I swore off WYSIWYG HTML editors with the first version of GoLive. I thought it was pretty slick until I looked at the HTML it was creating -- what a mess! Are you talking about GoLive CyberStudio, the German product that Adobe bought out, or Adobe's GoLive? If I remember correctly, the original GoLive CyberStudio produced pretty good html and only started getting a bad rap when Adobe bastardized it to make it fit better into their design suites.
I really don't give a crap how it gets done if it gets done right, and I don't suppose they should either.
Tools are meant to be used when they help, not just because they're there. Interestingly enough, a major concept in all the work I do (computer based training, rapid e-learning) is that the end user doesn't give one CRAP about what authoring tool you used. They just want stuff to work when they click on it. We remove every "Made with Flash" or "Captivate 3" logo we can, try to avoid any and all Microsoft PowerPoint cliches (clip art and stock templates are the first casualties) and pretty much make everything not identifiable to any one package/suite.
Probably most of you don't care â" you get your news from blogs. Me, I prefer to get my news from somebody who knows something about finding stuff out, who has some sense of professional ethics, and who doesn't simply regurgitate every rumor that sounds vaguely plausible. Unfortunately, that option is rapidly disappearing. The last sentence in your otherwise outstanding comment ruins the entire concept.
Better results? Probably. Faster? No way. Never. Not gonna happen. Maybe they mean faster in the way that it is faster for guys who hand code lines of html all day to hand code lines of html all day because they don't have the first clue of how to use a WYSIWYG editor? If they know code so well, why not use Dreamweaver in pure code mode? The management tools of the suite alone are worth the ?extra? time.
Well, I can wrap this whole conversation up with this:
It's not a "nefarious scheme", it's all part of product differentiation. I'm glad YOU understand that. If only the other thousands of slashdot contributors did...
A company can't appease all needs and wants of every consumer in a single product line.
That's all the more true of they don't provide a product that can be significantly customized anywhere except at the extreme high end of one of their product lines. And I acknowledged the fact there is a gap; I just don't find Apple's lack of a tower CURRENTLY to be as nefarious as other people in this forum (not YOU specifically, rather two years of collective slashdotism).
What tends to happen here on slashdot is that people who feel "left out" of the current offerings swarm to the threads to say how Apple has left out the majority opinion of "we want a tower".
Please refrain from putting words into my mouth. I have not said that this is a "majority opinion" nor even that a mid-range tower is the product that I'd like to see added. In fact I've pointed out twice now that this is not what I'm saying. I'm not sure what's going on here, but my comments aren't directed at YOU specifically, rather, as commentary to this entire thread. I apologize for the ambiguity. Actually, I don't think I disagree with YOU that much (if even at all).
My point is that the gap in the product line is real, and Apple would penetrate a sizable as-yet-untapped market if they filled it. And my point is that a LOT of people on slashdot are making the same claim, because we are collectively biased towards the more geek-appealing products, like a tower. I think Apple has done their market research and will either bring back a mid-range if feasible. This business about "making users buy the $2500 one" is pure nonesense. Instead of buying a Mac Pro, anyone in the market for a tower will just go buy a PC.
There are numbers indicating that apart from laptops all-in-one designs are currently unpopular in the market as a whole. I would argue they aren't popular because the XP world isn't condusive to an all-in-one, integrated hardware/software solution like Apple can offer. I've tried a lot of the PC all-in-ones, and they are just awful. They try to pack a million features which goes against the entire simplicity paradigm in the first place.
About the only line of all-in-one desktops that's got any traction at all are Macs. People buying Windows-based boxes don't generally buy all-in-ones. People buying Macs have to buy all-in-ones. And because PC people don't buy all in ones, they bring the same negative biases to the discussion forums, giving the iMac (notice, I haven't been talking about the mini at all here) a bad name, comparing to equally awful PC all-in-ones, when they really aren't comparible.
Would Apple's market share be higher if they sold a conventional desktop? I believe so, obviously, though the fact is that I can only point to indirect numbers showing that. On the other hand, you can't point to any numbers indicating I'm wrong, because there simply are no relevant numbers for Macs running OS X. Exactly my point. OTHERS (not you) have been clamoring that Apple is missing a huge opportunity, when all I see are 2.2 million Macs sold last quarter (record quarter). Although that MIGHT be higher if there were a tower, there's no way to know really. Besides, we don't even know if Apple's business model could support another product line at this time. Maybe introducing another computer would wreck their production cycle or something. I don't work there, so I don't know. I'm pretty sure, however, that they don't purposely withhold a mid-range tower and cross their fingers in hopes people buy a Mac Pro. If anything, they MIGHT do it to lead people towards a MacBook Pro.
Wow, I forgot how analytical the slashdot crowd can be. Let me try to word it in a less subjective manner:
A company can't appease all needs and wants of every consumer in a single product line. If they COULD, they would.
