Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe
First of all that first paragraph is SO condescending its unbelieveable.
I don't know why you got involved in that.
I was responding to his:
"Originally Posted by Rot'nApple
So instead of the $200.00 and $300.00 price break you'd be getting a $150.00 or $250.00 price break instead?!
He knew what I meant. It rightly didn't upset him.
Second of all, if MORE SKUs mean an overall cost increase then why is it that other companies can produce a seemingly endless variety of MP3 players (for example) that almost always manage to cost LESS than an equivilant iPod? more SKUs costing less.
It's about the bottom line, Apple margin, thats what it comes down to.
You're not understanding the process. It has nothing to do with the price per se, it has to do with a small added cost to whatever it is.
If a player costs $50, then it might add 25 cents. If the product costs $500 it might add $2.50. If it costs $5,000, it might add $25.
It might not even be percentage related, in that it depends on what is being done.
It doesn't prevent Apple or any others from making less expensive products. It just adds a small "fee" to the top.
Ok then if you arn't in control of it and you wouldn't do what Apple have done, why are you so insistent on defending them?
If theres no point in anyone arguing with you, does that also mean there is no point in you arguing with others? If so then please stop and give everyone else a chance
You really have this entire thing wrong. At no time did I "defend" Apple. I simply gave one reason why they might have done this.
When I said to argue with Apple about this, as I DID explain, it's because I'm just giving a reason why Apple might have done this, and as I have no control over what Apple does, it doesn't change anything to argue with me about it, because I don't agree with what Apple has done either.
Your paragraph is condescending, as is the rolleyes when used in that context. so, you certainly have no right to comment on my statements as you have. I suppose you are one of those who don't recognize the error of your own ways while commenting on those of others.
I'm not cutting off the opinions of anybody else. We are having a discussion about this. Sometimes we have agreed, and sometimes not.
I'm not forcing you to post to me, that's your choice.
Re SKUs the glass can be taken out with a suction cup type tool, yes? Then ship ALL the iMacs with Glossy if you must and simply stock the matte screen ONLY then in the Apple store, give the customer the option to swap it out and explain what it involves, 3/4 mins should do it, and it ONLY involves stocking some screens, which pack a LOT tighter in warehouses than the vast sea of unwanted matte screen iMacs that you invision. There are various options for making glass non-glossy at the factory, or if need be use a matte plastic, but the CUSTOMER gets the option, and last time I checked the customer was always right.
unless of course Apple have changed this?
Have you been a manufacturer? You don't want your customer removing a glass object like that and replacing it, due to the liability you will incur.
Is Apple responsible for giving (lending) you the tool? Do you have to find, and buy your own?
I had thought about the possibility of the Apple genius doing that for the customer, which would remove that liability. But, I can't see Apple wanting to do that either. It's an uncontrolled situation which could result in damage to the glass, the computer it's being put into, or injury to the worker.
YOU haven't heard of it so it doesn't exist..
Likewise what YOU are saying is true sometimes, but not all the time.
Proper lighting conditions means exactly that—proper. Pretty simple, no?
Re lighting conditions and my opinions of Apple.
Apple is up against other PC manufacturers and M$ they offer a choice.
Apple has its design goals it offers a better aesthetic choice.
People who choose the iMac are making a decision in part based on aesthetic choice.
Part of ones aesthetic choice in life is ones surroundings, lighting, window size, workspace placement etc.
No argument there.
Prior to the introduction of the glossy screen, one could place the iMac where it made sense from an aesthetic standpoint without the screen dictating placment choice. One could have a window to ones back for example, or other light source placed to enhance the room and user comfort within the workspace.
This is I'm sure something his Steveness is aware of on at least a subconscious comfort level, if its not more in his front brain
But now with the Glossy screen, one has to make sacrifices to the aesthetic comfort one has grown accustomed to. Which I feel rather jars against "The Apple Way"
This is MY opinion, but I won't feel the need to endlessly defend it or keep proving my point over and over again, it is enough for me to state it and know that, for me, it is true.
Goody for you.
Few people here are interested in your opinion if they want to discuss it with you and question it, with you refusing to explain yourself, of give further explanation. That's what the forum is all about.
If we all simply stated our positions, and never discussed, or even argued the points, AI would soon become a very lonely place.