Not for you, but for a lot of other people, yes, 16 GB is too less for $600. People complained, Microsoft listened.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Don't be surprised if the next iPad has proper connector ports and more storage.
Printable View
Not for you, but for a lot of other people, yes, 16 GB is too less for $600. People complained, Microsoft listened.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Don't be surprised if the next iPad has proper connector ports and more storage.
I would say that's an overly simplistic way of trying to summarize Apple Corporation and its success. Pointing out one possible factor for a company's success, and then trying to claim that that is the only reason, is a slippery logical slope in my world. But when ideology is involved, people do attempt it from time to time. It usually results in a bad fall (or fail) though.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden
I'm not a Corvette expert, but I believe certain portions of the Corvette's body are made from fiber reinforced plastic. But why would one need to worry more about that? :confused: If you crash either one (FRP or carbon fiber), you're going to spend a mint to fix either one. And if there is actual data showing the Ferrari 458 to be a safer car than the Corvette (Z06 or ZR1), I'm not aware of it. But I seriously doubt that's a concern for most sports car buyers anyway. Both cars have well engineered survival cells and both are at least reasonably safe, to the best of my knowledge. As for neither Corvette nor Chevrolet being a big name in racing... uh... well... the last time I checked, Chevrolet was pretty big in NASCAR and Corvette has been doing more than OK at Le Mans over the past decade. But is Ferrari the biggest name in racing? Yes, it's one of the biggest name in all of sports. Establishing brand value is important to any and all consumer focused companies.Quote:
As far as the Corvette vs Ferrari comparison, aren't most of the Corvettes made out of plastic? It was only recently with the ZR1 that they went the aluminum-carbon fiber route. At least with Ferrari, you don't have to worry about that as they've long been made entirely out of carbon fiber. So, when you buy a Ferrari, you get the marquee name (I don't see Corvette or Chevrolet being a big name in racing, and so what Ferrari is essentially charging you for is to fund their F1 program :p ), + you get "slightly" better performance + the assurance that you'll probably be alive in case of an accident.
So, there are pluses.
No, I have no desire for a smartphone currently - although I do have a 4th gen iPod Touch. My girlfriend has an iPhone 4, which replaced her previous iPhone. I've used hers many times. To me it's a telephone version of my iPod Touch. Big whoop! It's a phone. Unless the Samsung S2, S3 or S10 will be able to make me breakfast and rub my feet at night, they're just phones too. I've played with lots of smartphones, including the Blackberry that I refused to use when a former company issued it to me. I opted for a feature flip phone. In what I do, and being established enough, if one needs to communicate with me when I'm out of the office, I expect one to call me... not text me or send me a Blackberry message. I do not respond to text messages. I gave up the feature phone when I left that company, and with my personal cell phone being truly ancient now, sooner than later, I know that I'll have to get a new phone. Since I'm already in the iOS ecosystem, the iPhone would be an easy choice. But maybe I'll just get another dumb phone. I don't know. It won't change my life either way. I'll put more thought into what my next car will be than what my next phone will be.Quote:
So, you have actually not gotten around to using smartphones yet. Do me a favor and use Galaxy S2 and iPhone 4S with an unbiased view, and tell me why Apple deserves the extra $150.
I'm not an IT guy. I can't tell you specifically why various corporate IT depts have banned Android devices from their networks. But since I'm assuming that naughtykitty.biz, and other such sites, are already blocked, I sort of doubt that has anything to do with it. It apparently has more to do with the prevalence of malware within apps in the Android community.Quote:
No doubt, Apple products are considered trouble-free by some. But hey, you go clicking on naughtykitty.biz or on an ad that says "You've won the lottery", I don't care if it's OS X Pantelionepard, your computer WILL get infected.
