Adobe and America go from an ownership to a rental economy

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 8, 2013.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
    fee to "rent" its use. This is like movies and music which are going
    in a similar direction. Problem is, it makes these things subject to
    the whims of companies, prevailing politics and morality. The
    companies decide they don't like something about it, or politicians
    decide it offends the general public, they pull it. This applies more
    to movies and music than to Adobe's software, but you never know what
    institutions and people will do with things that are not physically in
    your possession. Lastly, you also become victim of the service
    provider, service speed, etc., because all the use of the software is
    now cloud-based.
     
    RichA, May 8, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/7/2013 9:14 PM, RichA wrote:
    > Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
    > fee to "rent" its use. This is like movies and music which are going
    > in a similar direction. Problem is, it makes these things subject to
    > the whims of companies, prevailing politics and morality. The
    > companies decide they don't like something about it, or politicians
    > decide it offends the general public, they pull it. This applies more
    > to movies and music than to Adobe's software, but you never know what
    > institutions and people will do with things that are not physically in
    > your possession. Lastly, you also become victim of the service
    > provider, service speed, etc., because all the use of the software is
    > now cloud-based.
    >


    That decision has not be finalized.

    As to music, as usual you are talking without factual foundation. The
    proliferation of low priced video cameras has made your reference to
    movies, laughable.

    this is more likely the future of movies:
    <http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Amazon-Pilots-Review-Alpha-House-Shows-Great-Promise-Onion-News-Empire-So-Much-54857.html>

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 8, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On May 8, 9:37 am, PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 5/7/2013 9:14 PM, RichA wrote:
    >
    > > Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
    > > fee to "rent" its use.  This is like movies and music which are going
    > > in a similar direction.  Problem is, it makes these things subject to
    > > the whims of companies, prevailing politics and morality.  The
    > > companies decide they don't like something about it, or politicians
    > > decide it offends the general public, they pull it.  This applies more
    > > to movies and music than to Adobe's software, but you never know what
    > > institutions and people will do with things that are not physically in
    > > your possession.  Lastly, you also become victim of the service
    > > provider, service speed, etc., because all the use of the software is
    > > now cloud-based.

    >
    > That decision has not be finalized.
    >
    > As to music, as usual you are talking without factual foundation. The
    > proliferation of low priced video cameras has made your reference to
    > movies, laughable.
    >
    > this is more likely the future of movies:
    > <http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Amazon-Pilots-Review-Alpha-Hous...>
    >
    > --
    > PeterN


    I'm not some Chinese guy earning $3000/year, living in the outskirts
    of Beijing, where going to the movies costs the equivalent of $110 a
    person. I don't want to watch illegally-copied "campots" of movies in
    a theatre done with a video camera, if that is what you are referring
    to. Ownership of a physical medium is KEY to preserving the freedom
    to watch or do with a product what you want.
     
    RichA, May 8, 2013
    #3
  4. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/8/2013 3:26 PM, RichA wrote:
    > On May 8, 9:37 am, PeterN <> wrote:
    >> On 5/7/2013 9:14 PM, RichA wrote:
    >>
    >>> Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
    >>> fee to "rent" its use. This is like movies and music which are going
    >>> in a similar direction. Problem is, it makes these things subject to
    >>> the whims of companies, prevailing politics and morality. The
    >>> companies decide they don't like something about it, or politicians
    >>> decide it offends the general public, they pull it. This applies more
    >>> to movies and music than to Adobe's software, but you never know what
    >>> institutions and people will do with things that are not physically in
    >>> your possession. Lastly, you also become victim of the service
    >>> provider, service speed, etc., because all the use of the software is
    >>> now cloud-based.

    >>
    >> That decision has not be finalized.
    >>
    >> As to music, as usual you are talking without factual foundation. The
    >> proliferation of low priced video cameras has made your reference to
    >> movies, laughable.
    >>
    >> this is more likely the future of movies:
    >> <http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Amazon-Pilots-Review-Alpha-Hous...>
    >>
    >> --
    >> PeterN

    >
    > I'm not some Chinese guy earning $3000/year, living in the outskirts
    > of Beijing, where going to the movies costs the equivalent of $110 a
    > person. I don't want to watch illegally-copied "campots" of movies in
    > a theatre done with a video camera, if that is what you are referring
    > to. Ownership of a physical medium is KEY to preserving the freedom
    > to watch or do with a product what you want.
    >

    Whoosh!

    You don't even seem to know who Garry Trudeau is, Nor do you understand
    what he is seeking to accomplish, artistically.

