Re: Things I Don't Need Today

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:33:20 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On 3/11/2024 3:25 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:02:47 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:
 

On 3/11/2024 8:02 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

On 3/11/2024 7:22 AM, Justisaur wrote:

On 3/11/2024 2:45 AM, JAB wrote:

On 09/03/2024 15:38, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Fortunately, Apple isn't totally committed to the ideal, although they
do tend to swing back and forth over the years. I'd be more forgiving
of the attitude if Apple didn't charge a premium for their products. I
can accept extremely limited and locked down hardware if it's sold at
a cut-rate price, but Apple's prices suggest you're getting a more
capable machine than others, and too often their 'our way or the
highway' attitude is in opposition to that.

>
I tend to agree and the other thing I don't like about them is it
feels like the attitude is as you're prepared to pay a premium price
for the base product then you won't mind doing the same for
increasing the specs. I did quickly check on some of the option
prices and to say they are taking the pee is an understatement. To go
from 512GB/8GB to 1TB/16GB is a whopping £400. That's not to even
mention that for the base price it seems rater underpowered to start
with.

>
Price has never been a selling point with Apple products. >>

Actually it is a selling point as an excuse for the user to claim
superiority over the lesser masses.

>
I should've said "low price." or "price/performance"
>
It's the whole wine thing.  It's good because it costs more.

 
Although it would equally be wrong to dismiss Apple's engineering
chops. They /do/ make some good hardware (even if sometimes I disagree
with the philosophies behind the design). It's not as if you're paying
Apple prices and getting Compaq results. You can be fairly sure that,
by buying Apple, you're getting good components put together
competently.
 
But still, it's not worth the premium they charge... especially if you
compare price-to-performance.
 
But Apple gets away with it because they are a luxury brand. They're
like Rolex; nobody is really expecting a Rolex to somehow tell time
better so much more accurately than a $20 Casio. You're paying for the
style and cachet of the device. Likewise, Apple. Their computers are
fine; reliable, generally performative and (usually) with solid design
philosophy behind them. But it's not really like there's anything an
Apple computer/phone/etc can do that a less expensive brand couldn't.
 

>
Tell that to the people who make music and computer art.

Back-in-the-day, Macintoshes had a definite advantage in those fields.
The Macintosh, with its well-designed GUI and WYSIWYG interface was
perfect for desktop publishing, and apps like Photoshop and
Illustrator followed. Similarly, Macs were superior in low-latency
sound (thanks in part to SCSI drives being more common on that
platform), which gave it advantage over PCs in sound production
(although: Amiga ;-). Although stuff like ProTools was available on PC
too, musicians gravitated toward Macs.

But there's little real reason to pick Mac over PC anymore. In fact,
until two or three years ago, most Macs /were/ PCs, and shared all the
technical advantages (and disadvantages) of the platform.

Macs are still often picked as the 'go-to' machines for DTP and music,
but that is more out of inertia than any real benefit to using the
platform. Mostly, it boils down to, "I've been using Macs for twenty
years and I don't want to switch".