And yes, I understand the argument that there is a "gap" in the product lines, with the omission of a mid-range tower, but...
What tends to happen here on slashdot is that people who feel "left out" of the current offerings swarm to the threads to say how Apple has left out the majority opinion of "we want a tower". Obviously, Apple thinks that an all-in-one model is a more cost-effective way to bolster the bottom-line. This doesn't mean Apple thinks they know better than you or me, it just means Apple is trying to make as much money as possible. If you don't like that, don't buy Apple products, or go start your own company.
In short, egocentrism on the slashdot community's behalf doesn't dictate what products Apple should build, because MOST people who buy computers aren't slashdotters. What I hear in this discussion is that Apple is losing SOOOO much business because they don't offer a tower, when that vision isn't quite the reality of the situation (unless you want to contend that Apple marketshare would be increasing in even MORE record-breaking bounds than it already is? I'd be interested in that theory.) People are making it sound like Apple are shooting themselves in the foot and losing huge market opportunities, but the numbers just don't support that notion.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe being "stuck with an integrated monitor" is actually a selling point for many? Besides, you can easily add any second monitor you wish, even on the cheapest iMac. As far as being under par very soon afterwards, my X1600 is still kicking just fine on my two-year old iMac. I'm not sure what very soon is on your scale, but two years of usability during this era of "gotta-have-a-new-video-card-every-6-months" seems pretty reasonable to me, especially on a $1500 computer.
Again, my $1100 MacBook doesn't need a video card upgrade to do most things (3d gaming out of the picture, obviously), but I would be hard pressed to find a PC at $200 with integrated video that wouldn't be so mind-boggingly choppy that I'd want to chuck it out of an airplane somewhere (especially if it has Vista installed).
I actually have a lot of "upgrade" options, one being open my iMac and put a better card in it. The other options include having an authorized dealer do it (why, when my warrantee is already up anyway) or to buy a new one with a better card (which I can afford, but can hardly justify the extra FPSs that you can't see anyway). The only thing keeping me from upgrading is that I don't have to. Crysis is the only game that I've tried that bogs down, but that game does it on the best video card out there anyway.
Very, very well worded post. It's so tiring to argue with fanatics sometimes who claim (rather obviously) that the current Macs meet the needs of Mac users (duh), and then resort to the idiotic argument that Apple doesn't want your business if you're not satified with what they currently make. That's not the argument at all. That's what your side of the argument is hearing, however. What is at the center of this cultural debate is engineering tradeoffs. If a company COULD make a geek-a-liciously delicious mid-range tower with the great looks of an Apple product, it would have been done already. Apple has to make trade-offs, and for THEIR target market, they've made the decision to go after that. Their is less competition in the high-end market, and Apple has solid footing in that ground. (The same reason BMW doesn't make economy cars, even though they could). You can call that "not wanting your business" if you must, but it's not like Apple is dissing the lower segment on purpose; they have to make trade-offs, and in this case, for now, the mid-range tower is out.
What I would be interested to see is your side of the argument proving that Apple suffers from the lack of a mid-range tower. They seem to be doing just fine without, and there is nothing circular about that logic. Surely people who want a mid-range tower might consider a mid-range Apple tower, but that, my friend, is circular logic to a capital T.
luckily, with basic PCI expansion cards that (almost) any tard can plug in the machines are ready for the future...
and this is why several of my (and one's I look after for family/friends) machines AREN'T IN LANDFILLS! That's all Pie-in-the-Sky until you look at the reality of the situation; most family/friends' machines ARE in landfills (perhaps not everyone is fortunate enough to have your awesome stewardship?). It isn't for lack of upgradeability either. It's simply the fact that most WinXP installs become so infested (or start that way) that after 6-months, most average users are flustered into just buying a new computer. Macs may be way more expensive (old argument, not true), but at least they stick around for a lot longer (800 mhz G4 still productive, can't say so for my 1.5ghz AMD box)
You poo-poo the very thing the separates most PC and Mac users. If you found that ridiculously loud fan to be anywhere near acceptable and don't see it as anything BUT a deal-breaker, then you definitely won't appreciate the nice touches of Apple products. I hate sounding like a smug A-hole Apple user, but how else is one to respond to your "not-as-cute-as-you-think-it-was" remark?
The issue is not that a loud fan CAN'T be corrected, it is that Pystar DELIVERED a product with such a horrific flaw like that, knowing people would buy it anyway.
Fancy color scheme? When is the last time color scheme's had anything do do with Apple COMPUTERS? (leave iPods out for the moment). Last I checked Macs only come in black, white, or silver.
Nah, they just don't see the need for the "tower-upgrade-mentality" anymore. That's so 1990s. I bet Steve is actually offended at the sight of Mac Pros and wishes he could turn it into a lamp-looking device.