    BTW, Before videotape, how many movies did you "own?" Why do you think
    we had movie theaters. I have a reasonable collection of tapes and CDs,
    but we still go to live concerts, and have willingly purchased tickets
    for shows for far more than $110, each.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 8, 2013
    #4
  5. RichA

    Mayayana Guest

    Mayayana, May 8, 2013
    #5
  6. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >> The only area
    > >> where PS CS is overpriced in comparison with what a comparable
    > >> featured program offers is when you consider Elements as a competitor.

    > >
    > >elements doesn't do as much, that's why it costs less.

    >
    > That doesn't wash. I've got CS6 and Elements 9. There is damn little
    > that Elements won't do that CS6 does. CS versions are very overpriced
    > when you consider a comparison of features delivered.


    there's actually quite a bit, but what matters is that one does more
    than the other.

    > I use CS6 99% of the time, but only because I'm comfortable with
    > program having started out in earlier PS versions. (I bought E9 only
    > to share it with my daughter and teach her.)
    >
    > >that doesn't make the full photoshop overpriced. pros can *easily*
    > >justify its price.
    > >
    > >if someone doesn't need the functionality of the full photoshop, then
    > >they should buy elements instead. that's why there are two products.

    >
    > You do realize how stupid that sounds?


    nothing stupid about it.

    why pay for features you don't need?

    if elements does all you need then buy elements. if it doesn't, then
    buy cs or another product that better matches your needs.

    > First you say you can easily
    > justify the price, then you say you should buy Elements if you don't
    > need the full functionality of PS. The need of the full functionality
    > is the *only* justification.


    you need to learn how to read.

    i said *pros* can justify the price because it has features they need
    or want. it will probably pay for itself fairly quickly.

    non-pros don't generally need the additional features, so why should
    they pay for features they won't use? in the event they do, they can
    get cs or maybe something else entirely.

    > Very few people need the full functionality unless they are using it
    > for business applications and need something like working in CMYK
    > color. Certain features, like Layers, have been available only in the
    > full version but later added to Elements. Content Aware Fill will
    > probably go over to Elements eventually.


    exactly.

    > >> The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
    > >> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
    > >> delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too high
    > >> to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
    > >> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".

    > >
    > >more mac bashing, in a thread that has nothing to do with macs.

    >
    > How is that bashing? It's simple fact. If you don't need the specs
    > that Macs include, the price is too high to buy one.


    if you are going to say the price of a $1000 mac is too high, then a
    $1000 pc is also too high.

    but you didn't.

    it's always macs are too expensive but similar pcs which cost the same
    are not. in fact, they're never mentioned. that's why it's bashing.
     
    nospam, May 9, 2013
    #6
  7. RichA

    android Guest

    In article <>,
    Whisky-dave <> wrote:

    > On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 9:02:31 PM UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
    > > On 5/8/2013 1:50 PM, Bowser wrote:
    > >

    ---
    > > I said earlier, while Adobe is exploring the idea, it's far from a done
    > >
    > > deal. While I do not defend avarice by any entity, I think that PS is
    > >
    > > one of the most pirated software,

    >
    > The same old question is just how much such piracy affects the company.
    >
    > > and Adobe has a right to protect
    > >
    > > itself from theft.

    >
    > Of course, but the interesting thing is that are those thefts actually loses
    > in the long term for the company. Companies always say yes but is it really
    > true.


    Adobe had, in the early days, an interest in undercutting their market
    opposition. Pirated software did that. New ventures had difficulties in
    establish themself since PS was available for "free" and PS already had
    critical mass in the market. MS and Office, the same thing...
    I'd say that piracy was as good a friend to Adobe and MS as Jolly Roger
    was to Union Jack!
    --
    teleportation kills
     
    android, May 9, 2013
    #7
  8. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > >> That's true to a point but not entirely so. Sale price is related to
    > >> cost only when the goods concerned have reached the stage of being a
    > >> commodity. Apple has succeeded in creating a brand where it is not
    > >> just the underlying hardware which is being sold but the image of
    > >> Apple as well. Apple has striven to be an innovative and technical
    > >> leader which helps lift it out of being a mere commodity but generally
    > >> it is only a few months ahead of the mob. Nevertheless Apple is able
    > >> to take advantage of its small lead to charge more than a bare
    > >> commercial margin for its products.

    > >
    > >apple does not charge more. macs and pcs with similar specs cost about
    > >the same. if there's a price difference, it's because of different
    > >specs, not the logo.
    > >
    > >also, apple is ahead by far more than a few months. it took google
    > >about 3 years to switch gears and catch up with the iphone (it was
    > >originally targeting blackberry). microsoft ditched windows mobile,
    > >which was very popular at the time, and began working on their iphone
    > >competitor, aka windows phone. it still hasn't quite caught up but it's
    > >getting there. it was only last year that a viable competitor to the
    > >ipad appeared, some two years after the original ipad came out.

