18 replies to this topic

[Impyrium]

So I only just began to realize that many of the companies within the BattleTech universe are based on real life companies today.

But isn't this a bit over the top?

[Lily from animove]

No, the whole battletech universe is totally full with reallife companies being used, like Nissan or General Motors for engine manufacturer. just go through sarna and you may find a lot more.

[Rogue Jedi]

Quote

Apple Computers Interstellar is an ancient company with a recorded history that began in the 20th century. Since its inception, the company has produced high quality items that are always a bit ahead of its rivals

the overview is incorrect, Apple is rarely ahead of its rivals, e.g. the iPod was hardly the first MP3 Player but it was more stylish so people were willing to spend several times as much as some of their competitors were charging for similar products, same with the iPhone, iPad and many of there other product lines.

what Apple does well is turning something from a niche application into something for the mass market

[TuntematonSika]

Rogue Jedi, on 02 September 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

the overview is incorrect, Apple is rarely ahead of its rivals, e.g. the iPod was hardly the first MP3 Player but it was more stylish so people were willing to spend several times as much as some of their competitors were charging for similar products, same with the iPhone, iPad and many of there other product lines.

what Apple does well is turning something from a niche application into something for the mass market

Dude, this fictional company was made when apple was gaining traction at an alarming rate in the 80s.

[Gyrok]

Rogue Jedi, on 02 September 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

the overview is incorrect, Apple is rarely ahead of its rivals, e.g. the iPod was hardly the first MP3 Player but it was more stylish so people were willing to spend several times as much as some of their competitors were charging for similar products, same with the iPhone, iPad and many of there other product lines.

what Apple does well is turning something from a niche application into something for the mass market

Yes, back when they ran on PowerPC architecture, an Apple computer running at 1.0 GHz was as fast as an AMD Athlon @ 1.1-1.2, and as fast as an Intel pentium 4 @ 1.4-1.5 GHz. Even earlier than that, a 75 MHz Macintosh was faster than a 133 MHz intel.

Such is life...

Now Apple computers come loaded with Intel processors...bleh.

Edited by Gyrok, 03 September 2014 - 09:32 AM.

[Rogue Jedi]

Sorry Marack Drock, but there were a few factual errors with your earlier post, here are some corrections

Marack Drock, on 03 September 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

Apple has done nothing worth talking about lately. They made IPhone which is just an Android phone with a new platform and mass marketed on a higher scale.

Android was Googles response to the iPhone, Nokia and Blackberry were the major Smartphone manufacturers before Apple, so it would be more accurate to say that Android phones are just iPhones with a new platform and mass marketed on a higher scale (as Android phones far outsell iPhones in terms of quantity but iPhones are far more profitable due to higher price each)

Marack Drock, on 03 September 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

IPad is an ASUS tablet or Android Tablet or Kindle with mass marketing.

again the iPad came before android tablets (including the Asus tablets). the ebook reader kindle did come before the iPad but it was just an ebook reader not a fully functioning computer like the iPad, until the Android powered Fire was released

Marack Drock, on 03 September 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

The Macintosh Computers are basically Windows rip offs but 10 times worse (Windows 8 is better).

Apple Computers in the 80s were only popular because Microsoft hadn't come out with Dos which overran Apple in just a few months.

Apple Computers including the Mackintosh series predated Windows by years and in fact Apple sued Microsoft for copying there style with Windows (showing nothing has changed e.g. Apple suing any tablet manufacturer who tries to make something with Apple's "trademarked" rounded corners), and having worked with OS/x and Windows 8 I belive OS/x is far superior to 8 (although XP and 7 are best).

when MS first released DOS Apple already had a Graphical User interface, the initial release of DOS had little affect on Apple, it was Windows 3 and later when Microsoft started seriously challenging Apple for the lead of the computer market, DOS had been out for more that 8 years at the time.

Marack Drock, on 03 September 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

Their computers lack the abilities of a Windows computer in 100s of ways (if you want to know I will tell you why),

Hence the reason Microsoft is the most successful Computer company in the world,

followed by Lenux (seriously I have visited GM plants and others and their Mainframes are all Lenux same with much of HP and what was EDS). Lenux is everywhere and people with jobs buy PC Microsoft not Apple.

Sorry but Apple computers have rougly the same capabilities as a comparable specification Windows based computer, you can even put Windows on an Apple built computer.
edit: forgot to mention that Macs are usualy 30-50% more expensive for the same spec

Apple and Google are both more sucessful computer companys than Microsoft

never heard of lenux but Lynux is a free and open source opperating system, the Lynux foundation is not a massive company competing with MS, Google, Apple ect. it is a not for proffit consortium.


please be a bit more careful with your "facts" in future, and get well soon.

