Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: OT - Time for the anti-Apple reactionaries to calm down

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: OT - Time for the anti-Apple reactionaries to calm down

 
 
-hh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2013
"Mayayana" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Alfred Molon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> | Have you heard the term "Apple tax"? Devote Apple-only families who
> | every year or so must upgrade all their Apple gear to the latest &
> | greatest model.
> |
> * I think you mean this:
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...-tax-idUSBRE8B...


Probably not.

IMO, he's referring to the "IT Geek" paradigm where a set of hardware
of configuration XYZ (CPU, RAM, HDD, etc) costs a certain price when
bought from the Windows PC commodity market, but when it comes from
Apple, it costs more. The difference is called "Tax" for having the
Apple logo.

What this paradigm overlooks/ignores is that there's more to a product
than merely its hardware specifications - there's all of the value-
added of its operating system and bundled software for example. In
addition, there's also technical differences in the hardware which
invariably are ignored, typically because the individual doesn't
personally attribute significance to them, such as form factor,
battery life, etc.

There is one area where there's a certain degree of legitimacy, even
though it contains its own fallacy. This stems from Apple's product
lines being fairly limited in their choices, which 'forces' some
consumers to buy features that they do not want. The reason why this
true observation is a fallacy is because any SINGLE vendor is always
going to have fewer product choices than the grand sum of the REST of
the Industry combined.


The simple bottom line is that there are differences in both the
product and its price and it is up to the individual consumer to
decide what's worth buying (or not).


-hh
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2013
> | Have you heard the term "Apple tax"? Devote Apple-only families who
> | every year or so must upgrade all their Apple gear to the latest &
> | greatest model.
> |
> I think you mean this:
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...-tax-idUSBRE8B...


| Probably not.

| IMO, he's referring to the "IT Geek" paradigm where a set of hardware
| of configuration XYZ (CPU, RAM, HDD, etc) costs a certain price...

That's not what he said. His post was very explicit: Apple
fans pay a lot more because they feel they have to continually
buy new product in order to own the newest.

What you're talking about, though, has also been an issue.
I remember when Apple had their fans convinced Intel chips
were slow. There was always an insidious grain of truth in
the Apple claims: The Motorola chips had a bigger onboard
cache, for instance. But eventually Apple's claim became
untenable, as Intel MHz rating went far beyond Motorola's
and Apple themselves had to switch to Intel. (What Apple
fans never understand is that non-Apple fans are not defending
or championing Intel or Microsoft. We're only finding fault with
Apple. Seeing it as Wintel vs Apple is part of the Apple hypnosis:
There's no such thing as a "Wintel" computer. There's a
metal box with a half dozen components inside. Part of the
problem with Apple is that they pretend they invented the
whole thing and then they lock it down, when they really
only put the pieces together in a pretty box, just as Dell and
HP do... In fact, there were actually white-box Macs for
awhile, before Steve Jobs made his famous return to the
company.)

You might be able to make a convincing case for spending
an extra $1,500 on a particular Mac, for your particular
purposes, but that doesn't explain lines 1/4 mile long to buy
wildly expensive iPhone 5s. That's more like mass hypnosis.
(And the people aren't even embarassed to be seen standing
there.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2013
On 2/4/2013 10:23 AM, Mayayana wrote:
>> | Have you heard the term "Apple tax"? Devote Apple-only families who
>> | every year or so must upgrade all their Apple gear to the latest &
>> | greatest model.
>> |
>> I think you mean this:
>>
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...-tax-idUSBRE8B...

>



Page not found.




--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2013
On 2/4/2013 10:23 AM, Mayayana wrote:
>> | Have you heard the term "Apple tax"? Devote Apple-only families who
>> | every year or so must upgrade all their Apple gear to the latest &
>> | greatest model.
>> |
>> I think you mean this:
>>
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...-tax-idUSBRE8B...

