Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

dwishbone · Jul 19, 2002, 01:13 PM

top 10 things apple has done to irk mac users in the past 2 years (no particular order)
1.charge for upgrade for QT 6 at full price (no Pro 5 discounts)
2.seem to intentionally break VLC (best OSX DIVX/MPEG2 player) with QT6 and then release their own MPEG2 add on to QT6...$20. VLC is free.
3. charge for iTools with no option to keep your email, change name to .Mac, add worthless features, no payment options for people that MAY want it. $100 is alot to pay at one time.
4. Only a roughly 20% speed boost in a year (July 2001 Dual 800...July 2002 Dual 1000)
5. Jaguar $129 upgrade unless you by a new computer between July 17th and Aug 24th.
6. not fully supporting Macs with Jaguar (Quartz Extreme) one machines that are a year old! (mainly laptops)
7. Intentionally make 9.2 not run on Pre G3 macs (really stupid)
8. Intentionally make OS X not be able to install on Pre G3 macs (we like to have options steve...damn hipocrit)
9. Killing off the cube!!! Bad pricing on it to begin with...but the things were/are damn cool.
10. Insanely bad marketing and market research on its products

JLL · Jul 19, 2002, 01:52 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dwishbone:
top 10 things apple has done to irk mac users in the past 2 years (no particular order)
1.charge for upgrade for QT 6 at full price (no Pro 5 discounts)<hr /></blockquote>There have never been any discounts on QT Pro.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />2.seem to intentionally break VLC (best OSX DIVX/MPEG2 player) with QT6 and then release their own MPEG2 add on to QT6...$20. VLC is free.<hr /></blockquote>Intentionally? A little paranoid?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />3. charge for iTools with no option to keep your email, change name to .Mac, add worthless features, no payment options for people that MAY want it. $100 is alot to pay at one time.<hr /></blockquote>Can't we all just agree that the price is $50 for iTools users? Nobody knows if .Mac is worth $100 next year or not.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />5. Jaguar $129 upgrade unless you by a new computer between July 17th and Aug 24th.<hr /></blockquote>Mac OS 8: $99 Upgrade, Mac OS 8.5: $99 Upgrade, Mac OS 9: $99 Upgrade, Mac OS X 10.0 $129 Upgrade, Mac OS X 10.2: $129 Upgrade.

Notice a trend?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />6. not fully supporting Macs with Jaguar (Quartz Extreme) one machines that are a year old! (mainly laptops)<hr /></blockquote>And people with newer hardware would have to wait for QE just to please laptop owners?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />7. Intentionally make 9.2 not run on Pre G3 macs (really stupid)<hr /></blockquote>Mac OS 9.2 on Pre G3 Macs = slow.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />8. Intentionally make OS X not be able to install on Pre G3 macs (we like to have options steve...damn hipocrit)<hr /></blockquote>The first thing you'll do if you installed Mac OS X on a Pre G3 Mac was complaining about how slow it was.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />10. Insanely bad marketing and market research on its products<hr /></blockquote>And you're a marketing expert?

[ 07-19-2002, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: JLL ]

Nicko · Jul 19, 2002, 02:16 PM

.....so basically you want everythingn to be free?

correct me if im wrong.

dwishbone · Jul 19, 2002, 02:31 PM

dont want everything to be free. just be reasonable with some of it. it adds up quick. they are trying to make people switch over the the mac platform and keep the ones they have. there needs to be some freeness or at least some discounts on certain things.

there have just been alot of things they have done to cheese people off lately. i know apple is primarily a hardware company and that is why they did what they did with 9.2 and OS X. It maybe slow, but give us the option.

marketing is another issue. i like the adds that they have had over the past few years, but they fail to show what will really be the best reason to switch over...MacOS X. they need to show it off. they don't. i hope that when 10.2 they market it. .Mac was announced at $99.95. I know they said it is $50 for existing members. if they made it $50 in the first place there would not be near as much fuss. .Mac as it is now is not worth $100 no matter how you look at it. I may pay for it anyway just because I am an Apple booster, but it really will be nothing more than a yearly tithe to them. Apple is still better than the alternative, Microshaft, but the gap is definately narrowing.

moreno · Jul 19, 2002, 08:20 PM

i agree with all the points focused by dwishbone.

