But if you can accessorize, then you don't have to make your initial decision based on color limitations. I guess(?) people are shallow enough to buy a phone based on the accessory colors that are available, but I'm just going to guess people aren't buying iPhones because you can get a Pink Camo Hello Kitty cover for it, rather, they are buying it for more substantial reasons, like emoji in text...
Because last I checked, Netflix isn't available on pretty much every device on the planet. In my house alone, Netflix is built-in to: AppleTV, Roku, Samsung Blu-ray player (yeah, yeah, I know, I ripped on blu-ray only to admit I have a blu-ray player, but that's how I realized how stupid blu-ray is, after all), all my computers, all my phones, my iPad and my 52" tv.
The only merit to your argument I see is if you want to own the media long term. Most people don't care to, but most people aren't geeks on slashdot, so I get it if you like to hoard media. It's just a lot less messy to hoard media when you cut out the shiny spinning disc thingies.
But still, even in Europe, the writing must be on the wall. It was becoming inevitable in England even though I moved from there back in 2007. Not to diminish the importance of the rest of Western Europe, but I'm not sure too many global companies can bank their success on technology that will be out of date by the time they get to market.
Plus, all we ever hear about is how the rest of the world has such better bandwidth/service than the US, but pretty much everywhere I've been in the US has streaming services (several different ones, iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, all the other free stuff on the streaming devices you can buy...)
Sure, there will always be the crazy old cat lady with her collection of Disney VHS tapes that will never need anything else, but I don't think they are buying ANYTHING, let alone combo couch/tv/fridge thingies from IKEA.
Not to be combative, but generally speaking things like this are miserable failures. You get a bad fridge AND a bad tv, regardless if it's pretty or not. Thus, the first guy's post isn't as self-centered as you've indicated. I too lament the loss of "component" technology in favor of all-in-ones (my home stereo, for example...) but understand some all-in-one things have become so cheap, they are easier to just replace the entire thing than it is to maintain multiple parts (iMac vs. Mac Pro, for another example).
What is Blu-Ray again? Isn't that the technology that a very small minority of people used for a very short period of time to bridge the gap during the transition from DVDs to online delivery?
But seriously, what is it with companies coming to the party late and/or clinging to dead/dying technology. Are their processes so inefficient that by the time they produce something, it's already out of date?
Maybe the "recording" you are hearing is logical analysis that causes many people to come the same conclusion. You think it's fanboyism because you don't agree. Your worldview filters the facts into something the exact opposite, and twice as bad as fanboyism. That's fine with me. You can call names all you want, I'm going to analyze the situation as the facts present themselves.
YOU are the one not saying anything different about Apple regardless of what happens to them. Apple is still here. They are not dead. They didn't die once already, like you claim. You lose any discussion to that point on every level because, well, they are the most successful technology company on Earth, which obviously irks you for some reason.
YOU are the one presenting false claims like the Mac went out of business once already, and that OS X is founded in Linux. YOU are the one perpetuating tired cliches like MS bailed Apple out and that Apple woulda/coulda/shoulda been dead. You are the one making predictions that "Apple would have been dead if"..All I'm saying is that they aren't dead even though your biases want them to be. Again, you are wrong. You lose.
So if being a fanboy means rebutting claims that are steeped in intellectually lazy arguments like "Apple is only good at marketing" or "Apple went out of business once already", then call me a fanboy. You could say "Dell has gone bankrupt 5 times this year" and I'm going to tell you that you are wrong. Does that make me a Dell Fanboy? No, it makes me a facts fanboy.
At this point in the conversation, it's not even a conversation about Apple anymore. If you'd like to come back and address any of my last three posts with some counter-points that are factually correct, then we have a conversation. If you want to keep using the term fanboy because you have no other debate mechanism, then that's cool with me that you bowed out.
You listed a long list of things that fanboys say, which I noted that I don't agree with any of those statements. How exactly am I a fanboy again? Please separate the stereotype of the douchy hipster artist wanna be from your preconceptions about me, and that might be a good first step in you understanding just how laughably wrong your assessment of me is.
Crap ran into a mac fanboy, we know your type, sorry to have offended you.
We'll ignore that with their desktop sales the company went under before, needed a bailout and jobs to come back, because clearly none of that happend and their desktops were enough because of creative alternatives.
