Dell may last another few years, but that's because many of the buyers of their products are forced to think short-term for budgetary reasons. Flawed logic tells the average consumer that it's better to shell out $900 every 2 to 3 years for a Dell than to bite the bullet every five years and drop $1800 on a Mac, which is how long MacBooks tend to last.
Totally agree. I would only add that a more "expensive" Mac over a less-expensive PC, also runs [uggh]....Windows 7 and previous via Boot Camp. Two for the price of one. Or, via Parallels or Fusion, all the way back to Windows 3, DOS, Red Hat, Fedora, Ubuntu, CentOS, Debian 5.0, Suse, Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop 11, OpenSUSE Linux 11.x, Mandriva, Solaris, Open Solaris, FreeBSD, OS/2 Warp, eComStation, (probable) Chrome & more...
I'd love to see if there are any statistics on how many people Boot Camped Windows onto their Macs only to wind up using Mac OS X (for all the reasons I don't need to go into) 99% of the time.
Quote:
Dell is dead; they're already losing market share and have one-tenth the market cap of Apple
Dell mounted its deathbed when the "flawless" Michael Dell succumbed to pressure from all quarters, and played in the low-end.
When Dell was #1, their computers were never the cheapest; people felt that spending an extra $400 to get a Dell with its (then) sterling reputation for quality assurance & service, was an investment, not an expense. But when Dells dropped below $1,000 (and since, MUCH lower), when the plastic began to audibly creak when you lifted them, when their products were on floor displays of brown cardboard Dell boxes in Wal*Marts right next to floor displays of Ramen noodles for 99 cents a case, their "loftier" brand image tanked, and buying a Dell no longer afforded you the palpable advantages back when you were willing to pay a little more for a Dell, and when their profit margins (that used to be reinvested in Quality Assurance, pricier but sturdier materials and acclaimed customer support) plummeted, Dell went into an uncontrollable death spiral (that has yet to conclude).
Let's see...how much has Apple's absolute refusal to play in the low-end by slashing profit margins and switching to cheaper components, and cutting down on Industrial Design expenses hurt them over the last twelve years or so? Seems to me, the consensus among top financial analysts is that Apple is on a path that will overtake Exxon/Mobile in market cap to become the biggest company in the U.S.
Still completely confident in your decision, Michael?
Quote:
But HP? You have to wonder about the ethics of a company that sells products designed to fail after you've bought more than 6 ink cartridges. I agree with the other posters who complained about the crap quality of their printers. I so wish that Apple would get back into the printer business, to reduce the waste and the number of lousy HP printers that end up in landfills. If Apple can (and did) design 3 blockbusters in 10 years, then they can design a quality printer made from recyclable material, using re-fillable cartridges.
I ≈ agree, however, with the exception of Apple's LaserWriters, Apple printers were Canon printers in Mac clothing. With two parties that needed to make profits, I doubt Apple made much off their disguised Canon printers.
Maybe like with graphics cards, it's best to leave printers to the specialists than try to get up to speed and compete with the likes of Epson, who has been refining and refining and perfecting their many highly innovative printing technologies (e.g. their Micro Piezo "vibration" method of deploying ink droplets that are as small as 1.5 picoliters) over decades.
But Epson has ink on their hands as well as HP. Their cartridges are good for about a week. Why don't they just give the printers away?
Oh, and an open question I have: is it worth it to use Parallels or Fusion to run Windows and Mac OS X concurrently with the advantages of integration, coherence, drag-and-drop, the Dock Exposé, not having to reboot to use Windows, etc., etc., etc., over all the Windows security vulnerabilities you would be exposed to in that mixed environment?
Would it be more prudent to format a separate drive, install Windows via Boot Camp, put up with rebooting, but completely segregate Windows on that drive to "contain" any "infectious" issues from "infecting" your Mac OS X boot volume that runs Windows side-by-side with Mac OS X via Parallels or Fusion? (Classic case of "Lesser of two evils?)
look at this and we understand dell vision of the tablet http://www.dell.com/us/p/inspiron-duo/pd Oh yeah, Andy Lark thinks that people love to do holding this 3.39 lbs (1.54Kg) and do touching. Hat off
Say hello to Andy Lark.
Sometimes you want to talk trash. Sometimes you need to bullshit. With the new touch-sensitive, Flash-capable Inspiron? duo convertible double-talk executive, you can do both in style. You can tell it?s Dell.
Totally agree. I would only add that a more "expensive" Mac over a less-expensive PC, also runs [uggh]....Windows 7 and previous via Boot Camp. Two for the price of one.
