I'm tired of debating this with you. I have worked at multi-national companies, and I know how they have operated. I now work in academia, and I know how they operate. I'm sorry, but judging by what I see and have seen every day, you guys are wrong. The populous just doesn't care about what's in that box on their desk. They just want it to work.
Been fun, off to find someplace else to waste my time.
I agree. I work for a software vendor. The people I work with are all computer literate, frequently discuss changes in algorithm efficiency due to advances in bus vs CPU speed. Still, very few care about the specs of the computers they use for editing, mail and office apps. We do care about lab machines, but not about our personal computers.
The only upgrade we've ever done was to install extra RAM to be able to run VNWare on our PCs. Other than that, no upgrade. I don't recall ever replacing a hard disk on a 3-year-old machine. It's just not cost effective. We do separate monitors from computers though, so when my 800 MHz PIII was replaced with a 2.4 GHz P4, my monitor remained.
I believe the car example is perfect. The driver is required to know the very simple controls, and that's it as far as car operation is concerned. All the rest is driving. There is absolutely no requirement to know about the workings of the internal combustion engine (or diesel) and there is no reason to know what octane is, why some fuels are leaded while others are not, and why anyone would actuacly put lead in gasoline. You also need know nothing about timing, or valves or horsepower or torque, although these specs are usually available. You can and should concentrate on the driving.
Computers are a less mature design than cars, because you need to understand a lot about their internal workings. You need to know about folders and subfolders and windows and widgets and network cards and different peripheral standards. All this gets in the way of what you really want to do: write a document, surf the web, fix photos, compose music, create movies.
Are you old enough to remember the Brady Bunch? They had a permanent excuse for why someone is not inside the house for a particular scene. They were always "fixing their bikes". Well, like the Brady kids, we're spending too much time fixing our bikes instead of riding them. Not to mention hanging out at Appleinsider discussing specs.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
Oh, and as far as the consumer is concerned, you're selling computers to people who mostly still have blinking 12:00 on their VCR/DVD player. Now you want them to understand the breadth and depth of usefulness a computer provides? I thought providing this functionality through intuitive software was a programmer's job.
I would like to add to this point as it is a drum I have beaten before. Computers are not for the intellectually lazy. Apple is guilty of dummying down computers far too much. The one button mouse is an example of this. Rather than teaching people the efficient two button approach, they pretend that it is too complicated and as a result, functionality is lost.
You obviously have never done a licks worth of tech support. Users can be dumb. Very dumb, but still functional. My mother is a biological scientist. She never understood what the right-click did. She wasn't pretending. After victimizing her with my Wintel hand-me-downs, I bought her an eMac. Aside from hassles with badly designed web sites, she doesn't have many issues any more.
Quote:
As far as pros are concerned, if a scientist does not learn how to use a mass spectrameter, then he is not worth his salt as a scientist. Doctors have to learn how to use specialized equipment. Most skill trades have specialized tools that the artisan must master. Computer aided drafting requires the understanding of COMPUTERS! Print work, video production, engineering, you name it, all heavily utilize and require an extensive knowledge of COMPUTERS!
PCs stopped being specialized equipment more than 15 years ago. Video producers don't (and don't want to) know about software engineering, just be able to us video production software. The software has become specialized to the point where you have to take multiple classes for it. So you can have people who attain knowledge about Adobe Premiere OR about Active Directory and the Windows registry, but rarely do you have a video producer that solves his or her own PC problems.
Quote:
If there is a way to make a task more efficient, I am all for it. But the attempt to make computers brain dead simple for the intellectually lazy is misguided at best, and self destructive at worst. If ma and pa don't want to learn how to use a computer for day to day tasks, they don't have to. There is already a simpler way to write letters. It is called pen and paper. They can send mail the same way as their forefathers. They don't need a computer to play checkers. And if they want information they can still go to the library. If, however, they want to use a highly technical piece of electronics to perform day to day tasks, they have the responsibility to at least crack open a "For Dummies" book and educate themselves.
We still have to learn to drive cars. An automobile is not brain dead simple to operate. Yet we take a few weeks or months to figure it out so we can do it well. We also need to know something of maintenance. Pumping gas, changing the oil, and fixing or changing a flat are just a few examples. Average consumers learn to do these things and it does not overly tax them too much to gain the knowledge. Why should computers be any different.
Do you believe in order to drive their cars, people should first get a Mechanical Engineering degree? No? Because that is the point your making.
The kernel of your statement was that Apple has oversimplified the computer. That's quite laughible. The "It Just Works" mantra isn't just dogma or philosophy or some aesthetic elitistism. A lot of Cupertino software and hardware engineers struggle to stick to that principle. Simplifying the complex is... well... complex!!
If anyone is intellectally lazy it's Wintel developers for leaving so much up to the consumers to learn or maintain. For example, hardware drivers. If you plug something in the PC should know and understand what to do with it.
It. Should. Just. Work.
That is the point of the All-in-Ones.
That is the point of OS X combined with the AIOs.
That is the point of Apple.
Screed ...F-you, I've drunken the Kool-Aid and it is sweet.
I always get the same responses everytime I go on this rant. I am so misunderstood. Try to wrap your minds around this concept. It is a good thing to know something about the tools and equipment you use. Computers are made up of hardware and software. Almost every skill task can be broken down in the same way. The skill is equivalent to the software. It is the task you perform with the equipment. The equipment is the hardware. It is the stuff that allows you to perform the skill. You have to master the skill (software), and be proficient with the equipment, (hardware).
Driving is the skill that people definitely ought to be concentrating on when behind the wheel. But they still have to know the difference between the gas and the break. If driving a stick, they have to be even more mechanically proficient. No, they do not have to take a course in auto-mechanics. But it is not acceptable for them not to know how to put gas in the car or for that matter, what type of gas their car needs. They may not know the technical difference between diesel and gas but they had better know which one they need. The smart consumer will know this before they buy the car. It is not acceptable for them not to know how to open the hood of the car or how to put oil or water in it in case of an emergency. Everyone should know how to change a tire because you will not always have a blow out in cell phone range. Changing a tire is mechanically more challenging than changing a video card or HD.