[email protected] · Jul 19, 2002, 08:41 PM

i'm with jll except for this one:

Mac OS 9.2 on Pre G3 Macs = slow

we don't know that (since it won't install), but 9.1 wasn't at all slow on my 7600 g3/380

sambeau · Jul 19, 2002, 08:50 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by [email protected]:
i'm with jll except for this one:

Mac OS 9.2 on Pre G3 Macs = slow

we don't know that (since it won't install), but 9.1 wasn't at all slow on my 7600 g3/380<hr /></blockquote>erk.
chalk that up as one to the opposition. bit of an own goal there..

sambeau · Jul 19, 2002, 08:54 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dwishbone:
top 10 things apple has done to irk mac users in the past 2 years (no particular order)
1.charge for upgrade for QT 6 at full price (no Pro 5 discounts)
2.seem to intentionally break VLC (best OSX DIVX/MPEG2 player) with QT6 and then release their own MPEG2 add on to QT6...$20. VLC is free.
3. charge for iTools with no option to keep your email, change name to .Mac, add worthless features, no payment options for people that MAY want it. $100 is alot to pay at one time.
4. Only a roughly 20% speed boost in a year (July 2001 Dual 800...July 2002 Dual 1000)
5. Jaguar $129 upgrade unless you by a new computer between July 17th and Aug 24th.
6. not fully supporting Macs with Jaguar (Quartz Extreme) one machines that are a year old! (mainly laptops)
7. Intentionally make 9.2 not run on Pre G3 macs (really stupid)
8. Intentionally make OS X not be able to install on Pre G3 macs (we like to have options steve...damn hipocrit)
9. Killing off the cube!!! Bad pricing on it to begin with...but the things were/are damn cool.
10. Insanely bad marketing and market research on its products<hr /></blockquote>While I find it hard to defen d each of these items I just can't agree with the sentiment.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not happy with the whole .Mac situation and I'm not going to be an appoligist for Cupertino'd turn towards Redmond.

but

"Insanely bad marketing and market research on its products" ???

back that one up with a few facts will you

iRei · Jul 19, 2002, 09:11 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dwishbone:

7. Intentionally make 9.2 not run on Pre G3 macs (really stupid)
8. Intentionally make OS X not be able to install on Pre G3 macs (we like to have options steve...damn hipocrit)
<hr /></blockquote>Your right. Apple should make OS X run really fast on my MacSE/30.

Lets face it, the Beige G3 is coming up on its 5th birthday. Pre-G3 machines had many different chipsets. That means more time coding and testing. I'd rather see them unsupported then pay $200 for a copy of the OS. We've known that pre-G3 weren't going to be supported for many years now.

iRei · Jul 19, 2002, 09:16 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dwishbone:
6. not fully supporting Macs with Jaguar (Quartz Extreme) one machines that are a year old! (mainly laptops)
<hr /></blockquote>Apple claims the Rage128's don't cut it and I've seen no proof that their lying. I'd just glad that they are doing something to use that wastes GPU processing power. I'd defentately want them to take advantage of any thing they can to speed up X on the new systems. Even if I can't benifet from it.

JLL · Jul 19, 2002, 09:20 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by [email protected]:
i'm with jll except for this one:

Mac OS 9.2 on Pre G3 Macs = slow

we don't know that (since it won't install), but 9.1 wasn't at all slow on my 7600 g3/380<hr /></blockquote>I was talking about non-upgraded Pre G3's <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Mr Scruff · Jul 20, 2002, 07:45 AM

I thought 9.2 was a classic orientated update? What does it add that you want? I updated to 9.1 and it didn't do anything useful except mangle my folder structure.

