Apple had better not get rid of the Mac Mini because that is literally the last desktop option for a matte, anti-glare screen -- requiring us to buy a non-Apple matte screen.
As you can see from the many comments at http://macmatte.wordpress.com there are 40% of Mac users that prefer matte, and 20% of Mac users refuse to buy a glossy Mac at all. So, if Apple gets rid of the Mac Mini, what are all those Mac users going to do.
Apple has a bent on only doing things if they make tons of money, so I hope that doesn't make the Mac Mini vulnerable if its profit margins are razor thin.
Apple had better not get rid of the Mac Mini because that is literally the last desktop option for a matte, anti-glare screen -- requiring us to buy a non-Apple matte screen.
As you can see from the many comments at http://macmatte.wordpress.com there are 40% of Mac users that prefer matte, and 20% of Mac users refuse to buy a glossy Mac at all. So, if Apple gets rid of the Mac Mini, what are all those Mac users going to do.
Apple has a bent on only doing things if they make tons of money, so I hope that doesn't make the Mac Mini vulnerable if its profit margins are razor thin.
You keep posting your site and claim that it?s proof, but it?s a very biased site that is designed to attract people who feel the way you do. You start off with "This activist, lobbyist website is for anyone to post a comment on why Apple must offer the matte screen on the iMac and MacBook/Pro.? yet you think that your commenters are somehow representative of the world at large.
Note: I prefer glossy yet would have no occasion to seek out a pre-matte or pr0-glossy website and have voted in no polls on any website.
Very well said as always. But it was your closing comment that really set me thinking.
It doesn't help that the media buys so completely into the idea of Apple customers being something like a cult. Try googling for "Apple faithful" or "Mac faithful." Then google for "Sony faithful" and compare the hit results, not just for raw numbers but for the source of the quotes. My little experiment in this yielded over 40,000 hits for the first two but only about 1,000 for the latter, and a great many of the top hits for Apple were from established media outlets, which only goes to show something we probably already knew: that this has long been the conventional way of describing Apple customers. In fact in my experience it's difficult to find a media writer who doesn't automatically add the word "faithful" after the word "Apple" in a strikingly large percentage of what they write about the company.
Sony used to have a lot of "faithfuls" that bought all Sony TV, stereos, walkmans, etc. At some point their QC dropped and they lost a lot of those. But they went several years where they could stick junk in any sorta Sony box and sell them. The problem was they pretty did for their lower end lines and really trashed their brand image.
Given how poorly Sony has been executing the last few years, this is kinda like searching for Apple "faithfuls" back before Jobs came back and things were pretty grim. They lost even more "faithfuls" with the PS3 vs the Wii and 360.
Apple customers are often derided because we don't mind spending extra money on a higher quality product and we're pretty happy that Apple didn't race to the bottom like nearly everyone else. Of the remainder (Sony, IBM/Lenovo, etc) Apple makes nicer products.
The bang for the buck ratio is pretty poor for Apple products if you don't take into account how well it works as a system. In terms of pure specs, you don't get what you pay for in comparison to PCs.
Sony used to have a lot of "faithfuls" that bought all Sony TV, stereos, walkmans, etc. At some point their QC dropped and they lost a lot of those. But they went several years where they could stick junk in any sorta Sony box and sell them. The problem was they pretty did for their lower end lines and really trashed their brand image.
Sony was just an example. Try searching for any other company name followed by "faithful." Many companies have a cadre of fans who are quite devoted to their products, but hardly anybody in the media would dream of calling them cultists. To the media it doesn't matter if Apple has sold over 100 million iPods, their customers are still "the faithful."
1) I clearly pointed out how the data you provided attests to nothing and that you may very well be correct, but that your absolution that Apple is screwing their consumers requires some proof, which you have yet to provide. I can?t provide your proof for you.