A soldier needs to know how to take his gun completely apart, clean it, and put it back together to keep it well maintained. It is not enough to just know how to fire it. An equestrian needs to know a lot about the boring and nasty work of maintaining their horse. A person who uses the light from a lamp needs to know how to plug it in, turn on the switch, and change the bulb if necessary. They need to know the difference between the plug, switch and bulb and something of what each part does. They do not have to understand the underlying principals of electricity or how the lamp was manufactured. They do need to know how to make it produce the light they require.
I have never said that people need to be computer engineers to use computers. There just seems to be this unrealistic expectation that a person should be able to jump right into the software and skill usage of a computer without spending a moment to learn something of the hardware. When people learn to drive cars, they spend time learning emergency maintenance and basic maintenance as well. They also spend a considerable amount of time learning to drive the thing. If you have never driven before, you don't just buy a car and expect to sit in it and know how to drive it or take care of it or have it drive itself. Yet, that is our expectation when we take a computer out of the box. We expect zero study, zero training, zero experience, and 100% proficiency. This is why tech support is inundated with calls about the retractable cup holder not working properly.
I repeat, you do not have to be a computer engineer. However, if you are a print artist, you had better know something about monitors and how to calibrate them for accurate color. If you are a 3D artist, video pro, or hardcore gamer, you had better know something about video cards. If you are a musician, you have to know a lot about midi interfaces and various audio equipment if you will be recording and editing on a computer. If you want to record shows on your VCR, you had better crack open the manual and learn to set the clock. I have no patience for the intellectually lazy.
That will do it for me on this subject, at least until the next three or four months.
I don't have much to add to this discussion. I switched from a PC to an iMac because I wanted what a PC didn't offer anymore - simplicity and good looks. They still don't as far as I am concerned. The AIO concept is what won me over to Mac and then I learned to true basis for Mac being a better computer - OS X!! The eMac is a very good machine in it's price range and offers good value for the money. I say keep the new eMac in that tradition. No major chamges are needed.
I think the debates about the value of understanding computers is silly.
The simpler and more reliabvle the machine, the better. It's the applications that will make it as complex as the task demands, nothing more.
Simplicity, complixity and complication are three very different things.
I would call a great deal of computer related technology complicated, not complex.
But I don't have the time to debate intuition with you right now, so I'll have to let all that go.
The biggest problem with the eMac is the CRT, not even that it's an AIO. For 799, a 15" LCD of good quality is more than possible. It should be expected. Properly integrated into the AIO, it has the potential to be even more durable! Less prone to A-D conversion related bugs, replacable backlight, no slow decay of tube quality.
The eMac sells an OS ? a Mac OS that leads to other things (iPods and an experience with a digital life)... Look at how far the Mac OS has come and where Apple is trying to get people hooked ? kids in education. The eMac isn't about challenging other Apple machines for a place ? it will die when CRTs die. In the meantime it has a job to do.
For all those complaining about the eMac taking market share from the iMac I think Apple has answered ? take a good look at the 1.8 SP G5 tower. That's the challenge to the new iMac.
The eMac is in the coal face and I think people are sitting up and watching now. So I just hope Apple doesn't 'drop the ball' again. I've had enough of that.
The biggest problem with the eMac is the CRT, not even that it's an AIO. For 799, a 15" LCD of good quality is more than possible. It should be expected. Properly integrated into the AIO, it has the potential to be even more durable! Less prone to A-D conversion related bugs, replacable backlight, no slow decay of tube quality.
My friend, of course it's possible. But that's not the point. What possible incentive does Apple have to produce such a machine. As it stands, the eMac has to be pure profit right now. The machine you describe would be much less so. Also, a G5 AIO with an LCD already exists, it is called an iMac. Brand an eMac with those specs and watch the iMac 3 die a worse death than did the iMac 2. Mark my words. Apple will give us the same eMac we have now with a 1.33 GHz G4. The eMac is the desktop version of the iBook. In fact, it is slightly behind it.
Okay, first, 90% of iMac customers won't understand a 64-bit processor limited to 2gb of ram. Most consumers just don't know what ram is!! Get out of the computer lab and meet some real people.
And I take real offense at your "exploit the stupid" remark. I work in an academic setting, and there are people in my department who are world-class scientists, experts in their field, and don't know firewire from USB. To them, a computer is a tool. They use Macs because they don't have to learn how to work on a computer. Hasn't this always been Apple's plug? "Macs are easy and fun to use." That ain't exactly geek speak. Didn't you see any of the "Switch" campaign ads? Common people who wanted a computer to USE, not work on.
Big corporations, the ones that buy 10's of thousands of computers at a time, don't upgrade. Can you imagine how much it would cost to pay a man to go around and upgrade EVERY machine? Plus, HD failures go up, monitor failures go up, etc, as machines age. Hence the purge of computers ("off-lease") every three years.
You are 100% right. I have a similar background as you and hence have had the same experiences. Most people in academia never upgrade anything in there computer, besides the RAM. And most people think 128 is a lot. 1024 is outrageous. And the people in Academia who stick with Apple do so because it is easy to use. Simple as that.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
I think I understand what you are trying to get at with that statment but I think you have missed the target a bit.
Quote:
Oh, and as far as the consumer is concerned, you're selling computers to people who mostly still have blinking 12:00 on their VCR/DVD player.
Hey I consider myself computer literate and I've never once set the clock on any VCR/DVD that I've owned. In fact on the last unit the feature to sync to a television was disabled. If you are not in the habit of using a feature why bother.
Quote:
Now you want them to understand the breadth and depth of usefulness a computer provides?
Not at all. I might be so bold as to state that the majority of the people posting in this forum do not have a broad understanding of the facilites in the average desktop computer. Nothing wrong with that at all. On the other hand things like disk space and RAM should be understood at least to the point that the user understands how they impact his machine.
Quote:
I thought providing this functionality through intuitive software was a programmer's job.
There is only so much you can expect from a programmer and an intuitive interface. Going back to the car analogy that someone else used, if the gas gage starts to migrate to zero you would expect a driver to understand what that means. In the same manner you should expect a computer user to know what to do with respect to a full disk.