Look, all the ad hominem attacks on the planet won't change history. Just because I like Macs has no bearing on how history played out. The company NEVER "went under before". You only wanted it to fail, but it didn't. Saying it failed, and it will fail again defies logic and your own envy/disdain/whatever is clouding your judgment and/or recollection of history.
90% of the world isn't microsoft. Anyone who uses it is because they don't know better. Flash is dumb. Mac is the future (as it was 40 years ago) Macs don't get viruses, and it's not because no one makes them because businesses worth targeting clearly use them. Linux isn't a creative alternative, only mac is, which is based on linux. Windows is the only choice which is evil unless you want a mac. Macs aren't overpriced for the same hardware that's none apple, they're creatively priced.
Appeased yet?
Why in the hell would I be appeased, when I didn't say any of those things? However, I will address two:
OS X is not based on any flavor of Linux...ever...I may be a fanboy, but at least I'm informed about that which I am a fan. Similarly equipped PCs cost roughly the same as Apple gear, and sometimes even more (Dell servers sometimes hundreds more). Any argument that equivalently equipped PCs are massively cheaper is just dumb.
I'd like to see one, just one person, who uses a mac, who can acknowledge it's disabilities. You know, doesn't act like there's zero cons at all if you get a mac, actually knows it's limitations and draw backs.
I'm right here. What would you like to talk about? I'll start with I wish they made a mid-range tower. The reason I didn't talk about "it's disabilities" is because this isn't a conversation about the Mac's weaknesses, rather, it's a firm rebuttal your tired cliche that Apple is only good at marketing. This isn't 1996, so I'm quite confounded as why you want to escalate this to a sophomoric Mac vs. PC debate, when most people, like me, realize the strengths and weaknesses of both, and it's ok to use one over the other for most tasks. Since I use both, it makes sense for me to use Apple hardware, so I can run both. It doesn't hurt that their equipment is generally the best in industry by most consumer reviews, but that doesn't make me a fanboy.
I know windows isn't perfect, neither is any distro of linux less you build it yourself to suit a specific need, but why oh why, must every fan boy, plead that Mac shits rainbows, and in the future will shit gold, as always.
Again, I merely said the most successful tech company on the planet uses Macs exclusively, so the Mac is a viable business platform based on its merit, and not marketing, and not because a billion people have purchased iPods, iPads, and iPhones.
So the only shitting I see is not Macs shitting rainbows, it's people like you with a grudge shitting on the current successes of Apple. Why people want to celebrate failure and ignore success will remain a mystery to me.
While his is certainly a binary position, I do see the hypocrisy of most greenies I know when they climb into their 15mpg SUVs. Me? I drive a sports car. But then again, I don't pretend to be green either.
Well, sure, but 1) I'll probably never buy a hybrid (or economic car for that matter), and 2) I never buy a car based on the total cost of ownership. To each his own.
$1000 bucks for 15" economy tires??? Um, yeah, somebody got ripped off. My 18" 40 profile z-rated tires can be purchased and installed for roughly $600 with some decent shopping around the major brands.
Google the study. The linked story here (LA Times) is very thin on details. I read a much more detailed version of the same study on Jalopnik (I think). The basic premise is that owners of "real" hybrids like the Prius are more likely to buy another than people with the fake "hybrid-assist" vehicles like the Tahoe.
If you ever have to try and convince somebody that a Golf is better than a CR-Z, we live in a sad, sad, world. Even more sad is somebody actually believes his CR-Z has the handling modeled on a BMW M6 (um, not BMWs greatest handling machine, as a side note).
To CR-Z guy...your car is unpopular because it's a lousy car, as judged by most people in the automotive journalism field. It has nothing to do about hybrid backlash or small car bias. It's just not a very good car.
Here's my problem with the TDI argument. You have a 140 hp car (240ft/lb torque) that gets 30/42 EPA. My 264 hp car (280ft/lb torque) gets roughly 5 mpg less than that (city driving...I never get to test the highway miles). Considering premium unleaded and Diesel are about the same price here in TX, saving 5 mpg over each fill-up would change my gas bill from $45 a tank to $41 a tank. Whoopty friggin' do. I fill up a couple of times a month so saving 8-12 bucks a month is nothing to get excited about.
That's because there aren't hardly ANY small pickup trucks for sale. Ford and Mazda are discontinuing the Ranger/B-series, leaving us with, um, the crappy GM Colorado/Canyon?