If it was technically possible to do, they didn't leave it out because there wasn't demand (as there was demand), and they didn't leave it out because they couldn't afford to put it in, as the device is a high end, expensive device. So what conclusion can you draw from that? It sounds most likely that they did it deliberately since all the factors needed seemed to be present for them to have done it originally. Please show me your evidence as to why they left it out. If you can't, I'm afraid I will continue to believe Apple did it on purpose, as your side of the argument currently holds no weight other than you saying that's the case.
Please backup your statements with evidence if you are going to debate a topic. Thanks.
Please backup your statements with evidence if you are going to debate a topic. Thanks.
That isn’t how logic works when you are trying to defend your argument. You are the one stating that it was absolutely possible to put a considerably larger camera into the iPhone because other phones had larger cameras. You are the one stating that the other HW used in the iPhone has absolutely no barring on the the volume consumed in relation to other phones. You are the one stating that Apple could have done video recording regardless of the OS variances between phones. You are the ones claiming the conspiracy theory that Apple has forced people to use the same phone for two years until they upped the resolution in their third model, despite your complete lack of proof to defend any of your claims and their free update to v3.0 going against your forced upgrade claim. You are the one making the grandiose statements about subterfuge in the halls of Cupertino so you are the one who needs to supply the evidence of this skullduggery.
That isn?t how logic works when you are trying to defend your argument. You are the one stating that it was absolutely possible to put a considerably larger camera into the iPhone because other phones had larger cameras. You are the one stating that the other HW used in the iPhone has absolutely no barring on the the volume consumed in relation to other phones. You are the one stating that Apple could have done video recording regardless of the OS variances between phones. You are the ones claiming the conspiracy theory that Apple has forced people to use the same phone for two years until they upped the resolution in their third model, despite there free update to v3.0 and your complete lack of proof to defend any of your claims. Youare the one making the grandiose statements about subterfuge in the halls of Cupertino so you are the one who needs to supply the evidence of this skullduggery.
I have provided evidence to support my claims, you are just conveniently ignoring. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree if you can't provide any evidence for your viewpoint .
I have provided evidence to support my claims, you are just conveniently ignoring. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree if you can't provide any evidence for your viewpoint .
I'm not sure you understand what the term 'evidence' means. What you have provided is certainly not evidence.
If it was technically possible to do, they didn't leave it out because there wasn't demand (as there was demand).
Please qualify for us your statement "as there was demand". Which of the following do you mean?
1) iPhone owners who would have welcomed better picture quality if it had been available at no extra charge and without causing responsiveness or battery life issues.
2) People who bought other phones; or did not buy the iPhone; or chose not to upgrade to 3G solely because the camera specs were below their expectations.
No one cares to convince you of anything. It is you that wishes to convince us that Apple is evil and out to screw their customers.
Paint us unimpressed with your arguments thus far.
And paint me unimpressed with the arguments in the other direction, which were purely speculative and backed up with not a shred of evidence. I'll notch one up to myself for at least being able to provide evidence
I'll notch one up to myself for at least being able to provide evidence
And that is exactly what this has been about, for you: feeling like you've won the argument. This was never about being rational, or even-handed, or even logical for you; you just want to be right. Or, failing that, you want to be able to create at least the self-deception that you are.
Comments
On top of that, I’m ignorant because I prefer glossy displays.
According to JDW, you are a "glare lover".
As you can see from the many comments at http://macmatte.wordpress.com there are 40% of Mac users that prefer matte, and 20% of Mac users refuse to buy a glossy Mac at all. So, if Apple gets rid of the Mac Mini, what are all those Mac users going to do.
Apple has a bent on only doing things if they make tons of money, so I hope that doesn't make the Mac Mini vulnerable if its profit margins are razor thin.
Apple had better not get rid of the Mac Mini because that is literally the last desktop option for a matte, anti-glare screen -- requiring us to buy a non-Apple matte screen.