What I object to is this idea that it is acceptable for somebody to maintain complete ignorance of a tool that is part of their job. That doesn't mean understanding every minute engineering detail of the hardware, just that they are involved enough to leverage the tool. Its the difference between being an assest and being an expense.
PCs stopped being specialized equipment more than 15 years ago. Video producers don't (and don't want to) know about software engineering, just be able to us video production software.
Well here I fully disagree, the functionality of a computer varies with the hardware and software installed in it. The same hardware that sits on a desktop can end up being highly specialized when configured with rare software or hardware.
Quote:
The software has become specialized to the point where you have to take multiple classes for it. So you can have people who attain knowledge about Adobe Premiere OR about Active Directory and the Windows registry, but rarely do you have a video producer that solves his or her own PC problems.
I have to disagre here, the professionals that will be around in the future will solve as many of their computer problems as they can. If the organization is large enough they may be able to offload some of that effort but the reality is a lot of time (money) can pass between recognition of a problem and getting professional help. Understand what I'm saying here, it is the professional that can eek the most out of his tools that makes out the best.
Quote:
Do you believe in order to drive their cars, people should first get a Mechanical Engineering degree? No? Because that is the point your making.
Clearly he was not making any such point. What he was saying is that there is an expectation, within our society, that people will have certain knowledge with respect to their automobile. Do you really believe that checking the oil and filling up the gas tank requires a Engineerig Degree? Frankly the whole suggestion is just to wild to accept.
Quote:
The kernel of your statement was that Apple has oversimplified the computer. That's quite laughible. The "It Just Works" mantra isn't just dogma or philosophy or some aesthetic elitistism. A lot of Cupertino software and hardware engineers struggle to stick to that principle. Simplifying the complex is... well... complex!!
If anyone is intellectally lazy it's Wintel developers for leaving so much up to the consumers to learn or maintain. For example, hardware drivers. If you plug something in the PC should know and understand what to do with it.
It. Should. Just. Work.
That sort of depends now doesn't it. For mass market hardware maybe it would be good that everything worked. On the other hand if your dealling with hardware that maybe exists in quanities of a 100 or so world wide then things might not be so rosey. That is when reasonable understanding of the hardware and software environment can be very usefull when dealing with the knowledge holders of the special hardware.
Quote:
That is the point of the All-in-Ones.
That is the point of OS X combined with the AIOs.
That is the point of Apple.
That was the point of Apple but the reality is there is little in the way of a market for that sort of hardware. Apple is transitioning to different markets where it should be expected that intelligent people will be involved with their hardware and software.
As to the All-in-ones, it is interesting that Apple has only gotten these machine right in a couple of cases. It otherwise struggles with sales. One of the reasons it struggles with sales is because it has deluded itself into believing its own marketing malarky. It is fine to make a machine that just works, but unless you make it flexible and upgradable it will always hit a small percentage of portential customers.
Quote:
Screed ...F-you, I've drunken the Kool-Aid and it is sweet.
My friend, of course it's possible. But that's not the point. What possible incentive does Apple have to produce such a machine. As it stands, the eMac has to be pure profit right now. The machine you describe would be much less so. Also, a G5 AIO with an LCD already exists, it is called an iMac. Brand an eMac with those specs and watch the iMac 3 die a worse death than did the iMac 2. Mark my words. Apple will give us the same eMac we have now with a 1.33 GHz G4. The eMac is the desktop version of the iBook. In fact, it is slightly behind it.
I didn't say it should have a G5, I said it should have an LCD.
Maybe, it will only exist as long as Apple wants to keep selling a CRT machine, but there had better be a 999 iMac to replace it.
Apple's consumer desktops are STILL very much overpriced. The entry level iMac doesn't even have a DVD-r, when it 1299 it should. That's 1749 in Canadian pesos. For 1749 I can get a tower with a 17" LCD, twice the base RAM and HDD, and a faster DVD-r, if I shop around, I can even get it with a new DL-DVD drive.
A bit off topic maybe but I think a number of people want to see an eMac that really apeals to the mass market. It doesn't have to be the cheapest computer out there but it does have to have the right feature set. Actually it doesn't even have to have a 970FX in it, a G4 with a reasonably fast upgrade would do the trick. I believe that the eMac could have a very long life as long as Apple doesn't let it stagnate.
Good comment.
The eMac sold 170,000 units and over. So, a cheap Mac is desired. A cheap desktop is desired. And just because a cheap tower isn't there doesn't mean that one isn't wanted from Mac or PC buyers, Amorph. So perhaps you should stop projecting your ideas on what you perceive the market wants. Especially when tower sales in the PC market prove there is still loads of demand for a top specced PC for a decent price. The Mac tower market suffers from ridiculous pricing and ridiculous supply problems re: cpu. Factor this in. Until Apple gets near cpu with Wintel, adds a monitor in with the price, or broadens the range to include sub-£1K models in the next twelve months then we'll never know...
People will take it, the eMac despite the craply out of date G4 because is is a Mac, it runs the OS with iApps etc.
The AIO nature of the argument is neither here nor there. Yes, Dell may sell more 'rugged' CRT based than LCDs but LCDs are a trend like laptops. eMacs are more rugged...so why are iBooks doing so well in Education, eh? More of them (LCDs) are being sold than ever and my school has LCDs. So there.
A 15 inch LCD iMac at 1.6 G5 would effectively end the eMac? Maybe not quite yet. But sooner or later the CRT eMac is a gonner. When? Place your bets.
The 1.8 gig single Tower was predicated by Thinksecret before the launch of the lacklustre tower update.
And low and behold, we now have one now that G5 supply constraints have lifted. So the G5 tech' is getting cheaper.
At £1045 it represents better value for 'Tower' buyers who want get a non-AIO Mac but can't reach for the wallet crippling £1400. Could Apple do better than this? I believe so. I'd like to see them go as low as £895.
£1400 for an entry tower was waaaaaaaaaaaay over the top and Mac tower sales have shown this. (Along with supply constraints of 0.09 speed graces...probably the 2.5 mainly...and the 1 and a half year old 1.8 and 2 gig speed grades.)
Wintel still sells bucket loads of Towers. And laptop trends aren't dinting this too much. PC World has loads of Towers with a £795-£1500 price range with LCDs that make Macs look value starved.
