I just noticed this thread has received 40K views. Apple/Steve should seriously reconsider their bone-headed FireWire decision. I think this complaint has some real legs.
Schools were moving to laptops. Here in NYC, a laptop lab is the preferred method of buying computers for K-12. What they do is have a specially designed cart on which the laptops are kept. The cart is moved to the classrom where the computers are needed. There could be up to 36 laptops per cart. Mostly Macbooks, or similarly priced PC's.
The need for the Education Mac is no longer here. The eMac no longer had a function.
Schools weren't the only ones who bought it. People buy computers based on their requirement, not according to what market Apple thinks they should be.
[quote]What's the point? You're bemoaning the change in the name?[
No, I'm just following YOUR using the name. The name has a computer behind it. If you don't mean what you say, say something else.
When you mention the G5 Powermac, but don't MEAN the G5 Powermac, then exactly what do you mean?/quote]
Know but I am bemoaning you twisting things based on literal meanings. When someone says they want a Powermac it obviously doesn't mean they want a half decade old PowerPC machine, it means they want a modern equivalent.
Quote:
Profit is very important. Apple doesn't have the expensive workstation and server market that Dell does. Neither do they have the business consulting services.
They have to make a proper profit on all their lines. That's the proper way to do it.
If a machines doesn't fit within their targets, they should drop it.
That would be a valid argument if the lines that were dropped weren't profitable. Apple dropped them for ideological reasons or they thought they could herd users up to a more expensive model.
Quote:
I don't understand your point. Apple doesn't have one line of computers.
If you're talking one nameplate, no they don't. However, they're computer lineup is very linear in its makeup with each computer playing a certain role based on Apple's interpretations.
Quote:
You mentioned iPods. I didn't.
You mentioned creative's Zen line of players which were a competitor to the iPods.
Quote:
So, if you want a small inexpensive iPod, you buy the Shuffle. Computer: the Mini, or low end Macbook.
Medium models? The Nano, or the new Macbook or iMac.
High end? The iTouch, or the Mac Pro or MBP.
What's your problem here?
The problem here is that reality doesn't fit into a couple neat and tidy categories, especially if those categories are artificial and imposed by an outside party. There are many different users with different needs. You end up with a lot of users having to buy hardware above or blow their needs to stay with an operating system.
Quote:
First of all, you should stop using the word "had". As far as I can tell, the Mac Pro continues to have all the advantages of the Powermac, except that it's a much better computer.
The Powermac at the $1299 price was gone long ago. The cheapest one was several hundred more than that before the Mac Pro arrived.
Mid-2005. Had as in Apple has down graded iLife, and the express and Pro versions of software to get people to buy the more expensive version. We're not limitless banks here. We cant spend an additional $700, $400 there just because Apple strictly categorizes things.
Quote:
You have to take inflation into account as well. Apple moves the price of its machines up and down when new ones replace the old, depending on what they are offering.
Inflation doesn't work that well with technology. As technology matures and advances, it gets cheaper.
Quote:
Since only a very few ever do more to upgrade their machines than add memory, and most people don't even do that, the iMac is more than enough for most people in that price range.
Did you bother to actually ask them or just assuming its true because Apple says so?
Quote:
Look at their sales. That's what matters, not theoretical desires.
Most of them at the low end.
Quote:
A company is allowed to decide what products they want to put out. It's up to the potential customer to decide if those products suit them.
So, the company, not the customer is always right? And if those customers decide the products don't suit them? Look, you might care about Apple being always right or something, but there are those of us who are interested in furthering this platform.
Quote:
So far, Apple seems to be making the right moves. I don't have to agree with all of them.
How can they make the wrongs ones?
Quote:
No. Because you are making assumptions about numbers and thoughts of others that you don't know. You are trying to fit others into your line of thinking.
What exactly are you doing? You seem to think everyone is just perfectly happy.
Quote:
The idea about RDF is cute for those who want to think they are special because they are too good to be caught in it. But, few people are taken in by this "RDF" in the first place.
Too good to be caught in it? I was caught right in the middle of it. I believed everything without question. Then, the facts started to not quite add up with that Apple was saying.
Quote:
It's narrow thinking to believe that those who agree Apple makes pretty good moves aren't capable of thinking on their own.
