Acrid Aesthetic
I slip into the tail-end of this forum just to respond to a tangential discussion that's been weaved in and out of the length of the threads.
Many have declared themselves betrayed by a new (hypothetical--or not) standard, industrial, PC design for the most recent of Apple's most eye-catching, ground-breaking products (the tangerine ibook was also picked up by coolhunters the world over). We Mac lovers identify ourselves with intangible characteristics of the company and its product line--the underdog/outsider role, the real-life ergonomics instead of corporate cookie-cutter, almost artsy creativity, etc. I'm sure that most of you could elaborate on this far better than I have.
The problem is this: the sunflower/titty design of the imac 2 showed up in more TV commercials and movies than it did households. Its groundbreaking design appealed to those who feel or wish to feel groundbreaking themselves. You look at the machine and say, jeez, that thing's gotta sell like hotcakes, and then scratch your head when it doesn't.
The majority of the masses, however, do not wish to stick out. The majority of the masses don't donate to the Republican party or demonstrate against Bush. The middle class, arguably the most powerful group of humans in history, is known most for its complacency.
The Macintosh was generated by its own utility (and by the Steves), a convenience that Middle Class disposable earnings couldn't resist. The same goes with the ipod. It's trendy and groundbreaking, yes, but in a downplayed, all-white way. The best thing about the screen isn't the full-color digital photos, but a logical, easy (for the lazy masses) B/W interface.
If we don't want the new design to be more middle-of-the-road, and perhaps therefore more successful, doesn't that make us fetishists of our own marginality? Should Apple, a public company, be more interested in being known for its unsuccessful ingenuity or for actually taking a bite out of someone's 95% market-share? Some would argue that to achieve the latter a bit of the former is necessary. Probably true. But Apple has, like its billions in cash, a whole lot of saved-up cachet.
The ipod appeals to the Mac geek as well as the limp bizkit fan. That's success. The post-Win Revolution Mac has traditionally appealed only to those who pay attention to the details, while MS has traditionally been for the sheep-minded masses. But what if Mac could "turn the corner" and appeal to both for once? I certainly wouldn't feel any poorer for it.
--J
Many have declared themselves betrayed by a new (hypothetical--or not) standard, industrial, PC design for the most recent of Apple's most eye-catching, ground-breaking products (the tangerine ibook was also picked up by coolhunters the world over). We Mac lovers identify ourselves with intangible characteristics of the company and its product line--the underdog/outsider role, the real-life ergonomics instead of corporate cookie-cutter, almost artsy creativity, etc. I'm sure that most of you could elaborate on this far better than I have.
The problem is this: the sunflower/titty design of the imac 2 showed up in more TV commercials and movies than it did households. Its groundbreaking design appealed to those who feel or wish to feel groundbreaking themselves. You look at the machine and say, jeez, that thing's gotta sell like hotcakes, and then scratch your head when it doesn't.
The majority of the masses, however, do not wish to stick out. The majority of the masses don't donate to the Republican party or demonstrate against Bush. The middle class, arguably the most powerful group of humans in history, is known most for its complacency.
The Macintosh was generated by its own utility (and by the Steves), a convenience that Middle Class disposable earnings couldn't resist. The same goes with the ipod. It's trendy and groundbreaking, yes, but in a downplayed, all-white way. The best thing about the screen isn't the full-color digital photos, but a logical, easy (for the lazy masses) B/W interface.
If we don't want the new design to be more middle-of-the-road, and perhaps therefore more successful, doesn't that make us fetishists of our own marginality? Should Apple, a public company, be more interested in being known for its unsuccessful ingenuity or for actually taking a bite out of someone's 95% market-share? Some would argue that to achieve the latter a bit of the former is necessary. Probably true. But Apple has, like its billions in cash, a whole lot of saved-up cachet.
The ipod appeals to the Mac geek as well as the limp bizkit fan. That's success. The post-Win Revolution Mac has traditionally appealed only to those who pay attention to the details, while MS has traditionally been for the sheep-minded masses. But what if Mac could "turn the corner" and appeal to both for once? I certainly wouldn't feel any poorer for it.
