So tired of the Apple bashing comments. We have a mixture of droids, blackberries, and iphones at work and you know what, I never get called on issues for the iphone. Get em all the time on the droids and blackberries (I have one myself). The simple fact is Apple has a good methodology and ecosystem for their phones. They provide quality in the devices and the environment and it just works. Can't say that for the other smartphones. Open source may be great for some but generally people have no clue what they are doing when they tweak, update, unlock, play, etc. their phone. I for one will embrace a device that just works day in and day out with ALL of it's features without the worry of it failing. Oh, and since when does making technology easier to use for the masses make the masses using it stupid? That's like saying we should never have created the printing press because it made it too easy to print more literature. Just stupid.
- Status
[citation][nom]del35[/nom]So pay a onetime fee. Remember that just one video can take 5gb of space. Sorry there is no way you are going to convince me to hand over to Appple 20 bucks / period to house my files. That is just tooo fucking dumb and backwards, besides being dangerous.[/citation]
You can irrationally hate Apple if you want, but if you want pretty much any company to automatically sync all of your data up to 50GB, you're going to have to pay them, and not a one time fee.
You would have to trust a corporation regardless, if you wanted cloud storage, such as Dropbox or Skydrive - the Apple offering is no worse.
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]In the UK which of the following has had a number 1 single?1. Bob Marley2. Bob Dylan3. Bob The Builder...That's right, Bob The Builder, the fact that a kids TV show character voice by a 3rd rate comedy actor can acheive the kind of success that the great folk singer and the godfather of reggae never managed means that Bob The Builder is obviously better right?No.It just means that there are huge numbers of mindless idiots prepared to pay good money to buy pointless crap, to quote Men In Black:-Apple does not appeal to a person, it appeals to people, that's the difference.[/citation]
Who are you to decide which of those 3 singers is better? An objectively 'better singer' (an impossibility on which your point depends) must have MASSIVELY gone wrong if their music was so much better yet they failed to have a number one - their own failure.
The reality is that the masses have just as much right to claim that their opinion is correct as you do, and neither can prove the other right, wrong, stupid or intelligent. And even if you could, this would just mean that it was possible for a worse item to outsell the competition, it wouldn't prove that the better selling item is NECESSARILY worse.
You could just as easily point to all the terrible, terrible products which are released which fail to sell at all to prove the opposite. It's a nonsense. Labelling all people 'stupid' (including yourself) is correct, but completely irrelevant.
The bottom line: If you want to argue that a product is bad, pointing to it being the best selling product of it's type in the world, is not a very convincing start.
You can irrationally hate Apple if you want, but if you want pretty much any company to automatically sync all of your data up to 50GB, you're going to have to pay them, and not a one time fee.
You would have to trust a corporation regardless, if you wanted cloud storage, such as Dropbox or Skydrive - the Apple offering is no worse.
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]In the UK which of the following has had a number 1 single?1. Bob Marley2. Bob Dylan3. Bob The Builder...That's right, Bob The Builder, the fact that a kids TV show character voice by a 3rd rate comedy actor can acheive the kind of success that the great folk singer and the godfather of reggae never managed means that Bob The Builder is obviously better right?No.It just means that there are huge numbers of mindless idiots prepared to pay good money to buy pointless crap, to quote Men In Black:-Apple does not appeal to a person, it appeals to people, that's the difference.[/citation]
Who are you to decide which of those 3 singers is better? An objectively 'better singer' (an impossibility on which your point depends) must have MASSIVELY gone wrong if their music was so much better yet they failed to have a number one - their own failure.
The reality is that the masses have just as much right to claim that their opinion is correct as you do, and neither can prove the other right, wrong, stupid or intelligent. And even if you could, this would just mean that it was possible for a worse item to outsell the competition, it wouldn't prove that the better selling item is NECESSARILY worse.
You could just as easily point to all the terrible, terrible products which are released which fail to sell at all to prove the opposite. It's a nonsense. Labelling all people 'stupid' (including yourself) is correct, but completely irrelevant.
The bottom line: If you want to argue that a product is bad, pointing to it being the best selling product of it's type in the world, is not a very convincing start.
[citation][nom]del35[/nom]I dont hate Apple. I just think it is a threat to the march of technology. I will say that they (may) have introduced some nice ideas. I like their keyboards, and their dvd rom bay on their laptops, although knowing that Apple has stolen most of its idea from others and then claimed them a the discovery of genius Mr Jobs, I am not sure that they were the ones to introduce those. Perhaps someone can post about this.[/citation]
It's nice that you admit they've introduced good ideas. I don't know why you feel Apple are any more of a 'threat to the march of technology' than any other company.
As for stealing ideas, if they had in legal terms stolen an idea, they would not be able to patent the rights to it. As for morally stealing ideas, the problem is that nobody can really prove that. Companies copy each other all the time and it's generally encouraged as it means that there is a higher standard of competition.