Apple's never had to 'grow up' like the Wintel market and it still hobbles them as they 'grow up' now (and the iPod shows that it's being dragged not-so-kicking and screamingly into the realms of adult hood...) Their approach to the tower market reflects this. The Mac market approach from Apple is entrenched in 'same old, same old'. It's breakeven. The real sales and profit seem to be coming from softare, services sales un' iPods. The Mac division does have a pulse.
How do they break out of the boom and bust cycle? A miracle? Nah, just keep doing what they're doing. The new iMac might help for a while. It is very nice. I'll give it that. Better than the two that preceded it. But I still think they can do better with the entry level price. The top end is good VFM.
The way to address Mac profit? Sell more software.
License 'X' for all new HP computers! Anti-virus Wintel computer! :P Why not a HP branded iMac? Hee, could happen...
And...increase volume on hardware sales. They'll get that with the iMac for the foreseeable future then the 'can't upgrade it' ghost will return...(or will it...?)
The Mac tower line is really due for a decent cpu uprade. Only 1 new speed upgrade in 1 and a half years tells its own story.
I expect to see a G5/CRT based eMac either side of San Fran'. Why they can't make it cheap and sexy? I don't know.
A sexy white cube box with chamelion sexy mood light casing fx would do it for me with AGP slot. Starting at £595.
Apple doesn't have to be in the $800 market. But they could get closer by re-thinking the eMac or adding to the mix with a sub-iMac based Cube.
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. The 'low cost' Mac keeps coming back at Apple conference. Each time, Apple bats the ball back... It's an issue that is niggling them. Who knows what they might do. I'd like to think the 10 month eMac design is something a little imaginative. The eMac is successful by proxy. It's the only cheap Mac there is. It's not the prettiest design. But hey, it's a cheap Mac, eh?
I see the eMac as the 'throw-away' Mac. Use it, abuse it, throw it away.
If you're a windows user and you wonder about Mac ? it should be worth the punt. It won't break the bank but will give you a good chance to see the new Mac OS in operation. If Apple are slow and don't release a snappy eMac (price and spec = G5) then they should be left to get the bullet out of their own foot.
The eMac filled a gap in the past (as users complained and demanded it) but who can see a need to bridge the iMac (other than cost)????
I'm in the 'get the people on the OS' camp ? all hardware is headed for invisibility.
If the new eMac (yes I'm waiting) causes a stir because of its spec, then that's good. Apple's software has most windows users watching ? either port the software or give them (and us too) a throw-away machine to crash about on and make stuff.
I always get the same responses everytime I go on this rant. I am so misunderstood. Try to wrap your minds around this concept. It is a good thing to know something about the tools and equipment you use. Computers are made up of hardware and software. Almost every skill task can be broken down in the same way. The skill is equivalent to the software. It is the task you perform with the equipment. The equipment is the hardware. It is the stuff that allows you to perform the skill. You have to master the skill (software), and be proficient with the equipment, (hardware).
This metaphor is hopelessly broken.
The skill is graphic design, music, videography, accounting, whatever - the same thing a skill has always been. The software is a tool. The hardware is also a tool. The two are commonly conflated by people, which makes sense given that neither tool is functional without the other. They must always be used in tandem, so they are one tool for all practical purposes.
The more interesting tool, increasingly, is the software. People using Java applications don't have to go mucking around in Java's virtual machine: It just sits in the back and runs things. In that respect, it's ideal. Apple is, if anything, working to get their hardware closer to that ideal.
Quote:
It is not acceptable for them not to know how to open the hood of the car or how to put oil or water in it in case of an emergency. Everyone should know how to change a tire because you will not always have a blow out in cell phone range. Changing a tire is mechanically more challenging than changing a video card or HD.
But people aren't nervous about the necessary force to the bolts holding a wheel in place, because all the parts involved are comfortingly simple and rugged and reliable enough that they don't have to worry about them 99.999999% of the time. Most people are terrified to apply the necessary force to insert a PCI card, or an ATA cable, because they perceive computers and their internals - not unreasonably - as fragile and fickle.
And while everything you said about car maintenance is well taken, GM still designs their engines to run for as long as possible out of tune on small amounts of dirty fluids, just because they know full well that people don't tune their engines, flush their radiators or change their oil as often as they should, but they also understand that blaming the consumer is a dangerous strategy.
Quote:
I have never said that people need to be computer engineers to use computers. There just seems to be this unrealistic expectation that a person should be able to jump right into the software and skill usage of a computer without spending a moment to learn something of the hardware.
How is that unreasonable?
Quote:
I repeat, you do not have to be a computer engineer. However, if you are a print artist, you had better know something about monitors and how to calibrate them for accurate color. If you are a 3D artist, video pro, or hardcore gamer, you had better know something about video cards. If you are a musician, you have to know a lot about midi interfaces and various audio equipment if you will be recording and editing on a computer. If you want to record shows on your VCR, you had better crack open the manual and learn to set the clock. I have no patience for the intellectually lazy.
None of this excuses the designers of these things from doing their jobs, and making this kind of fiddling as unnecessary as is reasonably possible. Nothing intrinsic to print production requires that you calibrate a monitor: Printers functioned for hundreds of years without ever having done so, and they'll welcome the first monitor that self-calibrates with open arms.
Nothing excuses the soi-disant elite from condescending to ordinary people who don't set the clock on their VCRs because 1) they don't need a clock there, and 2) the procedure to set it is involved and counterintuitive enough to fail any rational cost/benefit analysis. This has nothing to do with setting a VCR to record because the controls to use a VCR as a VCR are usually standard, prominently placed, and straightforward - so, again, why bother navigating the awful maze of menus for something unnecessary? I realize this argument doesn't have the satisfaction of anointing the person making the argument to a rarified elite, but at least it's grounded in reality. In industrial design circles, the blinking 12:00 is universally - and, I believe, properly - considered to be a design failure. People set clocks all the time, when the interface to set them isn't some piece of crap designed by an intellectually lazy engineer.
I have never said that people need to be computer engineers to use computers. There just seems to be this unrealistic expectation that a person should be able to jump right into the software and skill usage of a computer without spending a moment to learn something of the hardware.
