Hey tonton. I think the information provided wsa quite interesting, but honestly not very visionary. Whatever, I strongly agree with you that Apple has done well with every single of their last products. But I thought we're talkin' LONGTERM here, as we all seem to have enough respect to donate our time to here to Apple. It would be new to me that Stockmarket value alone is an indicator for any longterm development. And in your post I think you underestimate a little the FUTURE usergroups of Macintosh Computers. Who is the founder of any consultancy which still uses Apple? People who usually were there when Apple still was superior. Who is it going to be tomorrow? The guys I study with. Do they use macs? NO. Why? Bad value for money, they say. Obviously morons, agreed. BUT I can't say it often enough: Apple really shouldn't rely on their Image as it has been created 10 or 15 years ago. Apple should just think a little different from the normal tracks, and really develop products which make US truly addictive to them. At the moment, they are loosing it. I can only speak for myself, and I am surely NOT addicted to machines which cost triple the money and make me spend triple the time in front of it. And hey: Designers with MP3 players...Maybe in my spare time. I need hardcore SPEED. At a good price. After all, it's a computer, and not a religion </strong><hr></blockquote>
The mistake you're making is to think that some cheap arseholes who think PCs are "cheaper" will be making buying decisions for companies in the future.
The reality is though you can "buy" a cheaper PC than youcan a mac, over the longer term the Mac has a lower total cost of ownership.
the reasons big studios still buy Macs is because 40-50 Macs = 1 support person. 40-50 PCs = 4 or 5 support people.
Your friends with their cheap ideas will find that out the first time their printer doesn't work or their workstation doesn't boot.
Comments
<strong>
Hey tonton. I think the information provided wsa quite interesting, but honestly not very visionary. Whatever, I strongly agree with you that Apple has done well with every single of their last products. But I thought we're talkin' LONGTERM here, as we all seem to have enough respect to donate our time to here to Apple. It would be new to me that Stockmarket value alone is an indicator for any longterm development. And in your post I think you underestimate a little the FUTURE usergroups of Macintosh Computers. Who is the founder of any consultancy which still uses Apple? People who usually were there when Apple still was superior. Who is it going to be tomorrow? The guys I study with. Do they use macs? NO. Why? Bad value for money, they say. Obviously morons, agreed. BUT I can't say it often enough: Apple really shouldn't rely on their Image as it has been created 10 or 15 years ago. Apple should just think a little different from the normal tracks, and really develop products which make US truly addictive to them. At the moment, they are loosing it. I can only speak for myself, and I am surely NOT addicted to machines which cost triple the money and make me spend triple the time in front of it. And hey: Designers with MP3 players...Maybe in my spare time. I need hardcore SPEED. At a good price. After all, it's a computer, and not a religion
The mistake you're making is to think that some cheap arseholes who think PCs are "cheaper" will be making buying decisions for companies in the future.
The reality is though you can "buy" a cheaper PC than youcan a mac, over the longer term the Mac has a lower total cost of ownership.
the reasons big studios still buy Macs is because 40-50 Macs = 1 support person. 40-50 PCs = 4 or 5 support people.
Your friends with their cheap ideas will find that out the first time their printer doesn't work or their workstation doesn't boot.