    >
    > You quote Google.


    i mentioned google, microsoft and indirectly, amazon (kindle fire) and
    google again (nexus 7).

    > What about (for example) Samsung?


    what about them?

    > >> >> The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
    > >> >> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
    > >> >> delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too high
    > >> >> to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
    > >> >> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".
    > >> >
    > >> >more mac bashing, in a thread that has nothing to do with macs.
    > >>
    > >> "Mac bashing"? I thought he was supporting the Mac position.

    > >
    > >he only mentions macs being too expensive. similar spec pcs are just as
    > >expensive but he neglects to mention that.

    >
    > He doesn't just 'mention Macs as being too expensive'. He wrote:
    >
    > The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
    > user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
    > delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too
    > high to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That,
    > as nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".
    >
    > He wrote the "full version is priced too high for the casual
    > non-professional user" but went on to say " but that's not the same as
    > being "overpriced"'. How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
    > being too expensive"? How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
    > being too expensive" when he goes on to write ' Macs are priced too
    > high to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
    > nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".'?


    he calls it "the mac argument".

    it's not the mac argument. it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
    exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.

    if macs are priced too high to attract the user that doesn't need all
    those specs, then so are similar pcs. why doesn't he mention those?
     
    nospam, May 9, 2013
    #8
  9. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <518be8bc$0$10838$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > About two weeks ago I received a market survey from Adobe, on whether I
    > would be interested in moving to the Cloud. The survey was after the
    > announcement that development on CS 7 had stopped.


    the announcement that it will be cloud only and there will be no cs7
    was a couple of days ago.

    any survey you got two weeks ago predates that announcement.

    > Adobe would like you
    > to think its a done deal, but I suspect it's a market test.


    creative cloud came out last year and the market test was this past
    year.

    presumably, it met their expectations for them do creative cloud only.
    it's a done deal.

    there's always a possibility they might reintroduce a non-cloud
    version, but this would have to fail miserably for them to do that.
    it's not very likely.
     
    nospam, May 9, 2013
    #9
  10. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Thu, 09 May 2013 11:26:13 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Eric Stevens
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >> That's true to a point but not entirely so. Sale price is related to
    >> >> cost only when the goods concerned have reached the stage of being a
    >> >> commodity. Apple has succeeded in creating a brand where it is not
    >> >> just the underlying hardware which is being sold but the image of
    >> >> Apple as well. Apple has striven to be an innovative and technical
    >> >> leader which helps lift it out of being a mere commodity but generally
    >> >> it is only a few months ahead of the mob. Nevertheless Apple is able
    >> >> to take advantage of its small lead to charge more than a bare
    >> >> commercial margin for its products.
    >> >
    >> >apple does not charge more. macs and pcs with similar specs cost about
    >> >the same. if there's a price difference, it's because of different
    >> >specs, not the logo.
    >> >
    >> >also, apple is ahead by far more than a few months. it took google
    >> >about 3 years to switch gears and catch up with the iphone (it was
    >> >originally targeting blackberry). microsoft ditched windows mobile,
    >> >which was very popular at the time, and began working on their iphone
    >> >competitor, aka windows phone. it still hasn't quite caught up but it's
    >> >getting there. it was only last year that a viable competitor to the
    >> >ipad appeared, some two years after the original ipad came out.

    >>
    >> You quote Google.

    >
    >i mentioned google, microsoft and indirectly, amazon (kindle fire) and
    >google again (nexus 7).
    >
    >> What about (for example) Samsung?

    >
    >what about them?
    >
    >> >> >> The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
    >> >> >> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
    >> >> >> delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too high
    >> >> >> to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
    >> >> >> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".
    >> >> >
    >> >> >more mac bashing, in a thread that has nothing to do with macs.
    >> >>
    >> >> "Mac bashing"? I thought he was supporting the Mac position.
    >> >
    >> >he only mentions macs being too expensive. similar spec pcs are just as
    >> >expensive but he neglects to mention that.

    >>
    >> He doesn't just 'mention Macs as being too expensive'. He wrote:
    >>
    >> The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
    >> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
    >> delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too
    >> high to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That,
    >> as nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".
    >>
    >> He wrote the "full version is priced too high for the casual
    >> non-professional user" but went on to say " but that's not the same as
    >> being "overpriced"'. How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
    >> being too expensive"? How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
    >> being too expensive" when he goes on to write ' Macs are priced too
    >> high to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
    >> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".'?

    >
    >he calls it "the mac argument".
    >
    >it's not the mac argument.


    Yes, it's the "mac argument" that you use.

    > it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
    >exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.
    >
    >if macs are priced too high to attract the user that doesn't need all
    >those specs, then so are similar pcs. why doesn't he mention those?


