I usually am hooked up to power so I have never really done too much testing, it doesn't look like too much of a difference between the operating systems
.
The 13" definitely has a much longer battery life than the 11" though.
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
MAC OR PC which is better?
- Thread starter shawn110975
- Start date
I usually am hooked up to power so I have never really done too much testing, it doesn't look like too much of a difference between the operating systems
.
The 13" definitely has a much longer battery life than the 11" though.
The MacBookAir uses the integrated NV 320M (no discrete graphics), so GPU switching isn't a big factor between Windows and MacOS power consumption on that particular machine. There are a few proprietary techniques that Apple uses under MacOS for further power savings, but I've never seen anyone do an experiment where they run similar workloads under both OS's until the battery runs out and compare times. I suspect it will do better under MacOS, but not sure by how much.
This article is yet another in a long line of ill-informed attempts to instill FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) into people. For a multitude of reasons writers have enjoyed predicting Mac OS X demise for years. They take examples from staged laboratory attempts that are contrived and not real world. Or, like this recent article, where Bott (the author) uses the fact that Apple keeps releasing software updates targeted at security, that Mac OS X is under siege. The bottom line is this...
There has never been a real-world security/viral breach of Mac OS X. The only instances which have occurred were a few trojan horses out there on the Internet which masqueraded as legitimate apps - and unwitting users downloaded and installed and entered their password. Even in these few examples, no real damage or worldwide escalation occurred.
The one item that is often put forth as a reason for this new-found malware attention is popularity or "security-thru-obscurity". You know, Macs as they get more popular are now prone to viruses. I guess, if you don't know too much about the OS X architecture it might make sense. Well, if obscurity was the reason for the lack of malware then one of these article authors needs to explain why Macintosh OS suffered from viruses prior to Mac OS X? There were a LOT fewer Macs ten years ago.
Read John Gruber's recent article and you can understand why this latest FUD article is no different than all the prior articles over the years.
http://daringfireball.net/2011/05/wolf
Last edited:
Exactly. Or the fact that the Commodore Amiga, which was a hell of a lot more obscure than the current Mac user base, had viruses running rampant on that platform. If anything, the "noteriety" of having the first really invasive infection should be enough to spur virus-writers into action, as opposed to being relegated to sharing the glory amongst the thousands of other Windows viruses that exist out there.
Anyhow, it's not to say that it's impossible to write viruses or escalate privileges on the Mac. It's been shown many times in controlled cases. It's simply a matter of the platform being more secure out of the box than earlier versions of Windows.. which unfortunately the majority of the world continues to use.
Yes, Windows 7 is a LOT better than prior releases. But these industry pundits who write this junk are either hit-whores or just mouthing off the common prevailing ill-informed sentiment. They obviously don't take the time to put things in perspective and dig a bit deeper to get the real story. I guess such is the state of news or reporting in today's society.
I also believe there's a bit of wanting to knock Apple down a notch or two. I believe it's called "schadenfreude" where someone derives perverse pleasure in seeing problems for others. Either certain people want to see Apple do poorly because they're on top and doing very well; or people want to see Apple fail because they think the company and users are arrogant. I don't think Apple is arrogant but rather they have a near-fanatical obsession of getting their products right. So, when Jobs gets on stage, his passion and enthusiasm is oft mistaken for arrogance. I've seen this many times.
This is all why you hear a lot more about Apple with this so-called Location-Security issue compared to the much more serious security breach of Playstation hacking.
It's also why Greenpeace routinely targets Apple even when the issue is bogus, because they know Apple gets the press attention. It's a cheap-shot way for Greenpeace to get their name in the news. And I think the same can be said for these bogus-journalists too.
-Jim
I grew up on Macs. I used to sell Macs, back when OS 7 was new. I have used Macs pretty extensively over the years. Many of my friends are 3D artists, and have used Macs pretty extensively as well. The move to a BSD based Unix system under that UI was the best thing Apple could have ever done.
But my friends and I have all moved to the PC. Why?
Well, the biggest reason is price. The second reason is configurability.