No, but when it starts to fit a pattern when every decision is supported defended despite any kind of evidence to the contrary a pattern emerges. Especially when 24 hours earlier they would be saying exactly the opposite when that was Apple's policy.
Quote:
I have very good reasons for what I think. You may not agree, but perhaps you are a victim of the "anti-RDF" hmmm?
I like call it having a dose of reality. I see Apple for both their strengths and their weaknesses. I praise them, when they come out with an amazing product, but I also chastise them when they're in the wrong. Having only a bunch of yes men around does nothing for this company or the platform.
I understood his point. But you don't understand mine.
Mine is that Apple is doing what is working well for them. The Macbook is one of the most popular laptops around. It's small enough for most people.
So you you say you understand, and then proceed to demonstrate you still have it 100% backwards.
Third time's a charm...
Judging on what people are actually buying from competitors, Apple should have offered a 15" Macbook ages ago. People who want a large screen *very often* do not need a pro machine. Large screen is not a pro-specific feature. Clear now?
Quote:
They did have the 12" Powerbook, but apparently, it wasn't selling that well.
The 12" PB was iBook tech with a Powerbook pricetag. There was virtually no difference between the two lineups at that point. Apple was also severely processor starved, and losing hard to 12" Thinkpads. None of that is the form factor's fault.
I personally went from a 15" PB to a 12" iBook exactly because it was the same as a 12" PB.
Quote:
Just because some people want something doesn't mean that it will sell in large enough numbers to be profitable. Remember the cube?
Are you saying people *wanted* sub-Powermac performance at Powermac prices? It was a failed design from square one.
Being a consumer does not mean you want a midsize laptop. Being a pro does not mean you want a large laptop. However, Apple assumes both those things.
Except the new MB is suitable for any pro that doesn't need firewire. The MBP is owned by many consumers. It's just pricey for that purpose...not unsuitable.
Quote:
You are arguing that having overall success proves every individual decision right.
No, he's arguing that Apple's line up isn't the disaster than xMac fans repeatedly say it is and Ben in particular.
The problem comes if the professional base chooses those other vendors over Apple. Do you really what this platform to go from the choice of the best and brightest to platform of fads and cultists? I one for one would prefer the Mac be chosen for computing, not social reasons.
Because of the lack of FW on the MB? Please. The MB now sucks for some pros but is now awesome for others. 30" ACD and a GPU that doesn't suck.
But hey, for you it's all half empty isn't it? Because all those pros don't count right?
Yep, the new macs and all of Apple's success is a mere fad and not actual good execution because you don't have an xMac.
Except the new MB is suitable for any pro that doesn't need firewire. The MBP is owned by many consumers. It's just pricey for that purpose...not unsuitable.
Mac Pros are suitable for checking your GMail? at home. Unfortunately, "suitable" is not the same as "convenient", "attractive" or "reasonable".
Apple's lineup has 3 different machines, all the same size (13.3"), all with integrated graphics, all relatively close to each other in processor speed. How is that anything but weird?
Apple's lineup has 3 different machines, all the same size (13.3"), all with integrated graphics, all relatively close to each other in processor speed. How is that anything but weird?
Huh? How are they remotely the same? You have a SFF 1.6GHz, SFF 183GHz, 2.0GHz, and a 2.4GHz in the 13" notebooks. The integrated graphics between the MB and MBA may be the same chip, but the 9400M in the MBA is underclocked so it runs cooler. On top of all that, the machines are not marketed to the same customers. While some may be on the fence over which 13" Mac notebook is right for them, the vast majority will never consider the MBA due to it's inherent niche limitations.
There just isn't much comparison between the two machines outside of the display size. Even the quality of the display of the MBA is considerably better than the MBA which points to the device being marketed to a particular market segment that is not the average MB consumer.
People buy computers based on their requirement, not according to what market Apple thinks they should be.
I like call it having a dose of reality. I see Apple for both their strengths and their weaknesses. I praise them, when they come out with an amazing product, but I also chastise them when they're in the wrong. Having only a bunch of yes men around does nothing for this company or the platform.
Looking at Apples sales vs the general PC market, exactly where do you think they are going wrong in providing computers that people want.
The over all argument seems to be that Apple does not provide the computer that you specifically want. You don't really give any evidence that Dell or HP sell computers that most people want but Apple refuses to provide. If any thing I see the PC vendors providing computers more like what Apple provides.