[email protected] · Jul 20, 2002, 01:07 PM

i don't run os 9 on the 7600, it's my basement os x server...

(when you click on the fox logo, that's the 7600 loading that page)

and, graphics aside, it is not slow.

Big Mac · Jul 20, 2002, 01:42 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by iRei:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dwishbone:

7. Intentionally make 9.2 not run on Pre G3 macs (really stupid)
8. Intentionally make OS X not be able to install on Pre G3 macs (we like to have options steve...damn hipocrit)
<hr /></blockquote>Your right. Apple should make OS X run really fast on my MacSE/30.

Lets face it, the Beige G3 is coming up on its 5th birthday. Pre-G3 machines had many different chipsets. That means more time coding and testing. I'd rather see them unsupported then pay $200 for a copy of the OS. We've known that pre-G3 weren't going to be supported for many years now.<hr /></blockquote>No, you're wrong in this respect. For quite awhile the pre-G3 OS X issue was quite important to me. The fact of the matter is, before Mac OS X was called Mac OS X, when it was still in development and known as Rhapsody, the only machines it initially ran on were the 8600 and 9600. Apple committed to supporting those machines in the future OS X, and OS X still would have installed without modification if not for intentional crippling. If Apple didn't want to support pre-G3 installations, rather than preclude them at all, it could have put up a prominent warning in the Installer stating the targeted hardware was not supported by Apple. Users could then have proceeded at their own risk - even though there was very little actual risk.

Now that issue really pissed me off when it first became public. At that time we didn't know how OS X would actually perform. (What we did know was that OpenStep, the basis of the new OS, had run quite well on 68040s.) Since Apple managed to make OS X 10.0 slow on even the newest hardware available at launch, my anger mostly dissipated. However, those individuals who still wanted to use OS X on uncertified systems should have been allowed to do so. It wouldn't have hurt Apple in the least.

I agree with most every point made by the topic starter.

[ 07-20-2002, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Big Mac ]

K++ · Jul 20, 2002, 02:36 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Big Mac:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by iRei:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dwishbone:

7. Intentionally make 9.2 not run on Pre G3 macs (really stupid)
8. Intentionally make OS X not be able to install on Pre G3 macs (we like to have options steve...damn hipocrit)
<hr /></blockquote>Your right. Apple should make OS X run really fast on my MacSE/30.

Lets face it, the Beige G3 is coming up on its 5th birthday. Pre-G3 machines had many different chipsets. That means more time coding and testing. I'd rather see them unsupported then pay $200 for a copy of the OS. We've known that pre-G3 weren't going to be supported for many years now.<hr /></blockquote>No, you're wrong in this respect. For quite awhile the pre-G3 OS X issue was quite important to me. The fact of the matter is, before Mac OS X was called Mac OS X, when it was still in development and known as Rhapsody, the only machines it initially ran on were the 8600 and 9600. Apple committed to supporting those machines in the future OS X, and OS X still would have installed without modification if not for intentional crippling. If Apple didn't want to support pre-G3 installations, rather than preclude them at all, it could have put up a prominent warning in the Installer stating the targeted hardware was not supported by Apple. Users could then have proceeded at their own risk - even though there was very little actual risk.

Now that issue really pissed me off when it first became public. At that time we didn't know how OS X would actually perform. (What we did know was that OpenStep, the basis of the new OS, had run quite well on 68040s.) Since Apple managed to make OS X 10.0 slow on even the newest hardware available at launch, my anger mostly dissipated. However, those individuals who still wanted to use OS X on uncertified systems should have been allowed to do so. It wouldn't have hurt Apple in the least.

