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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by DanP, Feb 2, 2013.

  1. DanP

    DanP Guest

    On Saturday, February 2, 2013 4:34:06 AM UTC, Savageduck 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?


    DanP
    DanP, Feb 2, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. DanP

    David Taylor Guest

    On 02/02/2013 07:30, DanP wrote:
    []
    > Why people who don't own Apple products complain about them?
    >
    >
    > DanP


    Perhaps if their complaints were addressed, they /would/ own Apple products?
    --
    Cheers,
    David
    Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
    David Taylor, Feb 2, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Savageduck <savageduck1@{removespam}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2013-02-01 23:30:46 -0800, DanP <> said:


    >> On Saturday, February 2, 2013 4:34:06 AM UTC, Savageduck 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?


    > It beats me.
    > I have no idea why people who don't own, or use Apple products, and
    > state they have no intention of ever using or buying Apple products
    > complain about them.


    I know people who don't own a computer who relish being given another
    opportunity to complain about them.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Feb 2, 2013
    #3
  4. DanP

    RichA Guest

    On Feb 2, 7:38 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2013-02-02 04:12:17 -0800, Chris Malcolm <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > Savageduck <savageduck1@{removespam}me.com> wrote:
    > >> On 2013-02-01 23:30:46 -0800, DanP <> said:

    >
    > >>> On Saturday, February 2, 2013 4:34:06 AM UTC, Savageduck 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?

    >
    > >> It beats me.
    > >> I have no idea why people who don't own, or use Apple products, and
    > >> state they have no intention of ever using or buying Apple products
    > >> complain about them.

    >
    > > I know people who don't own a computer who relish being given another
    > > opportunity to complain about them.

    >
    > I guess the same thing goes for folks who hold strong opinions on
    > cameras and brands of cameras they have never owned, used, or even
    > handled.
    >


    Yes, people are surely not allowed to have any opinions on anything
    unless they've owned/lived it.
    RichA, Feb 2, 2013
    #4
  5. DanP

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/2/2013 11:00 AM, RichA wrote:
    > On Feb 2, 7:38 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:


    <snip>
    >>
    >> I guess the same thing goes for folks who hold strong opinions on
    >> cameras and brands of cameras they have never owned, used, or even
    >> handled.
    >>

    >
    > Yes, people are surely not allowed to have any opinions on anything
    > unless they've owned/lived it.
    >


    I like the amazing timing of your response.
    It is not the holding of opinions that is objected to, But, rather the
    broadcasting of such opinions as fact, without either knowledge of the
    facts, or factual support.


    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Feb 2, 2013
    #5
  6. On 2/2/2013 11:22 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-02-02 08:00:24 -0800, RichA <> said:
    >
    >> On Feb 2, 7:38 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>> On 2013-02-02 04:12:17 -0800, Chris Malcolm <>
    >>> said

    >> :
    >>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{removespam}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>> On 2013-02-01 23:30:46 -0800, DanP <> said:
    >>>>>> On Saturday, February 2, 2013 4:34:06 AM UTC, Savageduck 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?
    >>>
    >>>>> It beats me.
    >>>>> I have no idea why people who don't own, or use Apple products, and
    >>>>> state they have no intention of ever using or buying Apple products
    >>>>> complain about them.
    >>>
    >>>> I know people who don't own a computer who relish being given another
    >>>> opportunity to complain about them.
    >>>
    >>> I guess the same thing goes for folks who hold strong opinions on
    >>> cameras and brands of cameras they have never owned, used, or even
    >>> handled.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Yes, people are surely not allowed to have any opinions on anything
    >> unless they've owned/lived it.

    >
    > It is not so much holding and expressing opinions, as it is holding
    > and expressing those opinions from a prejudiced and uninformed position.
    >
    > It seems that any nay sayer story mentioning or predicting the demise
    > of Apple draws out a boatload of individuals who claim not to have
    > ever owned, used, or would ever think of owning an Apple product.
    > ...you are a prime example of that in these photo newsgroups.
    >
    > My questions to you would be;
    > Why is it as an avowed non-Apple user, would anything regarding Apple
    > be of interest to you?
    >
    > Why is it that you choose to only post negative Apple reports?
    >
    > Could it just be Rich trolling for reaction from those of us who
    > actually use Apple products and are satisfied with them?
    >

    I have both an iPad and a fairly new PC and I use them both. From the
    stand point of a PC user, I admire the quality of design in Apple
    products tho not to the brown-nosing level of MacWorld. Steve Jobs might
    have been something of an SOB but he was good and it will be interesting
    to see how Apple's quality is maintained. Still, I don't think I've
    seen as large crowds in a computer store as those that I still see in my
    local Apple store.