So you you say you understand, and then proceed to demonstrate you still have it 100% backwards.
Third time's a charm...
Judging on what people are actually buying from competitors, Apple should have offered a 15" Macbook ages ago. People who want a large screen *very often* do not need a pro machine. Large screen is not a pro-specific feature. Clear now?
No this is extremely vague. Exactly what other computers are you talking about? Which ones sell so much better than Apple's?
[QUOTE=BenRoethig;1338617]Schools weren't the only ones who bought it. People buy computers based on their requirement, not according to what market Apple thinks they should be.
Quote:
What's the point? You're bemoaning the change in the name?[
No, I'm just following YOUR using the name. The name has a computer behind it. If you don't mean what you say, say something else.
When you mention the G5 Powermac, but don't MEAN the G5 Powermac, then exactly what do you mean?/quote]
Know but I am bemoaning you twisting things based on literal meanings. When someone says they want a Powermac it obviously doesn't mean they want a half decade old PowerPC machine, it means they want a modern equivalent.
That would be a valid argument if the lines that were dropped weren't profitable. Apple dropped them for ideological reasons or they thought they could herd users up to a more expensive model.
If you're talking one nameplate, no they don't. However, they're computer lineup is very linear in its makeup with each computer playing a certain role based on Apple's interpretations.
You mentioned creative's Zen line of players which were a competitor to the iPods.
The problem here is that reality doesn't fit into a couple neat and tidy categories, especially if those categories are artificial and imposed by an outside party. There are many different users with different needs. You end up with a lot of users having to buy hardware above or blow their needs to stay with an operating system.
Mid-2005. Had as in Apple has down graded iLife, and the express and Pro versions of software to get people to buy the more expensive version. We're not limitless banks here. We cant spend an additional $700, $400 there just because Apple strictly categorizes things.
Inflation doesn't work that well with technology. As technology matures and advances, it gets cheaper.
Did you bother to actually ask them or just assuming its true because Apple says so?
Most of them at the low end.
So, the company, not the customer is always right? And if those customers decide the products don't suit them? Look, you might care about Apple being always right or something, but there are those of us who are interested in furthering this platform.
How can they make the wrongs ones?
What exactly are you doing? You seem to think everyone is just perfectly happy.
Too good to be caught in it? I was caught right in the middle of it. I believed everything without question. Then, the facts started to not quite add up with that Apple was saying.
No, but when it starts to fit a pattern when every decision is supported defended despite any kind of evidence to the contrary a pattern emerges. Especially when 24 hours earlier they would be saying exactly the opposite when that was Apple's policy.
I like call it having a dose of reality. I see Apple for both their strengths and their weaknesses. I praise them, when they come out with an amazing product, but I also chastise them when they're in the wrong. Having only a bunch of yes men around does nothing for this company or the platform.
You're breaking the post into segments that are geting too numerous to continue answering one by one.
At this point, I can see we're not going to get together on this.
I'd be happy to get onto something else, and part as good neighbors.
I'm going to respond one last time to Gon's post, and drop it.
So you you say you understand, and then proceed to demonstrate you still have it 100% backwards.
Third time's a charm...
No. What I'm doing is giving the perspective from Apple's point of view, and you are giving it from your point of view.
Quote:
Judging on what people are actually buying from competitors, Apple should have offered a 15" Macbook ages ago. People who want a large screen *very often* do not need a pro machine. Large screen is not a pro-specific feature. Clear now?
The 12" PB was iBook tech with a Powerbook pricetag. There was virtually no difference between the two lineups at that point. Apple was also severely processor starved, and losing hard to 12" Thinkpads. None of that is the form factor's fault.
Well, I don't agree on either point, because those 15" screen laptops are truly poor in quality, from that big screen on down. Apple isn't interested. Apple won't follow that path.
As far as the 12" PB goes, you couldn't be more wrong. That was a full fledged PB, not an iB in PB clothing.
Quote:
I personally went from a 15" PB to a 12" iBook exactly because it was the same as a 12" PB.Are you saying people *wanted* sub-Powermac performance at Powermac prices? It was a failed design from square one.
Again, the 12" PB was NOT the same as the small iBook.
The Firewire Trade Association is apparently taking media lessons from Comical Ali.
