Actually I was just pointing out you compeltely avoided gross sexy's points by pointing out things that you thought were wrong with apple.
My parents office has accoutant next door, and they use apple, so I figured there was accounting software available, and the fact that I found some on google... But whatever, lets just say there is no accounting software for mac. I wasn't ranting I was bringing counter points to your points.
Just type in accounting software and apple or mac.
I find lots of hits. Maybe there is a difference between accounting software and corporate accounting software that I missed. If there is then I apologize, I'm wrong. I understand the points you are making, you don't. I don't think you read what I wrote back to you. Saying PC's can make Jpegs as a comeback to gross sexy's example of short cuts for PDF, is not a solid argument. Apples can make jpegs too. That is what im trying to say.

Thank you for breaking your last words in "manageable pieces" for me.

And I would let you know that apple's are just not all "look mom what I can do" as you would say. Apple are machines too, and they can do media, in my opinion just as well and better than PCs. I use my apples for computer graphics (bryce lightwave, etc), music (finale), and digital video (final cut, etc). And I prefer using my apple's more than my PC's for these kinds of things. You may notice that alot of the media industry is on apple. Just to let you know, virginia state university bought 1100 G5s to create the world's third fastest supercomputer. It is known as the world's cheapest supercomputer as it was built at a fraction of the price of the others. Trust me my friend apples are not "look what I can do mom". PC aren't anything to laugh at either. Both sides offer solid performance. PC is a bit cheaper sometimes (but you have to factor in the extra software you get with apple.) They both have their advantages that why I have a mixture of both in my house. I reallly like playing video games on my PC instead of my apples. I use my apples for media. Tada. You have to get over your bias and see things for what they are. Anyways I'm out of this argument its just a waste of my time lol. I'm sorry for offending you , i did write some not very nice stuff, i went personal, and I apologize. I think our main problem is that we are VERRRRYYYY off topic.

ANNNNND Lets get back on topic! Steve Jobs is pointing out how sometimes the auto industry creates a great awesome concept that thrills the public, then when it comes to production it is not as glorious as the original idea is.
Now if you know anything about apple you will know about their design process.
If someone in apple has an idea he and if he gets approval he gets to be in charge of the product. He gets to be the head of the team that builds and design it. Its reward based. Since he is incharge of the design team etc, this means that the product that he had concieved in his mind in the first place will be the product that comes into production.
Steve Jobs was just pointing out the fact that in the auto industry you see a great concept that the croud goes bonkers over, then when it comes into production it is rather watered down. This is a fact. Why is everyone bashing him so bad? His compnay has fixed the concept production difference problem, I think he is in the position to bash the auto industry for it.

 

and another thing.......

I don't recall ever seeing one of Mr. Jobs' products being driven down the highway at a high rate of speed...........or crashing into a tree......or a car.......or a truck........or doing burnouts.........or (insert what-have-you)

Yup...."some" concept cars are cool......but invariably, they don't meet crash standards to begin with.......and we can go on from there.

 

Yeah. There's nothing Apple puts out that could very easily get someone killed if something goes wrong. I would take him with a grain of salt. He's always been a very outspoken and cocky, and his recent success has only enhanced that.

 

You are missing the point I think. I have pretty much stopped goign to NAIAS because of the concept, probably will never be made, if it is made it will take 5 years and be watered down, issue.

For me, I would rather it all be done like the Vette was. Here it is, have a look, please buy one within a few months.

For me, an entusiast, I had seen the Solstice so much on tv and signs and GM websites, that when it had been 40 months from the time it was shown, until the time they started hitting the streets, I was already used to the car. Not bored with it, but I had seen it a LOT.

And there was destructive testing done on an ipod nano. Actually on the scale of the testing, NO car could stand up to it any better than the ipod did.

Here is the link. http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/nano.ars/3

 

I disagree. I still recall how totally stunned I was when I saw the 1997 Grand Prix 300 GPX at NAIAS (must have been in 1996). I stood there amazed at how that car looked. It was simply, a magnificent and gorgeous design. And guess what? The production 1997 GT/GTP looked nearly identical. What a hit that car was for GM. It's been done before, and can be done again.

And this stuff about just waiting til the car is ready and then selling it, supposedly like the C6 was ( )... people on this board would NEVER stand for that! They want insider info and pictures published here, now, today, "hey what's taking so long?"

 

If you saw the 1997 in 1996, then it was NOT a true concept. There is no way the "old" GM (or the new one for that matter) went from true concept to true production in that kind of time. It was probably a near production ready model, ummmmmmm, like the Vette was.

Do you honestly think that any automobile manufacturer gives a flying **** about our desire for insider information?

