Same hardware? Hmm yeah sure. It's your option to buy cheap plastic notebook that will run dry in two years.
What other OS are you talking about?
I make it a point never to get into a Mac/Windows debate with anyone who couldn't resist a "i"Handle when creating a forum ID. You're right, every PC out there is made cheaply and inferior to all Apple's, and it takes 16GB of ram and the top of the line vdeo card to run Windows 7.
So basically what this is saying is Apple purchasers are willing to pay on average more than twice what a PC would cost... even when their laptop line is out of date and includes a cpu that existed 3 years ago. Gotcha.
I'm still waiting for the thread that states Apple has the highest gross profit for its computers. Wonder if we'll ever see it? \
But I suppose a "fine" Windows is alright for most users, especially after Vista.
"fine" still for 90% on worldwide consumers. You'd think they'd change after Vista. Must be why Apple's only hope to gain market is to lock you into a chokehold with iTunes via its iPhone, ATV and now iPad.
"fine" still for 90% on worldwide consumers. You'd think they'd change after Vista. Must be why Apple's only hope to gain market is to lock you into a chokehold with iTunes via its iPhone, ATV and now iPad.
Tek, not everyone can afford a Mac. Apple's entry fee (apart from the Mini) is at least $1000.
The market is flooded with cheap netbooks and similar junkware. PCs in the midrange are . . . PCs in the midrange. Users simply make do with that.
Apple isn't after marketshare as far as Macs are concerned. This is evident from the the segment of the market (the Premium end) in which they choose to operate. And they've made it very clear they don't intend to compete in the mid to low range. If Apple was out to dominate the market - thus get involved in a race to the bottom by producing garbage (and a lot of it) at some point, they wouldn't lock themselves into the Premium end. There is a body of opinion out there that Apple might even do well in the midrange, but regardless, they've chosen not to get involved.
Macs are the ideal. Not everyone can buy into the experience, however. And a lot of users simply don't care what OS they're using nor the hardware it runs on. Not much you can do about that.
Win7 is fine. According to Mossberg, it is basically as good as OS X.
it's fine...until you try to transfer, edit and email a video from your phone or camera! Or connect to a new router, or any of a multiplicity of tasks!
I look at the current line of Apple products and they are superior in every way to anything the other manufacturers are producing...whether it's OS, phones, laptops, desktops, etc.
Tek, not everyone can afford a Mac. Apple's entry fee (apart from the Mini) is at least $1000.
The market is flooded with cheap netbooks and similar junkware. PCs in the midrange are . . . PCs in the midrange. Users simply make do with that.
Apple isn't after marketshare as far as Macs are concerned. This is evident from the the segment of the market (the Premium end) in which they choose to operate. And they've made it very clear they don't intend to compete in the mid to low range. If Apple was out to dominate the market - thus get involved in a race to the bottom by producing garbage (and a lot of it) at some point, they wouldn't lock themselves into the Premium end. There is a body of opinion out there that Apple might even do well in the midrange, but regardless, they've chosen not to get involved.
Macs are the ideal. Not everyone can buy into the experience, however. And a lot of users simply don't care what OS they're using nor the hardware it runs on. Not much you can do about that.
The vast majority of consumers do not use netbooks as their primary computer just like you wouldn't use an iPad as your primary system.
While not everyone in the world can afford an Apple system certainly we can agree more then 5% can. So I don't believe price is as big of a factor.
Apple already is in the midrange market. The Macbook and iMac 21.5 certainly fall within the midrange market. Consumers spend well over 1000.00 for an HDTV certainly they can spend 999.00 for a Macbook if they wanted too.
You are correct that many users don't care about what OS they use or what hardware its on, all they care about is something that gets them on facebook and if that something only costs 399.00 even better.
You are correct that many users don't care about what OS they use or what hardware its on, all they care about is something that gets them on facebook and if that something only costs 399.00 even better.
Apple isn't after marketshare as far as Macs are concerned. This is evident from the the segment of the market (the Premium end) in which they choose to operate. And they've made it very clear they don't intend to compete in the mid to low range.
I wonder if that has changed.
I noticed that iSteve claimed that the camera was left out of the iTouch in order to hit a price point, and in addition, the price if the 'Pad was one of the things that he hit hardest in his presentation.