I can build a machine that is faster and cheaper than ANY Mac out there, and pretty much any big box PC system as well. And more importantly, the machine can be configured, upgraded and changed extremely easily. I want a new processor, *poof* no problem. I want a workstation graphics card? There are a ton available. I want a setup with 24gig of ram, that is available too. And if I want to overclock the whole thing? Easily done.
On a personal note, Apple's is at the height of being hypocritical. They cry about being open, but their systems are the most closed out there. They whine about interoperability, yet they continue to create their own standards. Why the HELL does an iPod have a proprietary plug? They couldn't just make it USB like every smartphone out there... nooooo.
Outside of the Apple faithful, most techies see them for what they are, just another Microsoft, just in boutique flavor.
But my friends and I have all moved to the PC. Why?
Well, the biggest reason is price. The second reason is configurability.
I can build a machine that is faster and cheaper than ANY Mac out there, and pretty much any big box PC system as well. And more importantly, the machine can be configured, upgraded and changed extremely easily. I want a new processor, *poof* no problem. I want a workstation graphics card? There are a ton available. I want a setup with 24gig of ram, that is available too. And if I want to overclock the whole thing? Easily done.
On a personal note, Apple's is at the height of being hypocritical. They cry about being open, but their systems are the most closed out there. They whine about interoperability, yet they continue to create their own standards. Why the HELL does an iPod have a proprietary plug? They couldn't just make it USB like every smartphone out there... nooooo.
Outside of the Apple faithful, most techies see them for what they are, just another Microsoft, just in boutique flavor.
Last edited:
OK, the iPod had a 30 pin connector (with USB) because back then there was no clear standard that would do everything Apple wanted to do. Like charge and play music at the same time. And now this 30 pin connector is an open standard. You say how "closed" Apple is but numerous 3rd party vendors make accessories that use this 30 pin plug on iPod, iPhone, iPad. So, I just don't get your proprietary plug comment. Anyone can use and build these 30 pin accessories so how exactly is it closed?
I guess I could agree with your comment if only Apple made those 30 pin accessories and prevented others from doing so, but that's not the case.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/laudowicz/juicies-colorful-cables-for-ipod-iphone-and-ipad
With regard to building custom overclocked computers... There are a lot of people who build custom Macs - ever heard of Hackintoshes? They do all the things you mentioned. I suspect the percentage of modded Macs is just about the same as modded PC. Note I said percentage not total numbers. So again, I'm not sure your point here.
The main advantage is Mac OS X. Most Mac users just don't want to have to deal with Windows. Yeah, I guess the average PC is cheaper than the average Mac. But for most people the additional cost is worth not having to deal with Windows. They also appreciate the high level of hardware refinement too. There are many customer satisfaction surveys that prove Mac owners are much more satisfied with their purchases than their PC counterparts.
I guess it's like owning a NSX. Sure it costs more than a Ford Mustang 5.0 and the Mustang might be faster in the 1/4 mile, but there's an appreciation of the car's elegance and value.
Last edited:
Right now, as we speak, I have a 345 layers Photoshop (CS5) file open -99% pictures @ 150dpi on 1024 pixels wide- ... the file size is 1,4GB before opening, I also have this insanely stupid powerpoint presentation I am working for the FAU @ 365 slides, I have both running in the same time while having Safari open ... using my already year old Laptop with millions of colors and 1440x900 resolution screen, with an incredible photo quality and color precision that is extremely accurate for printing -something that pc based computers makes designers go crazy is the color discrepancy- ... yes, I have 1% ram left but Jesus, is not like I am not "pushing it"
I don't think my "computer" tells me what to do, but, I do whatever I need and I don't waste my time trying to "tell" this potent machine what to do -is like if Acura sold the NSX with 450WHP from factory, which would be more than enough for me- I don't get the whole "I can do what I want while you can't" that argument imho is childish, all really depends what you do.
