Re: Yep, some more actual Mac advocacy (This is comp.sys.mac.advocacy, after all)


"-hh" <recscuba_google@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:0a2cb001-4b7c-43f1-985a-d7c77d8b37d7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Hasta La Vista" <noem...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"George Graves" <gmgrav...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hasta La Vista wrote:
>> "George Graves" <gmgrav...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> Hasta La Vista wrote:
> ...
> >>>>>> In my case I found Apple's prices to be double for what I paid > >>>>>> for my
> >>>>>> PC, for less hardware than I got.

> > IOW, more of less.

> Please explain how 2 GB of RAM instead of 1 GB of RAM is "more of less."
> Continue on from there for a faster 500 GB HD instead of Apple's slower > 120
> GB HD.

I see you have no answer for the above.

The analogy compared ~10lbs of beef (50 McDonald's cheeseburgers) to
~10oz of beef (Ruth Chris). If all that you're measuring is calories,
the McD's wins, but if you're comparing other factors (such as the
holistic culinary experience of a single meal, where its impossible to
eat 50 burgers in a single sitting), not necessarily so.

I knew what the analogy meant. In reality I got ~20 oz. of Ruth Chris steak from HP for half the price Apple wanted for 5 oz.

> After you cover those two we can discuss the other computer parts that > the
> Mac has half of for twice the price.

Such as total package size, which is the mini's strength. What does
the price of the HP go to when that performance parameter is
*matched*?

You don't get to go on to discussing that after ignoring what I brought up.

Its not a question of it is important to *you*, but
merely matching the products' salient characteristics that *someone*
may care about.

I'm unimportant, but this imaginary "someone" is important, because they'll probably want a Mac Mini? That's a strange argument, to say the least.

> >>>> I got two good steaks from Ruth's Chris for $25 instead of half a > >>>> steak
> >>>> for $50 from Apple.

> >>> Nope Rith's Chris doesn't sell two steaks for $25.

> >> You retreated from your own analogy into literalism.

You've obviously not eaten at Ruth Chris <g>

How is that obvious?

... nor understood the analogy.

I understood it completely, and I corrected it.

> >> No, I got more of the same or better hardware for half of Apple's > >> price.
> >> Nobody here has given a reason why I should pay so much more to have > >> OSX
> >> instead of Windows.

> > The hardware doesn't matter any more

> Yes it does.

Even when a major differentiating factor has become the OS?

Explain how the OS makes 1 GB of RAM just as good as 2 GB of RAM, or a 120 GB HD just as good as a faster 500 GB HD.

When Apple has successfully "demanded" and gotten more for their
products - - with market penetration of laptops of particular note -
- when in many cases they're running on the same (or older!) Intel
architecture, if its not the hardware or trendy cachet, the only thing
left to differentiate is the OS.

IOW, Apple offers such a poor deal in hardware you'll just close your eyes to it.

> > (or so you Winscum keep trying to tell
> > us

> Stop calling me Winscum, unless you'd like me to find some choice names > to
> call you in return.

Such as a "Michael Glasser"? :-)

I've seen better posts from him than I have from George Graves.

> > - as if you can have it both ways). People have given you reasons why > > they
> > are willing to pay a bit more to run OSX,

> No they haven't, least of all you.

I'm willing to pay more to run OS X in lieu of Windows, because my
firsthand experience is that there's a significant-enough-for-me
difference in system maintenance and headaches to be worth it.

I don't know what you're talking about. Windows has never been a headache for me.

FYI,
I'm also not willing to pay anything more for a 'LightScribe' CD/DVD
burner,

I paid less to have it included, not more.

as the feature reportedly has shelf life issues.

Who says so?

> How many times am I going to have to repeat that I got
> the same damn hardware, except more of it, for half
> what Apple charges?

Besides the fact that you actually didn't get the same?

That's a lie, not a fact.

What you got was a pile of hardware that roughly approximates one of
the Apple products,

What I got is more hardware that is as good or better than I could have got in a Mac, for half the price of a Mac.

but with differences that are not **** personally
**** important to you.