The easy answer is that consumer demand justifies both price points. That's just how it works. And the big (interesting) difference is, the higher priced product is still flying off the shelves, while the lower priced product continues to struggle. If I'm not mistaken, Dell has fallen on rather hard times of late and has experienced some inventory, customer service, sales and revenue issues over the past 3-5 years. Rather than worrying about why Apple is able to (successfully) charge so much, maybe the better question would be, why can't Dell move these *superior* products while charging so much less? Maybe the perception of the consumer (the only perception that matters) is that they're actually not so superior after all. But I really don't know... that's for the guys in marketing to figure out. I just remember when both Dell and Apple were $50 stocks though. Now AAPL is around $580 and DELL is around $12. I would suggest that the Dell guys try to figure out what they've done wrong and what Apple has done right... and not the other way around. Remember, Dell once had a really good brand name too. How times have changed. Remember this? :)Quote:
I saw a Macbook Air on sale a couple of days ago:
Older generation (Nehalem architecture) - 2.3 GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 processor
4GB DDR3 RAM; 500 GB Hard Drive
15.4 inch LED-backlit display, 1440-by-900 resolution
NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M 512MB Graphics
Mac OS X v10.7 Lion, 7 Hour Battery Life
Price: $1794
I also saw a Dell XPS at the same shop:
Newer Generation (Sandy Bridge Architecture) Intel Core i7 2640M Processor 2.8GHz
6GB DIMM RAM; 750GB 7200RPM Hard Drive
15.6-Inch Screen, 1400X900 resolution
NVIDIA GeForce GT 525M - 1 GB Graphics
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
Price: $959.99
Please tell me why, for inferior hardware, the Macbook deserves the extra $800. Thanks. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyQOTEpHxLw
That would have been very altruistic of Microsoft if true.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden
Bottom line is they need to be in the tablet market. With millions being sold, the majority of them iPads, they simply cannot afford to be left behind. Whether they've got it right only time will tell, but pursuading iPad users to switch will be a hard task.
The term "over-simplistic" is used a couple of times by you in this thread. First of all, I assume and it seems like I'm the only person in this thread who cares about what tech goes into the gadgets I buy, who can build his own PC, and miraculously keep Dell products running without any failures, so in my opinion, buying Apple products and paying close to 50% more money just because "it works" without looking at what you're getting inside the box is rather noobish and "over-simplistic" as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
I have assembled enough PCs and conversed with enough tech people to know how criminal Apple's premium really is. I have put forth tech questions in this thread, and instead of valid answers, all I've gotten is "I don't care bout the hardware", "It looks nicer" and "It's convenient and easier to use." I can't believe people are actually justifying $800 extra for inferior hardware to be okay. How much more can an OS do if the hardware isn't up there? Ever thought about that?
I believe the majority of Z06's body is made out of plastic. Isn't carbon fiber at least 10 times more resistant than plastic in case of a crash? Isn't that why all F1 cars or any high performance racing machines are entirely built out of carbon fiber. It's not about how much you'll spend to fix it, it's about safety and whether that steering wheel is going to go through your chest or not. Do you get a better quality engine, gearbox, paddle shifters with the Ferrari? Probably yes. So, I'd say inside and outside, you still get more with the Ferrari even for double the price.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
But like I have posted my comparison a few posts ago, with the Macbook, you actually get inferior hardware. The graphic card in the Macbook Pro for $1795 is exactly half of the one in the $959 Dell XPS. 512 MB vs 1 GB, and GPU memory plays a BIG role in any graphic intensive task on a computer. So, for the extra $800, I am getting an inferior product.
Well, since you have never extensively compared nor used a smartphone, then you can't really comment on whether the iPhone is better or even know how Apple is charging its customers silly money and once again, providing an inferior product. Without going into too many details, the Galaxy S2 was universally regarded as the phone of the year 2011 by experts all over the world, and the only phone to receive a 5/5 rating at techradar.com where even the "amazing" iPhone 4S got 4/5. Yet it is $150 cheaper than the iPhone 4S, and the sheep mentality of Apple customers kept it above by a hair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
I seriously don't know how these folks get infected. I've been using Windows for the last decade and a half, and Android products for the last 3 years. I've got Avast on my PC and AVG on my phone, and I have installed possibly over 200 applications and games on my computer and mobile combined. Not once have I got even one error, and I'm not the most anal guy when it comes to security. One would have to be REALLY careless to get infected or have the hard drive crash on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
I really can't believe people are trying to justify Apple charging $800 extra for inferior hardware. It's just amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Second, you can't really compare Apple and Dell. Apple deals in smartphones, tablets, desktop PCs, laptops, MP3 players, set-top video interfacing like Apple TV etc. Whereas Dell is really one of the many PC vendors with their main business being only desktop PCs and laptops. So, of course their revenues are ALWAYS going to be MUCH lesser than Apple's. If you look at only the laptop and desktop sales, they are quite close.
