Why won't Apple bring back "Save As" since "Duplicate" clearly *****?

KOENIG Yvan wrote:

from your point of view its still a mistake on the part of Apple developers to remove save as and not provide an option to turn on and off autosave.

You are free to think this way but don't forget the numerous users which are perfectly satisfied with this choice.

And those "numerous users" would remain "perfectly satisfied" if Auto Save, Duplicate and Versioning were the default in Lion, but were capable of being turned off via a Preference panel.

Under this scenario, everyone would be perfectly satisfied, and the "numerous users" who are profoundly dissatisfied would have no further grounds for complaint.

No one has yet presented a convincing argument why this could not and should not be done.

True there are always people happy with the most idiotic ideas. However Apple should attempt to keep ist loyal customers, the same ones that spread the word to make it what it is now. It should not cater just to the new ones.

Anyway I predict that without the great SJ it will be tested to its core in the coming years so lets see what happens. At the moment its a self profesizing company, everyone has shares so no one wants to rock the boat and everyone says "fantastic" to everything but the first misstep will see some rats abandoning ship.

n3nto wrote:

True there are always people happy with the most idiotic ideas. However Apple should attempt to keep ist loyal customers, the same ones that spread the word to make it what it is now. It should not cater just to the new ones.

Anyway I predict that without the great SJ it will be tested to its core in the coming years so lets see what happens. At the moment its a self profesizing company, everyone has shares so no one wants to rock the boat and everyone says "fantastic" to everything but the first misstep will see some rats abandoning ship.

If you going to 'profesize' please take the time to spell it correctly,

And please remember that Apple (like all public companies) has a duty to its shareholders, not its customers (new or old)

Thank you.

Csound1 wrote:

If you going to 'profesize' please take the time to spell it correctly

Perhaps you should take the time to read the post, only slightly upthread, in which n3nto stated that he is not a native speaker or writer of English.

I wonder how error-free your posts would be if you were writing in his language.

DChord568 wrote:

Csound1 wrote:

If you going to 'profesize' please take the time to spell it correctly

Perhaps you should take the time to read the post, only slightly upthread, in which n3nto stated that he is not a native speaker or writer of English.

I wonder how error-free your posts would be if you were writing in his language.

Assuming the spell checker works, zero error.

Csound1 wrote:

If you going to 'profesize' please take the time to spell it correctly,

I followed your link to the Private Eye earlier- I Also noticed they had another section called Pendant's Corner. 🙂

sgladfelter wrote:

Csound1 wrote:

If you going to 'profesize' please take the time to spell it correctly,

I followed your link to the Private Eye earlier- I Also noticed they had another section called Pendant's Corner. 🙂

I think you mean Pedant, but thanks for the laugh 🙂

And if you did mean Pendant, would that be where they 'hang around'?

Csound1 wrote:

n3nto wrote:

True there are always people happy with the most idiotic ideas. However Apple should attempt to keep ist loyal customers, the same ones that spread the word to make it what it is now. It should not cater just to the new ones.

Anyway I predict that without the great SJ it will be tested to its core in the coming years so lets see what happens. At the moment its a self profesizing company, everyone has shares so no one wants to rock the boat and everyone says "fantastic" to everything but the first misstep will see some rats abandoning ship.

If you going to 'profesize' please take the time to spell it correctly,

And please remember that Apple (like all public companies) has a duty to its shareholders, not its customers (new or old)

Thank you.

Yes it has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders. it should not base its product decisions just on its shareholders, that simply does not work. The customer comes first. Im am not trying to profesize nor do I have the capacity to do so I was just saying that Apple should not just look and the new customers because I am sure they are easily swayed to the next best thing (sorry about the mistakes but you got the idea!)

Yes it has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders. it should not base its product decisions just on its shareholders, that simply does not work. The customer comes first.

Yes. The shareholders will have nothing if the customers become disheartened enough that they stop buying the product. The shareholders can scream all they want that their stocks only gained 3¢ last quarter instead of 5¢. But the stocks will eventually be useful only for starting a fire if you ignore what the customer wants.

Just ask GM how great their plan was for decades of building cars that cost the same as the then upstart Toyota and Honda models, but were built so poorly in comparison it wasn't even funny. People eventually gave up trying to buy "U.S." and put their money where the value and quality was.

That's the first time I have heard GM compared to Apple, but hey .....