I agree with most every point made by the topic starter.<hr /></blockquote>Rhapsody is not OS X, it is not even similiar rhapsody was OpenDox based Mac OS X is NeXT based. Also don;t 9.1 and 9.2 not run on Old World machines anyway? Even if they did, the only thing 9.2 adds to 9.1 is some hardware support which those pre G3s don;t need and classic support which is useless since those machines probably aren't running X. So explain to me this desperate want for 9.2 and why. It seems to make no sense why you want it so bad.

JLL · Jul 20, 2002, 02:49 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by K++:
Rhapsody is not OS X, it is not even similiar rhapsody was OpenDox based Mac OS X is NeXT based.<hr /></blockquote>You need get your facts straight here.

Sebastien · Jul 20, 2002, 04:33 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JLL:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />5. Jaguar $129 upgrade unless you by a new computer between July 17th and Aug 24th.<hr /></blockquote>Mac OS 8: $99 Upgrade, Mac OS 8.5: $99 Upgrade, Mac OS 9: $99 Upgrade, Mac OS X 10.0 $129 Upgrade, Mac OS X 10.2: $129 Upgrade.[/qb]

Notice a trend?

<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, but the first 3 are feature-added updates to an already complete and stable OS. The 10.2 upgrade adds what should have been there in the initial OS X release.

[ 07-20-2002, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Sebastien ]

Cipher13 · Jul 21, 2002, 03:34 AM

��Shitty hardware expandability (no 5.25" drive bay free? Heh)
��Loss of one RAM slot (I can put 2 gigs of RAM in my G4, but only 1.5 in the Dual 1000, where I need it most?)
��Loss of keyboard power key
��Loss of CD eject button
��Very few options in OSX regarding the UI
��Loss of analog audio input port

I could go on and on...

K++: brush up on your Apple history...

[ 07-21-2002, 03:36 AM: Message edited by: Cipher13 ]

CollinG3G4 · Jul 21, 2002, 04:22 AM

Rhapsody is not OS X, it is not even similiar rhapsody was OpenDox based Mac OS X is NeXT based. Also don;t 9.1 and 9.2 not run on Old World machines anyway? Even if they did, the only thing 9.2 adds to 9.1 is some hardware support which those pre G3s don;t need and classic support which is useless since those machines probably aren't running X. So explain to me this desperate want for 9.2 and why. It seems to make no sense why you want it so bad.

Dude... From the bottom of my heart... That was the best post ever!

[ 07-21-2002, 04:23 AM: Message edited by: CollinG3G4 ]

Morpheus · Jul 21, 2002, 05:00 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sebastien:
 The 10.2 upgrade adds what should have been there in the initial OS X release.<hr /></blockquote>How long are we going to hear this? 10.5 should have been 10.0? 10.8 should have been 10.0?

Definitely sick of it.

(slightly) off topic: have you seen <a href="http://www.alnora.com/about/employees.shtml" target="_blank">this</a> picture of cipher13?

[ 07-21-2002, 05:03 AM: Message edited by: Morpheus ]

iHolger uMax · Jul 21, 2002, 05:40 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Cipher13:
[QB]��Shitty hardware expandability (no 5.25" drive bay free? Heh)
��Loss of one RAM slot (I can put 2 gigs of RAM in my G4, but only 1.5 in the Dual 1000, where I need it most?)
��Loss of keyboard power key
��Loss of CD eject button
��Very few options in OSX regarding the UI
��Loss of analog audio input port
<hr /></blockquote>1. I agree with you on this
2. Probably is 4 in next revision (look at Xserve)
3. They had to remove this due to incompatibility with the USB 1.1 standard (This was a Apple hack to give us the same functionality of ADB but I think I take the wealth of USB equipment that has been coming our way since we left ADB behind, than be able to start my machine from the keyboard)
4. I agree with you on this
5. I�m more productive than ever with OSX - I do not care that much about customization
6. They are coming back! Look at eMac and the new revision of the Powerbooks

V0ID · Jul 21, 2002, 06:02 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Big Mac:
No, you're wrong in this respect. For quite awhile the pre-G3 OS X issue was quite important to me. The fact of the matter is, before Mac OS X was called Mac OS X, when it was still in development and known as Rhapsody, the only machines it initially ran on were the 8600 and 9600. Apple committed to supporting those machines in the future OS X...[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>I don't think so. For AT LEAST a year before OSX was released Apple stated that a G3 would be the minimum requirement. I remember this distinctly because that is the reason I decided to buy a G3 powerbook (which I eventually did in Sept. 2000).