You may want to talk to Dell then. If you call them to order a computer you can tell them what you want to do and they will build you a system for it. You don't have to know anything about a computer. You want to create home movies? They put in a big hard drive, DVD burner, and a firewire card. The consumer can know absolutly nothing about this and still be able to use the computer.
Comments
Originally posted by Uberspleef
I'm tired of debating this with you. I have worked at multi-national companies, and I know how they have operated. I now work in academia, and I know how they operate. I'm sorry, but judging by what I see and have seen every day, you guys are wrong. The populous just doesn't care about what's in that box on their desk. They just want it to work.
Been fun, off to find someplace else to waste my time.
I agree. I work for a software vendor. The people I work with are all computer literate, frequently discuss changes in algorithm efficiency due to advances in bus vs CPU speed. Still, very few care about the specs of the computers they use for editing, mail and office apps. We do care about lab machines, but not about our personal computers.
The only upgrade we've ever done was to install extra RAM to be able to run VNWare on our PCs. Other than that, no upgrade. I don't recall ever replacing a hard disk on a 3-year-old machine. It's just not cost effective. We do separate monitors from computers though, so when my 800 MHz PIII was replaced with a 2.4 GHz P4, my monitor remained.
I believe the car example is perfect. The driver is required to know the very simple controls, and that's it as far as car operation is concerned. All the rest is driving. There is absolutely no requirement to know about the workings of the internal combustion engine (or diesel) and there is no reason to know what octane is, why some fuels are leaded while others are not, and why anyone would actuacly put lead in gasoline. You also need know nothing about timing, or valves or horsepower or torque, although these specs are usually available. You can and should concentrate on the driving.
Computers are a less mature design than cars, because you need to understand a lot about their internal workings. You need to know about folders and subfolders and windows and widgets and network cards and different peripheral standards. All this gets in the way of what you really want to do: write a document, surf the web, fix photos, compose music, create movies.
Are you old enough to remember the Brady Bunch? They had a permanent excuse for why someone is not inside the house for a particular scene. They were always "fixing their bikes". Well, like the Brady kids, we're spending too much time fixing our bikes instead of riding them. Not to mention hanging out at Appleinsider discussing specs.
Oh, and as far as the consumer is concerned, you're selling computers to people who mostly still have blinking 12:00 on their VCR/DVD player. Now you want them to understand the breadth and depth of usefulness a computer provides? I thought providing this functionality through intuitive software was a programmer's job.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
I would like to add to this point as it is a drum I have beaten before. Computers are not for the intellectually lazy. Apple is guilty of dummying down computers far too much. The one button mouse is an example of this. Rather than teaching people the efficient two button approach, they pretend that it is too complicated and as a result, functionality is lost.
You obviously have never done a licks worth of tech support. Users can be dumb. Very dumb, but still functional. My mother is a biological scientist. She never understood what the right-click did. She wasn't pretending. After victimizing her with my Wintel hand-me-downs, I bought her an eMac. Aside from hassles with badly designed web sites, she doesn't have many issues any more.
Quote:
As far as pros are concerned, if a scientist does not learn how to use a mass spectrameter, then he is not worth his salt as a scientist. Doctors have to learn how to use specialized equipment. Most skill trades have specialized tools that the artisan must master. Computer aided drafting requires the understanding of COMPUTERS! Print work, video production, engineering, you name it, all heavily utilize and require an extensive knowledge of COMPUTERS!
PCs stopped being specialized equipment more than 15 years ago. Video producers don't (and don't want to) know about software engineering, just be able to us video production software. The software has become specialized to the point where you have to take multiple classes for it. So you can have people who attain knowledge about Adobe Premiere OR about Active Directory and the Windows registry, but rarely do you have a video producer that solves his or her own PC problems.
If there is a way to make a task more efficient, I am all for it. But the attempt to make computers brain dead simple for the intellectually lazy is misguided at best, and self destructive at worst. If ma and pa don't want to learn how to use a computer for day to day tasks, they don't have to. There is already a simpler way to write letters. It is called pen and paper. They can send mail the same way as their forefathers. They don't need a computer to play checkers. And if they want information they can still go to the library. If, however, they want to use a highly technical piece of electronics to perform day to day tasks, they have the responsibility to at least crack open a "For Dummies" book and educate themselves.
We still have to learn to drive cars. An automobile is not brain dead simple to operate. Yet we take a few weeks or months to figure it out so we can do it well. We also need to know something of maintenance. Pumping gas, changing the oil, and fixing or changing a flat are just a few examples. Average consumers learn to do these things and it does not overly tax them too much to gain the knowledge. Why should computers be any different.
Do you believe in order to drive their cars, people should first get a Mechanical Engineering degree? No? Because that is the point your making.
The kernel of your statement was that Apple has oversimplified the computer. That's quite laughible. The "It Just Works" mantra isn't just dogma or philosophy or some aesthetic elitistism. A lot of Cupertino software and hardware engineers struggle to stick to that principle. Simplifying the complex is... well... complex!!
If anyone is intellectally lazy it's Wintel developers for leaving so much up to the consumers to learn or maintain. For example, hardware drivers. If you plug something in the PC should know and understand what to do with it.
It. Should. Just. Work.
That is the point of the All-in-Ones.
That is the point of OS X combined with the AIOs.
That is the point of Apple.
Screed ...F-you, I've drunken the Kool-Aid and it is sweet.
Driving is the skill that people definitely ought to be concentrating on when behind the wheel. But they still have to know the difference between the gas and the break. If driving a stick, they have to be even more mechanically proficient. No, they do not have to take a course in auto-mechanics. But it is not acceptable for them not to know how to put gas in the car or for that matter, what type of gas their car needs. They may not know the technical difference between diesel and gas but they had better know which one they need. The smart consumer will know this before they buy the car. It is not acceptable for them not to know how to open the hood of the car or how to put oil or water in it in case of an emergency. Everyone should know how to change a tire because you will not always have a blow out in cell phone range. Changing a tire is mechanically more challenging than changing a video card or HD.
