I go to Bestbuy and see hundreds of titles for PC and then go to the Mac section and it's anemic. MSOffice and some back end packages such as iLife. It's the software dominance that sold MSWindows to people after the gray suits on wall street had demanded we standardize on "Eye-Bee-Em"
I "could want" to play high end games. I "could want" to load software that works on my work machines such as my mac including, gross, Lotusnotes. That's just a fact of life.
Jack London| 10.6.11 @ 2:50PM
I'm still laughing that you think Jobs 'blew it' by establishing just about the world's most valuable company. It has never aimed at the mainstream business market, and all this talk of software and desktop platforms is becoming increasingly irrelevant in a world of cloud computing and mobile devices.
PolishKnight| 10.6.11 @ 3:58PM
Actually, cloud computing applies more to business applications than personal ones. Home users don't have a need to run batch jobs against hundreds of virtual machines.
If you define apple by "market capitalization" and the success and profitability of ipod and iphone, I agree with you there. Jobs was a visionary of design and certainly marketing.
However, spin it all you like, but Bill Gates and Microsoft are agreed to be more successful for the reasons I mention above. OK, Bill Gates doesn't sell as many digital walkmans. So what?
Jack London| 10.6.11 @ 4:34PM
I wasn't disputing that Microsoft isn't the bigger and more successful entity. I was just saying that today's Macs are powerful and versatile and that the old battles you referred to have faded away.
Thom| 10.6.11 @ 5:28PM
Jack do you know what the total installed base of Windows based computers is vs. Apple Macs? How many Macs have you built? Custom configured for your needs? Tell me which of these big box mass retailers sells Apple Macs, Wal_Mart, K-Mart, Target, Costco, Sams, Bjs? Best Buy sells Macs in a Kiosk while 25% of the store is dedicated to Windows units and their software. Macs have almost no market presence outside of academia and the Yuppie set. Business doesn’t generally pay two and three times the price for computing equipment and then have to add hundreds more in VM capability to run the dominate software platform that could be bought on a platform 1/3 the cost without all the extra add ons. You won’t see the top of the line Macs all in ones running the all the rage video games. You won’t see any of the internal capacity of the typical Windows desktop in the Macs. Apple never got beyond a niche market computer maker and nothing has changed in that regard in the last three decades. Check the installed base of Windows based systems (servers, desktops and laptops) vs. Macs before you tell us how Apple Macs are the talk of the town with the bulk of computer users around the world.
Jack London| 10.6.11 @ 5:57PM
You're wrong - Macs are now taking about 15% of the US market for PCs – that's a big deal. Gaming in any case is dominated by dedicated consoles such as Xbox.
Anyway, as I said I wasn't disputing the dominance of Microsoft, certainly in the corporate business market. In consumer markets Macs have terrific appeal, as the figures show, and there are mainly disadvantages in choosing a poorly built Windows machine prone to viruses. If you look at the best Windows notebooks, such as Sony, they are about the same price as Macs.
Thom| 10.6.11 @ 7:45PM
"You're wrong - Macs are now taking about 15% of the US market for PCs – that's a big deal. Gaming in any case is dominated by dedicated consoles such as Xbox."
15% is nothing given the statue you given Apple as second largest company and the installed base of Windows equipment is enormous worldwide. You don't seem to know much about the PC gaming market where multiple video cards are virtually required to support the resolutions available only on PC screens not Flat 1080P TV screens. The world of AMD(ATI) and NVidia live off the high end gamers requirements that none of the Consoles can touch and certainly not the Mac with their closed in tight designs. The top ten most talked about games for PCs have some pretty steep requirements and neither Consoles nor any Mac can support that. These are the early adopters that pay the big bucks for all the high end video graphic capability these games require and if there wasn't a substantial market for this you wouldn’t see a new generation of video cards and capabilities every 6-9 months supporting these requirements along with the Windows drivers for such. A high end game machine with two graphic cards linked together will exceed both the capability of the highest end Mac and its cost. Go visit Tom’s hardware games forums and see how may Mac gamers you see there.
Thom| 10.6.11 @ 5:38PM
"For the vast majority of people there's all the software you could ever want on the Mac. You're talking nonsense."
You don't know what you are talking about. If that were remotely true you would find Macs at every mass market retailer on the planet instead of a hundred varieties of Windows based machines and I wouldn’t be surrounded by thousands of Windows based laptops and desktops running custom application written specifically for Windows based machines talking to hundreds of Windows based servers. That fact repeats throughout most of the business world where the cost of having to maintain two or more skill sets with office software applications and development tools is off the chart.