They might try to bifurcate the line, offering low-priced gadgets and high-priced computers, or they might be trying to appeal to a broader market across the board. No way to tell yet.
The delayed MBP refresh might or might not be due to value engineering.
Another thought - iSteve made a big deal out of Apple now being a mobile device company. And it in that sphere that they are building devices to a price point.
it's fine...until you try to transfer, edit and email a video from your phone or camera! Or connect to a new router, or any of a multiplicity of tasks!
Why do you imagine that any of those things are a problem?
If Steve is listening to me then I want him to know I would like the iPhone 4.0 OS to have full multitasking and for this to be made available soon after the iPad is released. He can also drop the 16GB model and make the 32GB 499.00.
it's fine...until you try to transfer, edit and email a video from your phone or camera! Or connect to a new router, or any of a multiplicity of tasks!
I look at the current line of Apple products and they are superior in every way to anything the other manufacturers are producing...whether it's OS, phones, laptops, desktops, etc.
You get what you pay for....
If you have problems performing those functions do you also still use AOL because you don't understand how the internet works........
For the price of a mac, you can buy 3 PCs - Well that was an easier way to tell the story. Now gather 'round for some flavor-aid children.
And you can buy three lemons for the price of one mango, so your point is? Shopping on price only doesn't always get you the best deal. There is a reason "switchers" make up more than half of new Mac customers, they figured their money was better spent avoiding a machine that is locked into a Microsoft OS. In case you didn't know this you can ever run Win 7 native on intel Macs. There are little excuses left for Windows fanboys (that don't build their own hardware) to diss Macs, Apple offers great looking and speedy hardware, tons of software and options no other brand can match.
If Steve is listening to me then I want him to know I would like the iPhone 4.0 OS to have full multitasking and for this to be made available soon after the iPad is released. He can also drop the 16GB model and make the 32GB 499.00.
The article is about how Apple's pricing discipline is returning amazing profits.
Your response is that they should give this strategy up and cut prices on a yet to be released product.
Not everything is about price. They price at a premium level and provide premium service.
If I wanted a cheap portable computer I might look at a netbook - but the teeny, tiny screen and keyboard make my tendonisis flare up just looking at them.
If Steve is listening to me then I want him to know I would like the iPhone 4.0 OS to have full multitasking and for this to be made available soon after the iPad is released. He can also drop the 16GB model and make the 32GB 499.00.
You better watch out... you might get what you're asking for... and then I'm guessing that your head would explode...
If Steve is listening to me then I want him to know I would like the iPhone 4.0 OS to have full multitasking and for this to be made available soon after the iPad is released. He can also drop the 16GB model and make the 32GB 499.00.
Maybe not this year though. You will get it next year though And your head will explode at that point... unless you've raised your expectations. At which point, you're pretty unreasonable to ask Apple to improve what they don't even yet offer. But I do bet that they could get the 32GB model down to $499 if they wanted to this year, it just depends on the demand. Sorta like how they dropped the iPhone $100 weeks later after they introduced it in stores.
The day that the Mac worldwide market share reaches 25%, Windows will be history in three years. The horrible Windows experience is only maintained by inertia and ignorance.
i wouldn't call windows 7 a horrible experience by a longshot. i would definitely prefer a mac or other unix-like system but not by much, and the mac hardware premium isn't as worth it as it was when windows xp was the best microsoft had to offer.
i would say that windows 7's window management, some little things like separate application volume control, and the taskbar beat mac os. or things like, why does apple software update take a freaking year to figure out if there are new updates? windows has some more customizable aspects such as in the power options.
i could go on but to be honest my snow leopard experience isn't that much different than windows 7
windows can't be destroyed by an operating system that only works on one high end company's brand. maybe someday the masses will switch to linux, but not mac.
the average pc laptop is sold for a lower price than an ipad. i wouldn't buy one that cheap, but most people just want to browse the web and do other basic tasks, like being able to play flash games and video.
Comments
Yes because a 50 year old man knows what young people are doing on their computers.
Windows run OK now because they keep mimicking every bit of free code from apple.
I agree. I was just clarifying the op's quote.
