On Thu, 15 May 2008 08:57:36 -0700, Glorb wrote
(in article <6a253$482c5d70$17004@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
> George Graves wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 May 2008 08:27:19 -0700, Glorb wrote
>> (in article <c3e60$482b04d7$6599@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>>
>>> Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:30:08 GMT, me4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Wayne Stuart)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ZnU <znu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <r81i2493mg7ii0vqdtv8m1o2k08vko0vnp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>>>> Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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]
>):
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> It's priced quite well for a small form-factor system, but many
buyers
>>>>>> probably don't care much about the form factor. Apple could make
the
>>>>>> thing a fair bit cheaper by just making it a bit larger, so it
wouldn't
>>>>>> have to use laptop RAM and optical & hard drives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Though it's also worth noting the Mac mini hasn't seen an update
in
>>>>>> something like nine months -- it'll probably be much more
competitive
>>>>>> after the next update. Though that will probably take the form of
better
>>>>>> specs at the same price points. Unless it has been so long since
the
>>>>>> last update because Apple is up to something....)
>>>>> Maybe if the Mini had been a bigger seller, Apple would have put
more
>>>>> effort into keeping it fresh. But everything I've seen points to
the
>>>>> Mini has always been considerably outsold by the much more expensive
>>>>> iMac.
>>>>>
>>>>> You also have to wonder if this has been sending a message that
people
>>>>> aren't particularly interested in cheap Macs, so no point making an
even
>>>>> cheaper one.
>>>> What people are interested in is a $500 Mac that has the same
features
>>>> as a $500 PC, not a $500 Mac that matches the $198 PCs on Wal-Mart's
>>>> website.
>>>> As I keep pointing out its not the price point, its the value.
>>> I agree.
>>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**
>>
>> Depends upon one's definition of value. I hate to resort to car
analogies,
>
> So lets get rid of your car analogy and stick to computers. :-)
>
>> The Mini
>> appeals to people who have no use for a Windows PC of the same price or
>> less,
>> no matter how much better a processor, more memory, bigger hard drive
or
>> more
>> software it comes bundled with. That makes such comparisons moot.
>
> Since few people, if any, fall under such a category, the comparisons
> are far from "moot."
Since Apple, being only one company, is only selling to a "few people" in
the
larger scope of things, the comparison is absolutely moot.
>
>
>> I might,
>> conceivably buy a Mini, I would never buy one of these similar priced
or
>> even
>> cheaper Windows machines even if it were faster and more fully loaded
than
>> the fastest Mac one can buy, because I have no use for a Windows
machine.
>
> Why do you feel your personal beliefs extend to the market as a whole?
I don't. But they do extend to the Mac market, the only market of interest
in
this discussion.
> Especially when you posted about occasions when you had to use a Windows
> machine for your work.
Even so, that's what Parallels is for. Those odd and rare occasions when
one
just HAS to use a Windows program. There's no reason to buy a Winbox for
that.
|
