Chris Seibold's Profile

  • Feb 08, 2010
  • 329
  • 157

Recent articles written by: Chris Seibold

Latest comments made by: Chris Seibold

  • Oh, if you have any problems you can mail me at chris@applematters.com I'm happy to help out. I still remember a little bit from one of the books I wrote.
    United StatesChris Seibold had this to say on Jan 18, 2010 Posts: 329
    Review: Apple's Backup
  • HI Melanie, If I recall correctly backup didn't back up the system so there shouldn't be any files that would hurt your new Mac if you restored them. Your plan of restoring and then migrating should work. But back up your new mac first, just to be safe...
    United StatesChris Seibold had this to say on Jan 18, 2010 Posts: 329
    Review: Apple's Backup
  • Thanks or the compliment Greg. Actually mocking one up and dragging it around left me with a lot of questions. Your math seems correct but Apple has never seem to grasp the idea that tech costs come down and they can make up the difference elsewhere. Maybe Apple is thinking ahead with the slate but I doubt it. I know there are rumors that Apple has already lined up developers and publishers for the device but I am a bit skeptical. My checks have revealed no certainty in the publishing world. I suspect that if Apple doesn't think the company can get 30% margins on the thing they wouldn't be making it. Besides, has apple ever come out with a product that left people thinking "Wow, that is surprisingly cheap"?
    United StatesChris Seibold had this to say on Jan 12, 2010 Posts: 329
    How Will You Interact with the Apple Tablet?
  • "Not as much as they hate AT&T;. In fact, aren’t most iPhone fanboys chomping at the bit to SWITCH to Verizon?" Yep, people pretty much hate every cell provider. I don't know if every iPhone fanboy is chomping at the bit for verizon but I wouldn't mind the change. "As long as you’re advocating that AT&T;lie, then why stop at accusing Verizon of doing what AT&T;& Apple do even worse?" The only thing I accused verizon of was running a good ad campaign. "Why not recommend AT&T;accuse Verizon of killing puppies or orphans?" I haven't heard verizon deny that the company regularly kills orphans and puppies but, even if they did, that wouldn't be effective advertising. A better map trumps killing puppies any day. People are after usefulness. Painting Verizon as an oppressive beast when AT&t;is also an oppressive beast isn't a big deal. You don't even have to lie. You just point out that Verizon is a heavy handed company that does not respect its customers. AT&T;can just leave out that they aren't snowflakes and rainbows in this regard. Once Verizon is painted as the provider who thinks they are to good for its customers it will stick. Though the danger of that tactic is that since Verzon's advertising is better they'll find someway to beat the crap out of AT&T;. "What is the point of this article?" The point is that AT&T;is screwing up the ad war by directly responding to Verizon's ads with an ad that says "Not true!" It sounds whiney and it isn't effective. I've got no preference for cell phone companies. If it were up to me I'd like an iPhone on TMobile, I've never had that service so I don't hate them.... yet.
    United StatesChris Seibold had this to say on Jan 06, 2010 Posts: 329
    AT&T Screwing Up the Ad War
  • "Really?" Yes, really. The reason people will believe the message is because they already hate Verizon. This just gives something else to latch onto. People go with a cell phone company because they "have" to have a cell phone, they still detest the companies. "You think if Microsoft made an ad accusing Apple of monopolistic practices, people would “buy into that” just because they see it in a commercial?" Since Apple isn't already hated, people see Apple stuff as a luxury, it probably wouldn't work. Not that it wouldn't be honest. But since when was the point of advertising being honest?
    United StatesChris Seibold had this to say on Jan 06, 2010 Posts: 329
    AT&T Screwing Up the Ad War
  • "2. Um, AT&T;has no room at all to refer to anyone as an oppressive beast. Neither does Apple for that matter; even less probably. Quick, what’s the default search for Safari on the iPhone? It’s YAHOO. What if you don’t want Yahoo? Heck, what if you don’t want Safari? What if you want to get an app that works but Apple hasn’t approved for the one and only store that sells apps for the iPhone? Yuck Foo. If AT&T;was foolish enough to try that tactic, they’d be laughed out of the room. " Hey man, we are talking advertising, not reality. If AT&T;makes an issue of the oppressive nature of Verizon people will buy into that.
    United StatesChris Seibold had this to say on Jan 06, 2010 Posts: 329
    AT&T Screwing Up the Ad War
  • "Neither of us knows what went on back then. We don’t know if it was IBM’s mistake in not asking for an exclusive license, because they trusted too much in the BIOS being copy writable. You are assuming that Bill Gates had a grand diabolical, innovative, plan. That is, he negotiated his contract with IBM, in the midst of great positional weakness, so that five years later he could take advantage of IBM’s mistake regarding Compaq. This was an event which no one could imagine back then. You are applying hindsight to derive an absurd conclusion." Actually it is pretty well known. Here's the quick run down of what happened: IBM was looking for a system for it's personal computer. Everyone in the know was sure it would be QDOS. Then there was some weirdness, when IBM went to talk to the folks about QDOS they refused to sign a confidentiality agreement. IBM's second choice was Microsoft. Problem was that Microsoft didn't have what IBM was looking for. So Microsoft talked to the QDOS folks and reached an agreement. They had to change the product a bit. Microsoft then had what it needed to sell to IBM. And here is where it is interesting. IBM asked Microsoft what the price was for the software. Microsoft said it would rather license than sell the software. IBM, perfectly willing to buy the software, was also perfectly willing to license the software. IBM's position was that the profits were in the hardware. So IBM went with the licensing scheme. It made a lot of sense at the time but Microsoft saw the future more clearly than IBM did. Which is weird, I started out defending Apple as an innovative company and now I'm defending Microsoft. BTW, the fate of OS/2 was likely sealed by Microsoft tactics. And don't forget when everyone says Apple licensed too late, they are dead wrong. Apple licensed too cheap. The company traded a license to the look and feel of Mac OS for a promise to make Mac software. And Apple traded it to Microsoft.
