A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

One photog's not so great experience with Apple



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 9th 18, 11:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 703
Default One photog's not so great experience with Apple

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 1:02:08 PM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
-hh wrote:

Lightroom was the better product and could justify the higher price.

And that was because Apple couldn?t write as good of software..why?

because photo editing software is not their strength. other companies
do a better job. no company does everything well.


To turn a phrase, łnonsense˛: Apple has been a graphical image based company
since at least 1984 and lead the development of GUIąs. Plus they also had
internal
knowledge of future hardware & OS directions for longer term planning.


apple's strength is not end-user image processing apps, which is very,
very different from writing operating systems.


Considering that the OS has a lot of image processing baked in, that's trying to
hair-split based on "end-user" pedantry. Plus with end user apps of MacPaint
through to iPhoto, iMovies, Final Cut -- it is also a blatantly false claim..


microsoft ...


This isn't about Microsoft.


if you're going to criticize apple for not having a photoshop/lightroom
equivalent, you need to bash microsoft and google too.


You would first have to show evidence that they were choosing to compete
in that same marketplace by selling a relevant product.



It? utterly shocking that discerning customers chose cheaper AND better
over just having an Apple logo.

not at all. people don't buy for the apple logo and lightroom cost
*more*.

Nope. Apple slashed the price on an inferior *and* unmaintained software
product and savvy customers saw through their bull****.

it was maintained, but its destiny was set early on.


Yeah, a $500 price tag will tend to do that in that market.
Classical łApple Tax˛ at work. Again.


nope. aperture was priced similarly to other pro software at the time
(photoshop, final cut, etc.). there also wasn't anything like aperture,


Funny you should mention Final Cut, since Apple was a huge price disrupter
in that marketplace. Any reason why they didn't disrupt here again too?


so there could not have been an apple tax since there weren't any
alternatives, let alone cheaper ones. it was an entirely new product
category.


iPhoto was a cheaper alternative...just what was its price tag again?
Oh, right: $49 as part of the multi-app "iLife" bundle, and often bundled
for free with a new Macintosh PC.

Granted, iPhoto's editing capabilities were less than Aperture, but iPhoto
wasn't completely helpless and being "free" was quite compelling - - it
also aligned with a large uptake in hardware sales.

lightroom 1.0 didn't ship until a year later (although there were beta
versions available for mac users). apple responded to the competition
by cutting aperture's price a second time, the very *opposite* of an
apple tax.


They were losing out of the gate from having a pig-slow app and didn't
compensate adequately to compete. And given that Adobe is platform
agnostic, Apple didn't have their OS X platform to leverage their customer
base to being forced to eat Apple's "Dog Food". Smart move by Adobe.


And this pattern is par for Apple, unfortunately: whenever their
products
have to compete on actual merit and price instead of the prestige of
the
logo...they lose.

also wrong. apple competes on functionality, just like every other
company.

Mac Pro.

mistake. nobody's perfect.


Still waiting for them to deliver on their vaporware, 18 months (and counting)
after they had their 4 years later łwe goofed!˛.


the imac pro exists ...


For several use cases, its actually a worse product than a 2013 "Trash Can"
Mac Pro, and is YA example of Apple deafness.

... and the mac pro is coming.


Not in 2018 it isn't. And from a development cycle timeline standpoint, its already
late to market even if one uses the April 2017 'goof' meeting ... and fundamentally,
because of the four years it took for them to get to the goof, it will be too late to
market, because Apple has already lost probably 75% of their relevant 'Pro' market
customer base for this product because of their leadership and they won't even
try to compensate for this in any fashion, such as by giving it an "oops" price.
The only way that they have a chance of a 2019 Mac Pro to sell like hotcakes is
to price it well below $1900 ... and that simply will not happen at Apple today.


if you don't want to wait, buy something else. no big deal. nobody cares what you use.


Where "nobody" includes you & your constant Fanboy defenses. /S


iPhone,


Antennagate. Batterygate. $79 standard battery replacement fee.


antennagate and batterygate happens to *every* *phone* and cannot be
avoided. the laws of physics cannot be overturned. period.


A user replaceable battery solves your "laws of physics" battery problem. Oops!


other phones lose signal when 'holding it wrong', which is why they
explicitly tell the user *not* to do that for optimum reception, yet
only apple gets criticized for abiding by the laws of physics.


Perhaps there's a reason why in how the company is run. Check into that.


if you're going to bash apple for fabricated -gates, you have to also
bash other phones that have the same issues or are actually *worse*.
apple *fixed* the problems. others did *not*.


Flawed logic, because when I mentioned the Mac Pro fiasco, you held up
these other Apple products under the premise that they were all flawless.
The facts are that they're not.


meanwhile, the current iphone xs and xr have a processor that rivals
desktop computers, face id that not a single android phone can match
(and won't for several years, if at all), the xs has the best display
in the industry, as well as a lot more.