Besides, Dell is only one of the many PC vendors, and might be Apple's main competitor in America, but that doesn't mean people don't buy desktops or laptops from a number of other PC vendors like HP, Sony, Acer, LG, Samsung, ASUS, MSI, Toshiba all around the world. On top of this, people who really know their stuff, prefer to build their own PC, which usually is close to $1000 to $1500 cheaper than a comparable iMac and does all of the same things. If you pool ALL of the PC vendor sales, it trumps Apple quite easily.
The worldwide OS share statistics is 60% Windows and 9% Mac as of April 2012. So, while Apple MAY have sold more laptops than Dell last year in America, it's a luxury brand for rich people and is nowhere near competing with PCs all over the world.
Well, lack of connectivity, lack of storage and lack of expandable memory were one of the biggest gripes of tech-lovers regarding the iPad, which kept it from becoming a true replacement of notebooks.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
And Microsoft have clearly included all of those features in their tablet while keeping the thickness the same as the iPad. I say good on them!
http://mashable.com/2012/04/11/tablet-sales-gartner/Quote:
Approximately 119 million tablets will reach consumers’ hands around the world this year, up from 60 million in 2011...Of those 119 million tablets, approximately 73 million, or 61%, will be iPads...despite increased competition from the likes of Amazon and Microsoft.
That's one heck of a market to break for Microsoft. Good luck to them!
Well, they just gotta keep advertising all the advantages the Surface has over the iPad, and they'll get there eventually.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
I'm guessing a lot of netbook and notebook users who were hesitant before to switch to a tablet because it didn't have what they were looking for, might switch to the Surface or the more powerful Surface Pro.
I'm surprised iPad only has a 61% market share. I would have thought it'd be at least over 75%. Android is catching up fast, and with their new tablet optimized OS coming up over the next few months, if top electronics giants like Samsung and Sony come up with better tablets, it could be a tough battle.
For me (and I fully accept that other's views may vary) a tablet needs to have an SD slot and HDMI out as essentials - not via clunky adaptors.
Well, I must be REALLY lucky then, because my current Dell laptop is 6-8 months older than yours and is still running on the Win 7 install I did when I bought it. My 4 years old Dell is being used by my sister now, and as far as I can remember, she doesn't have a problem. My 7 year old Sony Vaio is being used by my father as an at-home printer to print stuff for his business, and to Skype with me when I'm away.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
In my experience, the only time I had a hard drive failure, I'd have to say was 14 years ago when my ancient PC was running Windows 98, which developed bad sectors probably because of power outages and the fact that I wasn't using surge protectors.
Apart from that, honestly man, I've been super lucky with hard drives. :)
It won't happen overnight, but IMO iPad's market share will decrease significantly over the next few years. It has dropped significantly already since 2010, which was a surprise for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Yeah, the thing is that we are not children anymore, and I don't buy stuff to impress anybody else anymore. I want the best tech for my money, and that's why I don't buy Apple. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by henners88
The kid inside me does want the Galaxy S3 though, even though I don't need it, but it's still the most advanced smartphone money can buy right now, and so I might end up getting it. :D
The hardware they've crammed in there is one half of the success pie, which as a non-tablet fan, impressed even me. But the other crucial half depends on their OS.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
I'm not trying to be insulting by using the term "overly simplistic". And I'm not dismissing your opinion... but it is just that: an opinion. I'm just saying that trying to condense a company's success or failure into a pejorative one-liner does indicate (IMO) an overly simplistic approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden
So just as I have a deep fascination for business and economics, it seems that you have a similar interest in technology. And there's nothing wrong with that. But you seem to be trying to use your knowledge of technology to extrapolate a market opinion on why people make the choices they make.Quote:
I have assembled enough PCs and conversed with enough tech people to know how criminal Apple's premium really is. I have put forth tech questions in this thread, and instead of valid answers, all I've gotten is "I don't care bout the hardware", "It looks nicer" and "It's convenient and easier to use." I can't believe people are actually justifying $800 extra for inferior hardware to be okay. How much more can an OS do if the hardware isn't up there? Ever thought about that?