    United StatesChris Seibold had this to say on Dec 11, 2009 Posts: 329
    Apple Not Innovative? Are You Kidding?
  • Not so fast there Urban. Where you say that everything was due to random chance and hucksterism while not realizing that a lot of innovation is exactly that. I'm down with the notion that Microsoft has probably never been the best choice in OS hardware but when IBM and Steve Jobs were thinking "we'll rule the world selling hardware" Bill G was thinking "I'll rule with software" Who turned out to be right? One of the big changes when Steve came back to Apple was a focus on the software instead of the hardware. If you get a moment with Steve he'll likely tell you that the hardware part of the iPhone is less important (vastly) than the software part. It is odd that Microsoft doesn't get that with Windows Mobile. I suppose you'll argue that it wasn't an innovative idea to ask IBM to license instead of buy the software. I think that is fantastically innovative. For proof that it was innovation realize that IBM said sure. Why? IBM thought the profits were in hardware. Microsoft won because it knew what people were buying. Apple lost the race because it was selling hardware.
    United StatesChris Seibold had this to say on Dec 10, 2009 Posts: 329
    Apple Not Innovative? Are You Kidding?
  • I am pretty certain I mentioned microsft's innovation in the article... "A great example of this type of innovation is Windows. The original Windows should have been called Tiles both because the windows didn't overlap and Tiles rhymed with Piles which could be short for Piles of s.... and that is what the first version of Windows actually was. A lot of companies give up when a first attempt fails. Not Microsoft. Billy G and the crew just kept chugging along until they had a serviceable program. The innovative thing about the program? Nothing, the Mac could do more (at first), but Windows ran on generic PC hardware. Pretty innovative when you consider that every other company was trying to push hardware. Not sexy, but Microsoft did okay. And not only did Microsoft do okay there is a non-trivial argument to be made that Microsoft's innovation took computing to the masses."
    United StatesChris Seibold had this to say on Dec 09, 2009 Posts: 329
    Apple Not Innovative? Are You Kidding?
  • I think Microsoft was hugely innovative. In the days when everyone wanted to sell hardware Microsoft wanted to sell software. That was a heady idea back then. Microsoft has offered plenty of innovation over the years.
    United StatesChris Seibold had this to say on Dec 09, 2009 Posts: 329
    Apple Not Innovative? Are You Kidding?
  • I'll try to dig up the article that inspired this for you Beeb. It was an article wherein it was opined that Apple didn't innovate at all, merely stole the ideas of others and went on to big success. The thing that struck me about the piece was the comments that sincerely agreed with the article. I'm down with the idea that Apple gets too much credit for innovation, there are people who will tell you that, I dunno, multitasking didn't exist until OS X or something, but the notion that Apple doesn't innovate because Apple didn't invent the concept of a touchscreen cell phone seems to be a bit labored to me. Urban Bard's example with the loom pretty much sums up my whole point in a few sentences. Which means Urban Bard's comment was better than my whole article. Curse you Urban Bard!
    United StatesChris Seibold had this to say on Dec 07, 2009 Posts: 329
    Apple Not Innovative? Are You Kidding?
  • Thanks for the shout Bakari. For your next article I suggest explaining how you created teh screencast. I'd like to do something like that.
    United StatesChris Seibold had this to say on Nov 24, 2009 Posts: 329
    Creating an Encrypted Disk Image
  • "One of Jobs’s biggest mistakes was targeting IBM instead of Microsoft in the mid-80’s and not going after the enterprise market enough (also, Macs were too expensive). That strategic error has relegated the Mac to minority status in computing." This article was written with an eye towards stuff after Steve's return. I'd say you're right, the biggest mistake (so far) Steve made was thinking that he was competing against IBM (hardware) instead of competing against software. The price of Macs was more the fault of Sculley than Steve. The app store is a completely different issue. It is both the best and worst thing Apple has ever done. I don't see a mass exodus to Android coming though I don't see that as a bad thing if it happened.
    United StatesChris Seibold had this to say on Nov 15, 2009 Posts: 329
    Steve Jobs' 5 Biggest Mistakes
  • "or when my wife hits 7" Howard, I like you, I appreciate you comments. But your wife is seven? Dude that is just sick! I kid because I love. You're right, there is a time for everything. One of the Newtons failures was that the rest of the tech world just wasn't ready.
    United StatesChris Seibold had this to say on Nov 13, 2009 Posts: 329
    Steve Jobs' 5 Biggest Mistakes
  • Hi Greg, Half the point of the list was to point out that the failures of Apple since the return of Steve weren't all that big. The other half was to point out that Steve Jobs is not magic. Everyone thinks that Steve creates hits with force of personality but that just isn't true. The products actually have to be pretty damn good. It isn't enough that Apple loves them. Why the hell wasn't the apple tv on the list? What am I thinking?
    United StatesChris Seibold had this to say on Nov 12, 2009 Posts: 329
    Steve Jobs' 5 Biggest Mistakes