Forums | MacLife

frankly wrote:

These products aren't just thrown together. There is a lot of thought and hard work that goes into making exceptional products.

I agree and would continue to buy Apple for myself. I might consider getting a smurfy cheap PC with this device so it runs OSX for my destructive children (although they've been using my PowerBook for over a year now connected to an external hard drive/monitor without issue so maybe they respect Macs too?

frankly wrote:

So please drop the condescending bullsmurf about you being able to sell me anything. What are some of the products that you've developed these so-called magical advertising campaigns for? Please illuminate me on how you could sell me something that wasn't worth the price I was paying.

"Have a Coke and a smile"? God, now I want a Coke!

Czachorski wrote:

thumbprint wrote:

I'm trying to say that they cost "waaaayyyyy" more than they're actually worth.

The key operative phrase that you, and most of the ego-centrists around here need to add to their statements is "FOR YOU".  For you they cost way more than the worth.  For you they are not worth more than the sum of their parts.  For you they are not worth it.

For a record number of customers at anytime in Apple's history, they are worth it, and Apple is realizing record revenue and profit as a result.

The "worth" of anything is exactly what they buyer and seller can agree to conduct the transaction at.  If Apple could sell these for $100,000, then that is exactly what they are worth.  Apple's key operative function is not to make it "worth it" for the most people, but to maximize their own profits.  That is exactly what they are doing.

Many did that in the mid-to-late '90s. Most are now remembered, if at all, as "dot-bombs." Was their worth real or illusory? Is there more than one way to appraise value? You seem to think price at time of sale is the sole measure. Records were set then, too, but most who remember do not relish the memory.

Bat said earlier that gaming is the top function for PCs after general browsing and email.  Well, I think that he forgot about business and enterprise use.

No, I think you are here (mis)interpreting my words, not for the first time. Projecting meaning, feelings, egocentricity and more is hazardous, the moreso from an ivory tower. In point of fact I was citing recent research into typical home use of computers. And I am well aware of the enterprise market.

Well so what if Apple ignores those markets!  There are 100's of other manufacturers targeting that bottom-scraping, low-end, low-margin market.

Apple has been moving slowly toward it. And if not, where does the XServe fit in? Tho hardly Big Iron, it at least targets small businesses.

 

Because everyone else targets those markets, Apple should too?  Really?  Give me a frickin break please.  IT IS THE FACT THAT [..] !  They did it with the iPod.  They did it with the Mac.  They did it with iPhone.  This is how they do things.  It works.  They are making a mint, and their customers are thrilled.

So did the dot-bombs... for a year or three, anyway.

Sheesh, when will some of you get that through your thick skulls.

Thanks.

Many, many out there are sick of the way everyone else does it, and are willing to PAY MORE to escape that old, tired game.  Welcome to the free market!Welcome to the big bad world. It does not revolve around you.

Nor you.

I have a suggestion. Since you seem to spend 99% of your time here and little in the Tech Help areas, try reversing that for awhile. It is that way with me, and I see many who have problems with Apple gear, who have problems, who are not fantastically thrilled with every aspect of the Apple Way. They have issues and know that not always do Macs 'just work.' In doing so you might learn there is no magic and no Santa Jobs, and there is more to this forum than leading cheers for Cupertino's bottom line. It just might enrich your life; it would broaden your perspective.

thumbprint wrote:

The key operative phrase that you, and most of the ego-centrists around here need to add to their statements is "FOR YOU".

And likewise for you and the other ego-centrists like you who don't happen to agree with me.

The fact that you don't get it makes it look like you are one of the ego-centrists that he is railing against. He never said that because it is right for him that it is right for everyone. He explicitly says just the opposite. You and others however claim that everyone is being ripped off and that there is no way that any Mac could possibly be worth the price they are charging.

It is ridiculous assumptions like this that make this conversation such a pain in the ass and it is exactly which Czach gets fed up with the state of the forums, or at least some of the current residents of said forums.

Have a good and safe one. Yes, these discussions tend to go this way... this point, I think, could use a little more info.

frankly wrote:

As far as your last line I think you are pushing the limits of your argument a bit too far with the claim of a "significant family of apps" unless you mean that games make up that significant family. I concede that point but even if Macs came with the best gaming hardware options there still wouldn't be a lot of games to play.
...
Frank

Again, it refers to this sort of thing, in the non-gaming arena:

NVIDIA HAS BUNGED the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign $500,000 and named it its Cuda Center of Excellence.

The wonga is to promote the development of parallel computing facilities, Nvidia said.

The Theoretical and Computational Biophysics Group at UIUC was apparently one of the first research groups to use the "parallel architecture of the GPU to accelerate research in the field of computational biophysics."

So it's not all about getting better lighting effects and frame rates in Crysis, then.