Carbon fiber, ounce for ounce, is stronger and less flexible than FRP. But neither car (to my knowledge) uses a carbon fiber chassis. Both use aluminum and/or aluminum alloys. Most formula race cars these days have carbon fiber chassis. It is the chassis that houses the survival cell. The body has little to do with the safety of the vehicle. So I fail to understand what what a carbon fiber body has to do with a steering wheel going through your chest.Quote:
I believe the majority of Z06's body is made out of plastic. Isn't carbon fiber at least 10 times more resistant than plastic in case of a crash? Isn't that why all F1 cars or any high performance racing machines are entirely built out of carbon fiber. It's not about how much you'll spend to fix it, it's about safety and whether that steering wheel is going to go through your chest or not. Do you get a better quality engine, gearbox, paddle shifters with the Ferrari? Probably yes. So, I'd say inside and outside, you still get more with the Ferrari even for double the price.
If that is your opinion, then I'm fine with that. So why wouldn't you just buy the product that you believe is a better buy and be happy? :)Quote:
But like I have posted my comparison a few posts ago, with the Macbook, you actually get inferior hardware. The graphic card in the Macbook Pro for $1795 is exactly half of the one in the $959 Dell XPS. 512 MB vs 1 GB, and GPU memory plays a BIG role in any graphic intensive task on a computer. So, for the extra $800, I am getting an inferior product.
So using that logic, then I can assume that you have both a Ferrari 458 and a Corvette ZR1 parked in your garage? :DQuote:
Well, since you have never extensively compared nor used a smartphone, then you can't really comment on whether the iPhone is better or even know how Apple is charging its customers silly money and once again, providing an inferior product. Without going into too many details, the Galaxy S2 was universally regarded as the phone of the year 2011 by experts all over the world, and the only phone to receive a 5/5 rating at techradar.com where even the "amazing" iPhone 4S got 4/5. Yet it is $150 cheaper than the iPhone 4S, and the sheep mentality of Apple customers kept it above by a hair.
You might be a statistical anomaly. Anecdotals don't tell us much about the total population.Quote:
I seriously don't know how these folks get infected. I've been using Windows for the last decade and a half, and Android products for the last 3 years. I've got Avast on my PC and AVG on my phone, and I have installed possibly over 200 applications and games on my computer and mobile combined. Not once have I got even one error, and I'm not the most anal guy when it comes to security. One would have to be REALLY careless to get infected or have the hard drive crash on them.
It's less about justifying and more about trying to give you some sort of answer to your question. That you may not like the answer is a separate matter. Sorry.Quote:
I really can't believe people are trying to justify Apple charging $800 extra for inferior hardware. It's just amazing.
I remember that Dell has tried to compete in all of those areas as well. It's just that it didn't work out so well... and now they've exited some of those businesses.Quote:
Second, you can't really compare Apple and Dell. Apple deals in smartphones, tablets, desktop PCs, laptops, MP3 players, set-top video interfacing like Apple TV etc. Whereas Dell is really one of the many PC vendors with their main business being only desktop PCs and laptops. So, of course their revenues are ALWAYS going to be MUCH lesser than Apple's. If you look at only the laptop and desktop sales, they are quite close.
You brought up Ferrari, so let's continue with that example. What was Ferrari's worldwide market share last year? Can we agree that it was probably less than 1%... substantially less than 1%? But in an industry paper that I read a couple of years ago, Ferrari was the most profitable automotive division in the world. The reason for that is Ferrari focuses on margins. Dell, on the other hand, focuses more on volumes. Others focus on margins. Apple is currently in the enviable position of being able to focus on both. Because the market demand for Apple products (including PC's) is what it is, Apple, unlike Dell, has no real inventory or margin concerns. The PC business is still very tough. And (IMO) part of the reason for that is the number of companies competing at the low end. And further, I really think it's those low end, generic computers that hurt the brands of many of these PC OEM's.Quote:
Besides, Dell is only one of the many PC vendors, and might be Apple's main competitor in America, but that doesn't mean people don't buy desktops or laptops from a number of other PC vendors like HP, Sony, Acer, LG, Samsung, ASUS, MSI, Toshiba all around the world. On top of this, people who really know their stuff, prefer to build their own PC, which usually is close to $1000 to $1500 cheaper than a comparable iMac and does all of the same things. If you pool ALL of the PC vendor sales, it trumps Apple quite easily.