Not only that, when you consider the total cost of ownership - acquisition, maintenance, upgrades, and salvage - over their useful life, Macs are by far the least expensive computers. They always have been.
Quote:
Maybe like with graphics cards, it's best to leave printers to the specialists than try to get up to speed and compete with the likes of Epson, who has been refining and refining and perfecting their many highly innovative printing technologies (e.g. their Micro Piezo "vibration" method of deploying ink droplets that are as small as 1.5 picoliters) over decades.
It's only a matter of time before iPad imitators learn not to try to "get up to speed and compete" with the likes of Apple too. They've invested over a decade of research and who knows how many billions of dollars developing these low power mobile devices that are just now entering the market. Even attempting to "get up to speed" with a company ten years ahead of you is probably unwise from an investment perspective.
Sure, there will be cheaper alternatives, just as there have always been cheaper alternatives to the Mac. Sure, consumers will gravitate to a $199 tablet (should there ever be a viable one). Of course the HPs and Dells who sell them will be doing their best to hide how much money they're actually losing on every one. When consumers realize it's junk, that its support is limited, that its battery craps out in six months because it does run Flash... you guessed it, they'll run out and buy another $199 piece of junk, just as they have with Dell, Gateway, and HP for decades.
Meanwhile, those who want something that's actually usable and reliable will gladly spend twice as much for an iPad that will last five times as long. Who has the better business model, over the long term?
As for the Dells and HPs of the world, they're landfill fodder. Always have been (well, only since about 1992 or so).
Quote:
But Epson has ink on their hands as well as HP. Their cartridges are good for about a week. Why don't they just give the printers away?
Effectively, they do. In fact many consumers toss perfectly good inkjet printers in the trash when their ink runs dry. It's often cheaper to buy a brand new printer than replacement cartridges. Landfill fodder, again.
I remember watching Jobs giving a product release maybe a year and a half ago. This was pre-iPad, and the launch included a new version of the iPod Touch, and touted its functionality as a great pocketable mini-computer. Then he put a picture up on the screen showing the backside of a guy in jeans with a Dell Mini 9 sticking out of his back pocket -- barely poking the corner in his back pocket. Everyone laughed. The idea was that this mini 9 just wasn't portable.
So what does Apple release within a year of that product launch? The iPad. With a 10" screen that is just as un-pocketable as that Dell Mini 9.
On top of that, Jobs makes fun of the 7" Galaxy Tab with the 'sand your fingers' comment. Well, how is it that iPhone and iPod Touch users use their miniscule machines then? If you have to sand your fingers down for a 7" Tab, what must you have to do to use an iPod Touch?!
The irony is amusing. Apple is just as good at poo-pooing everyone else -- whether it's actual-ware or vapor-ware.
While that might be true, it's still nowhere as sad as badmouthing the competition without having an actual product yourself, or making up stuff. I agree that Apple sometimes also makes a little bit too much of a show downplaying the competition, but never as bad as this Dell and HP guys.
I also think you're missing the point about Jobs making fun of the Dell Mini 9 or that he was being hypocritical or stupid about 7" tablets being inconvenient or hard to control. The iPod Touch and the iPhone have never been positioned as more than just a PMP and smartphone, with accompanying user interfaces that work well on a 4" screen. The 'problem' with 'sanding down your fingertips' is 'solved' by simple tuning down the interface and showing less information at the same time. I also don't think the iPad has ever been positioned as a truly 'portable device' in the same sense a smartphone is a portable device, in other words: not something you will carry along with you all the time.
Combining these two observations, I don't find it contradictory to make fun at the Dell Mini 9 and 7" tablets wjhile at the same time you sell a 10" tablet yourself, and I also don't find it contradictory to say 7" tablets are too small to use conveniently while you are selling 4" smartphones and PMPs. I'm not passing any judgement whether Apple is right here, but it's very clear they think 4" is the sweet spot for phones with phone UI's, and 10" is the sweet spot for tablets with rich user interfaces. Anything in between is diluting the qualities of the iPhones and iPads. Make the iPad smaller and you will have a device that is too small for a rich user interface, and too big for a true 'carry everywhere' device.
I think there are a group of people who DO know a lot about technology, but see Apple as just dumbed down shit for idiots. (Not my words)
To know a lot about technology and knowing how to sell a functional product to the consumer market are two different skills.
Quote:
Maybe they just feel left out. Maybe if Apple made what these geeks are looking for, the lambasting would cease.
I believe Apple cares more about the average person who doesn't care how technology works than it does the cynical geek who complains about the amount of RAM.
To know a lot about technology and knowing how to sell a functional product to the consumer market are two different skills.
I believe Apple cares more about the average person who doesn't care how technology works than it does the cynical geek who complains about the amount of RAM.