A soldier needs to know how to take his gun completely apart, clean it, and put it back together to keep it well maintained. It is not enough to just know how to fire it. An equestrian needs to know a lot about the boring and nasty work of maintaining their horse. A person who uses the light from a lamp needs to know how to plug it in, turn on the switch, and change the bulb if necessary. They need to know the difference between the plug, switch and bulb and something of what each part does. They do not have to understand the underlying principals of electricity or how the lamp was manufactured. They do need to know how to make it produce the light they require.
I have never said that people need to be computer engineers to use computers. There just seems to be this unrealistic expectation that a person should be able to jump right into the software and skill usage of a computer without spending a moment to learn something of the hardware. When people learn to drive cars, they spend time learning emergency maintenance and basic maintenance as well. They also spend a considerable amount of time learning to drive the thing. If you have never driven before, you don't just buy a car and expect to sit in it and know how to drive it or take care of it or have it drive itself. Yet, that is our expectation when we take a computer out of the box. We expect zero study, zero training, zero experience, and 100% proficiency. This is why tech support is inundated with calls about the retractable cup holder not working properly.
I repeat, you do not have to be a computer engineer. However, if you are a print artist, you had better know something about monitors and how to calibrate them for accurate color. If you are a 3D artist, video pro, or hardcore gamer, you had better know something about video cards. If you are a musician, you have to know a lot about midi interfaces and various audio equipment if you will be recording and editing on a computer. If you want to record shows on your VCR, you had better crack open the manual and learn to set the clock. I have no patience for the intellectually lazy.
That will do it for me on this subject, at least until the next three or four months.
The simpler and more reliabvle the machine, the better. It's the applications that will make it as complex as the task demands, nothing more.
Simplicity, complixity and complication are three very different things.
I would call a great deal of computer related technology complicated, not complex.
But I don't have the time to debate intuition with you right now, so I'll have to let all that go.
The biggest problem with the eMac is the CRT, not even that it's an AIO. For 799, a 15" LCD of good quality is more than possible. It should be expected. Properly integrated into the AIO, it has the potential to be even more durable! Less prone to A-D conversion related bugs, replacable backlight, no slow decay of tube quality.
The eMac sells an OS ? a Mac OS that leads to other things (iPods and an experience with a digital life)... Look at how far the Mac OS has come and where Apple is trying to get people hooked ? kids in education. The eMac isn't about challenging other Apple machines for a place ? it will die when CRTs die. In the meantime it has a job to do.
For all those complaining about the eMac taking market share from the iMac I think Apple has answered ? take a good look at the 1.8 SP G5 tower. That's the challenge to the new iMac.
The eMac is in the coal face and I think people are sitting up and watching now. So I just hope Apple doesn't 'drop the ball' again. I've had enough of that.
Originally posted by Matsu
The biggest problem with the eMac is the CRT, not even that it's an AIO. For 799, a 15" LCD of good quality is more than possible. It should be expected. Properly integrated into the AIO, it has the potential to be even more durable! Less prone to A-D conversion related bugs, replacable backlight, no slow decay of tube quality.
My friend, of course it's possible. But that's not the point. What possible incentive does Apple have to produce such a machine. As it stands, the eMac has to be pure profit right now. The machine you describe would be much less so. Also, a G5 AIO with an LCD already exists, it is called an iMac. Brand an eMac with those specs and watch the iMac 3 die a worse death than did the iMac 2. Mark my words. Apple will give us the same eMac we have now with a 1.33 GHz G4. The eMac is the desktop version of the iBook. In fact, it is slightly behind it.
Originally posted by Uberspleef
Okay, first, 90% of iMac customers won't understand a 64-bit processor limited to 2gb of ram. Most consumers just don't know what ram is!! Get out of the computer lab and meet some real people.
And I take real offense at your "exploit the stupid" remark. I work in an academic setting, and there are people in my department who are world-class scientists, experts in their field, and don't know firewire from USB. To them, a computer is a tool. They use Macs because they don't have to learn how to work on a computer. Hasn't this always been Apple's plug? "Macs are easy and fun to use." That ain't exactly geek speak. Didn't you see any of the "Switch" campaign ads? Common people who wanted a computer to USE, not work on.
Big corporations, the ones that buy 10's of thousands of computers at a time, don't upgrade. Can you imagine how much it would cost to pay a man to go around and upgrade EVERY machine? Plus, HD failures go up, monitor failures go up, etc, as machines age. Hence the purge of computers ("off-lease") every three years.
You are 100% right. I have a similar background as you and hence have had the same experiences. Most people in academia never upgrade anything in there computer, besides the RAM. And most people think 128 is a lot. 1024 is outrageous. And the people in Academia who stick with Apple do so because it is easy to use. Simple as that.
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
I think I understand what you are trying to get at with that statment but I think you have missed the target a bit.
Oh, and as far as the consumer is concerned, you're selling computers to people who mostly still have blinking 12:00 on their VCR/DVD player.
Hey I consider myself computer literate and I've never once set the clock on any VCR/DVD that I've owned. In fact on the last unit the feature to sync to a television was disabled. If you are not in the habit of using a feature why bother.
Now you want them to understand the breadth and depth of usefulness a computer provides?
Not at all. I might be so bold as to state that the majority of the people posting in this forum do not have a broad understanding of the facilites in the average desktop computer. Nothing wrong with that at all. On the other hand things like disk space and RAM should be understood at least to the point that the user understands how they impact his machine.
I thought providing this functionality through intuitive software was a programmer's job.
There is only so much you can expect from a programmer and an intuitive interface. Going back to the car analogy that someone else used, if the gas gage starts to migrate to zero you would expect a driver to understand what that means. In the same manner you should expect a computer user to know what to do with respect to a full disk.
What I object to is this idea that it is acceptable for somebody to maintain complete ignorance of a tool that is part of their job. That doesn't mean understanding every minute engineering detail of the hardware, just that they are involved enough to leverage the tool. Its the difference between being an assest and being an expense.
Dave
Originally posted by sCreeD
PCs stopped being specialized equipment more than 15 years ago. Video producers don't (and don't want to) know about software engineering, just be able to us video production software.
Well here I fully disagree, the functionality of a computer varies with the hardware and software installed in it. The same hardware that sits on a desktop can end up being highly specialized when configured with rare software or hardware.