“This generous gift will be a great stimulus for Illinois' team of outstanding young programmers. Klaus Schulten, Professor of Physics predicted. "It will help to extend their ranks and equip them with the necessary tools to advance computing in decades to come.”

Cuda technology, for those of you scratching your heads at the back, is Nvidia's C-compiler and software development kit for building computing applications on graphics processing units. µ

Computational Biophysics. http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/ … first-cuda

See more here for preexisting info and discussion of the GPU F@H issue (Btw, even the Playstation 3 now has a F@H client, but OSX has none yet). Goes back 15 months.

Well what I just don't understand why PC Magazine (of all mags) and MANY others continue to rank Apple as one of the best computers. Consumer Reports as well, one of the only truly non-biased mags.

Things that make you go hmmmmmmm...

After reading through the past couple of pages, I really don't know what the topic of the argument is, anymore.  The Mac's hardware value lies in its superior engineering factor + style + power savings.  The PC's hardware value lies in its superior technology + expansion + monitor choice + bottom line.  Is one type of value inherently better than the other?  -- I have no idea-- But upon walking into a typical computer store and gazing at the cornucopia of towers, it's fairly obvious that, for most consumers, the value lies in the latter. 

So, is that what this has all been about?  Can we all just agree on this and go home?

Mr. T wrote:

After reading through the past couple of pages, I really don't know what the topic of the argument is, anymore.  The Mac's hardware value lies in its superior engineering factor + style + power savings.  The PC's hardware value lies in its superior technology + expansion + monitor choice + bottom line.  Is one type of value inherently better than the other?  -- I have no idea-- But upon walking into a typical computer store and gazing at the cornucopia of towers, it's fairly obvious that, for most consumers, the value lies in the latter. 

So, is that what this has all been about?  Can we all just agree on this and go home?

You are right that each has value. What upsets some of us is when you and others claim that there is no way there is any value in the Mac at the current price points. That is what is maddening. There may be no value to YOU, but just as you think those PC's have value, I don't. But I completely understand why someone else would find value in them. It just pisses off those of us that do find value in a Mac at the price they are being sold for when we are told that we are mindless idiots that are simply bewildered by shiny boxes. I for one know damn well that I'm smart enough to make an educated decision and buy the computer that best suits my needs. The MacBook Pro is currently that computer. And anyone that thinks I paid too much needs to step up and show me the computer that I should have bought instead because I have not yet seen one that is better and $500 less.

Frank

Pariah wrote:

wellfleation wrote:

Well what I just don't understand why PC Magazine (of all mags) and MANY others continue to rank Apple as one of the best computers. Consumer Reports as well, one of the only truly non-biased mags.

Things that make you go hmmmmmmm...

Possibly because Apple has been getting the exact same sort of uncritical, non analytical, "winner" biased reviews that used to drive Mac fans crazy when the same reviewers were looking at anything Microsoft back in the day?
Many of us knew that the great reviews MS used to get were ad rev bought bribed reviews.
Same thing now, just in Apple's favor.

Please try to keep up. There are no advertisements in Consumer Reports. AND they don't let companies use their ratings to advertise their product. Period.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/abou … /index.htm

ScifiterX wrote:

The only issues I've had with CR are if a company is being a dick about providing CR products to test, CR tends to only rate the cheapest models (and even then they're pretty honest) and it's hard to find regular reviews on commonly used smaller ticket items.

Ummm, perhaps you are talking about a different magazine. Consumer reports BUYS every item that they test.


http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/abou … /index.htm

Consumer Reports wrote:

After additional research to define a project's scope, staff shoppers--assisted by a network of shoppers in 65 U.S. cities--buy the products we use as test samples.

Last edited by frankly (2008-07-03 11:01 pm)

CR is better at some things than others, tho. Audiophiles basically gave their speaker reviews near zero credence for decades. I don't know if they do yet.

ScifiterX wrote:

They may very well buy every item but some product manufacturers seem adverse to giving away or even selling products to reviewers and have outright refused to sell directly to them when approached. At which point the network steps in and buy via regular channels and at times some brands seem under represented. Like with computers makers they sometimes only have a desktop reviewed despite the company making laptops as well.

That isn't the reason though. They buy all of their products through regular channels. The person selling it to them is not aware they are selling to Consumer Reports. They want to buy the same way their readers would. Also, one of the reasons you don't see every brand and/or model is that they survey their readers, asking them what they plan to buy.

Frank

Mr. T wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

That can't really be honestly determined since as has oft times pointed out most computer makers haven't really made honest attempts at all-in-ones (outside of Apple & Sony). If people have no choice but to buy towers, guess what they are gonna buy.

That just doesn't make any sense to me.

Wow. And that is why we go around and around in circles. That statement by Sci was so unequivocally logical that it absolutely baffles me that it doesn't make any sense to you.