    The lowest priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs. There are
    people who don't have any interest or need for the additional features
    of the lowest priced Macs, so they feel that the Macs are priced too
    high. They aren't interested in the "do more".

    The "comparable specs" argument doesn't work for them. They want an
    entry level machine at a low price. There's no need to mention PCs
    with "similar" specs. The market segment discussed isn't interested
    in them, either.

    That's no slam against Macs. It's simply a representation of how the
    market works for just about every type of product. Automobiles are a
    prime example of this.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 9, 2013
    #10
  11. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > > it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
    > >exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.
    > >
    > >if macs are priced too high to attract the user that doesn't need all
    > >those specs, then so are similar pcs. why doesn't he mention those?

    >
    > The lowest priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs.


    only because it has better specs, not because it's a mac.

    a similar spec pc will have a higher price than those 'many pcs' you're
    talking about.

    > There are
    > people who don't have any interest or need for the additional features
    > of the lowest priced Macs, so they feel that the Macs are priced too
    > high. They aren't interested in the "do more".


    and they're not interested in the higher priced pcs either.

    but you don't mention that, do you?

    there are also people who don't have any interest in the cheapest thing
    available. they want a quality product and willing to pay for it.

    you don't mention that either.

    > The "comparable specs" argument doesn't work for them. They want an
    > entry level machine at a low price.


    some do, others do not.

    and what they're really interested in is solutions, not specs.

    > There's no need to mention PCs
    > with "similar" specs. The market segment discussed isn't interested
    > in them, either.


    then there's no need to mention either one, so why single out macs?

    this is about bottom-tier versus mid-tier products, not mac versus pc.

    > That's no slam against Macs. It's simply a representation of how the
    > market works for just about every type of product.


    it's a slam against macs if you only mention macs.

    if you *also* mention similar priced pcs, then it's about price tiers.

    but you don't.

    > Automobiles are a
    > prime example of this.


    cars and computers are marketed very differently.
     
    nospam, May 10, 2013
    #11
  12. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > >> You quote Google.

    > >
    > >i mentioned google, microsoft and indirectly, amazon (kindle fire) and
    > >google again (nexus 7).
    > >
    > >> What about (for example) Samsung?

    > >
    > >what about them?

    >
    > I dunno.
    >
    > What about them in the context of iPhone?


    they copied it so well that even samsung's lawyers couldn't tell the
    difference in court. that's one way to catch up.

    > >> >> >> The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
    > >> >> >> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
    > >> >> >> delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too high
    > >> >> >> to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
    > >> >> >> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >more mac bashing, in a thread that has nothing to do with macs.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> "Mac bashing"? I thought he was supporting the Mac position.
    > >> >
    > >> >he only mentions macs being too expensive. similar spec pcs are just as
    > >> >expensive but he neglects to mention that.
    > >>
    > >> He doesn't just 'mention Macs as being too expensive'. He wrote:
    > >>
    > >> The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
    > >> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
    > >> delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too
    > >> high to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That,
    > >> as nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".
    > >>
    > >> He wrote the "full version is priced too high for the casual
    > >> non-professional user" but went on to say " but that's not the same as
    > >> being "overpriced"'. How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
    > >> being too expensive"? How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as
    > >> being too expensive" when he goes on to write ' Macs are priced too
    > >> high to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
    > >> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".'?

    > >
    > >he calls it "the mac argument".

    >
    > And what's wrong with that?


    it has nothing to do with macs. that's what.

    it's different price tiers. that's all.

    > Do you think it's somehow wrong or a slur
    > on Mac to claim "The full version is priced too high for the casual
    > non-professional user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced"
    > for what it delivers"?


    if someone only mentions macs, yes. why single them out, when there are
    other products with similar specs that cost about the same?

    > >it's not the mac argument. it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
    > >exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.

    >
    > Do you really mean that Apple and Mac supporters have never claimed
    > "The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
    > user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
    > delivers"? I would be surprised if they haven't as that statement is
    > perfectly true. Why are you objecting to it?


    i'm objecting to tying it to macs when ignoring that similar pcs cost
    about the same. it's furthers the longstanding myth that macs are more
    expensive. they are not.

    > >if macs are priced too high to attract the user that doesn't need all
    > >those specs, then so are similar pcs. why doesn't he mention those?

    >
    > Because you and Tony Cooper were not discussing high-end PCs in
    > general but the position of Macs in the current hardware market.


    nope, it was about adobe's new cloud strategy and the two tiers of
    photoshop.

    it had nothing whatsoever to do with macs until he brought it up.