The differences were and are important to me. I got twice the RAM, four times as much HD size, twice the VRAM, more connectors, LightScribe, a media reader, more slots, more bays, more expansion possibilities. That's not listing it all either. For half Apple's price.

Just because something's not important to you
doesn't make it not important for everyone.

Nobody here has shown how it's important for anybody.

> >>>>> There are lots of companies making premium products
> >>>>> whose market share is tiny when viewed against the mainstream, but
> >>>>> Bentley, Rolls Royce, Breitling... do very well in their > >>>>> respective
> >>>>> niches, thank you.

> >>>> What has that got to do with Apple? They only sell PCs like you > >>>> can
> >>>> buy from any other PC maker, except they charge you more for less.

>>>> That's why you do not understand the Mac market and you never will.
>>>> Calling a Macintosh "just a PC" is like calling a Brietling "just a >>>> watch".

>>> I never called a Macintosh "just a PC."

>> "They only sell PCs like you can buy from any other PC maker"
>> Looks like "just a PC" to me.

> You interrupted the context below.

And above, you ignored the OS as a product differentiator.

I have yet to be given a reason why I should pay twice as much for a Mac, to get less hardware, just to run OSX.

> All the hardware in the Mac is the same as in any other PC.

Yet buying Mac hardware is the price of admission for using OS X..

Why should I pay that price? If what I saw of Safari is what Apple's software is like, I have no reason.

Now if you want to claim that Apple is ripping off consumers by only
making OS X legally available to Mac hardware, you have a long uphill
battle that you will lose, as this is a continuation of a centuries-
old precedence in IP and product differentiation.

No, I'll stick with my argument that nobody has given me a reason to pay Apple twice the price for half the hardware I got from HP.


You would be
equally unsuccessful going down to your Ford Dealer and telling them
that you've decided to buy a new Mustang, but that you found that the
best Active Stability Management system was the PASM, so you want them
to install it on a new Mustang for you, because the facts are that
Ford doesn't own PASM, nor even have licensing rights.

Nothing there has anything to do with me or anything I've said.

If you have no interest in running OS X, then you have no reason to
pay anything extra to get it (or have the option).

I never said I had no interest in running it.

However, that is
still just your **** personal **** choice, and just because
something's not important to you doesn't somehow automatically make it
unimportant for all others.

Just as your ***personal*** choice to pay so much more for your hardware doesn't make the choice of getting more hardware for less money unimportant.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Yep, some more actual Mac advocacy (This is comp.sys.mac.advocacy, after all)
    ... mentioned it first in a thread called "I'm sure glad I didn't buy a Mac Mini!" ... > steak from HP for half the price Apple wanted for 5 oz. ... >> architecture, if its not the hardware or trendy cachet, the only thing ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Disruptive technology
    ... that level of hardware and software integration. ... to pay the premium price because it gives them something that they ... really want and are willing to pay good coin for it. ... Heheh I didn't take it that way:) I'm neither a Linux Zealot or a Mac ...
    (Ubuntu)
  • Re: Saw 10.4.1 Running On a PC Laptop Today
    ... way for the software sales to be high enough to make up for losing the hardware ... OSX will never reach the corporate market share levels that Wintel enjoys for the simple reason that Mac doesn't have the breadth and depth of enterprise software that Windows has. ... But iMacs still have a huge price premium when compared to an equal or better $699 Dell. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Saw 10.4.1 Running On a PC Laptop Today
    ... >>> for os x over windows if they could do it on their current hardware? ... >>> going to have more sales from iwork, .mac, ilife upgrades, etc. ... > rather pay $200 for a site license for Windows rather than pay an extra ... You can buy a Mac Mini for $499 plus monitor. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Yep, some more actual Mac advocacy (This is comp.sys.mac.advocacy, after all)
    ... your PC ($250 more than the current mac mini price). ... In any case, while we can always say "more is better", hardware specs ... steak from HP for half the price Apple wanted for 5 oz. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)