Apples duty to its shareholders obviously includes making and selling product, to as many people as possible, so yes if the wishes of the clientele are ignored Apple are failing in their duty to the shareholders.

That's the first time I have heard GM compared to Apple, but hey .....

It was just a business comparison in general. A person could have picked anybody. But I'm pretty sure you knew that.

so yes if the wishes of the clientele are ignored Apple are failing in their duty to the shareholders.

Yes, it is a circle. You can't make the shareholders happy without figuring out what you're selling, and how to best accrue sales. And you can't do that without making customers happy; and more importantly, keep them coming back.

The point with GM (and Chrysler, and Ford) is that they failed on an almost monumental scale for well over 30 years, building some of the worst vehicles available. Long time devoted customers eventually threw in the towel and did something the U.S. makers thought they would never do. Buy a foreign car.

And the relationship to that is what it seems to be what Apple is currently doing. Their focus lately seems to be on toys. Devices that you can't actually get any work done on. iPhone, iPad, iTouch, iPod; they're all reference devices, with little ability to do anything useful, as far as use in a business.

It's been over a year and a half since we've seen a new Mac Pro. iMac releases are also longer between. If it weren't for prepress (desktop publishing), Apple would have died 20 years ago. This industry almost exclusively kept them going with (still) superior color and PostScript handling. Prepress is still built around Apple. Shops using Windows boxes for this work are rare. So what happens to this industry if Apple decides that toys are all they want to make? It's early, but some are getting nervous about Apple's apparent direction.

Kurt Lang wrote:

That's the first time I have heard GM compared to Apple, but hey .....

It was just a business comparison in general. A person could have picked anybody. But I'm pretty sure you knew that.

so yes if the wishes of the clientele are ignored Apple are failing in their duty to the shareholders.

Yes, it is a circle. You can't make the shareholders happy without figuring out what you're selling, and how to best accrue sales. And you can't do that without making customers happy; and more importantly, keep them coming back.

The point with GM (and Chrysler, and Ford) is that they failed on an almost monumental scale for well over 30 years, building some of the worst vehicles available. Long time devoted customers eventually threw in the towel and did something the U.S. makers thought they would never do. Buy a foreign car.

Unlike Ford & GM (Chrysler too) Apple have not been the recipients of tax money for repeated bailouts and have not generally received the 'largesse' shown to the Auto industry (in the form of little regulation to move them i the direction of less polluting vehicles, safer vehicles etc) even now the auto makers fight tooth and nail so they may build 6000lb behemoths, it took the consumers (as you point out) to do that.

Apple may depend on 'us' but they don't exist for 'us', its a fine line.

Csound1 wrote:

Unlike Ford & GM (Chrysler too) Apple have not been the recipients of tax money for repeated bailouts and have not generally received the 'largesse' shown to the Auto industry (in the form of little regulation to move them i the direction of less polluting vehicles, safer vehicles etc) even now the auto makers fight tooth and nail so they may build 6000lb behemoths, it took the consumers (as you point out) to do that.

Apple may depend on 'us' but they don't exist for 'us', its a fine line.

If you're going to post here, please take the time to employ proper spelling and punctuation.

'largesse'

Auto

i the direction

etc (even now...

6000lb

behemoths, it took...

'us'

'us',

its a fine line

Aple (congratulations for at least catching and correcting this)

And the ultimate irony, from your original post criticizing a non-native speaker/writer of English for his error:

If you going to 'profesize' please take the time to spell it correctly

Unlike Ford & GM (Chrysler too) Apple have not been the recipients of tax money for repeated bailouts and have not generally received the 'largesse' shown to the Auto industry

Not sure what that has to do with marketing your products, or understanding what your customers want, but okay.

even now the auto makers fight tooth and nail so they may build 6000lb behemoths, it took the consumers (as you point out) to do that.

And that's exactly the point! I don't disagree that the customers themselves aren't thinking when they still demand SUVs bigger than the garage they were supposed to go in. You don't need a 500 HP engine to get to the grocery store. But, at least the auto makers are paying attention to what the customer wants.

Apple may depend on 'us' but they don't exist for 'us', its a fine line.

That's true of any company. But the do exist because of us. Without customers, the company and the stockholders have nothing.

Not that Apple is losing on that ideal by any means. They're selling these consumer products faster than they can produce them. So they are of course doing what the customer wants, at the expense of those much longer term customers who have different needs.