Jack London| 10.6.11 @ 5:58PM
Tell me what you can't do on a Mac that most people want to do.
Margie| 10.6.11 @ 6:13PM
The difference between a Mac and a PC?
No glitches, no viruses, no screen freezes, no crashing~ no worries!
Thom| 10.6.11 @ 7:26PM
What most people actually do most of the time can be done on a $298 Netbook... Why people buy Windows based systems is a function of simple economics and "utility" value. Both Macs and Mac Books cost significantly more than comparable Windows based configurations. The same CPU, Memory, Graphic card, hard drive(s) in a machine that spends most of its life connected to the network where all that embedded hardware capability goes to waste for 1/3 the cost. Microsoft does not give Windows away these days thus beyond the cuteness factors of the Macs they want a fortune for a Unix OS with a GUI on top. Simple economics, more people own Honda Accords than SL500s for an obvious reason but both will get you to work and back. Second, "utility" value is a function of availability. Macs are scarce compared to Windows based equipment. In 39 years of professional work in IT I've only encountered three Apple PCs outside of a store or academia. I got introduced to an Apple II with Visicalc; I saw the original B&W Cube Mac with the tiny screen on a manager’s desk back in the hay days of IBM ATs. I was using a 13” color screen on an Atari ST520 with the GEM overlay that gave me the functionality of the Mac without the cute premium on the tiny screen. A friend has a Mac Book Pro for which he paid $1800.00 and has a screen size that only teenage eyes could like to look at for very long. Go to any retailer of PCs and the shelves will be packed with Windows titles while the Apple section will fit on a couple shelves if they even have Apple specific software. The bulk of people don’t spend their hard earned money for “cute” and things that are hard to find software for. If you are going to venture into this “need” argument, don’t. If need were the driving basis for the PC revolution we would all still be using Wordstar running on 8 mhz Z80As which stomped the crap out of the 6502 in Apple IIs. The Market spoke two decades ago on which platform they were willing to buy in mass. It wasn’t the Mac. Simple economic tenant says something is worth only what someone is willing to pay for it now. Apple has always been outside the cost/benefit curve with the mass market and the market rules.
Mister Grady| 10.7.11 @ 4:31AM
Macs are vastly superior to PCs. Get over it already. Sheesh!
Roy| 10.6.11 @ 1:01PM
Apple may be bigger but they are both the hardware and the software side. I doubt their software side is bigger than Microsoft, and I doubt they are a whole are bigger than, eg, Microsoft + Dell.
Mister Grady| 10.7.11 @ 4:32AM
They are, in fact, a whole lot bigger than MS + Dell. Get over it!
Plus which, MS sucks, and Dells sucks, but MS + Dell sucks exponentially.
Bill S| 10.6.11 @ 11:46AM
It doesn't matter how successful Jobs was in life. What matters is whether or not he accepted Christ and lived for Him. It's extremely unlikely that he did.
Steve A| 10.6.11 @ 11:54AM
Bill S, It certainly matters to those still here who benefited, directly & indirectly, from his ideas in terms of employment & increased quality of life. The purpose of this life is not merely to test wether or not you accept Christ or not at some point, it is meant to be lived with dignity, quality & to the best of your ability.
Seek| 10.6.11 @ 4:19PM
We'll let God decide that one. On this earth, Jobs was a giant. And he probably created more jobs than you could ever hope to. R.I.P.
Martin| 10.6.11 @ 12:02PM
Good article from the capitalist point of view. One wonders how many of the Occupidiots have an iPhone in their pocket? Ignorance truly is bliss.
However, the iconoclastic hyperbole aside, Jobs was more an effective marketer than anything else, which is no surprise, since selling the vision is the prime directive of any CEO.
It can truthfully be said that above all, his concepts inspired competitors to greatness, whether or not his often over-priced and somewhat quirky devices were able to keep up with the rivals they inspired. He may not have been the Thomas Edison of our day, but he certainly expanded the boundaries of the possible.
And for that, we thank you, Mr. Jobs. May you rest in peace.
Mister Grady| 10.7.11 @ 4:40AM
No, he was NOT and effective marketer more than anything else. Yes, he was an effective marketer. But, more than anything else, he was a visionary.