I also authorize my computer to do what I WANT, as far as I know, 60% of macs have viruses, but they can't be activated due a very basic and essential common sense feature we have and is called "to Authorize enter password" .... @ your own risk
Oscar
I don't think my "computer" tells me what to do, but, I do whatever I need and I don't waste my time trying to "tell" this potent machine what to do -is like if Acura sold the NSX with 450WHP from factory, which would be more than enough for me- I don't get the whole "I can do what I want while you can't" that argument imho is childish, all really depends what you do.
I also authorize my computer to do what I WANT, as far as I know, 60% of macs have viruses, but they can't be activated due a very basic and essential common sense feature we have and is called "to Authorize enter password" .... @ your own risk
Oscar
No "clones", iTunes, AAC files, proprietary connectors (the 30 pin connector did exactly what USB did after USB was already being used), are all examples of Apple trying to lock in their market. They are not stupid, they have a vertical market and mean to keep it that way.
In the case of hackintoshes, I've had 1 or two. It's interesting to take my old PC hardware and and repurpose it, just to see if it can be done. But every hackintosh has to use code outside OSX in order for it to be used on the machine. It is far away from "plug and play". And you almost always have to use the previous generation hardware, rather than the latest and greatest to get it up and running because of compatibility issues.
The people arguing for Macs are also setting a double standard. They complain about naive preconceptions about using Macs, but then present others with naive preconceptions about "dealing with" using Win7.
The comparison of Mac/PC, NSX/Mustang is disingenuous, it's not a fair comparison at all. If you want to make a closer comparison, its like owning an NSX or almost any other car in the market in the size, power, color, packaging, luxury items you want. And if you don't want that, you still have the ability to build your own, like a Caterham. Fast, efficient and cheap.
Lastly, the false sense of security from using a Mac is ridiculous. The only reason why they are more secure is because of marketshare. The virus/worm/trojan world is based on money. People make money by infecting your computer. The largest installed base is far and away PC based, for them, thats where the money is. While hardware and software can be made more secure, they can always be hacked and infected for any system. But by far the worst offender in getting infected is not by either of those means, it is by the user. The reason why Macs have gotten away with it is something called "security by obscurity". Once the Apple marketshare keeps growing, attacks will rise and users will be susceptible just like any other user.
Tailoring the computer to what you want to accomplish, as mentioned before, is important. But opening up Photoshop files alone is not impressive nor is it an accurate representation of workload. Akira3D works for Naughty Dog, one of the premier development houses for video games. I have worked for Activision for a number of years and have many friends in a myriad of development houses across the US and Canada. And we both can tell you far and away the defacto standard for video game development (art, design, engineering) is a PC. Try running Photoshop, 3DS Max, zBrush, Version Control software, MS Office, web browser, and not including the little bits of other software that needs to run throughout the workday.
Regardless of what you use computer for, there are still two aspects Apple just cannot compete with: price and flexibility.
In the case of hackintoshes, I've had 1 or two. It's interesting to take my old PC hardware and and repurpose it, just to see if it can be done. But every hackintosh has to use code outside OSX in order for it to be used on the machine. It is far away from "plug and play". And you almost always have to use the previous generation hardware, rather than the latest and greatest to get it up and running because of compatibility issues.
The people arguing for Macs are also setting a double standard. They complain about naive preconceptions about using Macs, but then present others with naive preconceptions about "dealing with" using Win7.
The comparison of Mac/PC, NSX/Mustang is disingenuous, it's not a fair comparison at all. If you want to make a closer comparison, its like owning an NSX or almost any other car in the market in the size, power, color, packaging, luxury items you want. And if you don't want that, you still have the ability to build your own, like a Caterham. Fast, efficient and cheap.
Lastly, the false sense of security from using a Mac is ridiculous. The only reason why they are more secure is because of marketshare. The virus/worm/trojan world is based on money. People make money by infecting your computer. The largest installed base is far and away PC based, for them, thats where the money is. While hardware and software can be made more secure, they can always be hacked and infected for any system. But by far the worst offender in getting infected is not by either of those means, it is by the user. The reason why Macs have gotten away with it is something called "security by obscurity". Once the Apple marketshare keeps growing, attacks will rise and users will be susceptible just like any other user.