The worldwide OS share statistics is 60% Windows and 9% Mac as of April 2012. So, while Apple MAY have sold more laptops than Dell last year in America, it's a luxury brand for rich people and is nowhere near competing with PCs all over the world.
It's not my place to argue the superiority or inferiority of one brand over another. We all have opinions. Although I may be able to find logical explanations for how a company has succeeded or failed - since that's pretty much what I do for a living. ;) If you like to build your own computers, I think that's very cool. But I'll be really honest with you, to say that Apple is just a brand for rich people... if you'll consider the mathematical impossibility of that statement, it might unwind you a bit. With something like 50% of U.S. households having at least one Apple product... uh... Captain, there are not that many rich people in the U.S. That is, unless you want to define "rich" as someone who just has a job and a place to live. What would the Occupy Wall St. kids do if they had to contend with The 50%'ers? :eek:
Why not just enjoy whatever works for you and stop worrying about the decisions that others make? Why do you care what brand of phone or computer someone else has, as long as you're not paying for it? Whether it's cars or computers, I've never really understood why some get so wound up about the purchasing decisions of others. :confused: It's fine to discuss tech and whatever else. But remember, "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
I'm not denying that Apple do make products that are desirable for a lot of people. What I don't understand is their ridiculously high markup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Since I am interested in technology, I like to know what's inside my product, what am I paying for, and so paying ridiculous markup for inferior products seems almost like a sin to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
I don't know either car's crash test rating, but I'm assuming that for the money that Ferrari charge, it would probably fare better in that. Hey, either way, if I had the money to buy a Ferrari, I'd buy a Corvette, a Nissan GT-R and a Kawasaki Ninja for that money. Performance and sensible purchase means more than aesthetics or a brand name to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
It's not just an opinion, it's a fact. Double the GPU memory means faster rendering of videos and animations, better quality gaming and smoother playback of HD movies on a huge TV. So, with almost 90% more money, i.e. $800, why am I getting shortchanged?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Also, I don't think you've quite paid attention to my posts on this thread here. I'm not asking people why they buy Apple products or that my purchases are better. I'm trying to understand, in a discussion forum, why are Apple products so much more expensive and offer so little. So far very little valid answers. They're not the top dog, because Windows dominates the world market. Their products are not the best performing either, benchmark tests say otherwise for comparable PC products.
I wish. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Or maybe just really lucky with my PC hardware. I'm careful about what I install and do little maintenance and a few optimizations, but that's it. So, I really can't quite understand why people harp about PC problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
I'm sorry, but $800 more for inferior hardware just cannot be explained, justified or have a legit answer that'd make sense, not in this dimension at least. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
And that's exactly why Dell cannot be compared to Apple. While both of them do source hardware from other companies, Dell has always been more of a hardware assembler than someone like Apple making integrated systems with their own OS. The range of Dell products is also too limited to really stack up against Apple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
They aren't low end computers. Apple uses a subset of PC hardware, and so CPUs and GPUs are pretty much identical made by Intel, Nvidia and AMD, which are actually the meat of the processing power. The only real difference is in the operating system, peripherals and aesthetics, for which Apple charges the ridiculous markup. I have worked on both PC and Mac, and honestly don't find anything special in a Mac. While Mac OS X looks smoother, Windows 7 is a much more feature rich, application rich, gaming rich and versatile OS. While it takes some knowledge to setup a PC, Macs work out of the box, but that doesn't mean they deserve on average $700 to $800 more money. Convenience shouldn't be that expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Well, even with the economy crunch, there is a bigger ratio of rich folks in USA than possibly any other country on this planet, and that's why Apple's biggest market is the USA followed by other rich countries. There is a reason why it doesn't sell in poorer countries, because people have to learn a little about computers to save a lot of money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
What's to understand? It's simple market economics of charging as much as the market will bear. You may think that the price of a product is made up of material and construction costs + a margin for profit, but that's never been the case for any product, not just confined to Apple.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden
It's a well known economic effect, although the name escapes me just now. When products are given a high price, this increases their desirability and thus unit sales are actually higher than if the prices were lower.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Anyone who genuinely doesn't understand why Apple price their products the way they do should read up on economics - supply, demand and price elasticity. Although I suspect in this case that's already well understood ;)
Hmm, so for my online business, if I made a slicker website, increased the prices by 30%, advertised and hyped up my services as the best thing since sliced bread, somehow jazzed up MS Word and Excel documents, the desirability and demand of my services will increase ten-fold compared to my competitors. The only thing remaining would be to wait patiently to find suckers to do business with me.