In fact, many of the Apple criticism centres around patents - in the way that Apple have secured many controversial patents for seemingly 'obvious' things. But if you also criticise Apple for 'copying', in effect making copying a bad thing - surely you would have to be an advocate of patenting ideas - the only way to combat copying? Conversely, if you are against Apple patenting all of their 'obvious' ideas, then you would also necessarily have to be an advocate of 'stealing' and copying ideas from competitors, since this is what would naturally occur were they not to patent their ideas.
It's nice that you admit they've introduced good ideas. I don't know why you feel Apple are any more of a 'threat to the march of technology' than any other company.
As for stealing ideas, if they had in legal terms stolen an idea, they would not be able to patent the rights to it. As for morally stealing ideas, the problem is that nobody can really prove that. Companies copy each other all the time and it's generally encouraged as it means that there is a higher standard of competition.
In fact, many of the Apple criticism centres around patents - in the way that Apple have secured many controversial patents for seemingly 'obvious' things. But if you also criticise Apple for 'copying', in effect making copying a bad thing - surely you would have to be an advocate of patenting ideas - the only way to combat copying? Conversely, if you are against Apple patenting all of their 'obvious' ideas, then you would also necessarily have to be an advocate of 'stealing' and copying ideas from competitors, since this is what would naturally occur were they not to patent their ideas.
maestintaolius
Distinguished
- Jul 16, 2009
- 446
- 0
- 18,930
Ridiculous. Tablets are fine an all for writing short emails, web gaming and browsing the internet, but they're garbage for actual work. There's no way I'm going to do serious writing, engineering and data analysis on a tiny, low power tablet. Maybe if my projects required the precision of finger painting I would be able to do it, but otherwise, the PC is here to stay for the business world. I don't have much belief that 'cloud computing' is the future either, been there, done that, and working on dumb terminals sucks.
back_by_demand
Distinguished
- Jul 16, 2009
- 1,599
- 0
- 19,730
[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]You can irrationally hate Apple if you want, but if you want pretty much any company to automatically sync all of your data up to 50GB, you're going to have to pay them, and not a one time fee.[/citation]
That's just it, the assumption that we need to pay any company to store our data, I don't want ANY company to store my data for me. What I want is to store my own data but be able to access it via the internet. You can already stream your home content through WMP.
Any Windows tablet can do this already, all you need is an internet connection and hard drives at home. Instead of paying $100 per year for 50Gb, try paying $70 once only for 2Tb.
30% less money, 40 times the capacity, and the costs drop year on year the longer you go.
OK you can argue Cloud is safe from failing hard drives but the economy involved you can afford to have multiple backups, redundancy, etc.
So the arguement again goes round to saying the Cloud is more convenient and doesn't require people to set it up or maintain it - which leads us right back to the start again that the Cloud is for idiots who have more money than sense.
That's just it, the assumption that we need to pay any company to store our data, I don't want ANY company to store my data for me. What I want is to store my own data but be able to access it via the internet. You can already stream your home content through WMP.
Any Windows tablet can do this already, all you need is an internet connection and hard drives at home. Instead of paying $100 per year for 50Gb, try paying $70 once only for 2Tb.
30% less money, 40 times the capacity, and the costs drop year on year the longer you go.
OK you can argue Cloud is safe from failing hard drives but the economy involved you can afford to have multiple backups, redundancy, etc.
So the arguement again goes round to saying the Cloud is more convenient and doesn't require people to set it up or maintain it - which leads us right back to the start again that the Cloud is for idiots who have more money than sense.
[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]Wrong. The world IS stupid. You included, since you could have done the same thing on any other tablet. Also, eBay better on tablet than on PC? GTFO troll.[/citation] you hear that world? he thinks you are all stupid. You sir do you think you are stupid? No? Ok just the rest of the world. Let me help ease your trollin by saying I would never buy a Mac because they are ridiculously over priced. But this iPad is actualy something nice that doesn't cost a fortune. Maybe for you since you probably don't work. But this is my last post since it seems talking about apple is as bad as talking about religion or politics.
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]That's just it, the assumption that we need to pay any company to store our data, I don't want ANY company to store my data for me. What I want is to store my own data but be able to access it via the internet. You can already stream your home content through WMP.Any Windows tablet can do this already, all you need is an internet connection and hard drives at home. Instead of paying $100 per year for 50Gb, try paying $70 once only for 2Tb.30% less money, 40 times the capacity, and the costs drop year on year the longer you g😵K you can argue Cloud is safe from failing hard drives but the economy involved you can afford to have multiple backups, redundancy, etc.So the arguement again goes round to saying the Cloud is more convenient and doesn't require people to set it up or maintain it - which leads us right back to the start again that the Cloud is for idiots who have more money than sense.[/citation]
I was very specific in my sentence. Please try to re-read it:
'IF you want pretty much any COMPANY to automatically sync all of your data up to 50GB, you're going to have to pay them, and not a one time fee.'