Tailoring the computer to what you want to accomplish, as mentioned before, is important. But opening up Photoshop files alone is not impressive nor is it an accurate representation of workload. Akira3D works for Naughty Dog, one of the premier development houses for video games. I have worked for Activision for a number of years and have many friends in a myriad of development houses across the US and Canada. And we both can tell you far and away the defacto standard for video game development (art, design, engineering) is a PC. Try running Photoshop, 3DS Max, zBrush, Version Control software, MS Office, web browser, and not including the little bits of other software that needs to run throughout the workday.
Regardless of what you use computer for, there are still two aspects Apple just cannot compete with: price and flexibility.
You didn't really address my points.
If the 30 pin iPhone/iPad/iPod connector is so proprietary then why is there a vibrant 3rd party accessory market?
If security is all about marketshare and Macs are secure only because of their smaller marketshare then explain why older Macs prior to OS X had numerous virus problems? No, the reason why there's never been widespread virus problems is due to the design of the OS.
AAC is an open standard ratified by many like the ISO. I don't understand your point in mentioning it.
iTunes? There are iTunes alternatives out there. Sure, Apple includes iTunes with the OS but you're free to choose one of the many alternatives. Again, I dont understand your point here.
Videogames? Well the only thing I can add here is that iOS devices are rapidly gaining in popularity and all game developers are either producing apps or thinking about it.
I will grant you that there's less choice and generally higher prices in the Mac world. Your other points, not so much.
Keep in mind that while it appears the Apple is more restrictive and integrated there's an upside to this tight integration and level of control. Things generally work better. Support issues are less. Owners don't have as many issues with things. If you're a gamer or like to mod your computers then I agree, you have more options in the PC world. I think Apple doesn't really care about this small market segment.
If the 30 pin iPhone/iPad/iPod connector is so proprietary then why is there a vibrant 3rd party accessory market?
If security is all about marketshare and Macs are secure only because of their smaller marketshare then explain why older Macs prior to OS X had numerous virus problems? No, the reason why there's never been widespread virus problems is due to the design of the OS.
AAC is an open standard ratified by many like the ISO. I don't understand your point in mentioning it.
iTunes? There are iTunes alternatives out there. Sure, Apple includes iTunes with the OS but you're free to choose one of the many alternatives. Again, I dont understand your point here.
Videogames? Well the only thing I can add here is that iOS devices are rapidly gaining in popularity and all game developers are either producing apps or thinking about it.
I will grant you that there's less choice and generally higher prices in the Mac world. Your other points, not so much.
Keep in mind that while it appears the Apple is more restrictive and integrated there's an upside to this tight integration and level of control. Things generally work better. Support issues are less. Owners don't have as many issues with things. If you're a gamer or like to mod your computers then I agree, you have more options in the PC world. I think Apple doesn't really care about this small market segment.
Last edited:
I think some of your points are not quite accurate:
AAC is the official successor to MP3. It sounds better at a lower bitrate. It is used by many companies, by broadcast TV standards, and most personal media players. It is not limited to Apple in any way. You may be thinking of Apple's Fairplay DRM system, which was the basis of the first deal with the record companies that finally convinced them to sell legitimate music online in a way that allowed users with one purchase to enjoy their music on multiple computers, multiple iPods, and burned CDs. It was a fight to get the music companies to even allow that much. But of course as you know, even that has been stripped away in favor of DRM-free music now.
The iPod 30-pin connector does more than what USB does:
USB data
Firewire data (for older iPods)
Analog stereo out
S-Video
Composite video
Serial I/O interface for external hardware
3.3V accessory power
Accessory indicator
It is not the same as USB, but USB is a part of it. When the first iPod came out, USB 1.1 was out, and it was not a viable interface for a device which held 5 gigabytes of data. At 1.5 Mbps or 12 Mbps (high speed) it took a half hour just to load a few dozen songs. It would have taken forever to load up gigabytes, but over Firewire 400, songs transferred at about 1 song per second, which was made transferring huge batches of songs a much more trivial thing for users to do.
