11-24-2003, 02:38 AM
11-24-2003, 02:57 AM
Macs suck because Jobs was greedy and arrogant while Gates was greedy and opportunistic.
Jobs assumed that if he just controlled everything that people would be forced to buy EVERYTHING from Apple he'd have a captive audience and rule the world. Gates just wanted to make sure that his system was adopted, so he made it possible for everyone to get it.
Once his system had been adopted then he had a captive audience.
Apple made the cardinal sin in product development in that they decided what the product was going and which applications would be provided first and then just dropped it on the market assuming everyone had the exact same tastes as he did; that something would stick. Gates just made it the system available and allowed other people to profit by creating applications which benefitted the consumer much more because they could tailor it to exactly what they want.
Gates' way was so much better because there was a giant network of people (software providers, PC compatible CPU manufacturers, monitor manufacturers, etc) who all had a vested interest in pushing the Windows platform. Jobs had no one on his side but Apple, and the network effect made it impossible to compete in the overall sense. So MACs have this little piss-ant niche of the $1 trillion worldwide IT market and a few straggling technophobes who want Macs just to be different/better.
Bill Gates > Steve Jobs
Microsoft > Apple
Edited By Galt on 1069643257
Jobs assumed that if he just controlled everything that people would be forced to buy EVERYTHING from Apple he'd have a captive audience and rule the world. Gates just wanted to make sure that his system was adopted, so he made it possible for everyone to get it.
Once his system had been adopted then he had a captive audience.
Apple made the cardinal sin in product development in that they decided what the product was going and which applications would be provided first and then just dropped it on the market assuming everyone had the exact same tastes as he did; that something would stick. Gates just made it the system available and allowed other people to profit by creating applications which benefitted the consumer much more because they could tailor it to exactly what they want.
Gates' way was so much better because there was a giant network of people (software providers, PC compatible CPU manufacturers, monitor manufacturers, etc) who all had a vested interest in pushing the Windows platform. Jobs had no one on his side but Apple, and the network effect made it impossible to compete in the overall sense. So MACs have this little piss-ant niche of the $1 trillion worldwide IT market and a few straggling technophobes who want Macs just to be different/better.
Bill Gates > Steve Jobs
Microsoft > Apple
Edited By Galt on 1069643257
11-24-2003, 03:02 AM
Quote:Apple made the cardinal rule in product development in that they decided what the product was going and which applications would be provided first and then just dropped it on the marketthat's basically it. he makes stuff he wants, not caring about what the market price will be for the product, knowing that theres 5% of the markets thats going to buy it no matter what. if apple were to get big they would have all the same anti-trust shit going after them, and just as many virus and worms would be exploiting the system.
assuming everyone had the exact same tastes as he did;
11-24-2003, 03:02 AM
yeah!!! macs suck!!!
11-24-2003, 03:13 AM
i was just about to post everything that galt just posted.
11-24-2003, 03:14 AM
me too
11-24-2003, 03:19 AM
pirates of silicon valley was a good movie
11-24-2003, 03:23 AM
indeed it was...i saw it a while back and then we watched it in my web design class two weeks ago
11-24-2003, 03:45 AM
was that the one with Russ from Vacation and Dr. Carter?
11-24-2003, 03:52 AM
![[Image: 1-8.jpg]](http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0168122/1-8.jpg)
11-24-2003, 04:05 AM
Noah Wyle has an apple for a penis.
11-24-2003, 04:06 AM
i came up with a good analogy while i was in the shower (note: there is a good chance that this is the most asinine thing ever to be thought)
microsoft is like steven speilberg and apple is like john waters...
in some ways the movies of john waters are better than that of steven speilberg. they are unique and appeal to those looking for something that the big name movies cant offer. sometimes you'd rather see a john waters movie because thats what fits your specific needs at that moment. but honestly...who makes better movies? people who say speilberg's movies suck and would always want to watch hairspray over saving private ryan are just idiots trying to be cool.
microsoft is like steven speilberg and apple is like john waters...
in some ways the movies of john waters are better than that of steven speilberg. they are unique and appeal to those looking for something that the big name movies cant offer. sometimes you'd rather see a john waters movie because thats what fits your specific needs at that moment. but honestly...who makes better movies? people who say speilberg's movies suck and would always want to watch hairspray over saving private ryan are just idiots trying to be cool.
11-24-2003, 04:11 AM
Steve Jobs is a faggot?
11-24-2003, 04:11 AM
yes
11-24-2003, 04:13 AM
"Gates" doesn't sound very kikey to me, though
11-24-2003, 04:15 AM
it was originally Bill Leibowitz
11-24-2003, 05:02 AM
Galt Wrote:Macs suck because Jobs was greedy and arrogant while Gates was greedy and opportunistic.No you see your comparing Apples and oranges. Jobs was a start up entrprenuer who sold computers ( that he and his partner Woz invented independently). They made one of the first user friendly pc's and their initial business applicstiomn software made the company take off. Hardware AND Software being the two large obsticles they tackeld inthose days. Microsoft howver, specialized in intel processessors from IBM and exclusiviley designed software for the IBM line. Big Blue was already the monster corp of the computer industry and Gates (an already wealthy entreprenuer) had his foot in the door there when he purchased the first edition of DOS from some fools.
Jobs assumed that if he just controlled everything that people would be forced to buy EVERYTHING from Apple he'd have a captive audience and rule the world. Gates just wanted to make sure that his system was adopted, so he made it possible for everyone to get it.
Once his system had been adopted then he had a captive audience.
Apple made the cardinal sin in product development in that they decided what the product was going and which applications would be provided first and then just dropped it on the market assuming everyone had the exact same tastes as he did; that something would stick. Gates just made it the system available and allowed other people to profit by creating applications which benefitted the consumer much more because they could tailor it to exactly what they want.
Gates' way was so much better because there was a giant network of people (software providers, PC compatible CPU manufacturers, monitor manufacturers, etc) who all had a vested interest in pushing the Windows platform. Jobs had no one on his side but Apple, and the network effect made it impossible to compete in the overall sense. So MACs have this little piss-ant niche of the $1 trillion worldwide IT market and a few straggling technophobes who want Macs just to be different/better.
Bill Gates > Steve Jobs
Microsoft > Apple
So if the argument is whose better on pure inovation and ambnition Jobs has it all over Gates. Gates may have the lion share of the market but alot of that has to do with IBM neglecting to claim exclusive liscence on their software So when Compact and Dell rolls around Microsoft is free to vend to them and make a killiing.