The software has become specialized to the point where you have to take multiple classes for it. So you can have people who attain knowledge about Adobe Premiere OR about Active Directory and the Windows registry, but rarely do you have a video producer that solves his or her own PC problems.
I have to disagre here, the professionals that will be around in the future will solve as many of their computer problems as they can. If the organization is large enough they may be able to offload some of that effort but the reality is a lot of time (money) can pass between recognition of a problem and getting professional help. Understand what I'm saying here, it is the professional that can eek the most out of his tools that makes out the best.
Do you believe in order to drive their cars, people should first get a Mechanical Engineering degree? No? Because that is the point your making.
Clearly he was not making any such point. What he was saying is that there is an expectation, within our society, that people will have certain knowledge with respect to their automobile. Do you really believe that checking the oil and filling up the gas tank requires a Engineerig Degree? Frankly the whole suggestion is just to wild to accept.
The kernel of your statement was that Apple has oversimplified the computer. That's quite laughible. The "It Just Works" mantra isn't just dogma or philosophy or some aesthetic elitistism. A lot of Cupertino software and hardware engineers struggle to stick to that principle. Simplifying the complex is... well... complex!!
If anyone is intellectally lazy it's Wintel developers for leaving so much up to the consumers to learn or maintain. For example, hardware drivers. If you plug something in the PC should know and understand what to do with it.
It. Should. Just. Work.
That sort of depends now doesn't it. For mass market hardware maybe it would be good that everything worked. On the other hand if your dealling with hardware that maybe exists in quanities of a 100 or so world wide then things might not be so rosey. That is when reasonable understanding of the hardware and software environment can be very usefull when dealing with the knowledge holders of the special hardware.
That is the point of the All-in-Ones.
That is the point of OS X combined with the AIOs.
That is the point of Apple.
That was the point of Apple but the reality is there is little in the way of a market for that sort of hardware. Apple is transitioning to different markets where it should be expected that intelligent people will be involved with their hardware and software.
As to the All-in-ones, it is interesting that Apple has only gotten these machine right in a couple of cases. It otherwise struggles with sales. One of the reasons it struggles with sales is because it has deluded itself into believing its own marketing malarky. It is fine to make a machine that just works, but unless you make it flexible and upgradable it will always hit a small percentage of portential customers.
Screed ...F-you, I've drunken the Kool-Aid and it is sweet.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
My friend, of course it's possible. But that's not the point. What possible incentive does Apple have to produce such a machine. As it stands, the eMac has to be pure profit right now. The machine you describe would be much less so. Also, a G5 AIO with an LCD already exists, it is called an iMac. Brand an eMac with those specs and watch the iMac 3 die a worse death than did the iMac 2. Mark my words. Apple will give us the same eMac we have now with a 1.33 GHz G4. The eMac is the desktop version of the iBook. In fact, it is slightly behind it.
I didn't say it should have a G5, I said it should have an LCD.
Maybe, it will only exist as long as Apple wants to keep selling a CRT machine, but there had better be a 999 iMac to replace it.
Apple's consumer desktops are STILL very much overpriced. The entry level iMac doesn't even have a DVD-r, when it 1299 it should. That's 1749 in Canadian pesos. For 1749 I can get a tower with a 17" LCD, twice the base RAM and HDD, and a faster DVD-r, if I shop around, I can even get it with a new DL-DVD drive.
Originally posted by xflare
......hmmmmmmm no new information regarding these rumours and mew eMacs, I guess they were all complete nonsense after all.
Nonsense rumors on a rumors web site?!?! No freakin way!!! Say it ain't so!!!
A bit off topic maybe but I think a number of people want to see an eMac that really apeals to the mass market. It doesn't have to be the cheapest computer out there but it does have to have the right feature set. Actually it doesn't even have to have a 970FX in it, a G4 with a reasonably fast upgrade would do the trick. I believe that the eMac could have a very long life as long as Apple doesn't let it stagnate.
Good comment.
The eMac sold 170,000 units and over. So, a cheap Mac is desired. A cheap desktop is desired. And just because a cheap tower isn't there doesn't mean that one isn't wanted from Mac or PC buyers, Amorph. So perhaps you should stop projecting your ideas on what you perceive the market wants. Especially when tower sales in the PC market prove there is still loads of demand for a top specced PC for a decent price. The Mac tower market suffers from ridiculous pricing and ridiculous supply problems re: cpu. Factor this in. Until Apple gets near cpu with Wintel, adds a monitor in with the price, or broadens the range to include sub-£1K models in the next twelve months then we'll never know...
People will take it, the eMac despite the craply out of date G4 because is is a Mac, it runs the OS with iApps etc.
The AIO nature of the argument is neither here nor there. Yes, Dell may sell more 'rugged' CRT based than LCDs but LCDs are a trend like laptops. eMacs are more rugged...so why are iBooks doing so well in Education, eh? More of them (LCDs) are being sold than ever and my school has LCDs. So there.
A 15 inch LCD iMac at 1.6 G5 would effectively end the eMac? Maybe not quite yet. But sooner or later the CRT eMac is a gonner. When? Place your bets.
The 1.8 gig single Tower was predicated by Thinksecret before the launch of the lacklustre tower update.
And low and behold, we now have one now that G5 supply constraints have lifted. So the G5 tech' is getting cheaper.
At £1045 it represents better value for 'Tower' buyers who want get a non-AIO Mac but can't reach for the wallet crippling £1400. Could Apple do better than this? I believe so. I'd like to see them go as low as £895.
£1400 for an entry tower was waaaaaaaaaaaay over the top and Mac tower sales have shown this. (Along with supply constraints of 0.09 speed graces...probably the 2.5 mainly...and the 1 and a half year old 1.8 and 2 gig speed grades.)
Wintel still sells bucket loads of Towers. And laptop trends aren't dinting this too much. PC World has loads of Towers with a £795-£1500 price range with LCDs that make Macs look value starved.
Apple's never had to 'grow up' like the Wintel market and it still hobbles them as they 'grow up' now (and the iPod shows that it's being dragged not-so-kicking and screamingly into the realms of adult hood...) Their approach to the tower market reflects this. The Mac market approach from Apple is entrenched in 'same old, same old'. It's breakeven. The real sales and profit seem to be coming from softare, services sales un' iPods. The Mac division does have a pulse.
