On Thu, 15 May 2008 11:23:43 -0500, Glorb <Glorb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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
**
That depends entirely upon how much this Edwin of which you speak
values the things the Mini does offer. If he puts a premium on the
form factor then he might have found it a great bargain. However if he
were basing his judgement on the machine's specs then he would have
been greatly disappointed.
|
