jdw

Even more hilarious about the people complain about paying for something is the fact that AppleInsider has been offering us amazing MS Office deals for a very long time now, and I have taken advantage of both to ensure my kids have the full office suite for educational use...

https://appleinsider.com/deals/best-microsoft-365-and-office-for-mac-deals

The deal always sounded a bit fishy because the price is so long, but it is legit.  One time, they sold me a bad unlock code, but I worked with customer support to get a new code issued.  It's the full suite, not a stripped down version, which is nice.  It's not bloatware either.

There was a time MS put out bloatware.  Most of you long-term Mac users know what happened when MS moved from the insanely great Word 5.1 to Word 6.  Yikes!  Word 5.1 is still the best version to run on vintage Macs.

Not sure where these crazy forum comments are coming from.  I've been using the paid version since Entourage.  It's been BETTER, oh yes, MUCH BETTER, than Apple Mail for longer than Apple Mail even existed!  Back in the day, I also used Claris Emailer and loved that too.  That's not to say MS Outlook is perfect, and I detest the fact it tells me to update to the NEW OUTLOOK on the monthly basis despite the fact there is a bug that prevents me from accessing mail in the New Outlook, keeping me in the old UI, but the old UI is what I know and love, so it matters little.

Curious what drove them to do this.  I guess from reading the nutty previous comments that most people are simply ignorant of the fact Outlook is better than Mail and just boast about Mail being better anyway, maybe because they don't need to pay for Mail.

And as to the crazy notion that the entire office suite should be "FREE"...  Oh yeah... LOL.  As if we need Ads to mar the UI!  Not on your life, buddy!

Why people these days think there needs to be a FREE LUNCH everywhere is disturbing.  It also makes me worry what's going to happen now that MS is making Outlook free.  I can understand the need to drive adoption among ignorance young people, but how are they offsetting the cost of that?  What motivates them to make it better now that it is free?   These are the important questions I wish the article would have answered.

danvm said:

jdw said:

AppleInsider said:

... you should think of it as an Apple compete for the Microsoft ecosystem."

I suppose some people actually care about Windoze.  I for one do not.  I've been an exclusively Mac user since the 128K in 1984. Hence, it doesn't matter that some chips in the Windoze world beat the M1 or M2.  Even Intel's latest and greatest beat the M2 in certain areas, but aside from the fact those new chips apply exclusively to Windoze (and therefore not to me), those fast chips also draw a huge amount of power compared to Apple Silicon, which makes them rather silly, especially with most people buying notebooks these days.  You see, when you pull the power cord on most any Windoze notebook, you suddenly get about half the performance, which is crazy.  MacBooks don't suffer a performance penalty for using battery power alone.  When pondering Apple Silicon, it's not only about performance (which is great, mind you).  Power draw matters!

If it wasn't for gamers and engineers and people too old to change their ways, would anyone really need or want a Windoze machine anymore?

Considering the market share, there is a lot of people interested in Windows.  At least for me, Windows 11 have been as stable as my macOS devices.  In some tasks Windows is better, in others macOS does better.  

And you should add to the groups you listed, business and enterprises, that has the best ecosystem in MS services.  Also the group of users the prefer Windows over macOS (yes, they exist).  Maybe you should try Windows in a high quality PC.  It has improved a lot since 1984.  

Fascinating that people who embrace Wintel so firmly are active on a forum named APPLEinsider!  I am here specifically because I don't do Windoze.  My first home computer was the 128K Mac in 1984.  After all these years, I've owned only Macs, despite the fact I've used Windoze at work.  And it is because of my experience using Windoze that I know I don't want to spend my hard earned cash on one for home use!  

Many Mac users these days are switchers from Wintel.  I've not found them to have the same appreciation for the Mac as those of us who have never embraced the Dark Side.  Some feel those folks are more open-minded, and maybe they are.  But I have no desire to have a Wintel machine in my home.

Now that's not to say I don't have my complaints about Apple's bad decisions, and I send them a lot of feedback as a result.  macOS Ventura, for example, is horrible due to the bastardized System Preferences.  I don't mind the fact they renamed it System Settings, but to make it like iOS is vastly inferior to the way it was before, and that's not just muscle memory talking.  But even that huge complaint does not in any way whatsoever tempt me to move to Windows.  Think about it.  I've been using Macs for almost 40 years.  Wintel offers me no temptation at all.  I just want macOS to be better.  And with my feedback and feedback from other Mac fans, I think it can.  Apple does listen to us, occasionally.

AppleInsider said:

... you should think of it as an Apple compete for the Microsoft ecosystem."

I suppose some people actually care about Windoze.  I for one do not.  I've been an exclusively Mac user since the 128K in 1984. Hence, it doesn't matter that some chips in the Windoze world beat the M1 or M2.  Even Intel's latest and greatest beat the M2 in certain areas, but aside from the fact those new chips apply exclusively to Windoze (and therefore not to me), those fast chips also draw a huge amount of power compared to Apple Silicon, which makes them rather silly, especially with most people buying notebooks these days.  You see, when you pull the power cord on most any Windoze notebook, you suddenly get about half the performance, which is crazy.  MacBooks don't suffer a performance penalty for using battery power alone.  When pondering Apple Silicon, it's not only about performance (which is great, mind you).  Power draw matters!

If it wasn't for gamers and engineers and people too old to change their ways, would anyone really need or want a Windoze machine anymore?

There is a fundamental flaw in most of the arguments.  Many of the arguments made in the comments are as flawed as TSMC feeling that "Americans" are lazier than workers is in Taiwan.  To see past the flawed arguments we must as this question: Who are "Americans"? ANSWER: 332 million people who aren't all the same!

Even if one can effectively argue that the 24 million people of Taiwan are mostly the same (i.e., hard working and loving it), the population of the USA is not only more diverse but also almost 14 times larger in number.  This ensures that if human resources makes the right hiring picks, skilled and hard working people in American can and shall be found, even if one can argue that the CULTURE of work in America is inferior to that of Taiwan or China.

Another consideration, for people who give an eye to it, is that Asian American population is about 22 million, which is quite nearly the population of Taiwan!  So even if TSMC could effectively argue that Americans of other ethnic groups refuse to work as hard as Taiwanese employees, that ignores the significant number of Asian Americans in the USA.  Certainly, some would be Americanized in terms of culture and work ethic, but not all.

Regardless of the number of Asian Americans, the sheer number of workers available in the USA combined with effective hiring practices, and teaching American workers about what TSMC expects of them, can result in a workforce just as effect as is in Taiwan.

Also remember, we are talking about TECH workers here, not folks working part time at McDonald's.  So we need to keep the type of workers in perspective.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle would be US law.  Bad hiring decisions will be made, but the question is, can TSMC fire those people in the USA?  Can TSMC ask people to actually work hard, or does US law currently forbid that or otherwise make it impossible?  If US law is the enemy here, it needs to be cited as the main problem, not American workers in general.