Even if my website ranks number one on Bing and Yahoo for one of the many search terms, but hey, I'm not the market leader, and neither are Apple.
http://itbrandpulse.com/images/stori...20overview.png
The "desirability" of their products is resulting in a rather slow growth. Are you sure they're not just a luxury brand for rich people? They are pretty much nowhere in the OS share either:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._pie_chart.png
There goes the supposed "superiority" and popularity of the Mac OS out of the window as well.
As for their total share of the US and World PC sales:
http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpr...2011/07/us.png
http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpr...1/07/world.png
That is an amazingly slow growth rate. Anybody who believes Apple products are "flying off the shelves" has bought in terribly into the Apple hype. So, they are not the leaders anywhere, neither are their products SO desirable and in demand as some people would have me believe. But yet, ridiculous markups like $800 extra for inferior products is quite okay with people.
This business model sounds like a goldmine! Thanks guys! I just need to now convince people why my documents are better for more money compared to my competitors. :)
Hmm you're comparing iOS to Windows 7. The phrase Apples and Oranges comes to mind.
In any case that's not the point I was making. Ferrari (for example) doesn't seek to dominate the market share such that everyone owns a Ferrari, rather to maximize profit on each unit sold.
Yes, but why is Apple's margin for profit so much higher than others? They are not market leaders, their OS is not superior, neither is their hardware. Just because I decide to sell my product at a higher price, doesn't make it better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Why is it okay to pay $800 for inferior hardware? Have we stooped to such levels of stupidity to think that "Because that product is $800 more expensive, it MUST be good?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden
Apple expected to sell 100 millionth iPad this yearQuote:
Up to 60 million iPads will be sold this year, bringing the total sold since the tablet was introduced in April 2010 to more than 100 million, estimate analysts who cover Apple. Some 55 million have been sold to date, according to Apple.
Given that this is from a standing start two years ago you would describe that as "slow growth rate" and "hype"?
http://images.gizmag.com/hero/mediat...t2010-2014.jpg
Because that's the business model they've chosen. I'm not sure why you are finding that so difficult to grasp.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden
That's true, but selling at a higher price doesn't require any of these things.Quote:
They are not market leaders, their OS is not superior, neither is their hardware. Just because I decide to sell my product at a higher price, doesn't make it better.
That's the basic economic effect, yes. So just be thankful you've seen through their deception and move on :)Quote:
Why is it okay to pay $800 for inferior hardware? Have we stooped to such levels of stupidity to think that "Because that product is $800 more expensive, it MUST be good?"
Not iOS. I would compare Android with iOS. I'm comparing Mac OS X with Windows 7. It's nowhere even near for the claims of being "superior".Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
This also lays to rest the claims that majority of the graphic designers prefer Macs. Either there are very few graphic designers in this world, or all the Mac users don't connect to the internet. :)
Ferrari can't be used as an example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Ferrari makes some of the world's fastest performance cars, which have state of the art components made by Ferrari themselves, and their cars are generally the fastest on the track or do relatively well compared to similarly priced brands like Porsche, Lamborghini, Aston Martin and Mercedes etc.
Apple makes some of the world's most expensive computers and gadgets, which generally have a subset of inferior PC hardware, the OS isn't better than its nearest competitor, is continually beaten in benchmark tests by similarly priced PC brands like HP, Dell, Sony, Acer and Toshiba.
OK fine maybe Ferrari is a bad example. Notice I'm not claiming Apple is 'better' in any way. Just that their profit margin and prices don't need 'justification' when the sales stand up.
I believe I was talking about PC and laptop sales, and not tablets. A few posts ago Jag said Apple laptops were "flying off the shelves". Not so.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
In tablets, Apple obviously has a stronghold with the iPad, but it's still surprising their tablet market share is only 61%.
Moving on, I believe this discussion will only go on like this:
[youtube]YiTvgYRUKFg[/youtube]
While this has been great fun, the time spent here means my productivity has hit astonishingly low levels. :(
If I wanna enjoy my weekend barbecue with some whiskey, I better get to finishing my work now.