Apple has only just, finally, squeezed a decent graphics card into an iMac. I have to disagree, because everything is relative. The Radeon X1600 card in my iMac plays just fine for nearly every PC game I've tried (booted in XP, of course). Sure Crysis kicks it's butt, but all the other current generation of games play decently enough that I don't have to scale everything back. Sure there are "better" cards out there, but when it comes to actual hands-on use, those improved FPS cards are lost on the majority of users (even semi-serious gamers). It has been nice to stick with the same computer/graphic card combo for two years straight without the dreaded 6-month video card upgrade requirement.
The sad truth is that if you want a Macintosh with upgradeable graphics hardware, it's going to cost your $2200+. I can upgrade the graphics card on virtually any $199 Wal-mart PC. There's a problem here. With the $199 Wal-mart PC you HAVE to upgrade the video card to do anything productive. On a $1500 iMac, you don't. That's the only "problem" I see here.
Not only that but if something doesn't work, who are you going to turn to. Psystar will probably blame Apple and Apple will say you have an unsupported system. How is that any different than the Windows World we all live in today?
A problem I have is not that the it is impossible to make any money for a game that panders just to hardcore sim enthusiasts. Rather, I take issue when every racing game since Grand Prix Legends has been marketed as a "racing simulator" when most of them are arcade games. I just rented GT5:Prologue, and as nice as it looks, it is way too easy to recover from the start of a spin, and sideways power slides are ridiculously easy, even with a joystick. If these driving games can even be played with a joystick, then they are wrong, right out of the box. (exception, the xbox controller triggers allow for 50% held throttle, instead of the blasted on/off phenomena you are limited to in any other controller.) I'm not even an advanced online driver, but I realize that you have to be able to hold the gas at a particular percentage (not just off or on) and that how hard you press a pedal affects driving physics (locking up brakes, for example, or loosing traction under too heavy of acceleration/wrong gear, etc.).
There are a couple "open source" style driving games that have popped up on the PC side, but they feel very unrefined, are convoluted in their installation and upkeep and just not very refined. The solution, is for a commercial company like Papyrus back in the day, to pander to the hard core crowd and charge 2-3x as much. Most of my buddies from back in the late 90s would easily pay upwards of $150-$200 for a quality NASCAR style game again.
Just think of how much MORE they'd kick your ass if they learned how to use keyboard/mouse. I've never been able to beat anyone, except the computer, so multiplayer is a non-issue for me anyway;-)
I know what you mean but I think the real reason is that we're just getting older and we've seen more, thus it becomes harder to impress. Bingo! We have a winner (substitute the entire video game conversation above to "music" and it still fits).
As a kid who used to mow about 10 lawns a week to earn enough quarters to quench my thirst for Pac Man, Crazy Climber, Dig Dug, Asteroids, Defender, and Donkey Kong (to name a couple), I have noticed the long and tiresome tread of games sacrificing entertaining or realistic game play for the sake of the "gee-whiz" lighting effects. What keeps game companies producing vapid-yet-shiny games is that most people are still wowed by 3d-lense flares. The "best" games never make the best-seller lists.
A great example of this is the game Grand Prix Legends, which to this day, is one of the most accurate replications of not only car physics, but the culture and history of the era as well. The manual for the game alone was worth the $19 I paid for the game in 1999. The game was dogged because you didn't "unlock" cars, there was no soundtrack, and it didn't have an "arcade" mode. The same thing has occurred with Papyrus (same company as Grand Prix Legends) and their high quality NASCAR racing line from about 2002-2004. Stupid EA Sports bought all the rights to having the "real" drivers and the "real" sponsors all at the expense of the "realism".
It's not a generation thing at all, because there is no disputing that keyboard/mouse control is far faster and more accurate than any thumbstick could ever be. The only time the debate even becomes remotely close is when you move away from traditional style FPS games (where you have to mouse-look).
I wouldn't get a PS3 for it. I did. So far every game I've rented has gone back without being able to capture this 38-year old's attention. (Assassin's Creed got close...) I HOPE that GTA_IV does, otherwise I bought just a Blu-ray player.
A lot of US Defense is just migrating to XP as well... It's actually quite smart of them...make a really bad new version so the old version doesn't seem so bad anymore. That logic dies horribly though once users walk by an Apple store at their local mall, or when they have a tech smart friend who hooks them up with a Linux build.
A lot of US Defense is just migrating to XP as well... Not true at all. The US DoD has been using XP for ages and has even recently released the official drop-dead date, when we have to all switch to Vista.
Slashdot Mirror
Better results? Probably. Faster? No way. Never. Not gonna happen. Maybe they mean faster in the way that it is faster for guys who hand code lines of html all day to hand code lines of html all day because they don't have the first clue of how to use a WYSIWYG editor? If they know code so well, why not use Dreamweaver in pure code mode? The management tools of the suite alone are worth the ?extra? time.