As you can see from the many comments at http://macmatte.wordpress.com there are 40% of Mac users that prefer matte, and 20% of Mac users refuse to buy a glossy Mac at all. So, if Apple gets rid of the Mac Mini, what are all those Mac users going to do.
Apple has a bent on only doing things if they make tons of money, so I hope that doesn't make the Mac Mini vulnerable if its profit margins are razor thin.
You keep posting your site and claim that it?s proof, but it?s a very biased site that is designed to attract people who feel the way you do. You start off with "This activist, lobbyist website is for anyone to post a comment on why Apple must offer the matte screen on the iMac and MacBook/Pro.? yet you think that your commenters are somehow representative of the world at large.
Note: I prefer glossy yet would have no occasion to seek out a pre-matte or pr0-glossy website and have voted in no polls on any website.
Very well said as always. But it was your closing comment that really set me thinking.
It doesn't help that the media buys so completely into the idea of Apple customers being something like a cult. Try googling for "Apple faithful" or "Mac faithful." Then google for "Sony faithful" and compare the hit results, not just for raw numbers but for the source of the quotes. My little experiment in this yielded over 40,000 hits for the first two but only about 1,000 for the latter, and a great many of the top hits for Apple were from established media outlets, which only goes to show something we probably already knew: that this has long been the conventional way of describing Apple customers. In fact in my experience it's difficult to find a media writer who doesn't automatically add the word "faithful" after the word "Apple" in a strikingly large percentage of what they write about the company.
Sony used to have a lot of "faithfuls" that bought all Sony TV, stereos, walkmans, etc. At some point their QC dropped and they lost a lot of those. But they went several years where they could stick junk in any sorta Sony box and sell them. The problem was they pretty did for their lower end lines and really trashed their brand image.
Given how poorly Sony has been executing the last few years, this is kinda like searching for Apple "faithfuls" back before Jobs came back and things were pretty grim. They lost even more "faithfuls" with the PS3 vs the Wii and 360.
Apple customers are often derided because we don't mind spending extra money on a higher quality product and we're pretty happy that Apple didn't race to the bottom like nearly everyone else. Of the remainder (Sony, IBM/Lenovo, etc) Apple makes nicer products.
The bang for the buck ratio is pretty poor for Apple products if you don't take into account how well it works as a system. In terms of pure specs, you don't get what you pay for in comparison to PCs.
Sony used to have a lot of "faithfuls" that bought all Sony TV, stereos, walkmans, etc. At some point their QC dropped and they lost a lot of those. But they went several years where they could stick junk in any sorta Sony box and sell them. The problem was they pretty did for their lower end lines and really trashed their brand image.
Sony was just an example. Try searching for any other company name followed by "faithful." Many companies have a cadre of fans who are quite devoted to their products, but hardly anybody in the media would dream of calling them cultists. To the media it doesn't matter if Apple has sold over 100 million iPods, their customers are still "the faithful."
Why include tax? Just because it lets you blame Apple for the fact that you live in a crappy high-tax country?
Don't worry America, the rest of the world is subsidising the cost of your Mac Mini's.
Current Australian prices start from US$845.90 before tax.
1) I clearly pointed out how the data you provided attests to nothing and that you may very well be correct, but that your absolution that Apple is screwing their consumers requires some proof, which you have yet to provide. I can?t provide your proof for you.
If it was technically possible to do, they didn't leave it out because there wasn't demand (as there was demand), and they didn't leave it out because they couldn't afford to put it in, as the device is a high end, expensive device. So what conclusion can you draw from that? It sounds most likely that they did it deliberately since all the factors needed seemed to be present for them to have done it originally. Please show me your evidence as to why they left it out. If you can't, I'm afraid I will continue to believe Apple did it on purpose, as your side of the argument currently holds no weight other than you saying that's the case.
Please backup your statements with evidence if you are going to debate a topic. Thanks.
Please backup your statements with evidence if you are going to debate a topic. Thanks.