I have followed Apple very closely for quite awhile now and I know of what I speak. So don't come along with your ignorant regurgitated mythology that he was "a marketer more than anything else." That is factually incorrect.
Apple's products are not overpriced. Another myth. But dumb people think that anything which costs more than a Dell POS is expensive. Apple products SHOULD cost more than PCs, just as an Aston Martin should cost more than a Yugo.
And the total cost of ownership of a Mac is lessened by the fact of more daily productivity and less maintenance downtime and costs.
Stop spouting the same old myths.
Dave| 10.6.11 @ 2:30PM
Please don't applaud Jobs. Yeah he built apple (with help, remember) but he had some very wrong ideas he wanted to push onto the people. Ideas which sought to facilitate more control over our lives while exempting the 'socially aware' (aka other elitists such as Steve Jobs).
Hopefully none of those things will be completed, but death has not been known to stop every liberal.
Dixie Pixie| 10.6.11 @ 5:32PM
Dave....Let me remind you of what the computer industry was like before Steven Jobs.
The federal government directly controlled the IT industry by being the majority buyer (+60%) of computer equipment and services through the numerous governmental agencies.
The federal government indirectly controlled the rest of the IT industry because it could dictate the terms of usage to the corporations.
For example, a high-end graphics card or high-speed memory and processors ( above 100 kilocycles / second) were considered controlled munitions grade equipment, one security level down from nuclear weapons.
You used it exactly as written in federal regulations or you want to jail.
Due to the ultra-high costs due to governmental mandates, all computing services were grouped into centralized computer data centers where you submitted your programing job to the priesthood for the batch-processing of program runs.
Services were strictly watched, rationed and controlled to be within governmental dictates.
Steven Jobs along with others freed the IT industry from governmental control by changing the computing paradigm from a deeply centralized processing with multiple users to the personal computer format.
As a result the federal government could no longer control as they could no longer monitor usage.
There were too many computers spread too widely to keep up especially with the IT industry fracturing into every market niche.
Soon the federal government gave up and let the IT industry go, free of all restrictions.
The result of Steven Jobs was the Computer Revolution of the 1980's, 1990's and beyond.
Steven Job's advancement of human freedom will not be properly evaluated for centuries.
Dave| 10.6.11 @ 11:35PM
Steve Jobs also designed software that would force you to watch programming issued to your PC, TV, of phone - regardless of whether you wanted to watch it or not.
Yes, he did some good stuff, but the bad is ultra bad!
Dixie Pixie| 10.7.11 @ 1:11AM
Dave.... The bottom line is Steven Jobs, Bill Gates and Andy Grove freed the IT industry of malevolent government control.
As a result, Freedom allowed the IT industry to expand into areas never foreseen by anyone.
Because of Steven Jobs, we can communicate free of government restriction.
With him, you would not be reading this message.
Dixie Pixie| 10.7.11 @ 1:26AM
Sorry Dave... The above should read “ Without him, you would not be reading this message”.
The Post Office would have made sure the e-mail systems was killed before it began.
Mister Grady| 10.7.11 @ 4:42AM
He what? Geez, but you are nuts!
Margie| 10.6.11 @ 2:36PM
I love my Mac. Thank you, thank you, thank you, Steve Jobs.
He was the ultimate example of a free market entrepreneur.
Exactly what Obama & Gang are trying to destroy.
Herman Cain 2012!
RCV| 10.6.11 @ 5:48PM
Steve Jobs was a Californian, and a Progessive liberal Democrat. He was a strong supporter of both John Kerry and Barrack Obama. If you want to Google his political contributions, you'll find that he gave generously to, among others, Rahm Emmanuel, Edward Kennedy, Bill Bradley and Nancy Pelosi.
He was the epitome of the modern Californian: brilliant, sharp, entreprenuerial, tolerant and progressive. He changed our world, and for the better. We will miss him deeply!
Margie| 10.6.11 @ 6:09PM
Yeah, I know he was a hopeless Liberal.. so?
So is most of my own family. I still appreciate them.
It's the Leftists who don't have the ability or the desire to appreciate anyone's accomplishments because they're too haughty to do so.
Note your constant attacks on Sarah Palin's character.
Conservatives aren't afraid to give credit where it's due.
RCV| 10.6.11 @ 7:24PM
I gladly give credit to those who deserve it, conservative or not. Antonin Scalia, Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp and many others are accomplished conservatives whom I greatly admire. Ms. Palin has accomplished little, and has evidenced traits of character that do not warrant admiration.