Under siege from USB3 and dropped from Apple's best-selling computer, they boast that only the 800 spec will be supported in Windows 7 and nobody says a word about the adoption of the 3200 spec.
The Firewire Trade Association is apparently taking media lessons from Comical Ali.
Under siege from USB3 and dropped from Apple's best-selling computer, they boast that only the 800 spec will be supported in Windows 7 and nobody says a word about the adoption of the 3200 spec.
Lovely.
I don't see where it says "only" the 800 spec will be supported. I did find this statement in the link you reference: "In addition, Microsoft will support the new 800 Megabit/second version of FireWire in upcoming Windows Version 7 releases next year. "
Can you point me to the part that says ONLY 800 will be supported, implying 400 won't? Thanks.
Mac Pros are suitable for checking your GMail? at home. Unfortunately, "suitable" is not the same as "convenient", "attractive" or "reasonable".
Apple's lineup has 3 different machines, all the same size (13.3"), all with integrated graphics, all relatively close to each other in processor speed. How is that anything but weird?
Don't waste your breath. The only benchmark they having for something being right is that Apple did it. If Apple's sales go up, it is because of Apple's superiority. If Apple's sales go down, the users just doesn't get it and wasn't worthy of owning Apple in the first places. It doesn't matter how long you've been on the platform or how much money you've spent supporting the company. The moment you say one thing against Apple, you're public enemy number one.
I don't see where it says "only" the 800 spec will be supported. I did find this statement in the link you reference: "In addition, Microsoft will support the new 800 Megabit/second version of FireWire in upcoming Windows Version 7 releases next year. "
Can you point me to the part that says ONLY 800 will be supported, implying 400 won't? Thanks.
Time has moved on. Nobody cares about 400 anymore.
My point was that they are projecting that FW800 - not FW3200 - will be going up against USB3 on the PC.
If that's the case, the party is over for Firewire. The last person out the door can turn off the blinking LED.
At some point we all disagree with some decision Apple has made. We all often disagree about our disagreements.
But some here mistake what they wish Apple would do for some catastrophic mistake Apple is making. You have to keep some perspective on it. Simply because Apple does not do what you wish does not necessarily make for catastrophe. If you feel it is, its not unrealistic to ask for some proof why you believe its so catastrophic.
For a hint anything Dell or HP are doing often does not make for a good example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
Don't waste your breath. The only benchmark they having for something being right is that Apple did it. If Apple's sales go up, it is because of Apple's superiority. If Apple's sales go down, the users just doesn't get it and wasn't worthy of owning Apple in the first places. It doesn't matter how long you've been on the platform or how much money you've spent supporting the company. The moment you say one thing against Apple, you're public enemy number one.
At some point we all disagree with some decision Apple has made. We all often disagree about our disagreements.
But some here mistake what they wish Apple would do for some catastrophic mistake Apple is making. You have to keep some perspective on it. Simply because Apple does not do what you wish does not necessarily make for catastrophe. If you feel it is, its not unrealistic to ask for some proof why you believe its so catastrophic.
For a hint anything Dell or HP are doing often does not make for a good example.
Some people like to pretend to themselves that they are independent, and the only way they can prove that to themselves, is to go against the tide. Some people even buy Macs because of that. A few even buy Linux for the same reason.
And a small few go and buy Zunes for the very same reason.
It seems that thinking that Apple is a pretty smart company right now is a bad thing to them, because they can't get what they want (just like the Rolling Stones). So they can't understand why most people can't agree with them. They find it necessary to come up with delusional theories as to why we are "brainwashed" and, of course, they are immune.
They don't seem to understand that it's just a business. A very sucessful business. They feel excluded, and are sullen over it.
Mac Pros are suitable for checking your GMail? at home. Unfortunately, "suitable" is not the same as "convenient", "attractive" or "reasonable".
Apple's lineup has 3 different machines, all the same size (13.3"), all with integrated graphics, all relatively close to each other in processor speed. How is that anything but weird?
MBPs are more than suitable as home machines. Decent game machine, very good media machine, etc.
iMacs are the desktops apple offers for home use along with the outdated mini.
Mac Pros are workstations but no more ugly or unsuitable than the Dell XPS which are large, black and have LEDs adorning it. Pricey but all of Apple's stuff is pricey.
