They are actually Republicans of my same ilk. I never had a term for my socially progressive Republicanism until I discovered Trey Parker. The term is "South Park Republicans" (very similar to RINOs). As far as Libertarians, I've heard several interviews where they staunchly deny being Libertarians (one I attended live here at the University of Texas). Like many of us, they have some Libertarian leaning views, but they've stated they think Libertarians are just a wee bit out of touch with reality.
hung, something you think we'd have given up a loong time ago.
Utah still has firing squads. But yeah, anyways, this was an Iraqi trial and execution, so what we US citizens think of it is pretty immaterial. And when you are dead, does it really matter how you died?
Yes. I'd much rather have my head cut-off or my body dragged around the streets of Fallujah than be forced to watch harmless comedy. Perspective, please.
Yeah, really weird -- weird as in the pickle company has invested millions in infrastructure, overhead, salaries, distribution, etc. just so they can provide free copies to people who don't want to buy the jar. Yeah, that's sustainable.
Or there's the whole, "people-really-want-this-so-we-can-charge-a-premium" for it. I'm obviously no economist based on my use of hyphenated, quoted phrases to explain that which I don't understand, but there's truth to it (for whatever economic reason).
If it were all about money, Apple products would suck. Exhibit A: Microsoft Windows--makes a lot of money AND they don't care about users. Exhibit B: Mac OSX--makes a lot of money but has to care about users, otherwise they render themselves obsolete.
Apple's competitive advantage is that they cater to a specific type of user (good, bad, indifferent). By definition, they actually DO care about users because they have to in order to remain relevant. They do care about users, just not in the touchy-feely way your post otherwise insinuates.
And by "controlled" you mean Apple purchased cheap commodity hard drives from the same vendors as other PC manufacturers, but then ensured their OS drivers communicated flawlessly with the one hard drive they standardized on?
Call me crazy, but why would I want to use VLC, or Media Player, or any other player to play a DVD when I have the built in DVD player on my Mac (I'd say on my PC, but there isn't one standard, reliable DVD player). I use VLC to play files that are ripped to computer format, and the DVD player for DVDs (duh?). Now if they fix the "crashes when you scrub the timeline" issue in VLC for OSX, I'll like the thing. Until then, I'm stuck with the thing since it's the only thing that plays pretty much any file format I throw at it.
I live in Austin and get pretty tired of Texas stereotypes. Although they fit probably 90% of Texas, they don't really fit here in Austin. Hell, a lot of us in Austin aren't even from Texas--we only moved here for the good weather, tech jobs, cheap houses and college chicks.
It's not the initial costs of upgrading that is of concern--it is the costs associated with an operating system that kills productivity they are concerned with.
So what your post (and several others are saying) is that you didn't buy a specific Apple product because it didn't exist. Too bad so many people on here equate that with "Mac sucks" instead of realizing that if they don't offer what you want, just go buy another brand.
"Lauren" doesn't want shit. Microsoft wants to pick on the one arbitrary feature they could nitpick (no cheap 17" Macs) and then got HP and Best Buy to give them money to be in their crappy ad.
Personally I just hate the "I know what's good for you" Apple mantra.
Oh REAAAAALY now? You mean kind of like the 238 posts in this thread telling me how much money I've wasted by buying a Mac? How is THAT not telling me what's good for me? At least Apple is in the business of making money, and I can take their marketing assaults on my intellect with a grain of salt. All the tightwads on slashdot telling me how their $400 HP crapbook is every bit as good as my $999 MacBook is tiresome, to say the least.
but they would also lose that "look at me" appeal that their core customer base thrives on.
That's bull and you are merely projecting. BMW doesn't make cheap cars because they make good cars, which are impossible to make cheaply. It's funny that BMWs are only seen as a "premium" brand in the US. In the rest of the world, the 3-series is about as commodity sedan as it gets. I guess that says a lot about the current affairs of US car companies.
I heard an article on NPR about Starbucks offering cheap coffee. Financial analysts then spent 30 minutes of the story lambasting Starbuck's choice, because there is a long, demonstrable history of premium brands failing when they try to down-grade their product line. This is why BMW doesn't sell economy cars, Apple doesn't make $300 computers, and "insert-overpriced-watch-brand-here" doesn't sell cheap watches. One analyst mentioned once you downgrade, it is VERY difficult for your premium line to recover, because people no longer feel the need to buy the premium version.
His comparison is exactly what the average consumer is going to do.
Nope. If the average consumer has any interest in buying a Mac (maybe through word of mouth, or they saw somebody using one) then they'll walk into an Apple Store and buy one (if they like it) without ever comparing it to other brands.
Slashdot Mirror
They are actually Republicans of my same ilk. I never had a term for my socially progressive Republicanism until I discovered Trey Parker. The term is "South Park Republicans" (very similar to RINOs). As far as Libertarians, I've heard several interviews where they staunchly deny being Libertarians (one I attended live here at the University of Texas). Like many of us, they have some Libertarian leaning views, but they've stated they think Libertarians are just a wee bit out of touch with reality.
hung, something you think we'd have given up a loong time ago.