But I suppose a "fine" Windows is alright for most users, especially after Vista.
I never once used Vista. Win7 works just fine. The OS is unimportant if it just works.
Same hardware? Hmm yeah sure. It's your option to buy cheap plastic notebook that will run dry in two years.
What other OS are you talking about?
I make it a point never to get into a Mac/Windows debate with anyone who couldn't resist a "i"Handle when creating a forum ID. You're right, every PC out there is made cheaply and inferior to all Apple's, and it takes 16GB of ram and the top of the line vdeo card to run Windows 7.
So basically what this is saying is Apple purchasers are willing to pay on average more than twice what a PC would cost... even when their laptop line is out of date and includes a cpu that existed 3 years ago. Gotcha.
I'm still waiting for the thread that states Apple has the highest gross profit for its computers. Wonder if we'll ever see it?
Except it isn't. Which is what Mossberg said.
But I suppose a "fine" Windows is alright for most users, especially after Vista.
"fine" still for 90% on worldwide consumers. You'd think they'd change after Vista. Must be why Apple's only hope to gain market is to lock you into a chokehold with iTunes via its iPhone, ATV and now iPad.
"fine" still for 90% on worldwide consumers. You'd think they'd change after Vista. Must be why Apple's only hope to gain market is to lock you into a chokehold with iTunes via its iPhone, ATV and now iPad.
Tek, not everyone can afford a Mac. Apple's entry fee (apart from the Mini) is at least $1000.
The market is flooded with cheap netbooks and similar junkware. PCs in the midrange are . . . PCs in the midrange. Users simply make do with that.
Apple isn't after marketshare as far as Macs are concerned. This is evident from the the segment of the market (the Premium end) in which they choose to operate. And they've made it very clear they don't intend to compete in the mid to low range. If Apple was out to dominate the market - thus get involved in a race to the bottom by producing garbage (and a lot of it) at some point, they wouldn't lock themselves into the Premium end. There is a body of opinion out there that Apple might even do well in the midrange, but regardless, they've chosen not to get involved.
Macs are the ideal. Not everyone can buy into the experience, however. And a lot of users simply don't care what OS they're using nor the hardware it runs on. Not much you can do about that.
Win7 is fine. According to Mossberg, it is basically as good as OS X.
it's fine...until you try to transfer, edit and email a video from your phone or camera! Or connect to a new router, or any of a multiplicity of tasks!
I look at the current line of Apple products and they are superior in every way to anything the other manufacturers are producing...whether it's OS, phones, laptops, desktops, etc.
You get what you pay for....
Tek, not everyone can afford a Mac. Apple's entry fee (apart from the Mini) is at least $1000.
The market is flooded with cheap netbooks and similar junkware. PCs in the midrange are . . . PCs in the midrange. Users simply make do with that.
Apple isn't after marketshare as far as Macs are concerned. This is evident from the the segment of the market (the Premium end) in which they choose to operate. And they've made it very clear they don't intend to compete in the mid to low range. If Apple was out to dominate the market - thus get involved in a race to the bottom by producing garbage (and a lot of it) at some point, they wouldn't lock themselves into the Premium end. There is a body of opinion out there that Apple might even do well in the midrange, but regardless, they've chosen not to get involved.
Macs are the ideal. Not everyone can buy into the experience, however. And a lot of users simply don't care what OS they're using nor the hardware it runs on. Not much you can do about that.
The vast majority of consumers do not use netbooks as their primary computer just like you wouldn't use an iPad as your primary system.
While not everyone in the world can afford an Apple system certainly we can agree more then 5% can. So I don't believe price is as big of a factor.
Apple already is in the midrange market. The Macbook and iMac 21.5 certainly fall within the midrange market. Consumers spend well over 1000.00 for an HDTV certainly they can spend 999.00 for a Macbook if they wanted too.
You are correct that many users don't care about what OS they use or what hardware its on, all they care about is something that gets them on facebook and if that something only costs 399.00 even better.
You are correct that many users don't care about what OS they use or what hardware its on, all they care about is something that gets them on facebook and if that something only costs 399.00 even better.
... and Steve listened to you and built the iPad.
Yes because a 50 year old man knows what young people are doing on their computers.
Windows run OK now because they keep mimicking every bit of free code from apple.