There are probably lots of Mac Pros in the home environment. I'd have gotten one if I had ever used any of the slots in my Quicksilver because they are nice machines and very quiet. But I decided MBP is much better for a home machine for me. Pro name or not.
Comments
You're doing what he's doing, which is ignoring the entire world, and relying on Apple as your certer point.
errrr Mel ???
oh nevermind
errrr Mel ???
oh nevermind
Great response.
Schools were moving to laptops. Here in NYC, a laptop lab is the preferred method of buying computers for K-12. What they do is have a specially designed cart on which the laptops are kept. The cart is moved to the classrom where the computers are needed. There could be up to 36 laptops per cart. Mostly Macbooks, or similarly priced PC's.
The need for the Education Mac is no longer here. The eMac no longer had a function.
Schools weren't the only ones who bought it. People buy computers based on their requirement, not according to what market Apple thinks they should be.
[quote]What's the point? You're bemoaning the change in the name?[
No, I'm just following YOUR using the name. The name has a computer behind it. If you don't mean what you say, say something else.
When you mention the G5 Powermac, but don't MEAN the G5 Powermac, then exactly what do you mean?/quote]
Know but I am bemoaning you twisting things based on literal meanings. When someone says they want a Powermac it obviously doesn't mean they want a half decade old PowerPC machine, it means they want a modern equivalent.
Profit is very important. Apple doesn't have the expensive workstation and server market that Dell does. Neither do they have the business consulting services.
They have to make a proper profit on all their lines. That's the proper way to do it.
If a machines doesn't fit within their targets, they should drop it.
That would be a valid argument if the lines that were dropped weren't profitable. Apple dropped them for ideological reasons or they thought they could herd users up to a more expensive model.
I don't understand your point. Apple doesn't have one line of computers.
If you're talking one nameplate, no they don't. However, they're computer lineup is very linear in its makeup with each computer playing a certain role based on Apple's interpretations.
You mentioned iPods. I didn't.
You mentioned creative's Zen line of players which were a competitor to the iPods.
So, if you want a small inexpensive iPod, you buy the Shuffle. Computer: the Mini, or low end Macbook.
Medium models? The Nano, or the new Macbook or iMac.
High end? The iTouch, or the Mac Pro or MBP.
What's your problem here?
The problem here is that reality doesn't fit into a couple neat and tidy categories, especially if those categories are artificial and imposed by an outside party. There are many different users with different needs. You end up with a lot of users having to buy hardware above or blow their needs to stay with an operating system.
First of all, you should stop using the word "had". As far as I can tell, the Mac Pro continues to have all the advantages of the Powermac, except that it's a much better computer.
The Powermac at the $1299 price was gone long ago. The cheapest one was several hundred more than that before the Mac Pro arrived.
Mid-2005. Had as in Apple has down graded iLife, and the express and Pro versions of software to get people to buy the more expensive version. We're not limitless banks here. We cant spend an additional $700, $400 there just because Apple strictly categorizes things.
You have to take inflation into account as well. Apple moves the price of its machines up and down when new ones replace the old, depending on what they are offering.
Inflation doesn't work that well with technology. As technology matures and advances, it gets cheaper.
Since only a very few ever do more to upgrade their machines than add memory, and most people don't even do that, the iMac is more than enough for most people in that price range.
Did you bother to actually ask them or just assuming its true because Apple says so?
Look at their sales. That's what matters, not theoretical desires.
Most of them at the low end.
A company is allowed to decide what products they want to put out. It's up to the potential customer to decide if those products suit them.
So, the company, not the customer is always right? And if those customers decide the products don't suit them? Look, you might care about Apple being always right or something, but there are those of us who are interested in furthering this platform.
So far, Apple seems to be making the right moves. I don't have to agree with all of them.
How can they make the wrongs ones?
No. Because you are making assumptions about numbers and thoughts of others that you don't know. You are trying to fit others into your line of thinking.
What exactly are you doing? You seem to think everyone is just perfectly happy.
The idea about RDF is cute for those who want to think they are special because they are too good to be caught in it. But, few people are taken in by this "RDF" in the first place.
Too good to be caught in it? I was caught right in the middle of it. I believed everything without question. Then, the facts started to not quite add up with that Apple was saying.
It's narrow thinking to believe that those who agree Apple makes pretty good moves aren't capable of thinking on their own.