Steve Jobs was a giant, indeed, and will be sorely missed by all.
Nick| 10.6.11 @ 8:59PM
RCV,
I was surprised to see that you didn't try to defend Keynesianism, and President Downgrade's incompetent handling of the economy, which were both thoroughly decimated today by Stephen Moore.
Although, 20% unemployment is kind of hard to defend.
I don't blame you.
Margie| 10.6.11 @ 10:18PM
"Ms. Palin has accomplished little, and has evidenced traits of character that do not warrant admiration."
Thus sayeth the snake.
RCV| 10.6.11 @ 11:44PM
Thanks for that detailed and convincing refutation, Margie.
Margie| 10.7.11 @ 12:00AM
Truth is quite simple, and delivers those that trust in Him.
Margie| 10.7.11 @ 12:06AM
Besides, I'm not trying to convince you~ I'm making a statement. For a Leftist lawyer, you should know the difference.
Hmm?
RCV| 10.7.11 @ 11:35AM
What you're doing is what you do best: calling people names.
Margie| 10.7.11 @ 1:57PM
If it talks like a snake, and walks like a lying snake....
Your doing what YOU do best, bud.
Rifleman| 10.6.11 @ 5:01PM
Briefly, Rousseau posited that a "social contract' exists between the government and the people and when the government violates its just limits, the contract is null and void.
Like all Liberals / Marxists / Progressives / Democrats, Elizabeth Warren has bastardized the original intent of the words, "social contract," to justify governmental intrusions into the lives and property of We, the People, which Rousseau would have never countenanced.
Rifleman| 10.6.11 @ 5:03PM
There are some 30,000 Apple employees, some 230 Apple stores world-wide, offering tools to enhance people's lives and businesses' profits.
Capitalism, defined.
Thom| 10.6.11 @ 5:08PM
Steve Jobs' accomplishments throughout his short life will stand on their merits. My career has been influenced by his considerable creative talents but to this day I've never owned an Apple product and probably won’t. The thrust of the reasons for that are the same as why I won't own a Chevy Volt.
Of all the things Steve Jobs got right about PCs he never understood or respected the free enterprise nature of his creation. Apple's policies from day one were of "control" of every aspect of their products’ lives. The closed architecture of the Mac's kept them in the closet of academia long past the point where the market cared and thus like the Betamax vs. VHS battle (both technologies developed by Sony) the "inferior" product as Sony saw it is what the market bought into in mass. Take away the gadget product line and Apple computers exist almost exclusively in the upscale Yuppie world of academia. I sit surrounded by hundreds of Windows based servers and thousands of Windows based PCs none of which need anything Apple produces today to earn their keep. Apple has begrudgingly over time had to make it possible at extra expense to run Windows software on their closed Unix based systems which speaks to what the dominate software platform is and has been for going on three decades now. A casual look at the software selection on the shelves at any retailer outside of academia will bear out why Apple computers have remained a niche in a very large mass market of products comprised of both hardware and software built around Windows OS. Apple bent over backwards to make the possible when it had the option to embrace an open hardware architecture concept.
Apple's considerable success today is based upon delivering a new generation of I-things every year and willingness of its loyal customer base to not want to be seen with last year's model year after year. Take away the trendy product line of products that focus on fashion and form more than function and value coupled with ridiculously high prices for said functions and Apple will find itself in deep do-do as it has in the past. A co-worker tried to impress me with his IPhone via its apparent speed advantage over my Droid. When I showed him what my Droid could do his IPhone could not do (last year's generation and already obsolete) he was speechless. I'm sure he will get the IPhone 5 after he upgrades to the Iphone4S to replace his IPhone3. Another friend bought a Mac Book Pro for three times the price of a comparable Windows laptop with the same screen size, memory, graphic processor and CPU. He said he bought it because it "works". His father's habit of buying 5+ year old used Windows based laptops with the original OS on them so that each of his three kids could have their own computer probably had some bearing on his belief that hundreds of millions of Windows based PCs don't work. The top of the line Mac all in ones can't hold a candle to the Windows desktops I build to meet my needs. Anyone playing the most popular PC games on Macs?