So what if its faster? Because the classical Law of Diminishing Returns applies
for just how good it needs to be for the intended use case application, and being
substantially more powerful than that doesn't have additional value to the
customer - - especially when it comes at other externality costs, such as
literal fiscal cost, reduced battery life, software, etc.


apple watch,


Battery life is now up to ... what, 36 hours?


it's a couple of days in real world use, but that doesn't actually
matter because anything over a day is sufficient since people take
their watch off at night and drop it on the charger along with other
devices.

another non-issue.


No, that's merely an attempt to define the use case to something that will
make it a "non-issue" in order to try to pretend that there's not a difference
in capability versus its alternatives.

The irony is that literally yesterday I was traveling internationally (again) and once
again, turned my iPhone completely off on the flight because I knew that with a
different use case than the one you were assuming that it would have otherwise
been sucked dry by the time that we landed/etc and it was needed. In the
meantime, my pseudo "old tech" wris****ch hasn't had any attention for its
power management in literally years. Seems that a different "Laws of Physics"
applies for that product.



android wear watches have similar battery life (usually worse), so if
you're going to bash apple watches for battery life you have to also
bash android wear watches.


Consider them bashed too.


which completely misses the point that the apple watch is *so* far
ahead technologically versus android wear watches it's not even funny.


Technology for the sake of technology is a dangerously foolish path.

it's a device that will save people's lives (and has).


So have 19th century pocket watches. Look it up.


the apple watch is also the #1 watch in the world, and that was based
on *last* *year's* numbers. this past year has seen a *huge* growth in
sales...


Such a tiny measure of assurance to Apple Stockholders - - maybe: the
real consideration here is if that Apple Division actually making a positive
return on its total developmental & production investments, or is it still
in the red? Try to find a cite that answers that question.


ipad,


Retails for much more than their Android/Amazon counterparts.


nonsense. comparable android tablets cost as much or more than iPads.


Where the statement's loophole is "comparable"

lower priced android tablets do exist, but they're not in any way
comparable.


Because Apple has chosen to not sell base models that would otherwise be lower priced.


there aren't any android tablets that match an ipad pro. zero.


There aren't any "base' Apple tablets either. For many of the use cases of
the tablets market the 'iPad Pro' is overkill.



AirPods,


How much will their batteries cost to be serviced?


in-ear bluetooth headphones don't normally have replaceable batteries.
it also doesn't matter, since the battery is rated to last 5+ years.


Funny how batteries can be "Law of Physics" designed for this product
to last 5+ years ... but Apple can't do the same thing for their iPhones.


that said, apple will service the battery for $50.


Which is fully a third of its $149 MSRP.


i can't find a price for battery replacement for google pixel buds or
bragi dash (which costs about *double* airpods) suggesting that there
is no battery replacement option at all for those. oops.

in other words, another fabricated issue.


No, it merely means that others are also using Apple's business
model of deliberately designing disposable products.

In the meantime, my NC headsets use user-replaceable AAA's and
I have the choice between alkalines or rechargeables...

if you're going to bash apple's airpods, you have to also bash all
other similar bluetooth headphones, especially the ones that cost more
and are worse.


Yup, which is why some informed customers have totally rejected buying
bluetooth headsets, regardless of brand.


imac pro and many other products ...


A desktop with no user access to upgrade RAM, nor any evidence of
post-initial sale upgrades, despite Apple making that promise. And
thanks to the T2 chip, high risk of complete data loss on a hardware failure.


anyone who loses data on any computer has only themselves to blame,
regardless of cause. period. full stop.


False, because backups don't happen instantaneously (yet). For example,
Apple's Time Machine claims to operate on an hourly schedule, so right
there's a concrete example of where your "blame the user" fails to
account for the most recent hour.

Plus ... I see that you ignored the RAM point, where Apple has not lived up
to a promise that they made.


hardware failures are also very, very rare.


Hardware failures are a statistical inevitability. And with increased rates
of data consumption, increasingly likely ... even at 1/10^14 reliability specs.

Case in point, one terabyte is pedantically 8e+12 bits, which after things like
file system overhead is closer enough to 10e+12 bits ... which is 10^13. As
such, a user with only 3TB of user files (OS, data, etc) and a standard "3 copies"
data backup system is statistically expected to have at least one bit data error.

yet another non-issue.


Ye olde "Laws of Physics" says that no product can be totally flawless.


Similarly, glued together laptops...WTF! And further insult to injury is that
it's with an utter crap keyboard, to try to slim ł1mm˛ off the device: repairing
that unreliable bleeper isn't cheap, either, as its removal breaks more stuff.


microsoft does the same thing, but nobody gives a **** since it's not
apple.