    > He
    > was quoting Mac's argument to explain Adobe's attitude to the pricing
    > of the high end image processing software. Somehow you have got so
    > bound up that you are arguing against your usual position.


    i'm not bound up at all. i'm just calling him on his usual bashing.
     
    nospam, May 10, 2013
    #12
  13. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Thu, 09 May 2013 20:55:44 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Tony Cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> > it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
    >> >exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.
    >> >
    >> >if macs are priced too high to attract the user that doesn't need all
    >> >those specs, then so are similar pcs. why doesn't he mention those?

    >>
    >> The lowest priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs.

    >
    >only because it has better specs, not because it's a mac.


    Of course it's because it's a Mac. Who do you think decides what
    features/specs a model will have?
    >
    >a similar spec pc will have a higher price than those 'many pcs' you're
    >talking about.


    Certainly. But that's not what was said. The statement "The lowest
    priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs" is patently obvious and
    true.

    >
    >> There are
    >> people who don't have any interest or need for the additional features
    >> of the lowest priced Macs, so they feel that the Macs are priced too
    >> high. They aren't interested in the "do more".

    >
    >and they're not interested in the higher priced pcs either.
    >
    >but you don't mention that, do you?


    Of course I did. The higher priced PCs have additional features
    compared to the lower priced PCs. It's right there above this.

    Are you really this thick?


    >there are also people who don't have any interest in the cheapest thing
    >available. they want a quality product and willing to pay for it.
    >
    >you don't mention that either.


    No, I didn't. There are also people who have no interest in any
    computer of any kind, and I didn't mention that. What I said was that
    some people want the least expensive product.
    >
    >> The "comparable specs" argument doesn't work for them. They want an
    >> entry level machine at a low price.

    >
    >some do, others do not.


    So who's arguing with that?

    >and what they're really interested in is solutions, not specs.


    Yes, and the least expensive can be the solution for some people.

    >> There's no need to mention PCs
    >> with "similar" specs. The market segment discussed isn't interested
    >> in them, either.

    >
    >then there's no need to mention either one, so why single out macs?
    >
    >this is about bottom-tier versus mid-tier products, not mac versus pc.
    >
    >> That's no slam against Macs. It's simply a representation of how the
    >> market works for just about every type of product.

    >
    >it's a slam against macs if you only mention macs.


    PCs are mentioned, and have been since the beginning.
    >
    >if you *also* mention similar priced pcs, then it's about price tiers.
    >
    >but you don't.


    And what, pray tell, do you think determines price tiers? And who
    determines what they will offer?

    >> Automobiles are a
    >> prime example of this.

    >
    >cars and computers are marketed very differently.


    You really are dense if you can't connect these dots.

    Honestly, nospam, the more you say the more bullishly stupid you come
    across.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 10, 2013
    #13
  14. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Friday, May 10, 2013 12:49:10 AM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Thu, 09 May 2013 11:26:13 -0400, nospam <>
    >


    <snip>

    >
    > >> He wrote the "full version is priced too high for the casual

    >
    > >> non-professional user" but went on to say " but that's not the same as

    >
    > >> being "overpriced"'. How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as

    >
    > >> being too expensive"? How can you interpret that as saying "Macs as

    >
    > >> being too expensive" when he goes on to write ' Macs are priced too

    >
    > >> high to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as

    >
    > >> nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".'?

    >
    > >

    >
    > >he calls it "the mac argument".

    >
    >
    >
    > And what's wrong with that?




    I don't think that is the "Mac argument" the Mac arguments that I've seen are from those PC users that don't actually understand that the Mac uses more expensive parts and 'better' parts that the PC he see's as having the same or near identical tech specs.


    > and that is one of the reasons Do you think it's somehow wrong or a slur
    >
    > on Mac to claim "The full version is priced too high for the casual
    >
    > non-professional user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced"
    >
    > for what it delivers"?
    >


    That's one good way of putting it, but why bring the ability of teh user into it. ?

    i.e the casual non-professional user
     
    Whisky-dave, May 10, 2013
    #14
  15. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >> > it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
    > >> >exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.
    > >> >
    > >> >if macs are priced too high to attract the user that doesn't need all
    > >> >those specs, then so are similar pcs. why doesn't he mention those?
    > >>
    > >> The lowest priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs.

    > >
    > >only because it has better specs, not because it's a mac.

    >
    > Of course it's because it's a Mac. Who do you think decides what
    > features/specs a model will have?


    no, not because it's a mac.

    the price is higher because it has better specs, just as a similar spec
    lenovo or acer or sony would be priced higher than the 'many pcs'
    you're talking about.

    > >a similar spec pc will have a higher price than those 'many pcs' you're
    > >talking about.