Last edited:
Glen
Thanks. You explained it in more detail and clarity than I.
It's amazing how these stories just keep getting passed along over time. These biases just get passed along, amplified and repeated even by people in the industry. The notion that Apple uses proprietary hardware may be a leftover from 15 years ago. Today Macs pretty much rely on industry standards. I can use any keyboard, mouse or monitor for example. Apple also uses industry standard hard drives too. I often buy "PC" labeled hard drives for use in a Mac.
Pure USB connectors were never an option and Apple didn't want to have 2 or 3 or more separate connectors on the iPod and subsequent devices. And again, I'll say it one more time the 30 pin standard, originally defined by Apple is there for anyone to use. Even auto companies use it.
PC aficionados tend to overlook the fact that just about every major feature in their modern Windows PC was brought to them via Apple's Macintosh.
.
Thanks. You explained it in more detail and clarity than I.
It's amazing how these stories just keep getting passed along over time. These biases just get passed along, amplified and repeated even by people in the industry. The notion that Apple uses proprietary hardware may be a leftover from 15 years ago. Today Macs pretty much rely on industry standards. I can use any keyboard, mouse or monitor for example. Apple also uses industry standard hard drives too. I often buy "PC" labeled hard drives for use in a Mac.
Pure USB connectors were never an option and Apple didn't want to have 2 or 3 or more separate connectors on the iPod and subsequent devices. And again, I'll say it one more time the 30 pin standard, originally defined by Apple is there for anyone to use. Even auto companies use it.
PC aficionados tend to overlook the fact that just about every major feature in their modern Windows PC was brought to them via Apple's Macintosh.
.
Last edited:
It is a proprietary connector, specific to Apple. Just because 3rd parties can make it (for a fee to Apple of course) does not mean it is open at all.
As any security expert will tell you, you can design better security, but you can never fully lock down a system. And most security experts will also tell you that the market determines the direction security breaches occur. You can disregard it all you want, but security breaches occur to multimillion dollar companies and the most technologically advanced government/militaries alike. What makes you think your desktop computer so safe?
Attacks will rise directly in proportion to marketshare.
You are correct, I really meant Apple's Fairplay.
The point was that iTunes combined with Fairplay caused lock in to Apple and Apple products only. Job's public call to strip DRM in 2009 was just a PR event, by that time Amazon was already selling music DRM free. EMI, had already dropped the push for DRM in 2007. Ever since Apple implemented Fairplay, companies asked for it to be opened up for others to use, or at the very least, allow other product interoperability. Apple refused to open the DRM for others to use, and flatly refused interoperability with other products. Apple was sued in 2005 for this anti-competitive lock-in, and the litigation is still going on today.
Integration has always been Apple's argument. It does create a more streamlined experience, and I don't disagree. But it also has flaws. I don't really advocate one set up over another (although it may seem like I am), but I do want to set the record straight from the misinformation on both sides.
I noted above that I really meant the combination of iTunes and Fairplay (which used AAC to send unique identifiers for DRM), my mistake. I also noted above why it was bad.
Ok, this is just wrong. When the 30 pin connector was originally created, all it did was firewire and USB. The extensions to the connector came later down the line, some of it much later.
But with the inception of the connector use with the iPod, USB 2.0 was already ratified and was more than suitable to support the transfer speeds (480 Mbit/s!) you are talking about. Most computers are still using USB 2.0 today, 3.0 really just hitting new computers just in the past year.
In summation:
I was never trying to say a Mac is a worse computer. It isn't any better or worse, if it suits your needs, great! But do not be blinded by the Apple faithful. Apple is just a corporation not a way of life. Just like any other company, it creates unnecessary proprietary standards, they are anti-competitive, they aren't necessarily more or less secure, they are more expensive and less flexible.
For 90% of desktop users, it really doesn't matter (unless you have to carry around separate USB and iPod connectors, irritating).
Well you just haven't proved your case that Apple creates all these unnecessary proprietary standards.
The 30 pin connector was needed. There was no standard that allowed Apple to utilize FireWire and USB. And their decision paid off because they needed to add stuff without changing the connector. You wrote they USB did exactly what the 30 pin did and you were wrong.