Bad Date · Jul 21, 2002, 06:29 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dwishbone: 2.seem to intentionally break VLC (best OSX DIVX/MPEG2 player) with QT6 and then release their own MPEG2 add on to QT6...$20. VLC is free. <hr /></blockquote>Could you please be more specific. I haven't seen any change in VLC since the upgrade. I did have QuickTime Pro, but I don't anymore.

The good news is my boss let work an extra shift yesterday so I can afford Jag-Wire and QT Pro without a substantial loss in my standard of living. Good thing I don't get a salary! And I get the EDU discount so this is relatively painless. I do feel bad for people who just bought new machines and have to pay for the upgrade. But, people are going to bitch where-ever the line is drawn.

Thor · Jul 21, 2002, 10:19 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />8. Intentionally make OS X not be able to install on Pre G3 macs (we like to have options steve...damn hipocrit)<hr /></blockquote>How does this NOT make sense to you?
You expect the latest OS to run on 5 YEAR OLD HARDWARE?

(FWIW, Mac OS 7.6.1 isn't supported on a Classic either.)

dwishbone · Jul 21, 2002, 11:28 AM

Whoah, started another war in here. not my intention.
apple has done alot of things right over the fast few years, but this is showing they have made some really bad mistakes.

the 9.2 issue is important to alot of people. I have 9.1 on two machines and they crash pretty often. I have 9.2 on another machine, and it never crashes. this seems a worthwhile upgrade to me. i have a G3 220 in my PowerBase and about to stick a G3 400 in my 8600 (until I can afford that sweet Sonnet 800 G4). These machines would be more than adequate to run 9.2.x. I just don't like the fact that apple did not let us have the option when it should run just fine. the same goes for OS X. it is a hell of alot cheaper to upgrade a machine than to by a new one. you can now build a really good G4 tower for around 600-700 bucks. an advantage of this is you can buy parts slowly. i would love to have a dual ghz G4, or even an iMac, or a eMac...but even $1000 is a high one sum payment. When I am done upgrading my Powerbase 200 and 8600 will be great machines, both that outperform most of the pricier macs...and alot less.

marketing. well, they have done some things right, but the two main fiascoes are the cube and OS X.
At the time the G4 Cube was released people wanted an ENTRY level macintosh. That is what the Mac community was screaming for. there were rumors of a monitorless iMac for under $1000...somewhere in the $700 range. That would have been perfect! well, here comes the cube. not only was it really expensive they completely missed market's wants with this one. i admit I wanted (and still want) a Cube because it is insanely cool. But at that time there were alot of people interested in Macs (and there still are), but that just turned them away. way to expensive.
the other one is MacOS X. it is an incredible OS. It does lack features that 9 had, but those are coming back with Jaguar. I have no problem buying Jaguar (ive pointed this out in several other threads). Jaguar is what MacOS X should have been. IT should be near about the perfect operating system. well, how do PC people know that? Apples doesn't market it directly? the switch campains are great, but they don't really show off what macs so great. they are testimonials of how great it is...but why are they so great? they are stylish computers with an incredibly modern and beautiful operating system. for example there are many people than you realize that know what "Linux" is. They know it is fast, powerful, and stable. they also know it does not have a graceful interface adn lack of applications. OS X has all that. Stable, powerful, incredible interface, and applications out the wazoo. sure the PC has more, but most are rehashed crap. apple really needs to market OS X...hard. it gets more interest out of everyone I have ever showed my iBook too. they love the iBooks looks...but they always say "Show me more of what OS X can do".
It impresses everyone...even the UNIX geeks at my work.