>
> | Probably not.
>
> | IMO, he's referring to the "IT Geek" paradigm where a set of hardware
> | of configuration XYZ (CPU, RAM, HDD, etc) costs a certain price...
>
> That's not what he said. His post was very explicit: Apple
> fans pay a lot more because they feel they have to continually
> buy new product in order to own the newest.
>
> What you're talking about, though, has also been an issue.
> I remember when Apple had their fans convinced Intel chips
> were slow. There was always an insidious grain of truth in
> the Apple claims: The Motorola chips had a bigger onboard
> cache, for instance. But eventually Apple's claim became
> untenable, as Intel MHz rating went far beyond Motorola's
> and Apple themselves had to switch to Intel. (What Apple
> fans never understand is that non-Apple fans are not defending
> or championing Intel or Microsoft. We're only finding fault with
> Apple. Seeing it as Wintel vs Apple is part of the Apple hypnosis:
> There's no such thing as a "Wintel" computer. There's a
> metal box with a half dozen components inside. Part of the
> problem with Apple is that they pretend they invented the
> whole thing and then they lock it down, when they really
> only put the pieces together in a pretty box, just as Dell and
> HP do... In fact, there were actually white-box Macs for
> awhile, before Steve Jobs made his famous return to the
> company.)
>
> You might be able to make a convincing case for spending
> an extra $1,500 on a particular Mac, for your particular
> purposes, but that doesn't explain lines 1/4 mile long to buy
> wildly expensive iPhone 5s. That's more like mass hypnosis.
> (And the people aren't even embarassed to be seen standing
> there.
>
>
>

It's called great marketing. IOW the "kool" factor

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2013
| >> I think you mean this:
| >>
| >>
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...-tax-idUSBRE8B...
| >
| Page not found.
|

No, it wouldn't be. It's clipped. Try my original link.


 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2013
In article <keigd5$ndv$(E-Mail Removed)>, David Taylor
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > Why people who don't own Apple products complain about them?
> >

> Perhaps if their complaints were addressed, they /would/ own Apple products?


most of their complaints stem from ignorance. many of them are pure
bullshit and often fabricated.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Alfred
Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Have you heard the term "Apple tax"? Devote Apple-only families who
> every year or so must upgrade all their Apple gear to the latest &
> greatest model.


bullshit. there is no such tax and no such requirement to upgrade every
year.

> BTW, I might have bought an iphone for my wife two years ago, hadn't it
> been do damn expensive.


the least expensive iphone is *free*.

> Three times the price of a similar Samsung
> model.


bullshit.

similar samsung phones are the same price or in some cases, *more*
money than an iphone.

> The iphone is not a bad smartphone, it's just ridicolously
> overpriced.


free is overpriced?
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2013
In article <keojn2$3et$(E-Mail Removed)>, Mayayana
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > | Have you heard the term "Apple tax"? Devote Apple-only families who
> > | every year or so must upgrade all their Apple gear to the latest &
> > | greatest model.
> > |
> > I think you mean this:
> >
> > http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...-tax-idUSBRE8B...

>
> | Probably not.
>
> | IMO, he's referring to the "IT Geek" paradigm where a set of hardware
> | of configuration XYZ (CPU, RAM, HDD, etc) costs a certain price...
>
> That's not what he said. His post was very explicit: Apple
> fans pay a lot more because they feel they have to continually
> buy new product in order to own the newest.


if they want to buy a newer product, that's their choice. many windows,
android and other users also want the latest and greatest. where's the
bashing for them?

the point is that there is nothing that *requires* them to do so.

> What you're talking about, though, has also been an issue.
> I remember when Apple had their fans convinced Intel chips
> were slow.


at the time, powerpc chips were faster.

> There was always an insidious grain of truth in
> the Apple claims: The Motorola chips had a bigger onboard
> cache, for instance.


cache had very little to do with it. the overall powerpc architecture
was (and still is) much better than x86.

apple often did 'bake-offs' with the fastest pc they could find against
a powermac and the mac was faster at real world actions.

> But eventually Apple's claim became
> untenable, as Intel MHz rating went far beyond Motorola's
> and Apple themselves had to switch to Intel.


motorola/freescale and ibm dropped the ball with powerpc development,
and intel got its act together and made power efficient chips. the core
duo series is a vast improvement over the power hungry pentium 4, for
instance.

steve jobs promised a 3 ghz powermac g5 in a year and he could not
fulfill the promise because ibm did not deliver. not long after that,
the intel transition was announced.