In fact many times like in the case of FireWire and now ThunderBolt, Apple helps to develop the standard and then they turn it over to industry. Or as in the case if the 3.5" diskette, Apple helped popularize someone else's standard (Sony).
I maybe could see your point 15 years ago when Apple used ADB, but even then there wasn't a suitable alternate until USB came along and Apple adopted USB.
And FairPlay? How was that different than PlaysForSure? There is always going to be competitive developments like iTunes or Zune Marketplace, but to so claim Apple is proprietary and others like Microsoft are not just doesn't stand up.
The 30 pin connector was needed. There was no standard that allowed Apple to utilize FireWire and USB. And their decision paid off because they needed to add stuff without changing the connector. You wrote they USB did exactly what the 30 pin did and you were wrong.
In fact many times like in the case of FireWire and now ThunderBolt, Apple helps to develop the standard and then they turn it over to industry. Or as in the case if the 3.5" diskette, Apple helped popularize someone else's standard (Sony).
I maybe could see your point 15 years ago when Apple used ADB, but even then there wasn't a suitable alternate until USB came along and Apple adopted USB.
And FairPlay? How was that different than PlaysForSure? There is always going to be competitive developments like iTunes or Zune Marketplace, but to so claim Apple is proprietary and others like Microsoft are not just doesn't stand up.
Last edited:
Well, I didn't exactly say that, this is what I said:
Point being that Apple could have used a standard connector to accomplish the same thing at the time. They had no concept of the extensions they would eventually add to it. The original connector is even incompatible with later versions because they reconfigured it.
I'm still not convinced "it paid off" because many of the things you list the 30 pin can do, USB can do as well, like video. I haven't done extensive research on it, but I suspect USB can probably do all of the things listed.
I never said Apple "is" and Microsoft "isn't":
If anything, I called them the same.
So Apple is not proprietary huh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Audio_Access_Protocol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirPlay
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10787_3-9959188-60.html
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/adobe-ceo-blasts-apples-proprietary-business-model/
http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/16/apple-confirms-presence-of-proprietary-chip-in-shuffle-headphone/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10113278-16.html
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100429/1107129242.shtml
In the end Apple is just another company, trying to protect its interests just like any other company, looking to lighten your wallet just like any other company.
Last edited:
You keep saying this, but what industry standard connector could Apple have used that combined USB/FireWire/Charging/Audio? There were none.
When Apple first introduced the iPod they used standard FireWire ports. BTW, FireWire was another Apple invention that Apple turned over to industry so that it would become a standard. But when they needed to support USB and do more, they had no choice but to go with their own connector.
Also, how do you know they had no concept of the extensions they would add? Maybe they just wanted to keep their options open.
Maybe today if Apple were to make the decision they would choose some kind of standard USB connector but 10 years ago when they realized that they needed to support multiple protocols, signals and power requirements it made perfect sense.
It's interesting to note that Samsung also chose a 30 pin connector for their Tab. It has only been in the last year that a viable standard has emerged - and it looks amazing like what Apple came up with....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDMI
To criticize them now, after the fact, just doesn't make logical sense. They made a very reasonable choice at the time and it's worked well for them. And because 3rd parties make all kinds of accessories and cables, I fail to see the problem for the consumer.
PS: I really did like your link on the Adobe CEO criticizing Apple for being "proprietary" because Apple didn't want to support Adobe's buggy proprietary Flash technology.
Last edited:
Apple didn't need to combine USB and firewire. USB did charging and audio and already existed, it obviated the need for firewire.
I thought firewire was a great standard and it was a shame it wasn't used more widely. But ever since USB 2.0 implementation, the writing was already on the wall for firewire.
As far as the Adobe/Apple fighting, I think it is hilarious. Both pointing the finger at each other accusing the other of the same thing, while both are guilty. I don't know about buggy though. The majority of the world's websites use Flash (I think 80-90%), and they seem to get along just fine. I'm happy my phone has the ability to use it.
