h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hardware, software, internet, music etc.

Less smug.

Don't know what you mean Xan???

My take on kea's question has 2 answers.
1. Not much different given Windoze ubiquity although if you believe this site - http://www.tuaw.com/2009/02/02/apple-market-share-continues-to-climb-windows-drops/ Apple has about 10% of the market.

2. If Apple had never existed perhaps some of their developers and designers would be working for Micro$oft and things would be better.

t.

For me personally, no different.

I live in the UK and I investigated Apple computers some years ago when I first bought a computer. They used a different CPU (Motorola) and, without access to the Internet (which didn't carry as much useful info back then anyway) I had no way of comparing an Apple with Wintel. Apple seemed expensive by comparison. Even the computer magazines carried little about Apple. There were also few places back then in the UK that sold Apple computers. So I went for a PC and I've stuck with M!cro$@ft ever since.

I've had no regrets. I know that there are word processor/spreadsheet/whatever applications for Apple. It's only comparatively recently that I've seen games being offered for Macs as well as PCs. In fact, I just have two that will run on both - Bejewelled 2 and Spore.

Ah but without the Mac, would Windows even have come into existence...

For the Mac was the first (mass market at least) computer that had a windows driven operating system.

No doubt a proper will show up and refute me but that is how it went as I understand it.

This graph would look different...
http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/song-chart-memes-apple-compatibility.jpg

Y

I believe that X-Windows for Unix was around before Micros**t and Apple ever existed. I also remember a little thing called GEM (Graphics Environment Manager) that ran on our DOS PCs to make them look like WIMP Unix machines. Though I could be completely wrong about the dates

Now if the Apple record label had never existed - we'd notice that.

Didn't The Beatles release their first record on Parlophone? So the existence or otherwise of Apple is moot - if Apple weren't around to pick them up, someone else would've.

And then Beatles songs would be available on iTunes.

RF

iTunes is bad enough already, thank you!

no ipods either....

Somebody would've developed the technologies. Maybe a few years later, maybe looking slightly different, but it's not as if Apple is some genius without whom nothing would ever move forward!

That is true Mal. The genius is in design and marketing, not in the technology itself.

Consider these sentences: -

I've just bought the latest Creative Zen mp3 player.
I've just bought the latest iPod.

I've got a PC with an AMD Phenom II X4 810 (2.6GHz, quad core, 4MB L3) running Windows Vista Home premium edition with SP 2.
I've got an Intel iMac running Leopard.

Just my

t.

Remember these...

http://www.euslinger.de/Funstuff/itoilet.htm
http://www.xs4all.nl/~pjbrink/apekool/150/131.html
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/502.html

...and many more I'm sure.

t.

Hmmm, so no-one here sees that Apple had/has a creative edge that transformed home computing at several points? eg I thought Apple brought out the graphic interface (so we didn't have to type every command). You can argue that someone would eventually have done this anyway but hasn't MS tried to control the market and slowed innovation down? I'm not saying that it HAD to be Apple, just that it was a small company that did the best innovation. We might all still be working on black and white utilatarian machines otherwise

I've seen the same with internet in NZ. A small company totally challenged the main players in the late 90s and changed how internet was done here (in a good way). Unfortunately it's not been bought out by a multinational who is doing it's best to take us back a decade

No PIXAR movies.

Apple as the little guy who stands up to monopolistic Microsoft doesn't really work.

There is a saying: 'if you want to play in Apple's sandbox, you play by Apple's rules'. Apple maintain a tight control over their platform, and their vendor lock-in strategy is much stronger than Microsoft's, although it applies to a smaller portion of the market.

Options are taken away from the customer: you are restricted in the hardware you can use and the software you can run. By micromanaging their platform, Apple are able to ensure both the quality of their product and their profit margins.

Apple's attention to detail in making a user experience is something that has consistently set them apart from other companies though. Google has also impressed me a lot on that front, but Apple have been doing it best for ages.

And of course their marketing abilities are legendary, as evidenced by the fact that they mostly do get away with portraying themselves like some sort of trendy agile start-up rather than a huge established multinational.

Without Apple Mac, I would not have to pay the "Mac tax" as I wouldn't been have convinced by my somewhat biased Mac fan-girl friends that Macs were awesome and the way to go when I last bough a new computer.

Yes my iMac looks freaking awesome. I haven't the kind of annoying crashes or need for frequent running of anti- spyware, malware, virus software and firewall updates... etc.

But I do feel more limited.