Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 14:57:49 -0700, George Graves
> <gmgraves2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 13:18:23 -0700, ZnU wrote
>> (in article <znu-5B168E.16182312052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>>
>>> In article <0001HW.C44DEAC5000BFDC2F01846D8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> George Graves <gmgraves2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 23:23:00 -0700, ZnU wrote
>>>> (in article <znu-12A819.02230012052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> I rather suspect most people who call for OS X on generic x86
hardware
>>>>> just haven't considered the logistics of sup****ting generic hardware
vs.
>>>>> simply selling cheaper Macs. The rest are simply people who believe
>>>>> multi-vendor hardware platforms are inherently good, usually for
some
>>>>> reason that isn't relevant to most users or to current market
conditions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You're right. It would cost them a lot more to sup****t OSX on generic
>>>> Winboxes than it would probably cost them to make a really cheap Mac
(and
>>>> even sell it as a loss-leader). But I don't see them ever doing that,
>>>> either.
>>>> Its just not Apple's style and let's face it, they don't have to
despite
>>>> our
>>>> resident Windroids' protestations to the contrary. But, certainly
they
>>>> could
>>>> if they wanted to. Look at the Apple TV. Its "almost" a complete
computer
>>>> with HDD and memory, and it sells for less than US$250.
>>> Sure. Keep in mind, Apple already has relation****ps with the same
>>> Taiwanese manufacturing companies that make computers for companies
like
>>> Dell -- in some cases Macs are already made in the very same
factories.
>>> Apple might even be able to come in a little below Dell's prices, for
>>> equivalent hardware, because they wouldn't be paying an external
>>> supplier for their OS and because they'd probably focus on one or two
>>> models rather than having many models and a complex build-to-order
>>> system.
>>>
>>> Will they do it? I don't see them having much interest, at the moment.
>>> But who anticipated the Mac mini, introduced as a $500 Mac when the
>>> cheapest Mac was previously nearly twice that price, or the Xserve, a
>>> product targeted at a market in which Apple had previously shown no
>>> interest at all?
>>>
>>>
>> The thing is that any computer designed to compete in that space would
have
>> to be more computer than the Mini. Let's face it, for the cost of a
Mini one
>> can buy or build a Windows box with near Mac tower performance and
>> capability. Not that the Mini isn't useful, it certainly is, it just
doesn't
>> stack-up, hardware wise, very well against similar priced Winbox
offerings.
>> It's main appeal is that it runs OSX. This makes it worthwhile to those
who
>> value OSX, but to our local Windroids and Wins*** here, many of which
have
>> never even seen, much less used OSX (Edwin), the Mini merely looks
>> overpriced.
>
> Mac user (at work anyway) here to say that the Mini is grossly
> overpriced for what it is. If the higher end Mini were priced at $500
> and the lower end one at $300 they'd be flying out the doors.
IOW, if Edwin had bought a Mac Mini, he would have found his *****sment
of it too generous. He would have had made a $600-$800 mistake.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**
|