Last edited:
Amen brotha. I'm still on my 10 years old Dual 1GHz Mac Power Mac tower bought for $1200 as a close out at the apple store. The only think I had to replace was HD and OD. Other then the graphic card is a little slow, this beast will go for another ten years! Best investment ever on a computer I have ever spend.
BTW, every time a PC guy telling me Mac is twice the price as PC, I always grab them and do a direct comparison. Mac pro is still more expensive, bot not double the price, more like 10% more after you use "academic" discount (which is easy to get on Apple's site), and with what you get in terms of design, construction, virus free with a more powerful/stable OS, and all the Apple software that will never crash, I'll take a Mac any day. It is like telling me don't buy a NSX because you get more with a Mustang. NO THANKS.
Macs are ideal for professional graphic artist, agencies, people that work with media. The rest of the world can debate all they want but 99.9% of the high end agencies/designers use Apple computers as their as their weapon of choice.
I can recognize PC designers from far away!
I can recognize PC designers from far away!
Oscar, some of us take offense to that. Using a mac doesn't make anyone more skilled than a PC. There is NOTHING a Mac can do that my PC cannot do and I can spend a whole lot less to do it.
It's crap like this that makes me dislike Mac fanboys. For some reason you think you are better than everyone else. I don't get it?
Last edited:
LOL, sorry man, I was been ironic and trying to pick on the PC guys here -some been ironic too- just read all my comments before my last stupid one, reality is that normally, as mac user, I am never aggressive about PC designers, most of aggressive comments always come from the PC side, and is not nice to deal with, because in the end, is all really about skills and talent, I worked for almost a year, on this place called "destination Rewards" they had only PC's running, and my design didn't lose any of my quality, but guys used to make fun of me for been a Apple based guy, it is in really the perception I get that PC designers are way to aggressive with mac designers .. and that is unnecessary because I never -or almost never- see Mac designers diminishing PC designers value on their design, a bad design is a bad design.
But sorry man, perhaps I was just as idiot on my comment, I'll take that back!
Oscar
Apple usurps Google as world's most valuable brand
On Monday May 9, 2011, 11:03 am EDT
LONDON (Reuters) - Apple has overtaken Google as the world's most valuable brand, ending a four-year reign by the Internet search leader, according to a new study by global brands agency Millward Brown.
The iPhone and iPad maker's brand is now worth $153 billion, almost half Apple's market capitalization, says the annual BrandZ study of the world's top 100 brands.
Apple's portfolio of coveted consumer goods propelled it past Microsoft to become the world's most valuable technology company last year.
Peter Walshe, global brands director of Millward Brown, says Apple's meticulous attention to detail, along with an increasing presence of its gadgets in corporate environments, have allowed it to behave differently from other consumer-electronics makers.
"Apple is breaking the rules in terms of its pricing model," he told Reuters by telephone. "It's doing what luxury brands do, where the higher price the brand is, the more it seems to underpin and reinforce the desire."
"Obviously, it has to be allied to great products and a great experience, and Apple has nurtured that."
By contrast, one of the brands most threatened by Apple's rising popularity in offices took a big hit in the survey.
Research In Motion's BlackBerry brand lost a fifth of its brand value. Among technology companies, only Nokia's 28 percent decline was steeper.
Of the top 10 brands in Monday's report, six were technology and telecoms companies: Google at number two, IBM at number three, Microsoft at number five, AT&T at number seven and China Mobile at number nine.
McDonald's rose two places to number four, as fast food became the fastest-growing category, Coca-Cola slipped one place to number six, Marlboro was also down one to number eight, and General Electric was number 10.
Walshe said demand from China was a major factor in the rise of fast-food brands. "The Chinese have been discovering fast food and it's such a vast market -- Starbucks, McDonald's... and pizza has hit China," he said.
"The way McDonald's has reinvented itself, adapted its menus, added healthy options, expanding the times of day it can be visited, for example oatmeal for breakfast... that allied with growth in developing markets has really helped that brand."
Nineteen of the top 100 brands came from emerging markets, up from 13 last year.