People like Steve Jobs are often times their own worst enemy. Passionate and creative people tend to be "control freaks" at some level. Building closed architecture products, suing your competition to control the market of similar products are both losing propositions in the long run. Apple's own efforts in court put an end to any possibility of the Mac interface being ported to the open architecture X86 market when that could have meant something. Apple is repeating the same mistake with its IPAD and its suit happy nature against Samsung's Android OS tablet. When IBM tried to control the IBM compatibly market it established, it went from an 80% market share to 8 in a few short years. Apple's share of the PC market stayed in that range for most of its life while the X86 market exploded. Something to be said for, not acting like a monopoly even when your every action says you want to be one. Apples policies over the years have reminded me on many levels of how government approaches a free enterprise market it wishes to control.
Steve Jobs was clearly the life force behind Apple's ultimate success in the niche markets it chased after. If Jobs cultivated a back field of likeminded creative talent at Apple the success story will continue for some time but by the same measure if Apple can't continue to get customers to flock to its annual new generation of I thing gadgets and continue paying the price premiums for its products and services in a rapidly growing market of competitors the fortunes of Apple, formerly known as Apple Computer are a whole lot less certain. History is full of success stories build around one man and the ideas that drive him but soon disappear from the front page when that creative life force is no longer present. Jobs was that kind of force, roses and thorns together. The computer industry is full of Rising Stars that fell to earth when the next great idea couldn’t be brought to market and maintain the same margin of profitability that corporations like Apple and Microsoft are so accustomed to.
I have to wonder how many of the I-Thing generation camping out on Wall Street and elsewhere comprehend that companies like Apple, Microsoft and Intel make two and three times the profit margin as the oil companies and that Mac Book Pro with the 3 inch smaller screen than I have on my Windows powered laptop cost what my annual gasoline bill is? Probably not. They likely didn't pay for their I-Things in the first place.
People like Steve Jobs leave their mark in many ways. The Apple fraternity will surely miss his insight.
Orlan| 10.6.11 @ 5:53PM
Thom, spectacular! You noted the beauty spots and all the warts too. Bravo.
Dixie Pixie| 10.6.11 @ 6:00PM
Well Said...Thom...Well Said.
Let me simplify your remarks.
The Apple systems are like a high end sports car and WinTel are like trucks.
Apple is for flash and splash, WinTel gets the job done.
Steven Jobs, Bill Gates and Andy Grove created the Modern Information Technology Industry and thus changed the course of human history for the better.
The change was so massive that even the dullards at “Time” noted it when they proclaimed the Personal Computer “Times Man Of The Year”.
Thom| 10.6.11 @ 9:12PM
Dixie Pixie, I appreciate the complement here but I would not call Apple computers “sports cars” unless you mean that in the adding body accent panels to a Toyota Corolla and calling that the “sport” model. On balance, Macs are no better than the mid range Windows PC with the same CPUs, etc in raw application performance. The highest end Macs today can’t touch the high end Windows’s PCs in overall performance simply because Macs are appliances now. By that I mean they are designed from the outside in and form and fashion trump function. You simply can’t cramp all that graphic card and cpu heat in a Mac chassis and get it out of it. Windows desktops can be configured to some very heavy lifting when required and they are flexible enough to have a long life through adaptions without buying a completely new system. I see the Macs as the two seat Z8 BMWs with 4 of the eight cylinders disconnected while the typical Windows desktop is kind of an SUV. I was kind of a fan of the PowerPC (P5s) in the Macs before they moved over to intel and went back to the closed in cute things. I think many people buy Apples for the same reasons a guy in his 50s or 60s buy his first Vet and puts 4000 miles a year on it…..
I came up through the revolution with a Commodore 64, Atari ST520 (played some with the Commodore Amiga, IBM 286 AT clones (10 mhz), IBM 386-40 (AMD) clone. I left Intel when it started to “SX” stuff and try to control the market through market gimmicks vs. innovation and competition. I’ve been all over the PC world but always found what Apple offered to either be outlandishly priced and restrictive or more of a fashion statement than a tool to do real work on. You are right in one sense, far too many people buy a Mac as a statement more than as a tool to do meaningful things with. Both will get you downtown and back. One will leave change in your pocket so you can do something else useful.
Dixie Pixie| 10.7.11 @ 12:47AM
Thom....I don't think we differ in the essentials only in the details.
When you want serious work done you go with WinTel.
Apple is for the people who don't want to get into the details of computing.
That is two different market niches.
Both are valid in their respected computing niches.
Mister Grady| 10.7.11 @ 4:50AM
PC people just don't get it. They are always and only about specs. Specs, specs, specs, ad nauseam. It's the whole thing together, how it works, software and hardware in one seamless whole, that matter. Macs have been shown time and time and time again to be superior in HUMAN PRODUCTIVITY.
