Google| Subject | Re: mac sales down |
| From | Steve Carroll |
| Date | 05/16/2008 22:54 (05/16/2008 14:54) |
| Message-ID | <trollkiller-FB48FC.14541316052008@newsgroups.comcast.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
| Follows | ZnU |
| Followups | -hh (1h & 7m) > Steve Carroll ZnU (1h & 21m) |
In article <znu-674B86.14562616052008@news.individual.net>, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid>wrote:
ZnUI was obviously making a counterpoint of my own to your argument about "real world" markets and I'm using the Mini as one example of how your "outcome" argument fails. In my opinion it's the best example I could use because it's the only model that even attempts to compete where the average system price lives... a segment Apple basically ignores. Don't think I haven't noticed that you've snipped away my material that broached this subject. You know you can't discuss it and you know what it does to your argument here... so away it went while you apparently expect me to listen to your rationalization.
In article <trollkiller-A020E2.10263116052008@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Steve Carroll <trollkiller@TK.com>wrote:Steve CarrollZnU
In article <znu-B6A010.01085916052008@news.individual.net>, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid>wrote:ZnUSteve Carroll
In article <2jcn24t8jbku7pnal9dg503ccbf1u5tovu@4ax.com>, Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@gmail.com>wrote:Mayor Of R'lyehZnU
On Mon, 12 May 2008 02:38:52 -0400, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid>wrote:ZnUMayor Of R'lyeh
In article <sckf24l7di9alnaoqgob99f28kiec8l9kb@4ax.com>, Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@gmail.com>wrote:Mayor Of R'lyehZnU
On Sun, 11 May 2008 23:59:36 -0500, Chance Furlong <t-bone@megakatcity.com>wrote:Chance FurlongMayor Of R'lyeh
In article <rfhf24teh4oktrgobjans1hdr73g1unq7g@4ax.com>, Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@gmail.com>wrote:Mayor Of R'lyeh
On Sun, 11 May 2008 22:12:47 -0600, Warchild <bob@bob.com> wrote:Chance FurlongWarchildMayor Of R'lyeh
That old horseshoe has been disproved time and time again.
Only when artificially skewed in the Mac's favor.
How is it artificially skewed in the Mac's favor? I ask for in formation only.
The most glaring example of that is the insistence of using the Mac as the baseline instead of the user's wants and/or needs.
Doing a cost comparison based on some hypothetical user's needs is useless in an advocacy group, though, because one can trivially define the user's needs to make the Mac look bad. For instance, insist that the user needs a particular graphics card only available in a high-end tower on the Mac side, but that can be tossed into a free slot on an $800 Windows tower, and then screech about how the Mac costs 5x as much, ignoring the fact that it's a vastly more powerful machine in every other way.
Actually we don't need to do that. Sales figures do that for us.
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 completely agree with him on that point... I've watched this same stuff for years in here and I've always agreed with this point.
I pointed out that the alternative, inventing purely hypothetical use cases and configuring systems around those, was ever screwier.It's just as screwy... but that's not Clyde's argument here... and it generally never is... it's usually Edwin who pushes such arguments and you know it.
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.Why do I feel like I'm about to hear the ol' 'People aren't smart enough to know what's suitable for them' argument?
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.To the tune of 95+ percent?! LOL! You're living in a dreamland;)
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.Outcomes, like computers, are what they are, regardless of what you or I think is the "best". The fact is that Apple doesn't serve well the portion of the market where the average system price lives and they pay for it in a number of ways.
-- "Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much just throw it away". - Snit
05/08/2008