Then Apple is going to slowly lose the geeks, and the geeks that work in IT/retail will be recommending Android/Windows / setting up polices at work that only Windows/Android is supported.
I do agree, overtime, Android will out beat iOS in both phone and tablet, simply because they will be able to market and sell Android based devices cheaper than Apple.
Both Dell and HP are living in Fools paradise.. Already there are news of malware attacks on Android based Tablets.. No one can beat iOS for the simple reason that Apple controls both hardware and software and both are seamlessly integrated..
Dell and HP, please shut up and look to innovate instead of crying foul
Then Apple is going to slowly lose the geeks, and the geeks that work in IT/retail will be recommending Android/Windows / setting up polices at work that only Windows/Android is supported.
I do agree, overtime, Android will out beat iOS in both phone and tablet, simply because they will be able to market and sell Android based devices cheaper than Apple.
I think you've got it wrong, Apple is winning because people are fed up of having to rely on geeks in IT/retail who salivate over fps and overclocking rather than getting computers to do real work for the real world.
People are finding Apple products are perfectly useful without the geek and are demanding their use in wider areas.
Oh, and an open question I have: is it worth it to use Parallels or Fusion to run Windows and Mac OS X concurrently with the advantages of integration, coherence, drag-and-drop, the Dock Exposé, not having to reboot to use Windows, etc., etc., etc., over all the Windows security vulnerabilities you would be exposed to in that mixed environment?
Would it be more prudent to format a separate drive, install Windows via Boot Camp, put up with rebooting, but completely segregate Windows on that drive to "contain" any "infectious" issues from "infecting" your Mac OS X boot volume that runs Windows side-by-side with Mac OS X via Parallels or Fusion? (Classic case of "Lesser of two evils?)
\
Hi, you should use Parallels or VMWare Fusion. It will not "corrupt" or "infect" your Mac OS X partition even if it is compromised. That's Windows thinking, partitioning so that corrupted parts can be reinstalled while keeping other parts. With Parallels or VMWare Fusion the PC virus doesn't "jump across" to the Mac.
Also, the best part of virtualisation is this: your entire Windows install is one file. Backup this file. If something happens that messes up Windows then just copy back that one file ("image") and you are back to exactly the state your Windows was in at the point of backup.
Comments
Dell may last another few years, but that's because many of the buyers of their products are forced to think short-term for budgetary reasons. Flawed logic tells the average consumer that it's better to shell out $900 every 2 to 3 years for a Dell than to bite the bullet every five years and drop $1800 on a Mac, which is how long MacBooks tend to last.
Totally agree. I would only add that a more "expensive" Mac over a less-expensive PC, also runs [uggh]....Windows 7 and previous via Boot Camp. Two for the price of one. Or, via Parallels or Fusion, all the way back to Windows 3, DOS, Red Hat, Fedora, Ubuntu, CentOS, Debian 5.0, Suse, Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop 11, OpenSUSE Linux 11.x, Mandriva, Solaris, Open Solaris, FreeBSD, OS/2 Warp, eComStation, (probable) Chrome & more...
I'd love to see if there are any statistics on how many people Boot Camped Windows onto their Macs only to wind up using Mac OS X (for all the reasons I don't need to go into) 99% of the time.
Dell is dead; they're already losing market share and have one-tenth the market cap of Apple
Dell mounted its deathbed when the "flawless" Michael Dell succumbed to pressure from all quarters, and played in the low-end.
When Dell was #1, their computers were never the cheapest; people felt that spending an extra $400 to get a Dell with its (then) sterling reputation for quality assurance & service, was an investment, not an expense. But when Dells dropped below $1,000 (and since, MUCH lower), when the plastic began to audibly creak when you lifted them, when their products were on floor displays of brown cardboard Dell boxes in Wal*Marts right next to floor displays of Ramen noodles for 99 cents a case, their "loftier" brand image tanked, and buying a Dell no longer afforded you the palpable advantages back when you were willing to pay a little more for a Dell, and when their profit margins (that used to be reinvested in Quality Assurance, pricier but sturdier materials and acclaimed customer support) plummeted, Dell went into an uncontrollable death spiral (that has yet to conclude).
Let's see...how much has Apple's absolute refusal to play in the low-end by slashing profit margins and switching to cheaper components, and cutting down on Industrial Design expenses hurt them over the last twelve years or so? Seems to me, the consensus among top financial analysts is that Apple is on a path that will overtake Exxon/Mobile in market cap to become the biggest company in the U.S.
Still completely confident in your decision, Michael?