So, this ends this chapter...

dwishbone · Jul 21, 2002, 11:33 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bad Date:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by dwishbone: 2.seem to intentionally break VLC (best OSX DIVX/MPEG2 player) with QT6 and then release their own MPEG2 add on to QT6...$20. VLC is free. <hr /></blockquote>Could you please be more specific. I haven't seen any change in VLC since the upgrade. I did have QuickTime Pro, but I don't anymore.

The good news is my boss let work an extra shift yesterday so I can afford Jag-Wire and QT Pro without a substantial loss in my standard of living. Good thing I don't get a salary! And I get the EDU discount so this is relatively painless. I do feel bad for people who just bought new machines and have to pay for the upgrade. But, people are going to bitch where-ever the line is drawn.<hr /></blockquote>Apple releases QT 6 Preview. It breaks the millions of colors playback in VLC. Worked just fine with QT 5. Now, Apple releases QT 6 for $30 with no MPEG2/DIVX playback (as they promised would be included). VLC still suffers. Then a few days later they release a MPEG 2 plugin for $20. VLC still free and broken. QT6 $50 for a MPEG 2 player. VLC still free...still broken. Sounds a whole lot like what M$ used to do with windows sabotaging Quicktime, RealPlayer, and Netscape.

OwlBoy · Jul 21, 2002, 11:37 AM

Um, Uh... VLC is just a player, it don't create content, it cant convert the content.

The MPEG2 Plugin for QT6 prolly ain't intended for you to watch SVCDs or VOBS...

It only plays unencrypted muxed Mpeg2 video with audio or straight video, no ac3 audio.

Also, why is it apples job to fix other peoples apps? Lots of apps had to be fixed with 10.1.

What the HELL you can't say that, something changed in the way things are done... and VLC has to work around it / do it the new way!

-Owl

[ 07-21-2002, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: OwlBoy ]

beb · Jul 21, 2002, 11:50 AM

I'll tell you what irks me about Apple. (All minor details...)

1. Introducing an 17" iMac while charging more and not raising the Mhz to at least 900Mhz. -Having iMacs with 256 level 2 caches when iBooks have 512.

2. .Mac should cost no more than $49.99 per year.

3. Steve Jobs getting more stock options than anyone can believe. He should return or decline the acceptance of most of them. His children are grown. his house is paid for. He has a jet and Pixar. Isn't animated fur enough?

4. iMacs without a s-vhs or even a standard RCA video out.

5. Disney/Capitol Cities/ABC canceled Politically Incorrect.

CharlesS · Jul 21, 2002, 05:29 PM

How about this one: Killing Yellow Box for Windows. A great opportunity to kill .NET, gone. A great opportunity to get Windows developers interested in Cocoa and start writing apps for us, increasing the number of apps for the Mac, gone. A really easy and great way to make quality cross-platform software, which was not buggy and slow like REALBasic or non-standard, interpreted, and slow like Java, gone.

Imagine if all your commercial apps were written in Cocoa and cross-platform. We'd pretty much always have feature parity with the Windows versions, and they'd be much more likely to come out at the same time...

Sebastien · Jul 22, 2002, 12:34 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Morpheus:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sebastien:
 The 10.2 upgrade adds what should have been there in the initial OS X release.<hr /></blockquote>How long are we going to hear this? 10.5 should have been 10.0? 10.8 should have been 10.0?

Definitely sick of it.

(slightly) off topic: have you seen <a href="http://www.alnora.com/about/employees.shtml" target="_blank">this</a> picture of cipher13?<hr /></blockquote>No, 10.2 shoul'd been 10.0. If you were truely satisfied w/ 10.1x, then you might as well be using Windows.