Translation: Specs aren't the game.
Macs are vastly superior to PCs, and PCs are nothing more than fugly, backwards, clunky rip-offs. PCs are the trailer trash of computers.
Get over it!
PolishKnight| 10.7.11 @ 10:50AM
Super posts and all have a lot of truth to them. Until recently, Macs were easier to use for both high and low end users. With windows, I found myself continuously fighting the OS and a victim of it's own success with the various flavors out. I worked a company where they had a room full of different Windows computers in order to test their software to ensure it worked on all of them!
However, Windows7 is now autorecognizing all of my digital cameras and phones. I plug in a memory stick, and it works. Most printers also are autodetected. With my Mac, I now find myself doing what I had done with windows in the past: fighting to find drivers that work with my version and playing with configuration files to get peripherals to work.
Sadly, the Mac's main purpose was to drive Windows to improve out of shame.
Margie| 10.7.11 @ 1:58PM
"Sadly, the Mac's main purpose was to drive Windows to improve out of shame."
LOL. Liberals don't like competition.
RCV| 10.7.11 @ 4:46PM
Jobs WAS a liberal, and proud of it.
Margie| 10.7.11 @ 10:04PM
I was referring to P.K. and others.
RCV| 10.8.11 @ 12:19PM
That would be the first time Polis Knight has ever been called a " liberal"!
PolishKnight| 10.10.11 @ 10:10AM
RCV, I've been called worse! :-) Seriously though, I've been accused of being a marxist here in the past.
As the pirates of silicon valley show, both Gates and Jobs were obsessed with protectionism and monopoly. Gates achieved his via branding and market domination and Jobs with hardware and licensing restrictions that did more to hobble than help him. He sold lots of ipods and iphones, but that hardly makes him revolutionary since smartphones and mp3 players have already been around for some time.
Tina B| 10.7.11 @ 3:39PM
Dixie, I am sure you already know this. There are just a world full of Mac Folk and PC Folk, and never the twain shall meet.
I guess it's kinda like the Ford truck guys/gals and the Chevy truck guys/gals. I had the '91 Chevy, Silverado, V8, 5 speed auto trans, short bed, wheel wells, metallic blue, well known around Kissimmee, Florida. . .but I digress. . .
And there will always be the hot weather/cold weather lovin', morning persons/night owls, country music/60s Rock/classical/R&B/Yanni (oh shit, did I really say that)lovers, weathermen are all crazy/honey get online and see how it's gonna be at the beach next week, glass half empty/glass half full, Beatles/Rolling Stones, Levi 501s/designer jeans, issues on which we diverge without dividing.
I love the Apple products and for video editing and art, I hear nothing matches Mac. I use an EVO droid, and just bought a great cheap Gateway laptop on sale. Keywords for me: on sale.
Macs are NEVER on sale, new ones anyway. And. . .I will probably get a droid pad, not IPAD 2.
I think God was awesome to give birth in my lifetime to two such great inventors as Jobs and Gates. I also think how sad that they never proclaim(ed) Him as their source.
Gates still has time to see the Light of the World, and I wonder if Steve Jobs got a chance to before he left the planet. I still hope so, after all, the "good" theif caught Christ just as he was leaving. Maybe Jobs did too.
Dixie Pixie| 10.8.11 @ 10:05AM
Thanks Tina
Apple is for artists.
WinTel is for business.
Both are valid computing niches
It all boils down to what ever works best for you is what is right for you.
Steven Jobs was one of the Greats.
He will be missed.
I am sure he is with God for who can give better advice on Apple products.
Jack London| 10.6.11 @ 6:04PM
'Another friend bought a Mac Book Pro for three times the price of a comparable Windows laptop with the same screen size, memory, graphic processor and CPU.'
This isn't true - Macs are more expensive but when you price up the components you''ll find comparable Windows machines are not that much cheaper. I've got a Macbook Pro and think the aluminum case is well worth some extra cash - not least because I'll be able to sell it for much more of its initial cost than a plastic one. You also need to look at depreciation.
Thom| 10.6.11 @ 8:13PM
Excuse me Jack, I've been building PCs since 1980 but professionally at work and at home. I have a house full of Windows based PCs and like it or not Windows based open archetuture units
Thom| 10.6.11 @ 8:38PM
Excuse me Jack, I've been building PCs since 1980 but professionally at work and at home. I have a house full of Windows based PCs and like it or not Windows based open architecture platforms are both more flexible, adaptable and provide better value by far than any Mac.