But HP? You have to wonder about the ethics of a company that sells products designed to fail after you've bought more than 6 ink cartridges. I agree with the other posters who complained about the crap quality of their printers. I so wish that Apple would get back into the printer business, to reduce the waste and the number of lousy HP printers that end up in landfills. If Apple can (and did) design 3 blockbusters in 10 years, then they can design a quality printer made from recyclable material, using re-fillable cartridges.
I ≈ agree, however, with the exception of Apple's LaserWriters, Apple printers were Canon printers in Mac clothing. With two parties that needed to make profits, I doubt Apple made much off their disguised Canon printers.
Maybe like with graphics cards, it's best to leave printers to the specialists than try to get up to speed and compete with the likes of Epson, who has been refining and refining and perfecting their many highly innovative printing technologies (e.g. their Micro Piezo "vibration" method of deploying ink droplets that are as small as 1.5 picoliters) over decades.
But Epson has ink on their hands as well as HP. Their cartridges are good for about a week. Why don't they just give the printers away?
Oh, and an open question I have: is it worth it to use Parallels or Fusion to run Windows and Mac OS X concurrently with the advantages of integration, coherence, drag-and-drop, the Dock Exposé, not having to reboot to use Windows, etc., etc., etc., over all the Windows security vulnerabilities you would be exposed to in that mixed environment?
Would it be more prudent to format a separate drive, install Windows via Boot Camp, put up with rebooting, but completely segregate Windows on that drive to "contain" any "infectious" issues from "infecting" your Mac OS X boot volume that runs Windows side-by-side with Mac OS X via Parallels or Fusion? (Classic case of "Lesser of two evils?)
he's a schmuck.
I think there are a group of people who DO know a lot about technology, but see Apple as just dumbed down shit for idiots. (Not my words)
Maybe they just feel left out. Maybe if Apple made what these geeks are looking for, the lambasting would cease.
dumb down shit for idiots like iPhone and iPad which eventually get copied by Google which they love
look at this and we understand dell vision of the tablet http://www.dell.com/us/p/inspiron-duo/pd Oh yeah, Andy Lark thinks that people love to do holding this 3.39 lbs (1.54Kg) and do touching. Hat off
Say hello to Andy Lark.
Sometimes you want to talk trash. Sometimes you need to bullshit. With the new touch-sensitive, Flash-capable Inspiron? duo convertible double-talk executive, you can do both in style. You can tell it?s Dell.
I should work in marketing
Totally agree. I would only add that a more "expensive" Mac over a less-expensive PC, also runs [uggh]....Windows 7 and previous via Boot Camp. Two for the price of one.
Not only that, when you consider the total cost of ownership - acquisition, maintenance, upgrades, and salvage - over their useful life, Macs are by far the least expensive computers. They always have been.
Maybe like with graphics cards, it's best to leave printers to the specialists than try to get up to speed and compete with the likes of Epson, who has been refining and refining and perfecting their many highly innovative printing technologies (e.g. their Micro Piezo "vibration" method of deploying ink droplets that are as small as 1.5 picoliters) over decades.
It's only a matter of time before iPad imitators learn not to try to "get up to speed and compete" with the likes of Apple too. They've invested over a decade of research and who knows how many billions of dollars developing these low power mobile devices that are just now entering the market. Even attempting to "get up to speed" with a company ten years ahead of you is probably unwise from an investment perspective.
Sure, there will be cheaper alternatives, just as there have always been cheaper alternatives to the Mac. Sure, consumers will gravitate to a $199 tablet (should there ever be a viable one). Of course the HPs and Dells who sell them will be doing their best to hide how much money they're actually losing on every one. When consumers realize it's junk, that its support is limited, that its battery craps out in six months because it does run Flash... you guessed it, they'll run out and buy another $199 piece of junk, just as they have with Dell, Gateway, and HP for decades.
Meanwhile, those who want something that's actually usable and reliable will gladly spend twice as much for an iPad that will last five times as long. Who has the better business model, over the long term?
As for the Dells and HPs of the world, they're landfill fodder. Always have been (well, only since about 1992 or so).
But Epson has ink on their hands as well as HP. Their cartridges are good for about a week. Why don't they just give the printers away?
Effectively, they do. In fact many consumers toss perfectly good inkjet printers in the trash when their ink runs dry. It's often cheaper to buy a brand new printer than replacement cartridges. Landfill fodder, again.
I remember watching Jobs giving a product release maybe a year and a half ago. This was pre-iPad, and the launch included a new version of the iPod Touch, and touted its functionality as a great pocketable mini-computer. Then he put a picture up on the screen showing the backside of a guy in jeans with a Dell Mini 9 sticking out of his back pocket -- barely poking the corner in his back pocket. Everyone laughed. The idea was that this mini 9 just wasn't portable.