No, but when it starts to fit a pattern when every decision is supported defended despite any kind of evidence to the contrary a pattern emerges. Especially when 24 hours earlier they would be saying exactly the opposite when that was Apple's policy.
I have very good reasons for what I think. You may not agree, but perhaps you are a victim of the "anti-RDF" hmmm?
I like call it having a dose of reality. I see Apple for both their strengths and their weaknesses. I praise them, when they come out with an amazing product, but I also chastise them when they're in the wrong. Having only a bunch of yes men around does nothing for this company or the platform.
I understood his point. But you don't understand mine.
Mine is that Apple is doing what is working well for them. The Macbook is one of the most popular laptops around. It's small enough for most people.
So you you say you understand, and then proceed to demonstrate you still have it 100% backwards.
Third time's a charm...
Judging on what people are actually buying from competitors, Apple should have offered a 15" Macbook ages ago. People who want a large screen *very often* do not need a pro machine. Large screen is not a pro-specific feature. Clear now?
They did have the 12" Powerbook, but apparently, it wasn't selling that well.
The 12" PB was iBook tech with a Powerbook pricetag. There was virtually no difference between the two lineups at that point. Apple was also severely processor starved, and losing hard to 12" Thinkpads. None of that is the form factor's fault.
I personally went from a 15" PB to a 12" iBook exactly because it was the same as a 12" PB.
Just because some people want something doesn't mean that it will sell in large enough numbers to be profitable. Remember the cube?
Are you saying people *wanted* sub-Powermac performance at Powermac prices? It was a failed design from square one.
Being a consumer does not mean you want a midsize laptop. Being a pro does not mean you want a large laptop. However, Apple assumes both those things.
Except the new MB is suitable for any pro that doesn't need firewire. The MBP is owned by many consumers. It's just pricey for that purpose...not unsuitable.
You are arguing that having overall success proves every individual decision right.
No, he's arguing that Apple's line up isn't the disaster than xMac fans repeatedly say it is and Ben in particular.
This argument got old years ago.
It sure did.
The problem comes if the professional base chooses those other vendors over Apple. Do you really what this platform to go from the choice of the best and brightest to platform of fads and cultists? I one for one would prefer the Mac be chosen for computing, not social reasons.
Because of the lack of FW on the MB? Please. The MB now sucks for some pros but is now awesome for others. 30" ACD and a GPU that doesn't suck.
But hey, for you it's all half empty isn't it? Because all those pros don't count right?
Yep, the new macs and all of Apple's success is a mere fad and not actual good execution because you don't have an xMac.
Except the new MB is suitable for any pro that doesn't need firewire. The MBP is owned by many consumers. It's just pricey for that purpose...not unsuitable.
Mac Pros are suitable for checking your GMail? at home. Unfortunately, "suitable" is not the same as "convenient", "attractive" or "reasonable".
Apple's lineup has 3 different machines, all the same size (13.3"), all with integrated graphics, all relatively close to each other in processor speed. How is that anything but weird?
Apple's lineup has 3 different machines, all the same size (13.3"), all with integrated graphics, all relatively close to each other in processor speed. How is that anything but weird?
Huh? How are they remotely the same? You have a SFF 1.6GHz, SFF 183GHz, 2.0GHz, and a 2.4GHz in the 13" notebooks. The integrated graphics between the MB and MBA may be the same chip, but the 9400M in the MBA is underclocked so it runs cooler. On top of all that, the machines are not marketed to the same customers. While some may be on the fence over which 13" Mac notebook is right for them, the vast majority will never consider the MBA due to it's inherent niche limitations.
There just isn't much comparison between the two machines outside of the display size. Even the quality of the display of the MBA is considerably better than the MBA which points to the device being marketed to a particular market segment that is not the average MB consumer.
People buy computers based on their requirement, not according to what market Apple thinks they should be.
I like call it having a dose of reality. I see Apple for both their strengths and their weaknesses. I praise them, when they come out with an amazing product, but I also chastise them when they're in the wrong. Having only a bunch of yes men around does nothing for this company or the platform.
Looking at Apples sales vs the general PC market, exactly where do you think they are going wrong in providing computers that people want.
The over all argument seems to be that Apple does not provide the computer that you specifically want. You don't really give any evidence that Dell or HP sell computers that most people want but Apple refuses to provide. If any thing I see the PC vendors providing computers more like what Apple provides.