Don't even try to convince me the Tacoma and Dakota are small trucks. Those things are as big or bigger than a mid 90s Ford F-150s. The Tacoma is bigger than last generation Tundras, F150s bigger than old F250s...it's a stupid trend that make me root for $8/gallon gasoline.
My guess is government subsidies ran out. Haven't done the math, but I'm betting the slight improvement in gas mileage takes too long to recoup the cost now before you have to pay to replace the batteries.
Sigh. Not the "you have to replace the batteries!" argument. Because I never have to replace anything in my non hybrid engine?
The Civic SI costs more than a ivic Hybrid for even less fuel efficiency. Comparing a base Civic Sedan to a Civic Hybrid doesn't make much sense, in this regard, as I could easily replace Civic Sedan with Civic SI and immediately turn the tides on the argument. Civic Hybrid is cheaper AND gets much better gas mileage so it pays for itself over an SI as soon as you buy one. That is just a silly argument as the original.
I hate it when people say, "but a Toyota Camry is cheaper than a Toyota Prius and would take 6 years for the Hybrid to make up the cost". That's not apples-to-apples, because there is no equivalent Toyota Prius gas model to compare it against. The better analogy would be Toyota Camry vs. Toyota Camry Hybrid (but then again, the Toyota Camry Hybrid is only hybrid-assist and doesn't enjoy the economy gains of a true hybrid design).
In other words, people buy different cars for different reasons, and most people aren't nearly as logical as you lot here.
I saw the full study somewhere else (the linked LA times story here is pretty slim). But your instincts are pretty close. The more satisfied hybrid owners are the ones driving pure hybrid designs, and the least satisfied ones where the people buy the knee-jerk reaction fake hybrid-assist vehicles, like giant SUVs that go from 12 mpg to 15 mpg (ok, I made those figures up).
Simply slapping a hybrid badge on the tailgate of a gas guzzling SUV doesn't do much for customer satisfaction, evidently.
Slashdot Mirror
But if you can accessorize, then you don't have to make your initial decision based on color limitations. I guess(?) people are shallow enough to buy a phone based on the accessory colors that are available, but I'm just going to guess people aren't buying iPhones because you can get a Pink Camo Hello Kitty cover for it, rather, they are buying it for more substantial reasons, like emoji in text...
Because last I checked, Netflix isn't available on pretty much every device on the planet. In my house alone, Netflix is built-in to: AppleTV, Roku, Samsung Blu-ray player (yeah, yeah, I know, I ripped on blu-ray only to admit I have a blu-ray player, but that's how I realized how stupid blu-ray is, after all), all my computers, all my phones, my iPad and my 52" tv.
The only merit to your argument I see is if you want to own the media long term. Most people don't care to, but most people aren't geeks on slashdot, so I get it if you like to hoard media. It's just a lot less messy to hoard media when you cut out the shiny spinning disc thingies.
But still, even in Europe, the writing must be on the wall. It was becoming inevitable in England even though I moved from there back in 2007. Not to diminish the importance of the rest of Western Europe, but I'm not sure too many global companies can bank their success on technology that will be out of date by the time they get to market.
Plus, all we ever hear about is how the rest of the world has such better bandwidth/service than the US, but pretty much everywhere I've been in the US has streaming services (several different ones, iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, all the other free stuff on the streaming devices you can buy...)
Sure, there will always be the crazy old cat lady with her collection of Disney VHS tapes that will never need anything else, but I don't think they are buying ANYTHING, let alone combo couch/tv/fridge thingies from IKEA.
In the US market, the Galaxy S and iPhone don't come in pink and those are the top two selling phones. Likewise for laptops.
Not to be combative, but generally speaking things like this are miserable failures. You get a bad fridge AND a bad tv, regardless if it's pretty or not. Thus, the first guy's post isn't as self-centered as you've indicated. I too lament the loss of "component" technology in favor of all-in-ones (my home stereo, for example...) but understand some all-in-one things have become so cheap, they are easier to just replace the entire thing than it is to maintain multiple parts (iMac vs. Mac Pro, for another example).
What is Blu-Ray again? Isn't that the technology that a very small minority of people used for a very short period of time to bridge the gap during the transition from DVDs to online delivery?
But seriously, what is it with companies coming to the party late and/or clinging to dead/dying technology. Are their processes so inefficient that by the time they produce something, it's already out of date?
Imma fire up my C64 and play some jumpman.
Even the AppleFanBoy I am can agree with this! Jumpman > Breakout.
Lemme guess. You are in the 18-24 demo?