> (What Apple
> fans never understand is that non-Apple fans are not defending
> or championing Intel or Microsoft. We're only finding fault with
> Apple.


actually, what they tend to do is fabricate faults that don't actually
exist, largely out of ignorance.

> Seeing it as Wintel vs Apple is part of the Apple hypnosis:
> There's no such thing as a "Wintel" computer. There's a
> metal box with a half dozen components inside. Part of the
> problem with Apple is that they pretend they invented the
> whole thing and then they lock it down, when they really
> only put the pieces together in a pretty box, just as Dell and
> HP do... In fact, there were actually white-box Macs for
> awhile, before Steve Jobs made his famous return to the
> company.)


nonsense.

> You might be able to make a convincing case for spending
> an extra $1,500 on a particular Mac, for your particular
> purposes,


an extra $1500??? you can buy en entire mac for much less than $1500.

> but that doesn't explain lines 1/4 mile long to buy
> wildly expensive iPhone 5s. That's more like mass hypnosis.
> (And the people aren't even embarassed to be seen standing
> there.


you mean like the lines for ms windows, wii and other products? people
line up for stuff they want. they don't line up for crap products.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-05-2013
In article <keohli$ijf$(E-Mail Removed)>, Mayayana
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> | >> However it was the rabid anti-Apple faction which has decried the
> | >> action Apple took to protect users of Apple OSX from the immediate
> | >> potential Java security issues.
> | >
> | > Why people who don't own Apple products complain about them?
>
> | For the same reason people who don't own MS products compain about
> them???
> |
>
> For me it's because I have loved ones in the cult
> and I can't deprogram them.
>
> Also, one just hates to see people get away with
> taking advantage of others. I've used Macs. The first
> PC I learned on was a Mac. I think they're breathtakingly
> beautiful, in some cases. ...And I wouldn't buy one even
> if it were offered at 90% off.


the fact you would not use a product just because it is made by apple
when it might actually do what you need it to do means you are an
idiot.

> I use MS products *and* I complain about them.


why would anyone use a product that they aren't happy with?

why not look at a different product where you wouldn't need to
complain? maybe it's apple, maybe it's something else. why put up with
something that doesn't work properly for what you need to do?

> I
> see no reason that I should be devoted to MS just
> because I use Windows. MS is not devoted to me.
> But in a way I trust MS more: I see the MS motive
> as simple, primitive greed, which is somewhat predictable.
> I see the Apple motive as a perverse, New Age pseudo
> -spirituality (Macs are compared to Zen!) and megolomania...
> combined with the usual corporate greed. A greedy person
> is more honest with themselves than is someone who
> views themselves as an Avatar of Universal Goodness,
> spreading God's blessing at full retail.


wow. you have quite the imagination.

> So the big difference is that using Windows is
> generally not an emotional/romantic choice. It's just
> a practical choice.


same for macs.

certainly in this economy, people don't have lots of money to throw
around, so their choices are practical, and they are choosing macs,
iphones and ipads for many purposes.

> Even though we joke about it, I really don't
> think it's going too far to characterize Apple fandom
> as a cult, given the irrational, quasi-religious devotion.


it's bullshit.

> Apple does a good job with design, despite the numerous
> problems with their products (restrictions, cost, extreme
> planned obsolescence),


more bullshit. the restrictions, cost and planned obsolescence is no
more than any other company, and in fact, it's actually less.

for example, the iphone 3gs, which came out in 2009 with ios 3.0, can
run the latest ios 6.1 that's *four* years of free updates to ios.

how many 4 year old android phones can run the latest android jelly
bean?

many android phones sold just last *year* can't run jelly bean and a
lot can't even run ice cream sandwich. the most common android version
today is gingerbread!

as usual, the criticisms laid against apple actually apply more to the
*other* companies.

> but good design doesn't account
> for people standing in long lines for hours just to be the
> first in their clique to buy a particular brand of phone.


people stand in line for a lot of things, not just iphones.