So you you say you understand, and then proceed to demonstrate you still have it 100% backwards.
Third time's a charm...
Judging on what people are actually buying from competitors, Apple should have offered a 15" Macbook ages ago. People who want a large screen *very often* do not need a pro machine. Large screen is not a pro-specific feature. Clear now?
No this is extremely vague. Exactly what other computers are you talking about? Which ones sell so much better than Apple's?
What's the point? You're bemoaning the change in the name?[
No, I'm just following YOUR using the name. The name has a computer behind it. If you don't mean what you say, say something else.
When you mention the G5 Powermac, but don't MEAN the G5 Powermac, then exactly what do you mean?/quote]
Know but I am bemoaning you twisting things based on literal meanings. When someone says they want a Powermac it obviously doesn't mean they want a half decade old PowerPC machine, it means they want a modern equivalent.
That would be a valid argument if the lines that were dropped weren't profitable. Apple dropped them for ideological reasons or they thought they could herd users up to a more expensive model.
If you're talking one nameplate, no they don't. However, they're computer lineup is very linear in its makeup with each computer playing a certain role based on Apple's interpretations.
You mentioned creative's Zen line of players which were a competitor to the iPods.
The problem here is that reality doesn't fit into a couple neat and tidy categories, especially if those categories are artificial and imposed by an outside party. There are many different users with different needs. You end up with a lot of users having to buy hardware above or blow their needs to stay with an operating system.
Mid-2005. Had as in Apple has down graded iLife, and the express and Pro versions of software to get people to buy the more expensive version. We're not limitless banks here. We cant spend an additional $700, $400 there just because Apple strictly categorizes things.
Inflation doesn't work that well with technology. As technology matures and advances, it gets cheaper.
Did you bother to actually ask them or just assuming its true because Apple says so?
Most of them at the low end.
So, the company, not the customer is always right? And if those customers decide the products don't suit them? Look, you might care about Apple being always right or something, but there are those of us who are interested in furthering this platform.
How can they make the wrongs ones?
What exactly are you doing? You seem to think everyone is just perfectly happy.
Too good to be caught in it? I was caught right in the middle of it. I believed everything without question. Then, the facts started to not quite add up with that Apple was saying.
No, but when it starts to fit a pattern when every decision is supported defended despite any kind of evidence to the contrary a pattern emerges. Especially when 24 hours earlier they would be saying exactly the opposite when that was Apple's policy.
I like call it having a dose of reality. I see Apple for both their strengths and their weaknesses. I praise them, when they come out with an amazing product, but I also chastise them when they're in the wrong. Having only a bunch of yes men around does nothing for this company or the platform.
You're breaking the post into segments that are geting too numerous to continue answering one by one.
At this point, I can see we're not going to get together on this.
I'd be happy to get onto something else, and part as good neighbors.
I'm going to respond one last time to Gon's post, and drop it.
So you you say you understand, and then proceed to demonstrate you still have it 100% backwards.
Third time's a charm...
No. What I'm doing is giving the perspective from Apple's point of view, and you are giving it from your point of view.
Judging on what people are actually buying from competitors, Apple should have offered a 15" Macbook ages ago. People who want a large screen *very often* do not need a pro machine. Large screen is not a pro-specific feature. Clear now?
The 12" PB was iBook tech with a Powerbook pricetag. There was virtually no difference between the two lineups at that point. Apple was also severely processor starved, and losing hard to 12" Thinkpads. None of that is the form factor's fault.
Well, I don't agree on either point, because those 15" screen laptops are truly poor in quality, from that big screen on down. Apple isn't interested. Apple won't follow that path.
As far as the 12" PB goes, you couldn't be more wrong. That was a full fledged PB, not an iB in PB clothing.
I personally went from a 15" PB to a 12" iBook exactly because it was the same as a 12" PB.Are you saying people *wanted* sub-Powermac performance at Powermac prices? It was a failed design from square one.
Again, the 12" PB was NOT the same as the small iBook.
This is it for me.
Under siege from USB3 and dropped from Apple's best-selling computer, they boast that only the 800 spec will be supported in Windows 7 and nobody says a word about the adoption of the 3200 spec.
Lovely.
The Firewire Trade Association is apparently taking media lessons from Comical Ali.