You guys are terrible, this has spun away from the actual pros or cons of apples vs other companies.
This is exactly the point I made.
What are you talking about? You just hold down the power button on any model ever made.
Maybe the "recording" you are hearing is logical analysis that causes many people to come the same conclusion. You think it's fanboyism because you don't agree. Your worldview filters the facts into something the exact opposite, and twice as bad as fanboyism. That's fine with me. You can call names all you want, I'm going to analyze the situation as the facts present themselves.
YOU are the one not saying anything different about Apple regardless of what happens to them. Apple is still here. They are not dead. They didn't die once already, like you claim. You lose any discussion to that point on every level because, well, they are the most successful technology company on Earth, which obviously irks you for some reason.
YOU are the one presenting false claims like the Mac went out of business once already, and that OS X is founded in Linux. YOU are the one perpetuating tired cliches like MS bailed Apple out and that Apple woulda/coulda/shoulda been dead. You are the one making predictions that "Apple would have been dead if"..All I'm saying is that they aren't dead even though your biases want them to be. Again, you are wrong. You lose.
So if being a fanboy means rebutting claims that are steeped in intellectually lazy arguments like "Apple is only good at marketing" or "Apple went out of business once already", then call me a fanboy. You could say "Dell has gone bankrupt 5 times this year" and I'm going to tell you that you are wrong. Does that make me a Dell Fanboy? No, it makes me a facts fanboy.
At this point in the conversation, it's not even a conversation about Apple anymore. If you'd like to come back and address any of my last three posts with some counter-points that are factually correct, then we have a conversation. If you want to keep using the term fanboy because you have no other debate mechanism, then that's cool with me that you bowed out.
You listed a long list of things that fanboys say, which I noted that I don't agree with any of those statements. How exactly am I a fanboy again? Please separate the stereotype of the douchy hipster artist wanna be from your preconceptions about me, and that might be a good first step in you understanding just how laughably wrong your assessment of me is.
Crap ran into a mac fanboy, we know your type, sorry to have offended you.
We'll ignore that with their desktop sales the company went under before, needed a bailout and jobs to come back, because clearly none of that happend and their desktops were enough because of creative alternatives.
Look, all the ad hominem attacks on the planet won't change history. Just because I like Macs has no bearing on how history played out. The company NEVER "went under before". You only wanted it to fail, but it didn't. Saying it failed, and it will fail again defies logic and your own envy/disdain/whatever is clouding your judgment and/or recollection of history.
90% of the world isn't microsoft. Anyone who uses it is because they don't know better.
Flash is dumb.
Mac is the future (as it was 40 years ago)
Macs don't get viruses, and it's not because no one makes them because businesses worth targeting clearly use them.
Linux isn't a creative alternative, only mac is, which is based on linux.
Windows is the only choice which is evil unless you want a mac.
Macs aren't overpriced for the same hardware that's none apple, they're creatively priced.
Appeased yet?
Why in the hell would I be appeased, when I didn't say any of those things? However, I will address two:
OS X is not based on any flavor of Linux...ever...I may be a fanboy, but at least I'm informed about that which I am a fan.
Similarly equipped PCs cost roughly the same as Apple gear, and sometimes even more (Dell servers sometimes hundreds more). Any argument that equivalently equipped PCs are massively cheaper is just dumb.
I'd like to see one, just one person, who uses a mac, who can acknowledge it's disabilities. You know, doesn't act like there's zero cons at all if you get a mac, actually knows it's limitations and draw backs.
I'm right here. What would you like to talk about? I'll start with I wish they made a mid-range tower. The reason I didn't talk about "it's disabilities" is because this isn't a conversation about the Mac's weaknesses, rather, it's a firm rebuttal your tired cliche that Apple is only good at marketing. This isn't 1996, so I'm quite confounded as why you want to escalate this to a sophomoric Mac vs. PC debate, when most people, like me, realize the strengths and weaknesses of both, and it's ok to use one over the other for most tasks. Since I use both, it makes sense for me to use Apple hardware, so I can run both. It doesn't hurt that their equipment is generally the best in industry by most consumer reviews, but that doesn't make me a fanboy.
I know windows isn't perfect, neither is any distro of linux less you build it yourself to suit a specific need,
but why oh why, must every fan boy, plead that Mac shits rainbows, and in the future will shit gold, as always.