So what does Apple release within a year of that product launch? The iPad. With a 10" screen that is just as un-pocketable as that Dell Mini 9.
On top of that, Jobs makes fun of the 7" Galaxy Tab with the 'sand your fingers' comment. Well, how is it that iPhone and iPod Touch users use their miniscule machines then? If you have to sand your fingers down for a 7" Tab, what must you have to do to use an iPod Touch?!
The irony is amusing. Apple is just as good at poo-pooing everyone else -- whether it's actual-ware or vapor-ware.
While that might be true, it's still nowhere as sad as badmouthing the competition without having an actual product yourself, or making up stuff. I agree that Apple sometimes also makes a little bit too much of a show downplaying the competition, but never as bad as this Dell and HP guys.
I also think you're missing the point about Jobs making fun of the Dell Mini 9 or that he was being hypocritical or stupid about 7" tablets being inconvenient or hard to control. The iPod Touch and the iPhone have never been positioned as more than just a PMP and smartphone, with accompanying user interfaces that work well on a 4" screen. The 'problem' with 'sanding down your fingertips' is 'solved' by simple tuning down the interface and showing less information at the same time. I also don't think the iPad has ever been positioned as a truly 'portable device' in the same sense a smartphone is a portable device, in other words: not something you will carry along with you all the time.
Combining these two observations, I don't find it contradictory to make fun at the Dell Mini 9 and 7" tablets wjhile at the same time you sell a 10" tablet yourself, and I also don't find it contradictory to say 7" tablets are too small to use conveniently while you are selling 4" smartphones and PMPs. I'm not passing any judgement whether Apple is right here, but it's very clear they think 4" is the sweet spot for phones with phone UI's, and 10" is the sweet spot for tablets with rich user interfaces. Anything in between is diluting the qualities of the iPhones and iPads. Make the iPad smaller and you will have a device that is too small for a rich user interface, and too big for a true 'carry everywhere' device.
I think there are a group of people who DO know a lot about technology, but see Apple as just dumbed down shit for idiots. (Not my words)
To know a lot about technology and knowing how to sell a functional product to the consumer market are two different skills.
Maybe they just feel left out. Maybe if Apple made what these geeks are looking for, the lambasting would cease.
I believe Apple cares more about the average person who doesn't care how technology works than it does the cynical geek who complains about the amount of RAM.
To know a lot about technology and knowing how to sell a functional product to the consumer market are two different skills.
I believe Apple cares more about the average person who doesn't care how technology works than it does the cynical geek who complains about the amount of RAM.
Then Apple is going to slowly lose the geeks, and the geeks that work in IT/retail will be recommending Android/Windows / setting up polices at work that only Windows/Android is supported.
I do agree, overtime, Android will out beat iOS in both phone and tablet, simply because they will be able to market and sell Android based devices cheaper than Apple.
Dell and HP, please shut up and look to innovate instead of crying foul
Then Apple is going to slowly lose the geeks, and the geeks that work in IT/retail will be recommending Android/Windows / setting up polices at work that only Windows/Android is supported.
I do agree, overtime, Android will out beat iOS in both phone and tablet, simply because they will be able to market and sell Android based devices cheaper than Apple.
I think you've got it wrong, Apple is winning because people are fed up of having to rely on geeks in IT/retail who salivate over fps and overclocking rather than getting computers to do real work for the real world.
People are finding Apple products are perfectly useful without the geek and are demanding their use in wider areas.
Oh, and an open question I have: is it worth it to use Parallels or Fusion to run Windows and Mac OS X concurrently with the advantages of integration, coherence, drag-and-drop, the Dock Exposé, not having to reboot to use Windows, etc., etc., etc., over all the Windows security vulnerabilities you would be exposed to in that mixed environment?
Would it be more prudent to format a separate drive, install Windows via Boot Camp, put up with rebooting, but completely segregate Windows on that drive to "contain" any "infectious" issues from "infecting" your Mac OS X boot volume that runs Windows side-by-side with Mac OS X via Parallels or Fusion? (Classic case of "Lesser of two evils?)
Hi, you should use Parallels or VMWare Fusion. It will not "corrupt" or "infect" your Mac OS X partition even if it is compromised. That's Windows thinking, partitioning so that corrupted parts can be reinstalled while keeping other parts. With Parallels or VMWare Fusion the PC virus doesn't "jump across" to the Mac.
Also, the best part of virtualisation is this: your entire Windows install is one file. Backup this file. If something happens that messes up Windows then just copy back that one file ("image") and you are back to exactly the state your Windows was in at the point of backup.