Under siege from USB3 and dropped from Apple's best-selling computer, they boast that only the 800 spec will be supported in Windows 7 and nobody says a word about the adoption of the 3200 spec.
Lovely.
I don't see where it says "only" the 800 spec will be supported. I did find this statement in the link you reference: "In addition, Microsoft will support the new 800 Megabit/second version of FireWire in upcoming Windows Version 7 releases next year. "
Can you point me to the part that says ONLY 800 will be supported, implying 400 won't? Thanks.
Mac Pros are suitable for checking your GMail? at home. Unfortunately, "suitable" is not the same as "convenient", "attractive" or "reasonable".
Apple's lineup has 3 different machines, all the same size (13.3"), all with integrated graphics, all relatively close to each other in processor speed. How is that anything but weird?
Don't waste your breath. The only benchmark they having for something being right is that Apple did it. If Apple's sales go up, it is because of Apple's superiority. If Apple's sales go down, the users just doesn't get it and wasn't worthy of owning Apple in the first places. It doesn't matter how long you've been on the platform or how much money you've spent supporting the company. The moment you say one thing against Apple, you're public enemy number one.
I don't see where it says "only" the 800 spec will be supported. I did find this statement in the link you reference: "In addition, Microsoft will support the new 800 Megabit/second version of FireWire in upcoming Windows Version 7 releases next year. "
Can you point me to the part that says ONLY 800 will be supported, implying 400 won't? Thanks.
Time has moved on. Nobody cares about 400 anymore.
My point was that they are projecting that FW800 - not FW3200 - will be going up against USB3 on the PC.
If that's the case, the party is over for Firewire. The last person out the door can turn off the blinking LED.
At some point we all disagree with some decision Apple has made. We all often disagree about our disagreements.
But some here mistake what they wish Apple would do for some catastrophic mistake Apple is making. You have to keep some perspective on it. Simply because Apple does not do what you wish does not necessarily make for catastrophe. If you feel it is, its not unrealistic to ask for some proof why you believe its so catastrophic.
For a hint anything Dell or HP are doing often does not make for a good example.
Don't waste your breath. The only benchmark they having for something being right is that Apple did it. If Apple's sales go up, it is because of Apple's superiority. If Apple's sales go down, the users just doesn't get it and wasn't worthy of owning Apple in the first places. It doesn't matter how long you've been on the platform or how much money you've spent supporting the company. The moment you say one thing against Apple, you're public enemy number one.
This isn't entirely true or very fair.
At some point we all disagree with some decision Apple has made. We all often disagree about our disagreements.
But some here mistake what they wish Apple would do for some catastrophic mistake Apple is making. You have to keep some perspective on it. Simply because Apple does not do what you wish does not necessarily make for catastrophe. If you feel it is, its not unrealistic to ask for some proof why you believe its so catastrophic.
For a hint anything Dell or HP are doing often does not make for a good example.
Some people like to pretend to themselves that they are independent, and the only way they can prove that to themselves, is to go against the tide. Some people even buy Macs because of that. A few even buy Linux for the same reason.
And a small few go and buy Zunes for the very same reason.
It seems that thinking that Apple is a pretty smart company right now is a bad thing to them, because they can't get what they want (just like the Rolling Stones). So they can't understand why most people can't agree with them. They find it necessary to come up with delusional theories as to why we are "brainwashed" and, of course, they are immune.
They don't seem to understand that it's just a business. A very sucessful business. They feel excluded, and are sullen over it.
Mac Pros are suitable for checking your GMail? at home. Unfortunately, "suitable" is not the same as "convenient", "attractive" or "reasonable".
Apple's lineup has 3 different machines, all the same size (13.3"), all with integrated graphics, all relatively close to each other in processor speed. How is that anything but weird?
MBPs are more than suitable as home machines. Decent game machine, very good media machine, etc.
iMacs are the desktops apple offers for home use along with the outdated mini.
Mac Pros are workstations but no more ugly or unsuitable than the Dell XPS which are large, black and have LEDs adorning it. Pricey but all of Apple's stuff is pricey.
There are probably lots of Mac Pros in the home environment. I'd have gotten one if I had ever used any of the slots in my Quicksilver because they are nice machines and very quiet. But I decided MBP is much better for a home machine for me. Pro name or not.