A company can't appease all needs and wants of every consumer in a single product line. If they COULD, they would.
And yes, I understand the argument that there is a "gap" in the product lines, with the omission of a mid-range tower, but...
What tends to happen here on slashdot is that people who feel "left out" of the current offerings swarm to the threads to say how Apple has left out the majority opinion of "we want a tower". Obviously, Apple thinks that an all-in-one model is a more cost-effective way to bolster the bottom-line. This doesn't mean Apple thinks they know better than you or me, it just means Apple is trying to make as much money as possible. If you don't like that, don't buy Apple products, or go start your own company.
In short, egocentrism on the slashdot community's behalf doesn't dictate what products Apple should build, because MOST people who buy computers aren't slashdotters. What I hear in this discussion is that Apple is losing SOOOO much business because they don't offer a tower, when that vision isn't quite the reality of the situation (unless you want to contend that Apple marketshare would be increasing in even MORE record-breaking bounds than it already is? I'd be interested in that theory.) People are making it sound like Apple are shooting themselves in the foot and losing huge market opportunities, but the numbers just don't support that notion.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe being "stuck with an integrated monitor" is actually a selling point for many? Besides, you can easily add any second monitor you wish, even on the cheapest iMac. As far as being under par very soon afterwards, my X1600 is still kicking just fine on my two-year old iMac. I'm not sure what very soon is on your scale, but two years of usability during this era of "gotta-have-a-new-video-card-every-6-months" seems pretty reasonable to me, especially on a $1500 computer.
Again, my $1100 MacBook doesn't need a video card upgrade to do most things (3d gaming out of the picture, obviously), but I would be hard pressed to find a PC at $200 with integrated video that wouldn't be so mind-boggingly choppy that I'd want to chuck it out of an airplane somewhere (especially if it has Vista installed).
I actually have a lot of "upgrade" options, one being open my iMac and put a better card in it. The other options include having an authorized dealer do it (why, when my warrantee is already up anyway) or to buy a new one with a better card (which I can afford, but can hardly justify the extra FPSs that you can't see anyway). The only thing keeping me from upgrading is that I don't have to. Crysis is the only game that I've tried that bogs down, but that game does it on the best video card out there anyway.
What I would be interested to see is your side of the argument proving that Apple suffers from the lack of a mid-range tower. They seem to be doing just fine without, and there is nothing circular about that logic. Surely people who want a mid-range tower might consider a mid-range Apple tower, but that, my friend, is circular logic to a capital T.
The issue is not that a loud fan CAN'T be corrected, it is that Pystar DELIVERED a product with such a horrific flaw like that, knowing people would buy it anyway.
Fancy color scheme? When is the last time color scheme's had anything do do with Apple COMPUTERS? (leave iPods out for the moment). Last I checked Macs only come in black, white, or silver.
Nah, they just don't see the need for the "tower-upgrade-mentality" anymore. That's so 1990s. I bet Steve is actually offended at the sight of Mac Pros and wishes he could turn it into a lamp-looking device.
There are a couple "open source" style driving games that have popped up on the PC side, but they feel very unrefined, are convoluted in their installation and upkeep and just not very refined. The solution, is for a commercial company like Papyrus back in the day, to pander to the hard core crowd and charge 2-3x as much. Most of my buddies from back in the late 90s would easily pay upwards of $150-$200 for a quality NASCAR style game again.
Just think of how much MORE they'd kick your ass if they learned how to use keyboard/mouse. I've never been able to beat anyone, except the computer, so multiplayer is a non-issue for me anyway ;-)
As a kid who used to mow about 10 lawns a week to earn enough quarters to quench my thirst for Pac Man, Crazy Climber, Dig Dug, Asteroids, Defender, and Donkey Kong (to name a couple), I have noticed the long and tiresome tread of games sacrificing entertaining or realistic game play for the sake of the "gee-whiz" lighting effects. What keeps game companies producing vapid-yet-shiny games is that most people are still wowed by 3d-lense flares. The "best" games never make the best-seller lists.
A great example of this is the game Grand Prix Legends, which to this day, is one of the most accurate replications of not only car physics, but the culture and history of the era as well. The manual for the game alone was worth the $19 I paid for the game in 1999. The game was dogged because you didn't "unlock" cars, there was no soundtrack, and it didn't have an "arcade" mode. The same thing has occurred with Papyrus (same company as Grand Prix Legends) and their high quality NASCAR racing line from about 2002-2004. Stupid EA Sports bought all the rights to having the "real" drivers and the "real" sponsors all at the expense of the "realism".
It's not a generation thing at all, because there is no disputing that keyboard/mouse control is far faster and more accurate than any thumbstick could ever be. The only time the debate even becomes remotely close is when you move away from traditional style FPS games (where you have to mouse-look).