> Nor does it account for the irrational defensiveness. My
> favorite example was when Apple discontinued floppy
> drives. I read an article that said Jobs could have left
> them in for a total cost of $7.50 per overpriced Mac.


even if the $7.50 is true, if you sell a million units, that's 7.5
million dollars. that's a big chunk of money for a component that will
largely go unused.

> I expressed disbelief to friends using Macs. How could
> they stand for such outrageous mistreatment?! Every one
> of them parroted the Apple party line: Floppies were
> outdated and Jobs was brilliant to get rid of them.


they were outdated.

in 1998, when the imac without a floppy came out, one of the two floppy
manufacturers shut down due to low demand earlier in the year. software
distribution at the time was mostly cd-rom and online distribution was
starting to become common.

floppies were not needed, which is why it was not included.

a small percentage of people might have needed a floppy, so they bought
an external one.

> Yet
> for months during that period, Microcenter was advertising
> a hot item: USB floppy drives for $100.


so what? stores advertise a lot of stuff. that doesn't mean anything.

what matters is how many they actually sold, and the answer is not that
many.

plus, floppy drives were available for less.

> My Mac-loving
> friends all bought USB floppy drives while still maintaining
> their defense of Steve Jobs's alleged brilliance. And like
> all Apple fans, they viewed my criticism as the sour grapes
> of the uninitiated.


then you must know all of the people who needed floppy drives. very few
floppy drives were sold overall.

of course, when pcs dropped floppy drives, nobody said a thing.

you're a hypocrite.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2013
| My only worry is
| that tablets will become so popular that personal computers (of
| whatever brand) with real functionality will once again start to
| become prohibitively expensive.

The big companies have been jumping on tablets as a
new money source. Profit margins are down on PCs. As a
result they've been carpet-bombing the media with stories
about the death of the PC. And it works. A lot of people
are buying tablets without even knowing why. But the tablet
market has been in addition to PCs, not instead. The PC
market has dropped only slightly, which could be partly
attributed to the lack of need to upgrade hardware. (A
10-year-old PC can still run most current software.)

On a recent visit to Staples I saw Microsoft's Surface RT
tablet for up to $600-$700, despite the fact there's little one
can do with it other than sign up for Microsoft's online services.
A few aisles away were PCs starting at $250. People are
buying tablets for fun, and because they can afford to spend
large amounts of money on non-necessities.

Recent reports are saying that MS has sold less than 1
million Surface RT, with many being returned because MS has
misled people into confusing RT with Windows and those people
were surprised to find their Windows software couldn't run on RT.
I'd be curious to know what the real market for tablets is once
one subtracts for the spend-happy Apple fans who will buy
anything. The market is certainly there, but it's partly a fad and
partly wishful thinking on the part of producers. It's not easy to
see what the *real* tablet market is.

I suppose PCs could get expensive if people stop using them,
but it's hard to see that happening. Tablets are for shopping,
light web browsing, and email. PCs are necessary for business.
(It would be absurd, where mobility is not needed, to spend
more for far less functionality.) I would guess it's more
likely that PCs will become a commodity item: A little box with a
PC on a chip.... which is an interesting idea: We could end up in
a situation where the computer part is little more than a flash stick,
and the cutting-edge products are all about screen/mouse/keyboard
combos. Then Apple will come out with the ultimate, ergonomic
Apple Combo Pro, in the amazing color of white, for only $1,499
and the whole craze cycle will start all over again.... Knockoffs
will appear....Apple will sue....Microsoft will come out with an
alternative at a reasonable price, but ugly.... and Walmart will
take over the market by producing a serviceable alternative with
Chinese slave labor for under $100.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: OT - Time for the anti-Apple reactionaries to calm down MC Digital Photography 2 02-06-2013 07:41 AM
Re: OT - Time for the anti-Apple reactionaries to calm down nospam Digital Photography 2 02-06-2013 12:28 AM
Re: OT - Time for the anti-Apple reactionaries to calm down RichA Digital Photography 0 02-02-2013 03:59 PM
Mr Angry and Ms Calm Rgr Computer Support 5 12-05-2007 11:54 PM



Advertisments