    >
    > Certainly. But that's not what was said. The statement "The lowest
    > priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs" is patently obvious and
    > true.


    it's a misleading statement and you aren't going to get away with 'but
    it's true' excuse.

    the lowest price mac also does a whole lot more than many pcs, which is
    why it costs more. that's *also* patently obvious and true.

    > >> There are
    > >> people who don't have any interest or need for the additional features
    > >> of the lowest priced Macs, so they feel that the Macs are priced too
    > >> high. They aren't interested in the "do more".

    > >
    > >and they're not interested in the higher priced pcs either.
    > >
    > >but you don't mention that, do you?

    >
    > Of course I did. The higher priced PCs have additional features
    > compared to the lower priced PCs. It's right there above this.


    *now* you do, after i called you on it. you did not mention pcs in your
    earlier post.

    here's your post:

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:
    > I won't argue with "overpriced", but the counter to that argument is
    > the one nospam trots out defending Apple's high prices: the "specs"
    > include more than the lower priced comparable programs. The only area
    > where PS CS is overpriced in comparison with what a comparable
    > featured program offers is when you consider Elements as a competitor.
    >
    > The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
    > user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
    > delivers. Again, that's the Mac argument: Macs are priced too high
    > to attract the user that doesn't need all those specs. That, as
    > nospam preaches, doesn't mean they are "overpriced".
    >
    > I do argue with "underperforming". What performance issues does CS
    > have? What won't it do that it should do based on what is claimed?
    >
    > The underperformer is usually the user, not the program.


    you mention apple in the very first sentence. you mention macs twice in
    the second paragraph. nowhere do you mention pcs anywhere in that post.

    you do mention ps cs, which i guess if you have vision problems, could
    look like pcs. maybe that's it.

    > Are you really this thick?


    not as thick as you.

    > >there are also people who don't have any interest in the cheapest thing
    > >available. they want a quality product and willing to pay for it.
    > >
    > >you don't mention that either.

    >
    > No, I didn't. There are also people who have no interest in any
    > computer of any kind, and I didn't mention that. What I said was that
    > some people want the least expensive product.


    some do. not all.

    however, that doesn't have anything to do with macs.

    > >> The "comparable specs" argument doesn't work for them. They want an
    > >> entry level machine at a low price.

    > >
    > >some do, others do not.

    >
    > So who's arguing with that?
    >
    > >and what they're really interested in is solutions, not specs.

    >
    > Yes, and the least expensive can be the solution for some people.


    it can be, but it isn't always.

    many times, the least expensive choice is a bad user experience and
    people are willing to pay for something that doesn't suck. this is what
    companies are starting to realize.

    other times, people realize the cheapest isn't always as much of a
    bargain as they thought, especially when they have to buy all sorts of
    additional stuff to do what they set out to do. or, they realize the
    cheap product just won't cut it no matter what they do and they need
    something more capable, so they end up getting that instead.

    > >> There's no need to mention PCs
    > >> with "similar" specs. The market segment discussed isn't interested
    > >> in them, either.

    > >
    > >then there's no need to mention either one, so why single out macs?
    > >
    > >this is about bottom-tier versus mid-tier products, not mac versus pc.
    > >
    > >> That's no slam against Macs. It's simply a representation of how the
    > >> market works for just about every type of product.

    > >
    > >it's a slam against macs if you only mention macs.

    >
    > PCs are mentioned, and have been since the beginning.


    you're a liar. see above.

    > >if you *also* mention similar priced pcs, then it's about price tiers.
    > >
    > >but you don't.

    >
    > And what, pray tell, do you think determines price tiers? And who
    > determines what they will offer?


    features do, not the logo on the box.
     
    nospam, May 11, 2013
    #15
  16. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > >> >> You quote Google.
    > >> >
    > >> >i mentioned google, microsoft and indirectly, amazon (kindle fire) and
    > >> >google again (nexus 7).
    > >> >
    > >> >> What about (for example) Samsung?
    > >> >
    > >> >what about them?
    > >>
    > >> I dunno.
    > >>
    > >> What about them in the context of iPhone?

    > >
    > >they copied it so well that even samsung's lawyers couldn't tell the
    > >difference in court. that's one way to catch up.

    >
    > So all you need to make an iPhone is a case?


    you need more than just a case, but the point is they copied it.

    > No wonder Samsung is selling more than Apple.


    overall they do, because samsung has zillions of models and apple has
    only one model plus the two previous year's models.

    if you compare the galaxy s3 (the model that directly competes with the
    iphone 5), samsung sells less than apple, about half as many.

    <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57570235-37/iphone-5-beats-galaxy-s3-
    as-top-seller-says-report/>
    The iPhone 5 surpassed Samsung's Galaxy S3 last quarter as the
    hottest-selling smartphone worldwide, according to a Strategy
    Analytics report out today.

