George Graves wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 13:23:15 -0700, Glorb wrote
> (in article <c45e5$482c9bb3$19323@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>
>> George Graves wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Apple's commercials disagree with you. They're trying to convince PC
>> buyers to become Mac buyers. They're not aimed at the kind of people
>> who will buy a Mac even if better PCs cost less.
>
> SOME PC buyers, they couldn't handle a lot of PC buyers.
Why not? Any other PC maker will take as many customers as they can get.
>>>>> 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.
>> You both said you don't and you do.
>>
>>>> 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.
>> You didn't post about using Parallels, and "even so," it showed you had
>> a use for Windows machines.
>
>>> Those odd and rare occasions when one
>>> just HAS to use a Windows program. There's no reason to buy a Winbox
for
>>> that.
>> Yet you wound up using a Windows machine.
>
> I wound-up with a MacBook Pro running Parallels for ONE Windows program:
> Visio.
You mean you forgot your own posts on this subject? Hint: they weren't
about Parallels on a Mac.
> Now that Omnigraffle Pro 5.0 is fully compatible with Visio, I don't
> even need that any more.
Good for you.
--
"Facts are facts whether or not you or I can prove them." -- Alan Baker
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**
|