How do they break out of the boom and bust cycle? A miracle? Nah, just keep doing what they're doing. The new iMac might help for a while. It is very nice. I'll give it that. Better than the two that preceded it. But I still think they can do better with the entry level price. The top end is good VFM.
The way to address Mac profit? Sell more software.
License 'X' for all new HP computers! Anti-virus Wintel computer! :P Why not a HP branded iMac? Hee, could happen...
And...increase volume on hardware sales. They'll get that with the iMac for the foreseeable future then the 'can't upgrade it' ghost will return...(or will it...?)
The Mac tower line is really due for a decent cpu uprade. Only 1 new speed upgrade in 1 and a half years tells its own story.
I expect to see a G5/CRT based eMac either side of San Fran'. Why they can't make it cheap and sexy? I don't know.
A sexy white cube box with chamelion sexy mood light casing fx would do it for me with AGP slot. Starting at £595.
Apple doesn't have to be in the $800 market. But they could get closer by re-thinking the eMac or adding to the mix with a sub-iMac based Cube.
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. The 'low cost' Mac keeps coming back at Apple conference. Each time, Apple bats the ball back... It's an issue that is niggling them. Who knows what they might do. I'd like to think the 10 month eMac design is something a little imaginative. The eMac is successful by proxy. It's the only cheap Mac there is. It's not the prettiest design. But hey, it's a cheap Mac, eh?
If you're a windows user and you wonder about Mac ? it should be worth the punt. It won't break the bank but will give you a good chance to see the new Mac OS in operation. If Apple are slow and don't release a snappy eMac (price and spec = G5) then they should be left to get the bullet out of their own foot.
The eMac filled a gap in the past (as users complained and demanded it) but who can see a need to bridge the iMac (other than cost)????
I'm in the 'get the people on the OS' camp ? all hardware is headed for invisibility.
If the new eMac (yes I'm waiting) causes a stir because of its spec, then that's good. Apple's software has most windows users watching ? either port the software or give them (and us too) a throw-away machine to crash about on and make stuff.
It's all about making stuff.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
I always get the same responses everytime I go on this rant. I am so misunderstood. Try to wrap your minds around this concept. It is a good thing to know something about the tools and equipment you use. Computers are made up of hardware and software. Almost every skill task can be broken down in the same way. The skill is equivalent to the software. It is the task you perform with the equipment. The equipment is the hardware. It is the stuff that allows you to perform the skill. You have to master the skill (software), and be proficient with the equipment, (hardware).
This metaphor is hopelessly broken.
The skill is graphic design, music, videography, accounting, whatever - the same thing a skill has always been. The software is a tool. The hardware is also a tool. The two are commonly conflated by people, which makes sense given that neither tool is functional without the other. They must always be used in tandem, so they are one tool for all practical purposes.
The more interesting tool, increasingly, is the software. People using Java applications don't have to go mucking around in Java's virtual machine: It just sits in the back and runs things. In that respect, it's ideal. Apple is, if anything, working to get their hardware closer to that ideal.
It is not acceptable for them not to know how to open the hood of the car or how to put oil or water in it in case of an emergency. Everyone should know how to change a tire because you will not always have a blow out in cell phone range. Changing a tire is mechanically more challenging than changing a video card or HD.
But people aren't nervous about the necessary force to the bolts holding a wheel in place, because all the parts involved are comfortingly simple and rugged and reliable enough that they don't have to worry about them 99.999999% of the time. Most people are terrified to apply the necessary force to insert a PCI card, or an ATA cable, because they perceive computers and their internals - not unreasonably - as fragile and fickle.
And while everything you said about car maintenance is well taken, GM still designs their engines to run for as long as possible out of tune on small amounts of dirty fluids, just because they know full well that people don't tune their engines, flush their radiators or change their oil as often as they should, but they also understand that blaming the consumer is a dangerous strategy.
I have never said that people need to be computer engineers to use computers. There just seems to be this unrealistic expectation that a person should be able to jump right into the software and skill usage of a computer without spending a moment to learn something of the hardware.
How is that unreasonable?
I repeat, you do not have to be a computer engineer. However, if you are a print artist, you had better know something about monitors and how to calibrate them for accurate color. If you are a 3D artist, video pro, or hardcore gamer, you had better know something about video cards. If you are a musician, you have to know a lot about midi interfaces and various audio equipment if you will be recording and editing on a computer. If you want to record shows on your VCR, you had better crack open the manual and learn to set the clock. I have no patience for the intellectually lazy.
None of this excuses the designers of these things from doing their jobs, and making this kind of fiddling as unnecessary as is reasonably possible. Nothing intrinsic to print production requires that you calibrate a monitor: Printers functioned for hundreds of years without ever having done so, and they'll welcome the first monitor that self-calibrates with open arms.
Nothing excuses the soi-disant elite from condescending to ordinary people who don't set the clock on their VCRs because 1) they don't need a clock there, and 2) the procedure to set it is involved and counterintuitive enough to fail any rational cost/benefit analysis. This has nothing to do with setting a VCR to record because the controls to use a VCR as a VCR are usually standard, prominently placed, and straightforward - so, again, why bother navigating the awful maze of menus for something unnecessary? I realize this argument doesn't have the satisfaction of anointing the person making the argument to a rarified elite, but at least it's grounded in reality. In industrial design circles, the blinking 12:00 is universally - and, I believe, properly - considered to be a design failure. People set clocks all the time, when the interface to set them isn't some piece of crap designed by an intellectually lazy engineer.
Originally posted by Matsu
Amorph, do you ever divert yourself away from web fora? You need to be writing for a tech magazine, you would make a superlative essayist.
He would be just as wrong as an essayist as he is a fora poster. But I would still read him.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
I have never said that people need to be computer engineers to use computers. There just seems to be this unrealistic expectation that a person should be able to jump right into the software and skill usage of a computer without spending a moment to learn something of the hardware.
You may want to talk to Dell then. If you call them to order a computer you can tell them what you want to do and they will build you a system for it. You don't have to know anything about a computer. You want to create home movies? They put in a big hard drive, DVD burner, and a firewire card. The consumer can know absolutly nothing about this and still be able to use the computer.