Consider MS to be condemned too. Of course, this whole trend started a
decade ago with Apple's MacBook Air, so all you're doing is pointing out
that some other OEMs have sometimes copied Apple.

But more to the point is that your logic is flawed.

What you're trying to do is to make an "everyone else is doing it too" insinuation.

But all you've done is to find one/few competing examples, which is analogous
to a anecdote. You've not proven your implied condition, which is that *ALL*
other products on the market are just as bad as Apple's.


The battery is difficult and dangerous to replace, giving the device
a limited lifespan.


Amazing how batteries in laptops became non-user serviceable. Just
which "Law of Physics" dictated that deliberate design choice?


rest of your ignorant hatred snipped.


For values of "ignorant" which debunked each of your above attempted counters.


And restoring what you dodged:

ns ...compete on both functionality and price, some of which are well
ns ahead of any competition at any price.

hh For sufficiently tiny values of “some”. My 13” MBP cost more than my
hh Dell 13”...and the latter has a much better keyboard, which allows it to
hh actually be usable to touch type with. But gosh golly, the MBP line comes
hh with a “touchpad” that’s more gimmick than anything else, and not available
hh on their other products to allow software developer code unification.

BTW, the Dell battery is user-replicable too.

hh Similarly, “mail” still lacks productivity features that MS-Outlook had a decade ago.

hh And “Photos” still doesn’t have a ranking system as good as iPhoto had. Nor is
hh its library file cross-compatible...it was a one-way conversion which often failed if
hh you had been a multi-generation iPhoto user.

hh And replacing my Mac Pros with a trash can MP would incur a $2K per
hh seat “Apple Tax” above how much they would replace with a Windows PC;
hh roughly $7500 vs $5500. Can buy years of Adobe software for that delta,
hh along with an on-site service contract...something that Apple *still* doesn’t
hh offer at any price.

hh As I said, Apple doesn’t really compete on performance. They’re a cachet
hh which did achieve market differentiation, but the advantages they had in OSX
hh are pretty much gone...and therefore, no longer worth paying significantly more for.


buy whatever fits your needs.


I always do. It used to be overwhelmingly Apple...


nobody cares what it is.


But if that claim was really true, then you wouldn't have posted.


And what probably motivates you the most is that you *know* that I've been a
very longtime Apple customer who has become disappointed with their current
product offerings, so I no longer default to Apple, because I've seen just how &
where Apple is no longer offering the net superior choice.

And yes, this has a multiplication effect: my IT influence is such that I am no
longer voluntarily recommending Apple to family & friends.

In fact, a sibling recently bought a new iMac and proceeded to complain to me
about how much it was inferior to his old iMac ... and I told him that he was a
fool to have wasted his money. As of ~2 weeks ago, he was having some sort
of technical problems with it and calling AppleCare...believe it was that Time
Machine was failing with a message that the empty 3TB external HDD target
drive lacked the capacity to back up the 1TB internal drive (no, that doesn't
make sense to me either).

Perhaps its related to those problems with spinners from Apple's change
in disk formats - - there's no way I trust Apple with my data right now anyway;
I'll stick to HFS and NTFS ... because otherwise some rabid fanboy will try
to jump on a "user error" accusation instead of blaming their new format
that's still has signs of it being Betaware.



-hh
  #22  
Old October 10th 18, 05:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,855
Default One photog's not so great experience with Apple

On 10/5/18 PDT 7:32 PM, Savageduck wrote:

Aperture, as promising as it was, was a commercial failure. Part of the blame
goes to a pretentious initial price of $499 which with ver. 2.0 was reduced
to a still too high $199. Those prices made anything from Adobe look like a
bargain. While there were many who loved it there were not enough of those to
support advanced development. So Apple moved development, and support to
other areas, and Aperture was left to whither on the vine where it could not
compete with Lightroom. Those who loved it resented Apple for this allegedly
traitorous abandonment, and still longingly look back to the days Aperture
provided them with all they ever imagined they needed for their digital
photography.

Some of us Apple folks never used Aperture, or Apple photography stuff. I was
a Lightroom user from the days of the betas, and when Aperture was stupidly
overpriced.

Agreed.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
One photog's not so great experience with Apple Bill W Digital Photography 30 September 26th 18 08:11 PM
Chinese horrors. Apple suing Amazon retailer for selling fake Apple products Savageduck[_3_] Digital Photography 2 October 21st 16 09:19 AM
Maker of ad-blocker Apple ap mysteriously withdraws it...a week before Apple launches their own Sandman Digital Photography 1 September 21st 15 06:51 AM
Tachihara 4x5 field camera - Looks Great - Works Great! Marco Milazzo Large Format Equipment For Sale 0 October 8th 04 01:42 PM
FS: Mamiya 645Pro outfit...great condition great price [email protected] General Equipment For Sale 0 October 3rd 03 07:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.