:wave:
Apologies. I read "Apple products" in your post :)Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden
I think where you hit a brick wall is rubbishing Apple products. I'm with you that I think they're hideously overpriced, overhyped and under-specced for what they are; and I have found better products for my personal needs. Your mistake is to extrapolate that and call their stuff rubbish when it's clearly not, and it's clearly selling in phenomenal volumes. It's views like that which make it extremely difficult to have a meaningful debate. Enjoy your BBQ! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden
I didn't call Apple products rubbish because of the tech inside or because I imagine they don't work. They are very well built, very well engineered, slick products and I'm aware of that, as I've personally used their computers, tablets and phones. Not owned, but used for a valid period of time. I'm also aware that they're the current numero uno in the smartphones and tablet arena. The criticism of the iPad was because IMO current tablets (Apple and others) are useless for their price, and that's just my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
It'd be really silly of me to call them garbage depending on just my imagination.
But if I'm paying considerably more $ for a product, it better not lag behind in ANY area, and that was the crux of my gripe.
Thank you. I will. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
I ran through it quickly, and yes, it does have mixed opinions and quite an interesting discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
But then PC has gotten double the votes of Mac, 44 to 20, and there's the good old Mac vs PC discussion going on throughout the thread with good points made from both sides.
What you have to realize though is that US and UK may be a big chunk of the world's graphic design pie, but it's certainly not the biggest, and it's those two countries where Macs have their largest sale. As you saw in the graph I posted a few posts ago, Apple is a contender in the desktops and laptops area majorly in the US, but it's not really a threat to PCs on the world map.
What you also have to keep in mind is that a lot of companies are outsourcing their designing needs to save money, and having been to many offshore graphic design companies and media publishing houses, cost cutting is the first parameter, and so there again PC wins hands down.
While I will agree that Mac is catching up fast, but like some of them said in that thread, and also from my personal experience, the default software suite used by majority of graphic/web designers is the Adobe CS, and it works pretty much in the same way on both systems. But when it comes to rendering, better hardware always helps, and this is where PC is better value for money.
Maybe in Britain, henners, and maybe also in the USA, but that's still quite a small chunk on the world map. When it comes to cost cutting and getting better value for money, media companies around the world hardly care about aesthetics and ease of use. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
That's the keyword, "Depending on spec".Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Well, that's what I've been trying to say throughout. Of course, for the same hardware spec, rendering would be the same on both PC and Mac. The OS can only go as far as the hardware will allow it to go.
But for around the same hardware spec, Mac would set you back on average between $400 to $800 extra.
With that extra money, on a PC you can double the system RAM, double the GPU (graphics) RAM, get an SSD, maybe even get a better processor, and rendering will be much, much faster.
So, ultimately, if your budget is $1500, a PC will probably operate Adobe CS the same way, but will render much, MUCH faster. And for huge rendering tasks in print, video and animation, that's a huge boon. :)
Making assumptions is part of the problem. I've built more systems than I want to count, and have tossed parts that would easily pay for a car by now. I've got a background in communications and was dealing with storage arrays that used large standalone metal cases weighing hundreds of pounds.... they stored less than what a flash drive would hold these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden
I've run my own business making signs and graphics, and had DOS based true multitasking software that used only 1 megabyte of memory yet would run circles around the windows software of the time. Being CAD/CAM type software it was also very hardware hungry, and I tossed a lot of dollars in search of better performance systems.
But the reality is short of intensive software hungry apps, almost all PCs have plenty of horsepower these days, and half of the "bragging rights" are based on benchmark programs.... the user wouldn't see the difference a great deal of the time and has to run a benchmark to prove "superiority".
Back to reality, I've already had a number of times my newer Droid phone lags at execution, but my daughters 3rd gen iPod doesn't. It's an "inferior" product that performs better at times.