Edited by Rogue Jedi, 04 September 2014 - 01:14 PM.

[Hex Pallett]

Yeah, Apple seems to be doing a whole lot better than MS regarding computers. The ratio of laptops I spot on campus between PC and Mac is about 30/70.

Of course if you're playing games or doing processing work in bulks, PC is the way to go, but in every other regard, Mac is doing as good, if not better. Besides, Apple products thrive on it being more approachable - I mean, I bought Macbook Air from my friend, and it took me about 2 hours from a complete stranger of MacOS to being able to fine tune its controls to as close to PC as possible. Been carrying it around ever since. Ain't nobody got time to learn Task Manager, y'all.

[Hex Pallett]

Marack Drock, on 04 September 2014 - 02:41 PM, said:

What other regards are there?

I heard Mac has some killer apps for editing movies. I don't make movies so can't really draw any comparison. And then again, Apple is more user friendly, and user-friendly sh*t makes money.

[Sparks Murphey]

Rogue Jedi, on 04 September 2014 - 09:27 AM, said:

never heard of lenux but Lynux is a free and open source opperating system, the Lynux foundation is not a massive company competing with MS, Google, Apple ect. it is a not for proffit consortium.

Let's try a third time:
"Linux"

[Sparks Murphey]

We haven't done "Lanux" or "Lunux" yet either.

[Rogue Jedi]

Marack Drock, on 04 September 2014 - 02:41 PM, said:

I guess this is why Bill Gates is the second richest man in the world and was richest man in the world when Steve Jobs was alive. Also, HP, GM, Ford, Chrysler all require you to us a Windows operating system now. 90% of all video games (other than Nintendo) are written first on Windows and then ported (usually programmed on C# or C++ or Java). Why is it Windows computers are the first to receive videogames (be it MMO or any) before Mac?

Apple and Google are both computer companies which have higher market value than Microsoft, therefore they are more successful, this is the only measure for being a highly successful company that I am aware of.

Apple does not have the market share in the desktop or laptop computer markets that Microsoft has but iMacs and Macbooks are really overpriced profitable so market share is less important. The main reason Apple does not have market share is that they manufacturer all their own hardware while Microsoft mostly just sell the software, Mac OS/x is capable of anything Windows is but due to the smaller market share less software is made for it.
Apple makes most of its money on the tablet computer and smartphone computer markets, highly proffitable parts of the computer market in which Microsoft has been unable to gain significant market share, and the reason why Microsoft has been knocked from the top spot in terms of company value.

Marack Drock, on 04 September 2014 - 02:41 PM, said:

If Apple was so much more popular why is Bill Gates the second (or first) richest person on Earth (hint- Microsoft). Steve Jobs should have easily overcome him if Apple was so much more popular.

a major part of the reason is because Jobs was removed from Apple, 10 years later Apple was in real trouble and Jobs returned, Microsoft had been on top far longer than Apple has but that does not change the fact that today Apple is worth far more than Microsoft.

[Lily from animove]

Sparks Murphey, on 04 September 2014 - 06:13 PM, said:

Let's try a third time:
"Linux"

oh with an i

lemme try

Linuks

[Rogue Jedi]

with regards to the value of MS, Google and Apple, a bit more research it looks like Microsoft and Google have been competing for 4th and 5th place on as top company this year, several reports say 4th is Microsoft several say it is Google

Marack Drock, on 05 September 2014 - 06:07 AM, said:

The reason Apple is worth more is simple. It has more products. The end. More products there are, the more people buy them. Microsoft does not do barely any Touch Screen (with Windows 8 I think being the only one and Windows phone). Seriously if Microsoft were to make their own types of IPhones, IPads, and whatever else it is that Apple makes what do you think it would be worth and what would be most likely buy? Simple Microsoft

Microsoft have been making the Surface and Surface Pro, direct competitors to the iPad and high end Android tablets for years (this annoyed several of their "partner" hardware manufactures and probably hurt Windows RT/8 adoption as the "partners" decided to go Android), and the reason MS purchased Nokia's Smartphone division was to produce their own Smartphones in direct competition to the iPhone and Android phones.

Microsoft, despite having had a tablet Operating System in 2002 (XP tablet edition), well before the iPad, was too late devoting major resources to the tablet market and their Smartphone OS (Windows mobile, later Windows Phone) despite being around for longer than iPhone has never achieved much market share.
unfortunately the only possible conclusion is that Microsoft is at fault for allowing this market escape by devoting insufficient resources until a time when there were already major powers on the Tablet and Smartphone sectors, now MS is essentially the underdog trying to break into those markets.