That isn’t how logic works when you are trying to defend your argument. You are the one stating that it was absolutely possible to put a considerably larger camera into the iPhone because other phones had larger cameras. You are the one stating that the other HW used in the iPhone has absolutely no barring on the the volume consumed in relation to other phones. You are the one stating that Apple could have done video recording regardless of the OS variances between phones. You are the ones claiming the conspiracy theory that Apple has forced people to use the same phone for two years until they upped the resolution in their third model, despite your complete lack of proof to defend any of your claims and their free update to v3.0 going against your forced upgrade claim. You are the one making the grandiose statements about subterfuge in the halls of Cupertino so you are the one who needs to supply the evidence of this skullduggery.
That isn?t how logic works when you are trying to defend your argument. You are the one stating that it was absolutely possible to put a considerably larger camera into the iPhone because other phones had larger cameras. You are the one stating that the other HW used in the iPhone has absolutely no barring on the the volume consumed in relation to other phones. You are the one stating that Apple could have done video recording regardless of the OS variances between phones. You are the ones claiming the conspiracy theory that Apple has forced people to use the same phone for two years until they upped the resolution in their third model, despite there free update to v3.0 and your complete lack of proof to defend any of your claims. Youare the one making the grandiose statements about subterfuge in the halls of Cupertino so you are the one who needs to supply the evidence of this skullduggery.
I have provided evidence to support my claims, you are just conveniently ignoring. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree if you can't provide any evidence for your viewpoint
I have provided evidence to support my claims, you are just conveniently ignoring. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree if you can't provide any evidence for your viewpoint
I'm not sure you understand what the term 'evidence' means. What you have provided is certainly not evidence.
If it was technically possible to do, they didn't leave it out because there wasn't demand (as there was demand).
Please qualify for us your statement "as there was demand". Which of the following do you mean?
1) iPhone owners who would have welcomed better picture quality if it had been available at no extra charge and without causing responsiveness or battery life issues.
2) People who bought other phones; or did not buy the iPhone; or chose not to upgrade to 3G solely because the camera specs were below their expectations.
I'm not sure you understand what the term 'evidence' means. What you have provided is certainly not evidence.
Like I said, agree to disagree if no one can provide evidence to convince me of the contrary
Like I said, agree to disagree if no one can provide evidence to convince me of the contrary
No one cares to convince you of anything. It is you that wishes to convince us that Apple is evil and out to screw their customers.
Paint us unimpressed with your arguments thus far.
No one cares to convince you of anything. It is you that wishes to convince us that Apple is evil and out to screw their customers.
Paint us unimpressed with your arguments thus far.
And paint me unimpressed with the arguments in the other direction, which were purely speculative and backed up with not a shred of evidence. I'll notch one up to myself for at least being able to provide evidence
Don't worry America, the rest of the world is subsidising the cost of your Mac Mini's.
Current Australian prices start from US$845.90 before tax.
Just because the US dollar is weak doesn't mean that you are paying more.
I'll notch one up to myself for at least being able to provide evidence
And that is exactly what this has been about, for you: feeling like you've won the argument. This was never about being rational, or even-handed, or even logical for you; you just want to be right. Or, failing that, you want to be able to create at least the self-deception that you are.
Good luck in life, my friend. I feel for you.
Just because the US dollar is weak doesn't mean that you are paying more.
He listed it in US$, the exchange rate doesn't apply
Don't worry America, the rest of the world is subsidising the cost of your Mac Mini's.
Current Australian prices start from US$845.90 before tax.
Clearly justified - it's a lot harder to build things upside down.
He listed it in US$, the exchange rate doesn't apply
So you can convert from Australian Dollars to US Dollars without an exchange rate?
You learn something new around here every day.
So you can convert from Australian Dollars to US Dollars without an exchange rate?
You learn something new around here every day.
Rewording: He listed the US price AFTER the exchange rate conversion was applied.