Keywords 'IF' and 'COMPANY. Whether you do or do not want a company to store your data is not at all relevant to my sentence.
As for home storage, and comparing costs, it's ridiculous, on many levels:
1 - Home storage doesn't offer you the redundancy that a cloud based structure does, with teams maintaining the DAL and eliminating single points of failure, something which would cost thousands to do domestically. You claim for the cost you could set up the same domestically, but sorry - no you can't. For a start, any even basic redundancy is spread over multiple locations, so you've already got a requirement for 4 of your 2gb hard drives (2 x Raid 1 arrays) to try and compete in terms of redundancy. And that doesn't even scratch the surface. You've got electricity, maintenance, security, hardware replacements to take care of. It's not even comparable.
2 - What value do you assign to your own time? For me, $100 is less than an hours work - and I certainly couldn't build a complete robust automatically synchronising cross-platform, secure, backed up and well maintained system for a whole year for less than 1 hour of my time. You say it's idiots who want convenience. I say it's people who value themselves. My time is more valuable than yours, perhaps?
3 - Part of the feature is the automatically integrated synchronisation. To back up using your system would be a manual process or you'd have to buy software to do it. Even the installation of the software on every one of your devices would take a long time.
I was very specific in my sentence. Please try to re-read it:
'IF you want pretty much any COMPANY to automatically sync all of your data up to 50GB, you're going to have to pay them, and not a one time fee.'
Keywords 'IF' and 'COMPANY. Whether you do or do not want a company to store your data is not at all relevant to my sentence.
As for home storage, and comparing costs, it's ridiculous, on many levels:
1 - Home storage doesn't offer you the redundancy that a cloud based structure does, with teams maintaining the DAL and eliminating single points of failure, something which would cost thousands to do domestically. You claim for the cost you could set up the same domestically, but sorry - no you can't. For a start, any even basic redundancy is spread over multiple locations, so you've already got a requirement for 4 of your 2gb hard drives (2 x Raid 1 arrays) to try and compete in terms of redundancy. And that doesn't even scratch the surface. You've got electricity, maintenance, security, hardware replacements to take care of. It's not even comparable.
2 - What value do you assign to your own time? For me, $100 is less than an hours work - and I certainly couldn't build a complete robust automatically synchronising cross-platform, secure, backed up and well maintained system for a whole year for less than 1 hour of my time. You say it's idiots who want convenience. I say it's people who value themselves. My time is more valuable than yours, perhaps?
3 - Part of the feature is the automatically integrated synchronisation. To back up using your system would be a manual process or you'd have to buy software to do it. Even the installation of the software on every one of your devices would take a long time.
back_by_demand
Distinguished
- Jul 16, 2009
- 1,599
- 0
- 19,730
[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]I was very specific in my sentence. Please try to re-read it:'IF you want pretty much any COMPANY to automatically sync all of your data up to 50GB, you're going to have to pay them, and not a one time fee.'Keywords 'IF' and 'COMPANY. Whether you do or do not want a company to store your data is not at all relevant to my sentence. As for home storage, and comparing costs, it's ridiculous, on many levels:1 - Home storage doesn't offer you the redundancy that a cloud based structure does, with teams maintaining the DAL and eliminating single points of failure, something which would cost thousands to do domestically. You claim for the cost you could set up the same domestically, but sorry - no you can't. For a start, any even basic redundancy is spread over multiple locations, so you've already got a requirement for 4 of your 2gb hard drives (2 x Raid 1 arrays) to try and compete in terms of redundancy. And that doesn't even scratch the surface. You've got electricity, maintenance, security, hardware replacements to take care of. It's not even comparable.2 - What value do you assign to your own time? For me, $100 is less than an hours work - and I certainly couldn't build a complete robust automatically synchronising cross-platform, secure, backed up and well maintained system for a whole year for less than 1 hour of my time. You say it's idiots who want convenience. I say it's people who value themselves. My time is more valuable than yours, perhaps?3 - Part of the feature is the automatically integrated synchronisation. To back up using your system would be a manual process or you'd have to buy software to do it. Even the installation of the software on every one of your devices would take a long time.[/citation]
Far be it from me to tell you what to spend your money on, after all Tim Cook needs a solid gold toilet in the en-suite bathroom, what what I am trying to convey is that the Cloud is not and never has been about storage space and the more people think it is the more lazy and stupid they become instead of trying to do things for themselves.
See what I did there?
By the way, some of us already have a cross-platform, multi-redundacy, auto-backing up, net-connected media streaming system that works with our smartphones, laptops and tablets.