Agreed, I read the WSJ everyday and I find he's out of touch!
Apple isn't after marketshare as far as Macs are concerned. This is evident from the the segment of the market (the Premium end) in which they choose to operate. And they've made it very clear they don't intend to compete in the mid to low range.
I wonder if that has changed.
I noticed that iSteve claimed that the camera was left out of the iTouch in order to hit a price point, and in addition, the price if the 'Pad was one of the things that he hit hardest in his presentation.
They might try to bifurcate the line, offering low-priced gadgets and high-priced computers, or they might be trying to appeal to a broader market across the board. No way to tell yet.
The delayed MBP refresh might or might not be due to value engineering.
Another thought - iSteve made a big deal out of Apple now being a mobile device company. And it in that sphere that they are building devices to a price point.
it's fine...until you try to transfer, edit and email a video from your phone or camera! Or connect to a new router, or any of a multiplicity of tasks!
Why do you imagine that any of those things are a problem?
Why do you imagine that any of those things are a problem?
Please....I gotta go!
... and Steve listened to you and built the iPad.
If Steve is listening to me then I want him to know I would like the iPhone 4.0 OS to have full multitasking and for this to be made available soon after the iPad is released. He can also drop the 16GB model and make the 32GB 499.00.
it's fine...until you try to transfer, edit and email a video from your phone or camera! Or connect to a new router, or any of a multiplicity of tasks!
I look at the current line of Apple products and they are superior in every way to anything the other manufacturers are producing...whether it's OS, phones, laptops, desktops, etc.
You get what you pay for....
If you have problems performing those functions do you also still use AOL because you don't understand how the internet works........
For the price of a mac, you can buy 3 PCs - Well that was an easier way to tell the story. Now gather 'round for some flavor-aid children.
And you can buy three lemons for the price of one mango, so your point is? Shopping on price only doesn't always get you the best deal. There is a reason "switchers" make up more than half of new Mac customers, they figured their money was better spent avoiding a machine that is locked into a Microsoft OS. In case you didn't know this you can ever run Win 7 native on intel Macs. There are little excuses left for Windows fanboys (that don't build their own hardware) to diss Macs, Apple offers great looking and speedy hardware, tons of software and options no other brand can match.
If Steve is listening to me then I want him to know I would like the iPhone 4.0 OS to have full multitasking and for this to be made available soon after the iPad is released. He can also drop the 16GB model and make the 32GB 499.00.
The article is about how Apple's pricing discipline is returning amazing profits.
Your response is that they should give this strategy up and cut prices on a yet to be released product.
Not everything is about price. They price at a premium level and provide premium service.
If I wanted a cheap portable computer I might look at a netbook - but the teeny, tiny screen and keyboard make my tendonisis flare up just looking at them.
If Steve is listening to me then I want him to know I would like the iPhone 4.0 OS to have full multitasking and for this to be made available soon after the iPad is released. He can also drop the 16GB model and make the 32GB 499.00.
You better watch out... you might get what you're asking for... and then I'm guessing that your head would explode...
If Steve is listening to me then I want him to know I would like the iPhone 4.0 OS to have full multitasking and for this to be made available soon after the iPad is released. He can also drop the 16GB model and make the 32GB 499.00.
Maybe not this year though. You will get it next year though
The day that the Mac worldwide market share reaches 25%, Windows will be history in three years. The horrible Windows experience is only maintained by inertia and ignorance.
i wouldn't call windows 7 a horrible experience by a longshot. i would definitely prefer a mac or other unix-like system but not by much, and the mac hardware premium isn't as worth it as it was when windows xp was the best microsoft had to offer.
i would say that windows 7's window management, some little things like separate application volume control, and the taskbar beat mac os. or things like, why does apple software update take a freaking year to figure out if there are new updates? windows has some more customizable aspects such as in the power options.
i could go on but to be honest my snow leopard experience isn't that much different than windows 7
windows can't be destroyed by an operating system that only works on one high end company's brand. maybe someday the masses will switch to linux, but not mac.
the average pc laptop is sold for a lower price than an ipad. i wouldn't buy one that cheap, but most people just want to browse the web and do other basic tasks, like being able to play flash games and video.