    --
    Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
    James Silverton, Feb 2, 2013
    #6
  7. DanP

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 08:00:24 -0800 (PST), RichA <> wrote:
    : On Feb 2, 7:38 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    : > On 2013-02-02 04:12:17 -0800, Chris Malcolm <> said:
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : > > Savageduck <savageduck1@{removespam}me.com> wrote:
    : > >> On 2013-02-01 23:30:46 -0800, DanP <> said:
    : >
    : > >>> On Saturday, February 2, 2013 4:34:06 AM UTC, Savageduck 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?
    : >
    : > >> It beats me.
    : > >> I have no idea why people who don't own, or use Apple products, and
    : > >> state they have no intention of ever using or buying Apple products
    : > >> complain about them.
    : >
    : > > I know people who don't own a computer who relish being given another
    : > > opportunity to complain about them.
    : >
    : > I guess the same thing goes for folks who hold strong opinions on
    : > cameras and brands of cameras they have never owned, used, or even
    : > handled.
    : >
    :
    : Yes, people are surely not allowed to have any opinions on anything
    : unless they've owned/lived it.

    Gee, Rich, do you think the Duck meant you to take it personally? ;^)

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Feb 2, 2013
    #7
  8. DanP

    Mayayana Guest

    Mayayana, Feb 3, 2013
    #8
  9. DanP

    Mike Guest

    On 2/2/2013 2:30 AM, DanP wrote:
    > On Saturday, February 2, 2013 4:34:06 AM UTC, Savageduck 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?
    >
    >
    > DanP
    >

    For the same reason people who don't own MS products compain about them???

    Ford/Chevy/Mopar fight for the PC world.
    Mike, Feb 4, 2013
    #9
  10. DanP

    Mayayana Guest

    | >> 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.

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

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

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

    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.
    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. Yet
    for months during that period, Microcenter was advertising
    a hot item: USB floppy drives for $100. 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.
    Mayayana, Feb 4, 2013
    #10
  11. DanP

    -hh Guest

    "Mayayana" <> wrote:
    > "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    > | 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/2012/12/10/us-apple-tech-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
    -hh, Feb 4, 2013
    #11
  12. DanP

    Mayayana Guest

    > | 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/2012/12/10/us-apple-tech-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. :)
    Mayayana, Feb 4, 2013
    #12
  13. DanP

    PeterN Guest

    PeterN, Feb 5, 2013
    #13
  14. DanP

    PeterN Guest

    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/2012/12/10/us-apple-tech-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
    PeterN, Feb 5, 2013
    #14
  15. DanP

    Mayayana Guest

    Mayayana, Feb 5, 2013
    #15
  16. DanP

    nospam Guest

    In article <keigd5$ndv$>, David Taylor
    <> 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.
    nospam, Feb 5, 2013
    #16
  17. DanP

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> 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?
    nospam, Feb 5, 2013
    #17
  18. DanP

    nospam Guest

    In article <keojn2$3et$>, 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/2012/12/10/us-apple-tech-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.
    nospam, Feb 5, 2013
    #18
  19. DanP

    nospam Guest

    In article <keohli$ijf$>, Mayayana
    <> 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.
    nospam, Feb 5, 2013
    #19
  20. DanP

    Mayayana Guest

    | 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. :)
    Mayayana, Feb 8, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rôgêr

    Mr Angry and Ms Calm

    Rôgêr, Dec 5, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    553
    philo
    Dec 5, 2007
  2. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    667
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  3. RichA
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    178
    RichA
    Feb 2, 2013
  4. MC
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    180
    David Taylor
    Feb 6, 2013
  5. nospam
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    171
    nospam
    Feb 6, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page