    > >> >he calls it "the mac argument".
    > >>
    > >> And what's wrong with that?

    > >
    > >it has nothing to do with macs. that's what.
    > >
    > >it's different price tiers. that's all.

    >
    > That's just another way to talk about price groups. Of course a more
    > highly spec'd machine will fall into a different price group/tier.


    exactly.

    might be a mac, might be a pc. it's about the specs, not the logo.

    > >> Do you think it's somehow wrong or a slur
    > >> on Mac to claim "The full version is priced too high for the casual
    > >> non-professional user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced"
    > >> for what it delivers"?

    > >
    > >if someone only mentions macs, yes. why single them out, when there are
    > >other products with similar specs that cost about the same?

    >
    > The situation of Macs is well known to many, making the argument easy
    > to understand. What other brand/model would you suggest?


    why single out one brand?

    > >> >it's not the mac argument. it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
    > >> >exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.
    > >>
    > >> Do you really mean that Apple and Mac supporters have never claimed
    > >> "The full version is priced too high for the casual non-professional
    > >> user, but that's not the same as being "overpriced" for what it
    > >> delivers"? I would be surprised if they haven't as that statement is
    > >> perfectly true. Why are you objecting to it?

    > >
    > >i'm objecting to tying it to macs when ignoring that similar pcs cost
    > >about the same. it's furthers the longstanding myth that macs are more
    > >expensive. they are not.

    >
    > You are overly sensitive. Does mentioning the name Mac bring you out
    > in hives?


    misinformation does.

    it doesn't matter what the misinformation is about. it could be apple
    or nikon or google or anyone else. if it's wrong, it needs to be
    corrected.

    there just happens to be a *lot* of misinformation about apple.
     
    nospam, May 11, 2013
    #16
  17. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sat, 11 May 2013 11:31:49 -0400, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Tony Cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >> > it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
    >> >> >exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.
    >> >> >
    >> >> >if macs are priced too high to attract the user that doesn't need all
    >> >> >those specs, then so are similar pcs. why doesn't he mention those?
    >> >>
    >> >> The lowest priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs.
    >> >
    >> >only because it has better specs, not because it's a mac.

    >>
    >> Of course it's because it's a Mac. Who do you think decides what
    >> features/specs a model will have?

    >
    >no, not because it's a mac.
    >

    We are getting to the point here where I can't believe that you are
    serious about what you say. You are denying, apparently, that Apple
    isn't making the decision to offer laptops that are priced higher -but
    offer more features- than many PC laptops. If the manufacturer of the
    product does not make the decision of what to offer, who does?

    >the price is higher because it has better specs, just as a similar spec
    >lenovo or acer or sony would be priced higher than the 'many pcs'
    >you're talking about.


    Do you deny, though, that many PCs are priced lower than the minimum
    offerings by Mac? The question isn't about "why", but about whether
    or not the statement is true. You are arguing a point not made.
    >
    >> >a similar spec pc will have a higher price than those 'many pcs' you're
    >> >talking about.

    >>
    >> Certainly. But that's not what was said. The statement "The lowest
    >> priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs" is patently obvious and
    >> true.

    >
    >it's a misleading statement and you aren't going to get away with 'but
    >it's true' excuse.


    No, it's not misleading at all. It's absolutely and obviously true
    and misleads no one.

    >the lowest price mac also does a whole lot more than many pcs, which is
    >why it costs more. that's *also* patently obvious and true.


    Well, I'm not sure that "do a lot more" is necessarily true. All
    laptops, essentially, do the same thing. The OS may allow one to do
    something better, the screen may present a clearer image, the
    mechanical components may be of better quality...but they basically
    all do the same thing. There are some things, like a built-in video
    camera, that are not present in all laptops, but that's about it for
    "do".

    >> And what, pray tell, do you think determines price tiers? And who
    >> determines what they will offer?

    >
    >features do, not the logo on the box.


    Bizarre. Who determines what the features will be if not the people
    in the company whose logo it is? Features don't make any decisions.
    They are the result of decisions.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 11, 2013
    #17
  18. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>, tonycooper214
    @gmail.com says...
    >
    > On Sat, 11 May 2013 11:31:49 -0400, nospam <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >In article <>, Tony Cooper
    > ><> wrote:
    > >
    > >> >> > it has nothing to do with macs. with rare
    > >> >> >exception, products that do more cost more. no surprise there.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >if macs are priced too high to attract the user that doesn't need all
    > >> >> >those specs, then so are similar pcs. why doesn't he mention those?
    > >> >>
    > >> >> The lowest priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs.
    > >> >
    > >> >only because it has better specs, not because it's a mac.
    > >>
    > >> Of course it's because it's a Mac. Who do you think decides what
    > >> features/specs a model will have?

