[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]You're kidding, right? Intel has pushed the boundaries of hardware in ways Apple couldn't even imagine. Also, AMD (not their processors, of course). Sony deserves some credit there too. In terms of software, I think everyone knows Microsoft blows, but has Apple really advanced things much in the past 10 years? What software package of theirs is really unique or ground breaking?Also, Lisa had the first GUI for Apple, which they stole from Xerox, of course. This is not to discredit Apple, they do create new markets, with a seeming genius at making products people really want, before anyone else had any idea. Smart phone existed before Apple, GUI existed before Apple, tablet computing devices existed before Apple, but they may as well not have, considering their impact before Apple took them to the next level.But, I object to comparing Apple to Intel in hardware. What Apple does is trivial compared to the enormous amount of work in creating a new architecture like the Sandy Bridge (despite the idiots saying it's a Nehalem refinement, which it isn't). This doesn't even go into their chipsets, IGPs (which are finally excellent), platform advances (USB 3.0, PCI-E, Thunderbolt), or their motherboards. On top of this, their manufacturing technology is superb. Only IBM should be mentioned in the same sentence when it comes to hardware.[/citation]
While I agree with the point I think you're *trying* to make.. I think you still need to consider that he isn't saying that Apple has done more than Intel in *just* a hardware perspective. Or *just* a software perspective. Of course Intel has done more and better things in hardware, and there are most certainly better leaps and bounds in the software department as well. His comment, however, was a general all-inclusive statement.. And one that can't be genuinely denied. Not many companies have quite the portfolio that Apple does.