Again, I merely said the most successful tech company on the planet uses Macs exclusively, so the Mac is a viable business platform based on its merit, and not marketing, and not because a billion people have purchased iPods, iPads, and iPhones.
So the only shitting I see is not Macs shitting rainbows, it's people like you with a grudge shitting on the current successes of Apple. Why people want to celebrate failure and ignore success will remain a mystery to me.
While his is certainly a binary position, I do see the hypocrisy of most greenies I know when they climb into their 15mpg SUVs. Me? I drive a sports car. But then again, I don't pretend to be green either.
Well, sure, but 1) I'll probably never buy a hybrid (or economic car for that matter), and 2) I never buy a car based on the total cost of ownership. To each his own.
$1000 bucks for 15" economy tires??? Um, yeah, somebody got ripped off. My 18" 40 profile z-rated tires can be purchased and installed for roughly $600 with some decent shopping around the major brands.
Google the study. The linked story here (LA Times) is very thin on details. I read a much more detailed version of the same study on Jalopnik (I think). The basic premise is that owners of "real" hybrids like the Prius are more likely to buy another than people with the fake "hybrid-assist" vehicles like the Tahoe.
If you ever have to try and convince somebody that a Golf is better than a CR-Z, we live in a sad, sad, world. Even more sad is somebody actually believes his CR-Z has the handling modeled on a BMW M6 (um, not BMWs greatest handling machine, as a side note).
To CR-Z guy...your car is unpopular because it's a lousy car, as judged by most people in the automotive journalism field. It has nothing to do about hybrid backlash or small car bias. It's just not a very good car.
Because people in cars are never killed by people in other cars that run into them?
Usually you wouldn't want the weight because of performance issues, but if it outperforms the TDI version...what's the problem again?
Here's my problem with the TDI argument. You have a 140 hp car (240ft/lb torque) that gets 30/42 EPA. My 264 hp car (280ft/lb torque) gets roughly 5 mpg less than that (city driving...I never get to test the highway miles). Considering premium unleaded and Diesel are about the same price here in TX, saving 5 mpg over each fill-up would change my gas bill from $45 a tank to $41 a tank. Whoopty friggin' do. I fill up a couple of times a month so saving 8-12 bucks a month is nothing to get excited about.
That's because there aren't hardly ANY small pickup trucks for sale. Ford and Mazda are discontinuing the Ranger/B-series, leaving us with, um, the crappy GM Colorado/Canyon?
Don't even try to convince me the Tacoma and Dakota are small trucks. Those things are as big or bigger than a mid 90s Ford F-150s. The Tacoma is bigger than last generation Tundras, F150s bigger than old F250s...it's a stupid trend that make me root for $8/gallon gasoline.
If you think $700 is a lot of money, you probably shouldn't be contributing to a conversation about cars that cost roughly $25,000.
My guess is government subsidies ran out. Haven't done the math, but I'm betting the slight improvement in gas mileage takes too long to recoup the cost now before you have to pay to replace the batteries.
Sigh. Not the "you have to replace the batteries!" argument. Because I never have to replace anything in my non hybrid engine?
The Civic SI costs more than a ivic Hybrid for even less fuel efficiency. Comparing a base Civic Sedan to a Civic Hybrid doesn't make much sense, in this regard, as I could easily replace Civic Sedan with Civic SI and immediately turn the tides on the argument. Civic Hybrid is cheaper AND gets much better gas mileage so it pays for itself over an SI as soon as you buy one. That is just a silly argument as the original.
I hate it when people say, "but a Toyota Camry is cheaper than a Toyota Prius and would take 6 years for the Hybrid to make up the cost". That's not apples-to-apples, because there is no equivalent Toyota Prius gas model to compare it against. The better analogy would be Toyota Camry vs. Toyota Camry Hybrid (but then again, the Toyota Camry Hybrid is only hybrid-assist and doesn't enjoy the economy gains of a true hybrid design).
In other words, people buy different cars for different reasons, and most people aren't nearly as logical as you lot here.
I saw the full study somewhere else (the linked LA times story here is pretty slim). But your instincts are pretty close. The more satisfied hybrid owners are the ones driving pure hybrid designs, and the least satisfied ones where the people buy the knee-jerk reaction fake hybrid-assist vehicles, like giant SUVs that go from 12 mpg to 15 mpg (ok, I made those figures up).
Simply slapping a hybrid badge on the tailgate of a gas guzzling SUV doesn't do much for customer satisfaction, evidently.