    > >
    > >no, not because it's a mac.
    > >

    > We are getting to the point here where I can't believe that you are
    > serious about what you say. You are denying, apparently, that Apple
    > isn't making the decision to offer laptops that are priced higher -but
    > offer more features- than many PC laptops. If the manufacturer of the
    > product does not make the decision of what to offer, who does?
    >
    > >the price is higher because it has better specs, just as a similar spec
    > >lenovo or acer or sony would be priced higher than the 'many pcs'
    > >you're talking about.

    >
    > Do you deny, though, that many PCs are priced lower than the minimum
    > offerings by Mac? The question isn't about "why", but about whether
    > or not the statement is true. You are arguing a point not made.
    > >
    > >> >a similar spec pc will have a higher price than those 'many pcs' you're
    > >> >talking about.
    > >>
    > >> Certainly. But that's not what was said. The statement "The lowest
    > >> priced Mac is higher in price than many PCs" is patently obvious and
    > >> true.

    > >
    > >it's a misleading statement and you aren't going to get away with 'but
    > >it's true' excuse.

    >
    > No, it's not misleading at all. It's absolutely and obviously true
    > and misleads no one.
    >
    > >the lowest price mac also does a whole lot more than many pcs, which is
    > >why it costs more. that's *also* patently obvious and true.

    >
    > Well, I'm not sure that "do a lot more" is necessarily true. All
    > laptops, essentially, do the same thing. The OS may allow one to do
    > something better, the screen may present a clearer image, the
    > mechanical components may be of better quality...but they basically
    > all do the same thing. There are some things, like a built-in video
    > camera, that are not present in all laptops, but that's about it for
    > "do".


    And where is the Macbook tablet? My Thinkpad tablet is so old that it
    had XP on it when I got it. But Apple has never put a penabled screen
    on a Macbook.

    > >> And what, pray tell, do you think determines price tiers? And who
    > >> determines what they will offer?

    > >
    > >features do, not the logo on the box.

    >
    > Bizarre. Who determines what the features will be if not the people
    > in the company whose logo it is? Features don't make any decisions.
    > They are the result of decisions.
     
    J. Clarke, May 12, 2013
    #18
  19. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, J. Clarke
    <> wrote:

    > And where is the Macbook tablet?


    ipad.

    > My Thinkpad tablet is so old that it
    > had XP on it when I got it. But Apple has never put a penabled screen
    > on a Macbook.


    because that would be stupid. mac os is designed for mouse/keyboard,
    not a stylus and certainly not touch.

    there were windows tablets with styluses but they never sold
    particularly well. it's a bad idea.

    the ipad was designed for touch from the ground up, not something that
    was added to the existing mac os. that's why it's so successful, far
    more than any previous tablet had been.
     
    nospam, May 12, 2013
    #19
  20. RichA

    android Guest

    In article <120520131037495945%>,
    nospam <> wrote:

    > In article <>, J. Clarke
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > And where is the Macbook tablet?

    >
    > ipad.
    >
    > > My Thinkpad tablet is so old that it
    > > had XP on it when I got it. But Apple has never put a penabled screen
    > > on a Macbook.

    >
    > because that would be stupid. mac os is designed for mouse/keyboard,
    > not a stylus and certainly not touch.
    >
    > there were windows tablets with styluses but they never sold
    > particularly well. it's a bad idea.
    >
    > the ipad was designed for touch from the ground up, not something that
    > was added to the existing mac os. that's why it's so successful, far
    > more than any previous tablet had been.


    Try to load some proper software on them pads for pro work on the go!
    With a proper os on a pad you can do that, and ad keyboard/mouse.
    --
    teleportation kills
     
    android, May 12, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertisements

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
  1. Zogby
    Replies:
    188
    Views:
    4,533
    Rowdy Yates
    Aug 15, 2004
  2. One-Shot Scot

    Rental DVDs: "Rental Only - Not For Resale."

    One-Shot Scot, Sep 11, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,861
    One-Shot Scot
    Sep 11, 2004
  3. hdtv?
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,521
    Rick Merrill
    Oct 18, 2006
  4. Go GO GO !!go to shopping

    , Jan 14, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    974
  5. Go GO GO !!go to shopping

    , Jan 14, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    697
  6. Devvie Nuis
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    4,700
  7. RichA
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    373
    Sandman
    Sep 2, 2013
  8. RichA

    Apple's foray into the "service/rental economy"

    RichA, Jun 3, 2014, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    59
    Views:
    4,834
    Whisky-dave
    Jun 17, 2014
Loading...