And it may have cost more than $100, but it also has 1000 times the storage and none of the privacy issues associated with renting from Apple and best of all, the longer I have it the less it costs me in real terms.
Far be it from me to tell you what to spend your money on, after all Tim Cook needs a solid gold toilet in the en-suite bathroom, what what I am trying to convey is that the Cloud is not and never has been about storage space and the more people think it is the more lazy and stupid they become instead of trying to do things for themselves.
See what I did there?
By the way, some of us already have a cross-platform, multi-redundacy, auto-backing up, net-connected media streaming system that works with our smartphones, laptops and tablets.
And it may have cost more than $100, but it also has 1000 times the storage and none of the privacy issues associated with renting from Apple and best of all, the longer I have it the less it costs me in real terms.
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Far be it from me to tell you what to spend your money on, after all Tim Cook needs a solid gold toilet in the en-suite bathroom, what what I am trying to convey is that the Cloud is not and never has been about storage space and the more people think it is the more lazy and stupid they become instead of trying to do things for themselves.See what I did there?By the way, some of us already have a cross-platform, multi-redundacy, auto-backing up, net-connected media streaming system that works with our smartphones, laptops and tablets.And it may have cost more than $100, but it also has 1000 times the storage and none of the privacy issues associated with renting from Apple and best of all, the longer I have it the less it costs me in real terms.[/citation]
'The cloud is not ajnd never has been about storage space'
God could you possibly be any more dumb? What the 'cloud' can be used for is down to the consumers, and the companies, not you. If someone wants to have the security of cloud based storage (which millions do) without having to spend hours and thousands getting the equivalent locally - you have no right saying the cloud cannot be used for that.
And no, I don't really see what you did there other than try to claim that the Cloud shouldn't be used for storage? (Quite ridiculous, frankly).
I very much doubt you have a domestic system spread over multiple locations with multiple independant Tier 1 internet connections with round the clock alarms, monitoring systems, staff at the ready to replace redundant hardware, fire systems, electricity backup generators... etc...
It's SO SO naive and very common for anyone who doesn't actually have to deal with server management to think that any local solution is even remotely comparable to cloud based systems.
I can have 1,000x the storage on my local hard disk too - the point is I have enough intelligence to see why that isn't the same.
As for privacy, I love how illogical and arrogant some people are when they somehow think that Apple employs someone to go through your files. When will you realise a little flea such as your self is a mere irrelevance? Nobody cares what your files contain.
As for costing less - repairs (both in terms of labour, parts, and monitoring), maintenance, internet, electricity, NOISE?, heat? rent (2 locations), will cost you FAR more than $100 a year and a LOT of your time, and wont have ANYWHERE near enough resilience to be regarded as a truly robust backup system.
You're paying more for a worse system which you have to waste your own time maintaining, and doesn't come with the software necessary to seamlessly integrate with your phone and other devices.
In other words, you're biting off your nose to spite your face. 'Far be it from me to tell you what to spend your money on'.
;-)
'The cloud is not ajnd never has been about storage space'
God could you possibly be any more dumb? What the 'cloud' can be used for is down to the consumers, and the companies, not you. If someone wants to have the security of cloud based storage (which millions do) without having to spend hours and thousands getting the equivalent locally - you have no right saying the cloud cannot be used for that.
And no, I don't really see what you did there other than try to claim that the Cloud shouldn't be used for storage? (Quite ridiculous, frankly).
I very much doubt you have a domestic system spread over multiple locations with multiple independant Tier 1 internet connections with round the clock alarms, monitoring systems, staff at the ready to replace redundant hardware, fire systems, electricity backup generators... etc...
It's SO SO naive and very common for anyone who doesn't actually have to deal with server management to think that any local solution is even remotely comparable to cloud based systems.
I can have 1,000x the storage on my local hard disk too - the point is I have enough intelligence to see why that isn't the same.
As for privacy, I love how illogical and arrogant some people are when they somehow think that Apple employs someone to go through your files. When will you realise a little flea such as your self is a mere irrelevance? Nobody cares what your files contain.
As for costing less - repairs (both in terms of labour, parts, and monitoring), maintenance, internet, electricity, NOISE?, heat? rent (2 locations), will cost you FAR more than $100 a year and a LOT of your time, and wont have ANYWHERE near enough resilience to be regarded as a truly robust backup system.
You're paying more for a worse system which you have to waste your own time maintaining, and doesn't come with the software necessary to seamlessly integrate with your phone and other devices.
In other words, you're biting off your nose to spite your face. 'Far be it from me to tell you what to spend your money on'.
;-)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Keyboard key presses are very delayed or entirely unresponsive
- Started by Troika
- Replies: 3
-
-
Facebook
Twitter