Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> 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.
Who is the form factor im****tant to, and why?
--
"Facts are facts whether or not you or I can prove them." -- Alan Baker
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**
|