In fact, they do their best to not let it get out. And, if you think that all the opinions spouted on message boards have more than a blip on the radar presence in the development process of a new vechicle, then you are mistaken.

If that was the case, every car on the road would have 500 horsepower and a 6 speed maunal transmission. They would all be RWD.

And, the people on the boards would STILL complain about these vehicles.

 

On the subject comparison that I think Steve Jobs was making is that, when Apple announces a product, there is no concept or hint at something to come. When they announce something, it is available typically that day on their website for order. It has been tested, and works well.

He was simply commenting on how efficient they are at designing and releasing products.

No matter how streamlined GM says they are, the Solstice was a streamlined project and it took over 40 months to hit the street from the time it was a concept. That speaks for itself. I believe that the SSR has a smiliar story.

I am a huge GM fan. I have always owned GM products. I don't enjoy knocking them. My father is a retiree from GM with over 30 years with the company. He was in all different types of programs within The General and finished out the career in metal stamping quality as a problem solver roving from plant to plant as needed.

I am a loyal GM and Apple customer. 3 Chevys, 3 ipods, 3 macs in my house. 1 PC and 1 old laptop PC. 1 Jeep(wife's father worked for DCX and she is loyal, even though he tels her to buy GM)

 

Maybe not (what exactly is a 'true' concept, anyway?). My point was, that was the only Grand Prix concept/prototype/whatever the public saw before the 1997 GP was released, and it was indeed very close to the production model.
Obviously not. Just commenting on the absurdity of the behavior itself not the (unlikely) possibility of it having any of its intended effects.
I don't... and I thank my lucky stars that is the case. Like you said, new cars would be a mess if carmakers relied heavily on the bizarre spoutings seen here. "I won't buy a new Z28 unless it has a slash in the name!" "I won't buy a new Camaro unless it has an impossibly low featherlight curb weight!" "I won't buy a new Camaro unless it has more HP than every current Mustang variant!"

Pass the Draino, RedPlanet

 

Good points.

I see a true concept as something like the SSR was, or really the Solstice was too. The Charger concept was a true concept. Bel-air and SS were also true concepts in my book.

 

Yeh I remember seeing that one on the circuit too, which is pretty impressive considering I was 11 at the time. I can't remember what I wore yesterday but I remember looking at that and my dad saying he was going to buy one. It's in my college's parking lot right now.
This is going off topic a bit, but I also remember looking at that concept, and thinking how old the former gen GP looked sitting on the display next to it. I don't get that feeling with the current GP, nor really from the Impala or LaCrosse. They look different than what replaced them, but not newer.

 

I run on the other side of that fence, I really miss the wild concept studies that showcase a company's imagination resources than are a public preview and clininc of next years models.

Plus...what can't be made tomorrow doesn't mean it can't be made in 3-4 years, or a certain idea from a concept make it into a a current production model.

I just got the 'car design yearbook 3' and there are some wild (and great) idea in concepts (mostly from Europe it seems ) that I think we could see in 5-10 years (and remember...that's wewre designers start designer, 7 or so years from now).

Maybe because I'm a creative rofessional I prefer the 'what could be' as opposed to the 'what will be'.

 

The best AMD processor on your data is an Athalon 64.

Back to your cave and abacus.

 

And pacerX as I said, these are old benchmark tests..... please read my whole post next time, and this thread is getting steered of course really badly.
This thread was... essentially about the automotive concept to production process.
Who cares about apples or pcs!!!!!!!

 

I did read it.

The fact that you would even post it demonstrates a desperation to prove a point that you yourself know is lost.

I imagine I could compare an Apple IIe to a 486 for some reason... like trying to prove a point I thought was lost in the first place.

Fact:
For the things that most folks do with their computers day in and day out, PC's are more than "OK". At the top end of the spectrum they pretty handily outperform Apple's products. At certain things in particular, they literally bury the best Apple can currently offer.

I think the point is salient for this reason:

Apple cannot outperform their competition, and are currently making their living selling a glorified Sony Walkman. iPod is neat... don't get me wrong... but let's call it what it is...

A computer is an appliance. It either does it's job well or it doesn't. I don't care what it looks like, I don't care what color it is, I don't care if other people like it. It's got to perform particular things in a particular manner (i.e. FAST) to do that job well.

Jobs is in no position to tell anyone how to do anything, particularly in an industry he apparently does not understand in the slightest... and particularly since the competitors in the industry Apple claims as a core competency (personal computers) have been pretty soundly trouncing his machines for years now.

 

http://macvspc.info/

Pretty crappy site, but hey I saw it as an ad on another site and figured I would put it in here.