Comment by nirvana | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nirvana | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is what apple haters say about every Apple product. They said the iPhone would be a total flop and never sell the 10 million units Steve Jobs said they hoped to sell-- because it didn't have a hardware keyboard.

They said it about the iPod too- claiming that having less capacity than the creative nomad and no built in radio made it "lame" (CmdrTaco famously said this.)

They said it about the iMac as well, calling it a toy computer that looked like candy. Funny how in 2 years all the other manufacturers were making their computers colorful, and the bondi-blue design aesthetic was adopted by a wide variety of products around the world.

Now I'm sure somewhere there are people who were not even 10 years old when the iMac was being put down are saying the iPad mini is lame. For the same reasons.

Then when the product strikes a nerve with the public, and sells 100 million units, they decide that the people buying it must be stupid and persuaded by slick marketing, because obviously its "lame" or "doesn't have the specs" of the competition (though they never detail how it lacks specs and usually they're completely wrong and ignoring the terrible usability of the competition.)

It's the standard issue mythology of the apple hater:

Apple products are inferior (even when they aren't.) Apple products are more expensive (even though they aren't.) Apple buyers are stupid and easily persuaded by slick marketing (even though it should be obvious that people buy Apple products because they work better for them.)

Consequently, EVERY Apple product introduction is "underwhelming".

Any discussion involving the terms "apple hater" or "apple fanboy" immediately disappears into a hole of stupidity.

That said, Apple are inviting some of these comparisons. "More expensive", for example. The iPad Mini is more expensive than a Nexus 7, by a significant margin. Apple invited the comparison by comparing the two devices themselves on stage.

Not only is it more expensive, it has a lower resolution and a larger screen - for lower pixel density. They then compare it to a Nexus 7, saying the iPad mini has more resolution and viewing area... 1064x768 is in no way more than 1280x800. Granted the different apps for tablet/phone was more apparent in iOS, but for browsing (which they touted as a major use) the iPad mini looks worse. Their Guggenheim example had more visible space on the Nexus 7.

Google should be delighted. I've yet to find a "normal" who is aware that anyone else sells "iPads". And Amazon doesn't count, they sell "Kindles".

No amount of competitive marketing seems to have brought the two product families into competition beyond "well I heard the iPad has books too but my friend loves her Kindle".

I'm yet to find a "normal" that watches Apple Keynotes, though.

No but the iPad Mini was above-the-fold breaking news on the BBC news website before the keynote was even over.

You aren't on my Twitter timeline then.

Good point. :)

Why would Google be delighted? Because they have the "low end" wrapped up and make little profit margin?

Because Apple's mentioning their product in the same breath as iPad. It strongly argues that Apple is financially/strategically concerned enough with that form factor to risk mentioning the existence of competition.

I'm not sure why, given the sales of the "mini" form factor. I kind of suspect they're more concerned with positioning themselves against jumbo phones, which -are- selling in volume and have already invited a major design change in the iPhone line.

>>Because Apple's mentioning their product in the same breath as iPad. It strongly argues that Apple is financially/strategically concerned enough with that form factor to risk mentioning the existence of competition.

I don't know if this is necessarily the right conclusion.

I'm pretty good at being wrong. :) What do you think?

I constantly talk to "normals" that don't understand whether the iPad can run programs like their computer at home. I've seen a lot of iPhones with 5 or less downloaded apps: Facebook and a couple top casual games.

Nobody else could sell a product called iPad without getting sued.

Yeah, but customers don't know that. "iPad" is the Kleenex of tablets.

The only reason the Galaxy Note gets a pass is because it's still mentally categorized as a big telephone.

Is it? I've never head any other than some very old people which doesn't know what a tablet or a computer is calling a random tablet an 'iPad'.

Apple vs Google is the tablets akin to Microsoft vs Apple.

For me what it comes down to in the end is the same, which is easier to hand off to a relative and not worry about.

Answer : the iPad.

I provided many family members with PCs over the years all the while using Apple products. Why? Because I knew they could just pop into a local store and buy software for it. Because I knew Windows was common and they most likely had it at work. Because I knew if their machine had an issue either I could solve it quickly or Dell's support would. Heck Dell even sent someone to my parents house to fix the unit!

Well something similar is happening here. I know if I give them an iPad they won't be lacking for software. It is a packaged experience with a dearth of support.

So, yeah they cost a bit more upfront, but for me the lack of having to "fix" something is worth the premium. It also means they know what it is and understand the intrinsic value. If I hand them a Google Nexus the first questions will be to compare it to an iPad... and well, why bother.

Even phrasing it as "Apple vs Google" is counterproductive. In this example, we have two products. One is more expensive, but better built and with a larger software library. The other is cheaper, a little more plastic-y but with a better screen.

Neither is "better" than the other, it entirely depends on your circumstances- what you want your tablet to do, how much money you have, etc. etc.

It's possible to criticize Apple without hating them. And "underwhelming" is not a synonym for "terrible".

The iPod mini was also widely mocked by the tech crowd - it was $249 to the iPod's $299, with much smaller (like 1/10th, IIRC) storage space.

Turns out it became the best selling iPod of all time.

Could you enlighten us about how apple products aren't expensive?

Compare a MBP with a similarly built laptop. Dont pick up a plastic built or one with a shitty trackpad. Built quality IS hardware too.

Same for iMacs. Don't compare an iMac with a clone in a tower. Compare it to a similar form factor: all in one, quiet, low power consumption.

Try shopping a MacBook Pro against an equivalently configured T-series ThinkPad from Lenovo. The price difference is usually huge (more than 30% cheaper for the entry-level 15-inch configuration I tried) and gets even worse if you spend a few minutes to Google up an applicable Lenovo coupon.

LOL as someone using a Lenovo, right now, let me just say this:

If you buy it over an Apple, you get what you deserve. The quality from Lenovo has been declining since they bought the brand from IBM. Thinkpad's are a SHADOW of their former glory, sadly.

Here's something people don't factor in when buying laptops: Your expensive MacBook Pro is having issues? Well, visit an Apple store and get it fixed!

Your expensive Lenovo is having issues? Well... mail it back...

But you still didn't make the comparison, you told other people to do it. Until you make the comparison, I'm still betting that the Lenovo cuts corners in a variety of ways to make the product cheaper, and as a consumer you have to accept those cost-cutting trade offs.

It's a disagreement about the definition of "expensive." Apple products are more expensive than other products in the same general category. They are not more expensive than their direct competitors.

For example, while there are laptops much cheaper than the Air, the ultra books with similar specs, weight, battery life, and build quality aren't really cheaper. Another way to look at is that while Apple doesn't sell a $500 laptop, you don't get less in a $1,200 MBA than comparable $1,200 PC laptops.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com