--J
Comments
Should Apple, a public company, be more interested in being known for its unsuccessful ingenuity or for actually taking a bite out of someone's 95% market-share? Some would argue that to achieve the latter a bit of the former is necessary.
I think they need to focus a bit more on the latter.
Their overall strategy in hardware and software is fine.
The iPod shows they can appeal to Mac and PC computer users...emphatically so.
I can't see why they can't do that with their desktop range.
The iPod 'Mac' has to be the next iMac. All eyes should be on it.
It has to offer iconic style ala iPod, simplicity and ease of use...(no bother there, 'X'/'Tiger') and value.
There...I'm not so sure. $16 graphic cards? Fine on the low end. But on the high end? Give the user choice of a fine graphics card that will last a couple of years.
The iMac G5 should be the ultimate switcher machine...to appeal to the iPod crowd who want a hip and iconic machine. The iMac G5 can be that machine.
But a price range of £795-£1595. Two below and two above the K mark.
And there should be single G5 Towers in the £895-£1495 range. Apple are not making the most of the sexiest tower ever designed. Pricing of a single G5 Tower would mainstream the design and make it accessible.
iMac and Towers can cover all sins like they did 1997-2001.
We'll what happens after Sunday?
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by bergz
I slip into the tail-end of this forum just to respond to a tangential discussion that's been weaved in and out of the length of the threads.
Many have declared themselves betrayed by a new (hypothetical--or not) standard, industrial, PC design for the most recent of Apple's most eye-catching, ground-breaking products (the tangerine ibook was also picked up by coolhunters the world over). We Mac lovers identify ourselves with intangible characteristics of the company and its product line--the underdog/outsider role, the real-life ergonomics instead of corporate cookie-cutter, almost artsy creativity, etc. I'm sure that most of you could elaborate on this far better than I have.
The problem is this: the sunflower/titty design of the imac 2 showed up in more TV commercials and movies than it did households. Its groundbreaking design appealed to those who feel or wish to feel groundbreaking themselves. You look at the machine and say, jeez, that thing's gotta sell like hotcakes, and then scratch your head when it doesn't.
The majority of the masses, however, do not wish to stick out. The majority of the masses don't donate to the Republican party or demonstrate against Bush. The middle class, arguably the most powerful group of humans in history, is known most for its complacency.
The Macintosh was generated by its own utility (and by the Steves), a convenience that Middle Class disposable earnings couldn't resist. The same goes with the ipod. It's trendy and groundbreaking, yes, but in a downplayed, all-white way. The best thing about the screen isn't the full-color digital photos, but a logical, easy (for the lazy masses) B/W interface.
If we don't want the new design to be more middle-of-the-road, and perhaps therefore more successful, doesn't that make us fetishists of our own marginality? Should Apple, a public company, be more interested in being known for its unsuccessful ingenuity or for actually taking a bite out of someone's 95% market-share? Some would argue that to achieve the latter a bit of the former is necessary. Probably true. But Apple has, like its billions in cash, a whole lot of saved-up cachet.
The ipod appeals to the Mac geek as well as the limp bizkit fan. That's success. The post-Win Revolution Mac has traditionally appealed only to those who pay attention to the details, while MS has traditionally been for the sheep-minded masses. But what if Mac could "turn the corner" and appeal to both for once? I certainly wouldn't feel any poorer for it.
--J
The Wintel market is not dependent on the Great Grey Middleclass. It is dependent on the groupthink of corporate IT. Far from being the "masses," the people have to opportunity to speed stockholders' money on flawed software and unreliable hardware. Wintel means jobs for those people. For them to choose Macs over alternative platforms means that they diminish their own importance and job security.
How much did the first Imac cost compared to a comparable PC?
How much does the iMac 2 cost compared to the comparable PC?
Isn't the Imac 2 significantly more expensive? Or no?
The Imac 2 jsut seems more like a luxury item because of the build quality and the LCD monitor.