Utah still has firing squads. But yeah, anyways, this was an Iraqi trial and execution, so what we US citizens think of it is pretty immaterial. And when you are dead, does it really matter how you died?
Yes. I'd much rather have my head cut-off or my body dragged around the streets of Fallujah than be forced to watch harmless comedy. Perspective, please.
Anyway: Comparing unlicensed copying of the electronic representation of copyrighted works to ANYTHING involving physical items = instant FAIL.
Good thing I didn't come up with the pickle analogy then.
Yeah, really weird -- weird as in the pickle company has invested millions in infrastructure, overhead, salaries, distribution, etc. just so they can provide free copies to people who don't want to buy the jar. Yeah, that's sustainable.
Or there's the whole, "people-really-want-this-so-we-can-charge-a-premium" for it. I'm obviously no economist based on my use of hyphenated, quoted phrases to explain that which I don't understand, but there's truth to it (for whatever economic reason).
You can also count on temporary price increases for songs that are on American Idol that week.
Strawman now means to provide a comparison to a competitor's business model in order to provide context?
If it were all about money, Apple products would suck. Exhibit A: Microsoft Windows--makes a lot of money AND they don't care about users. Exhibit B: Mac OSX--makes a lot of money but has to care about users, otherwise they render themselves obsolete.
Apple's competitive advantage is that they cater to a specific type of user (good, bad, indifferent). By definition, they actually DO care about users because they have to in order to remain relevant. They do care about users, just not in the touchy-feely way your post otherwise insinuates.
And by "controlled" you mean Apple purchased cheap commodity hard drives from the same vendors as other PC manufacturers, but then ensured their OS drivers communicated flawlessly with the one hard drive they standardized on?
Call me crazy, but why would I want to use VLC, or Media Player, or any other player to play a DVD when I have the built in DVD player on my Mac (I'd say on my PC, but there isn't one standard, reliable DVD player). I use VLC to play files that are ripped to computer format, and the DVD player for DVDs (duh?). Now if they fix the "crashes when you scrub the timeline" issue in VLC for OSX, I'll like the thing. Until then, I'm stuck with the thing since it's the only thing that plays pretty much any file format I throw at it.
I live in Austin and get pretty tired of Texas stereotypes. Although they fit probably 90% of Texas, they don't really fit here in Austin. Hell, a lot of us in Austin aren't even from Texas--we only moved here for the good weather, tech jobs, cheap houses and college chicks.
It's not the initial costs of upgrading that is of concern--it is the costs associated with an operating system that kills productivity they are concerned with.
Actually, "highly directional" by definition means "no bass" since sound frequencies become less directional the lower they get.
Vigilantism sucks. Way to act less civilized than many 3rd World countries.
@Linux: Your fat, you smell, and no one likes you.
Your fat what?
Linux people tend to see genuine critical evaluation as a bad thing.
First tag in the slashdot summary? "Flamebait".
This article is not about computers in the $1000-$1500 range. That's why I suggested you might not have read the article.
I've got no problem paying $400 more for a computer that runs OSX over one that doesn't.
So what your post (and several others are saying) is that you didn't buy a specific Apple product because it didn't exist. Too bad so many people on here equate that with "Mac sucks" instead of realizing that if they don't offer what you want, just go buy another brand.
"Lauren" doesn't want shit. Microsoft wants to pick on the one arbitrary feature they could nitpick (no cheap 17" Macs) and then got HP and Best Buy to give them money to be in their crappy ad.
Personally I just hate the "I know what's good for you" Apple mantra.
Oh REAAAAALY now? You mean kind of like the 238 posts in this thread telling me how much money I've wasted by buying a Mac? How is THAT not telling me what's good for me? At least Apple is in the business of making money, and I can take their marketing assaults on my intellect with a grain of salt. All the tightwads on slashdot telling me how their $400 HP crapbook is every bit as good as my $999 MacBook is tiresome, to say the least.
but they would also lose that "look at me" appeal that their core customer base thrives on.
That's bull and you are merely projecting. BMW doesn't make cheap cars because they make good cars, which are impossible to make cheaply. It's funny that BMWs are only seen as a "premium" brand in the US. In the rest of the world, the 3-series is about as commodity sedan as it gets. I guess that says a lot about the current affairs of US car companies.
I heard an article on NPR about Starbucks offering cheap coffee. Financial analysts then spent 30 minutes of the story lambasting Starbuck's choice, because there is a long, demonstrable history of premium brands failing when they try to down-grade their product line. This is why BMW doesn't sell economy cars, Apple doesn't make $300 computers, and "insert-overpriced-watch-brand-here" doesn't sell cheap watches. One analyst mentioned once you downgrade, it is VERY difficult for your premium line to recover, because people no longer feel the need to buy the premium version.
His comparison is exactly what the average consumer is going to do.
Nope. If the average consumer has any interest in buying a Mac (maybe through word of mouth, or they saw somebody using one) then they'll walk into an Apple Store and buy one (if they like it) without ever comparing it to other brands.