Jag stör mig på denna "internetmentalitet" att så fort någon gör något som kan vara det minsta dumt, börjar massa folk tanklöst kalla denne för idiot och börjar smutskasta denna något så kopiöst.
Jo, det kan lätt bli en mobbmentalitet kring sådant, det gäller egentligen nästan vadsomhelst, även något man inte gör på nätet, så kastar sig folk över det. Jag tror inte det går över, så man får ta det för vad det är istället.
MacJournal News tar upp just detta fall på ett bra sätt: Logotards
Seriously, people are lambasting Keefe for asking why Apple is predicting lower margins and turning down free money from Intel, and their idea of acceptable questions are "Do you like Google?" and "Do you think the new computer you just showed us has a future?" It makes you want to wrap your head in duct tape without breathing holes until the pain goes away.
But one well-timed snarky assessment set the agenda for the entire discussion and made a laughingstock out of a guy who asked what is, by any but the most banal guidelines, a perfectly reasonable question. Perhaps we'll all be lucky and Apple will release a new version of iTunes so everyone can go back to obsessing about the exact shade of blue on various 1-pixel lines.
The Macalope menar dock att frågan trots allt var dum:
Because it was a stupid question. Sure, maybe not the stupidest question he could have asked, but still a whopper. Because while there may be valid reasons why other companies might take Intel's money and run, there is no chance on Odin's green earth that Apple would ever do it. To ask such a question is simply to display one's ignorance of Apple and Steve Jobs. The only stickers that you'll find on Apple products are those clear ones that protect them on their magical journey to your doorstep.
MacJournal News svarar The Macalope:
Update: The Macalope disagrees and says it was a stupid question, because the answer was obvious that there was no way Apple would ever put those stickers on its products. It was also obvious, at one point, that Apple would never switch to Intel processors, and that it would not build an absolutely flat iMac because Steve Jobs said those "motherboards glued to the back of LCDs" didn't work well and weren't what Apple wanted to make. Many people said it was completely obvious that there'd be a native iPhone SDK, or that ZFS would be Leopard's default file system.
"Obvious" is in the eye of the beholder, and we still say that if you think the answer to "why aren't you taking free money after announcing lower margins" is obvious, you need to do more beholding.
Självklart visse vi och även killen som frågade, att det är fult med klistermärken och att det är därför Apple inte använder dem. Men alla andra PC-tillverkare har ju dessa klistermärken och därför kan det vara intressant att höra hur Apple slapp ha det.
Det är inte riktigt så de fungerar: Det är valfritt att ha med det, men den som sätter på loggan tjänar pengar på det. Från MacJournal News igen (min markering):
It's also widely known that Intel pays companies big bucks to place the "Intel Inside" logo on computers. Ten years ago, it was common for Intel to reimburse PC makers between US$30 million and US$60 million per year for using the Intel Inside logo. The guidelines were strict, but for those companies that would play along, "Intel reimburses 6 percent of the total average selling price of each vendor's worldwide monthly microprocessor shipments." As one PC maker told ZDNet a decade ago, "You're not competitive if you're not on board."
Med andra ord: De andra PC-tillverkarna säljer helt enkelt reklamplats på sina burkar, reklam som du som konsument tvingas se (men å andra sidan kanske produkten blir billigare).
Så, nu har jag hjälpt er alla att få en bättre inblick i denna historia!