Didn't you also assume that I don't know what I'm talking about a few pages ago as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
I believe what I'm talking with henners is about the rendering aspects of a computer, not everyday, general use. If someone is using their computer just for surfing websites, what difference would an OS or hardware make?Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Well, Motorola has had lots of issues with Droid, and it's hardly a benchmark for Android phones, as it's not the main competitor of Apple. A better comparison would be Samsung's Galaxy range of phones. I'm using an SGS2, but my ancient Samsung Galaxy 5 i5500 still handles Android 2.2 (Froyo) without any lags or glitches.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Motorola are infamous for putting their own Motoblur skin over Android, which is generally regarded as a pretty terrible bit of software and ruins some otherwise good phones. Incidentally, Samsung's equivalent Touchwiz is the only sticking point for me getting an S3 - I'd almost certainly root it and install vanilla ICS which runs like lightning without manufacturers faffing around with it. That's where Apple's approach of retaining total control of the OS can pay dividends, but equally you could argue it stifles development.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
That is precisely where Apple wins. There were many commentators who said Apple would fail as they wouldn't allow operators to install their bloatware on phones. Like when I had a Nokia and had to sit through T-Mobile startup screens every time I switched it on.
The S3 has such kickass hardware that touchwhiz doesn't bog it down that much, at least that was my impression when I played around with it at a showroom. If you install ICS, you'll lose the S-Voice thingy developed by Samsung, which looks better in reviews, but I'm assuming it's as crap as Siri anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
IMO while it is useless, touchwhiz is still better than HTC's Sense UI and that Motorola crap.
Yeah, well, you know, henners, *cough* touchwhiz is not an OS, *cough* just a UI. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by henners88
So, fail. :p
:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Odd that in this society being ignorant means to be cool. :p :D
Don't remind me of the whiskey. :(
http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net...05_700b_v1.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by henners88
:p
More likely, the person who said that is well versed in how to read 10Q's. ;) Apple has been growing sales at a rate that well exceeds the PC sector overall. And even in your snapshot here, what we see is that Apple and Toshiba were the only ones to experience year-over-year positive growth. Looking at results from later in 2011:Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden
And the MacBook Air, of which I was speaking, did indeed "fly off the shelves" in the most recent holiday quarter (OK, it did not literally fly... computers can't really fly, ya know). Anyone who wants to ignore the data that plainly indicates that is just so keen on sticking to an ideology that they've lost the ability to see the forest for that single tree in front of their face.Quote:
While Apple still struggles with single digit marketshare globally among all PC vendors, sales of Macs have steadily increased over the last few years. Mac sales have outgrown the overall PC market for 32 consecutive quarters, and grown to 4.89 million units—a 26 percent year-over-year increase—in the most recent September quarter.
That kind of growth is expected to continue for the holiday quarter, according to early figures released by market research firm IDC. Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster noted that sales for October alone are already up 19 percent year-over-year. Currently, he is predicting a 23-26 percent increase for the entire holiday quarter, or sales of 5.1-5.3 million Macs.
Now, I'm headed outside to light my Cohiba cigar with a $100 bill. I don't actually smoke cigars though - they'll give you cancer. I make my butler smoke it after I light it. That's what us rich people do, ya know. :s mokin:
I believe what I was retorting to was claims by some that Apple was the market leader in laptops and that they sold more Macs and Macbooks than PC vendors, which is clearly not true. I am also aware of Apple's steady growth, but it's also not as rapid as many would have me believe. They still have a long way to go to be considered true competitors to PC's domination, especially on the worldwide market, not just US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Another major aspect you have to keep in mind is that Microsoft hasn't released any real updates to their OS since the 2009 release of Windows 7, whereas Apple has released TWO new versions of their Mac OS X in the last two years. Windows 8 is still in beta I believe, and is expected to launch in July. Expect desktop PCs and laptop sales to jump back up as Ultrabooks with Ivy bridge processors and SSDs start to roll out with Windows 8 pre-loaded.
Ah, enjoy your cigar, sir. And may I suggest a $5000 Macbook Air while you're at it? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
I think you really have to consider Apples laptops and desktops differently to the mobile offerings. Different OS and different philosophy. Also a much slower upgrade cycle by users phones are maybe every 18 months. Desktops more like 4-5 years.
Windows 7 might have been 2009 but many still see it as being new and scary!
Did you go through EVERY post over the last 5-6 pages? If not, look again henners. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Just to be clear, I wasn't pointing at you, but some other Apple fan who was talking about market volume and how Macbooks are outselling laptops. Can't be bothered to search through 6 pages to find the exact quote.
I accept that the iPhone 4S has comfortably outsold its nearest competitor, the Galaxy S2.
But Apple computers are not a threat to PC, not yet at least.