I’ve extended the life of dozens of my own machines and others with simple upgrades that are simply beyond the appliance concept of the Mac. To do what is relatively easy to do on a Windows based PC (upgrade the CPU, graphic card (or cards), upgrade the power supply to handle heavier graphic card loads, add in additional drives or SSDs or special controllers to support really high speed storage options are either simply not possible on what passes for a Mac desktop today or require you to buy and entirely new unit. Tried moving to a larger monitor on you Mac All in ones Jack?
The last laptop I bought cost $734.00 at Costco and was produced by the world’s leading PC maker. They offer dozens upon dozens of both desktop, laptop and these All in one format Mac like appliances. It has a 17” monitor, a 7200 rpm 500 GB harddrive, better graphic capability than my last desktop (with the same vendors graphic chips in it that Apple puts in the Macs) and can contain two drives or SSDs and has an external E-SATA port which I use to back it up with. That’s about four times the potential speed of a USB 2.0 port and delivers more performance that FirewireB could even approach. How much does a 17” Mac Book Pro with a 7200 rpm hard drive, 4 GB of memory with an external E-SATA connection and the ability to hold two drives cost Jack? Oh, I forgot some things. It has a built in fingerprint reader, camera and high end sound system. All my Windows desktops, some 5-6 years old can hold 4-6 internal hard drives or SSDs without taking up any external bays. How many drives can you install in a Mac Jack? Can your replace the motherboard and say go from an AMD CPU based system to an Intel by simply replacing the motherboard and CPU in your Macs? That’s the beauty of the open architecture concept that Apple rejected decades ago. It give you freedom to choose what is best for you and how you wish to benefit from your investment. That’s not the Apple way…..
Mister Grady| 10.7.11 @ 4:56AM
Apple doesn't play the low end. The Mac experience is superior, but, I know, I know, it is definitely in the best interest of IT types like yourself to extol the, uh, "virtues" of the PC. (I giggle when I use the words "virtue" and "PC" in the same sentence.)
Fact of the matter is that IT types love PCs because the problematic and high-maintenance nature of PCs give the IT doofuses job security.
Macs are for people who need to be productive and don't want an obtuse os getting in their way. But you're an IT specs doofus and I know you'll go to your grave never understanding this.
Jack London| 10.7.11 @ 7:59AM
You're still talking nonsense. You can add your own peripherals to the Mac Mini or Mac Pro, including Raid etc, and the power of the top end machines with quad cores is amazing and more than enough for all but the most hardcore gamers. I've put an SSD and 8GB memory easily in one of my Macs.
To repeat - most people do not want a noisy old box under their desks anymore, and Mac sales prove it - did you know Apple is almost in the top 5 PC shippers by volume and I think the Air and Mini have taken Apple into the top three in the US and it's becoming a dominant player.
And tell me - whose computer will keep its value better - yours or mine? Look at the build quality before you rant on about 'value'.
Mister Grady| 10.7.11 @ 4:59AM
Hehe, Thom is one of those guys who doesn't actually do anything useful with a computer. He just likes likes to, uh, "build" them and then obsess over meaningless spec crapola. Tryin' to compensate for something there, Thom?
POST American| 10.6.11 @ 10:56PM
--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------
Apple, like Microsoft, and Google, was funded
by DARPA and, hence, was, also, a set up for
data collection, surveillance and
'social engineering' (EUGENICS).
Jobs, though surely talented, was 'picled'
and 'brought in' --though probably was
a genuine outsider, unlike Gates, who comes from
generations of Rockefellow EUGENISTS
and enablers.
Jobs was a KEY and ardent supporter,
promoter and enabler of the horrific
Globalist EUGENICS agenda.
Even now Al Gore sits on the board,
even as poor farmers in Honduras, Africa
and elsewhere are being massacred for
the first phase of UN carbon sinks.
Apple remains deeply involved
with the awesomely genocidal RED Chinese regime.
Apple has been tagged, even by the
corporate whore media, for using
wage slave labor and operating suicide factories in that land ----even while taking one of
the biggest mark ups in the business.
Through 8 years of cancer ---he, apparently,
never had ANY regrets, showed ANY remorse
or even second thoughts -----about anything.