Facebook entered the top 100 at number 35 with a brand valued at $19.1 billion, while Chinese search engine Baidu rose to number 29 from 46.
Toyota reclaimed its position as the world's most valuable car brand, as it recovered from a bungled 2010 product recall. The survey was carried out before the March earthquake that caused massive disruption to Japanese supply chains.
The total value of the top 100 brands rose by 17 percent to $2.4 trillion, as the global economy shifted to growth.
Millward Brown takes as a starting point the value that companies put on their own main brands as intangibles in their earnings reports.
It combines that with the perceptions of more than 2 million consumers in relevant markets around the world whom it surveys over the course of the year, and then applies a multiple derived from the company's short-term future growth prospects.
(Reporting by Goergina Prodhan, additional reporting by Alastair Sharp in Toronto; Editing by David Cowell)
On Monday May 9, 2011, 11:03 am EDT
LONDON (Reuters) - Apple has overtaken Google as the world's most valuable brand, ending a four-year reign by the Internet search leader, according to a new study by global brands agency Millward Brown.
The iPhone and iPad maker's brand is now worth $153 billion, almost half Apple's market capitalization, says the annual BrandZ study of the world's top 100 brands.
Apple's portfolio of coveted consumer goods propelled it past Microsoft to become the world's most valuable technology company last year.
Peter Walshe, global brands director of Millward Brown, says Apple's meticulous attention to detail, along with an increasing presence of its gadgets in corporate environments, have allowed it to behave differently from other consumer-electronics makers.
"Apple is breaking the rules in terms of its pricing model," he told Reuters by telephone. "It's doing what luxury brands do, where the higher price the brand is, the more it seems to underpin and reinforce the desire."
"Obviously, it has to be allied to great products and a great experience, and Apple has nurtured that."
By contrast, one of the brands most threatened by Apple's rising popularity in offices took a big hit in the survey.
Research In Motion's BlackBerry brand lost a fifth of its brand value. Among technology companies, only Nokia's 28 percent decline was steeper.
Of the top 10 brands in Monday's report, six were technology and telecoms companies: Google at number two, IBM at number three, Microsoft at number five, AT&T at number seven and China Mobile at number nine.
McDonald's rose two places to number four, as fast food became the fastest-growing category, Coca-Cola slipped one place to number six, Marlboro was also down one to number eight, and General Electric was number 10.
Walshe said demand from China was a major factor in the rise of fast-food brands. "The Chinese have been discovering fast food and it's such a vast market -- Starbucks, McDonald's... and pizza has hit China," he said.
"The way McDonald's has reinvented itself, adapted its menus, added healthy options, expanding the times of day it can be visited, for example oatmeal for breakfast... that allied with growth in developing markets has really helped that brand."
Nineteen of the top 100 brands came from emerging markets, up from 13 last year.
Facebook entered the top 100 at number 35 with a brand valued at $19.1 billion, while Chinese search engine Baidu rose to number 29 from 46.
Toyota reclaimed its position as the world's most valuable car brand, as it recovered from a bungled 2010 product recall. The survey was carried out before the March earthquake that caused massive disruption to Japanese supply chains.
The total value of the top 100 brands rose by 17 percent to $2.4 trillion, as the global economy shifted to growth.
Millward Brown takes as a starting point the value that companies put on their own main brands as intangibles in their earnings reports.
It combines that with the perceptions of more than 2 million consumers in relevant markets around the world whom it surveys over the course of the year, and then applies a multiple derived from the company's short-term future growth prospects.
(Reporting by Goergina Prodhan, additional reporting by Alastair Sharp in Toronto; Editing by David Cowell)
Apple's value has nothing to do with their PC line.
Dave, as a Apple person, better, FANBOI, I can say that I have like 14 Apple stickers on a box -those that come with the new machines- that I have never felt the need of putting on my cars, neither I attended a Mac convention and honestly until 06 I didn't even Knew how Steve Jobs looked like. I am no FANBOI! lol .. and btw, reply my IM message! :biggrin:
Similar threads
- Locked
