Subject | Re: mac sales down |
From | Snit |
Date | 05/16/2008 22:52 (05/16/2008 13:52) |
Message-ID | <C4534230.B9DCB%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
Follows | ZnU |
Comparison after comparison of similar machines shows that Macs and Windows machines are pretty closely priced. Apple, in general, does very well when it first releases a product and a bit less well after the product has been out for a while. Not a big deal either way... it is in the ballpark.ZnUZnUSteve Carroll
Only in some right-wing fantasy world where all market participants have perfect information and make perfect choices. In the real world, markets don't always produce the best possible outcome.
"right-wing fantasy world"? LOL! The "outcome" being produced in this "real world" market is what it is and the Mini is tanking in that market!
Please read above. Mayor didn't appear to be talking specifically about the Mac mini. He was making a general argument that it's unfair to do price comparisons by using Mac configurations as a baseline and configuring Wintel machines to match as closely as possible. I pointed out that the alternative, inventing purely hypothetical use cases and configuring systems around those, was ever screwier. His response is that we don't need to invent such hypothetical use cases, because buying patterns within the market already tell us precisely what systems are more suitable for users.
But they don't. There are many reasons why a buyer might not choose a Mac that have little or nothing to do with whether a Mac would or would not actually be a better choice for them. Implying that buying patterns demonstrate Apple's offerings are unsuitable for most people because most people don't buy them is tantamount to saying that the market always produces the best possible outcome.