We had hopes he might have used his state
to bring attention to the legions of sleeper
cancer and leukemia viruses used in the POLIO
and many othe vaccines that are, even as
we write, are kicking in among the middle
aged all around us.
Steve Jobs, the Apple legacy of collusion
with Globalist EUGENICS, and his end one
and all ------make a SIGN.
--------------------------AMEN----------------------------
Paul Kotik| 10.6.11 @ 11:31PM
How in hell did Steve Jobs make anyone's life better? He's helped to turn human beings into a race of giant mantis's, dumbly stroking little chunks of schmutz found on dungheaps. He's helped make all public spaces virtually intolerable due to the incessant yakking of everyone in them into what look like ceramic ashtrays plastered to their ears. And he's helped to reduce music to a commodity sold by the bushel.
How is that better?
Dixie Pixie| 10.7.11 @ 12:52AM
Paul....See my above post to Dave.
Steven Jobs changed the course of human events for the better,
End of Line.
Mister Grady| 10.7.11 @ 5:03AM
Well you didn't type your post on an Underwood did you? Pen and paper, maybe? No wait, don't tell me, let me guess: You used smoke signals.
No? Well then, what DID you type your post on?
I hope it wasn't a computer. Why, that would make you a hypocrite.
But seriously, if you truly do not understand how SJ made people's lives better, then you are seriously, woefully ignorant.
Your brain would serve a higher purpose as a door stop.
Paul Kotik| 10.7.11 @ 7:48AM
If anything Steve Jobs did made your life better, your life must have been awfully pathetic to begin with. People who ooooh and aaaahhh and woooooww over Apple gizmos look to me about like jungle tribesmen marvelling at a safety match. Ooohhhh.
I think that about sums it up. Life was fine before Steve Jobs was born. Computers existed before the first Apple trinket hit the market.
Steve Jobs's most marvelous creation was the cult-like worship of cheap consumer electronic gizmos by a credulous public. The rest is rather dull engineering. I got my first paycheck as a computer programmer in 1966. Been there, done that. I'm not particularly impressed by the engineering in Apple gizmos. It's okay. They're all okay. Of Apple products, like all consumer electronic trinkets, it can be said: they almost work.
My guess is that 20 years from now most consumers will not know who Steve Jobs was or what Apple was. Do you remember Digital Equipment Corporation? Control Data? Burroughs? No? These were the computer giants only a few decades ago. They made marvelous gizmos that enthralled a secretive cult of programmers and systems analysts, and utterly mystified everyone else. It was interesting stuff.
My personal computer, and all of the personal computer species, is about as interesting as my microwave oven.
Not very.
Here's a bet for you: within 20 years, it will be common knowledge that widespread consumer acceptance of personal computers (desktops, laptops, phones, etc.) caused a significant decline in the functional intelligence of the population. They made people stupider.
PolishKnight| 10.7.11 @ 9:37AM
Is stupider a word or was the use intentional?
I see your point and agree with you, the Apple I and II had a lot of flaws including the kludge to get mixed case by using a joystick button wired back to a shift key.
People going gaga over the ipod are naive losers. I have another phrase for it: A digital walkman and the ipod wasn't the first one out. I have a freebie mp3 player I got for trying a magazine and it holds 6CD's.
POST American| 10.7.11 @ 2:53AM
--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------
Time to put away the Tavistock Institute
fairy tales of 'self made success'.
Jobs, who, though surely a very talented
man, was undoubtedly 'picked up' and 'brought
in' (---his name probably being the deciding factor).
In short, he was 'selected' and given
choice access to technologies witheld from
the public eye.
-----------------------FURTHER-------------------------
NOTE the misleading TAVISTOCK lead
of this very article's heading,
'Job's Creation' ----deflecting KEY
realization from the reality that,
not only is the CY-world
economy itself 'UN---sustainable'
--BUT,
the wage slave and Globalist EUGENICS
practices of Apple et al, have gutted our entire
economy ------PERMANENTLY.
-AGAIN- ---a matter of 'groundbreaking design'...
-----------HUAC meets NUREMBERG 2012---------
bottes ugg | 10.7.11 @ 5:34AM
sad!!!
VIVIMAO | 10.8.11 @ 9:02PM
Sad! He is a hero. I will miss you forever, let us thanks Steven Jobs for the world contributions.
VIVIMAO | 10.8.11 @ 9:02PM
Sad! He is a hero. I will miss you forever, let us thanks Steven Jobs for the world contributions.