I don't agree. I feel a majority of the Chrome users are former Firefox/Opera/Safari users. When a dominant minority group (Firefox) is fractured or segmented... it doesn't hurt Internet Explorer. In fact, it helps it.
----- Current Breakdown ----- Internet Explorer 71.11% Mozilla Firefox 20.06% Safari 6.62% Opera 0.75% Netscape 0.46% Google Chrome 0.74%) Other (0.24%)
----- Fun Numbers ----- (100% made up)
Internet Explorer 60% Mozilla Firefox 15% Safari 10% Opera 1% Netscape 1% Google Chrome 12% Other 1%
With the above made up numbers, I can still hear our CFO saying "see, we should focus on Internet Explorer... everyone else doesn't even have 20% share! And, that 'Firefox' thing is going DOWN! "
I'd love to see some information as to what browser current Chrome users transitioned away from.
There hasn't been a mid/low level (Under $1400) Mac tower in over six years... and I'm sure I'm not the only person upset with the other desktop/tower options.
I'm not asking Apple to offer the Mac Pro specifications for a huge discount...
I'm asking Apple to give me an iMac without a monitor and the ability to add a hard drive or two (AKA, what Dell and everyone else sells constantly).
Example Machine: - 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo - 1GB memory - 250GB hard drive - 8x double-layer SuperDrive - ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT - Room for two additional HDs PRICE: $999
Most consumers are either rent or purchase their movies. The concept of a DVD player is now ubiquitous in the consumer culture. I consider myself to be VERY computer literate, but I can see major hurdles with trying to toss a 50GB movie file around a home network. Better yet, how would I permit a friend to watch the movie?
I can walk into a Best Buy and pick up 250 GB of movies (I'm generalizing), go home and watch them, sell them, trade them, lend them to friends, etc. etc.
The disk is still a very efficient method of distributing film. (P.S. Most music is still sold on disks as well...)
For starters, one must ask what is in it for Apple.
Apple made the PPC --> x86 jump for a reason. For starters, Intel has a wide range of processors for portables, desktops and servers. IBM and Motorola didn't... and if you don't believe me, where is my G5 Powerbook?
With IBM and Moto, Apple basically had to take what they were given. Sure it was great when the G4 and G5 came out and leaped ahead of Intel, but months later, Intel would leap ahead for what usually ended up being years. Why would Apple once again lock into a chip?
The comment in the article which states "Apple could have AMD deal with HP, Dell and a slew of its current customers without a direct conflict of interest. Why wouldn't HP and Dell consider buying processors from Apple a conflict of interest?
Also, AMD is generally known as the "budget alternative to Intel." While that may not be a true representation of AMD, Apple doesn't do anything on the cheap.
The main problem with the all-in-one device is the risk associated with having "all your eggs in one basket" if you will.
I don't know about the rest of you, but the thought of having a $600 device with me all the time makes me cringe.
While I have a $400 digital camera, $200 phone and $250 iPod, I don't take them all with me wherever I go. There is some satisfaction with being able to protect some of the devices by not bringing them along. Also, I leave my cell phone at home sometimes when I don't want to be bothered.
If you compare our rather lower risk missions of the 90s/00s to the rather high risk missions of the 60s/70s, it's no surprise that it's less interesting.
Also, I believe the image of NASA has changed from that of a cutting edge government sponsored organization to a lumbering money pit. We really need to "fight" someone if we want public support... even if it's more PR than anything.
Basically HD-DVD and Blu-Ray aren't even options for me at this point as the DRM associated with it has me shaking my head. While I'm willing to pay $20+ for a movie, I want to be able to use the movie on my terms after the initial purchase.
If this hack proves to be valid, I would actually consider investing in the technology as it opens the format up to Linux/Unix/OSX/etc.
As a somewhat happy Verizon user, I can't deny that their COVERAGE is simply fantastic.
That being said, I feel that their disabling of their phones is ridiculous. The Motorola E815 that I purchased has numerous features that have either been disabled or crippled. Sure I can hack it, but that's not the point. It's one of the few reasons I have considered switching to someone with a more open policy regarding usage. Also, I pay significantly more than my friends/family that use Cingular/Sprint.
You are simply wrong. While I'm not a F-22 fanboy, the stealth features of the EuroFighter are basic and the F-22 has advanced stealth.
If you were talking about traditional dogfighting, the EuroFighter may edge out the F-22, but you can't fire a missile at something you can't lock on. The EuroFighter is a much easier target.
Alerting the police that you will be leaving, setting up an EvoCam Mac to alert you via text and to video anyone entering, and perhaps a few lights on different timers would do the trick.
Actually, the iMac could be upgraded in many ways. The CPU and GPU are socketed... so they could very well be upgraded down the road. Also, you can throw a good amount of ram in these systems.
The HD, RAM, etc. are obviously upgradable (We Mac users are sheep, but not THAT bad!), in fact, it's not that difficult.
If you need upgrades beyond USB 2 and Firewire, you really need a Mac Pro.
Unless Sony comes out with something similar to iTunes... the PSP is little more than a novelty music player. It's much larger than the iPod, more expensive (when you add a good sized memory card) doesn't hold as much music, doesn't have a music store, doesn't have the market share [must I go on?].
I could buy a nice 2GB iPod mini for $149... or hundreds more for a PSP with similar storage.
In my case, I purchased both... because they both have their areas where they excel. The iPod for portable music, the PSP for portable gaming.
First, the iPod was wildly popular LONG before the iTunes Music Store (now iTunes Store) opened. The iTunes Music Store opened (with a rather limited selection) on April 28, 2003. By that time, the iPod was already "cool" due to the wonderful iPod --> iTunes --> OS integration.
Second, there is a DRM-less music store... it's called your local music store. I get so sick of people saying they are "locked in" with an iPod. Nobody is locking you in, unless you let them lock you in! It's not like Apple infects your MP3 files with DRM so that they only play with the iPod or your authorized versions iTunes. (like Sony did)
The iPod plays my MP3 files flawlessly. It is popular NOT because of the iTunes Music Store, but because of the AMAZING iTunes/iPod integration.
The cassette walkman and CD walkman worked were icons of Sony. They were simple to use and people could easily enjoy the music without having to understand the technology too much.
That all changed with the MiniDisc player (MD)
The MiniDisc player was one of the first players to introduce DRM to the music world (and people didn't really get it [trying to explain DRM in the late 1990's was a nightmare... yes, even worse than today]). Also, ATRAC/ATRAC3 wasn't really an open standard (there is a reason the MP3 took off and ATRAC/ATRAC3 didn't.)
IF Sony had introduced an MD player that would play MP3 player in 1997-1998 (that didn't change the MP3 in ANY WAY)... I really wonder if the iPod would be as popular as it is today. The technology was there... but ultimatly Sony killed the Walkman.
The funny part is... Sony now offers an MP3 based player... so after all energy and time trying to force DRM and ATRAC/ATRAC3 on the world... they offer what others have been doing for years.
[NOTE: I'm not saying the ATRAC/ATRAC3 format is inferior from a technical standpoint to MP3]
FIRST I would like to point out an ERROR in the article. Apple NEVER said they had 92% of music player market. A while back, they said that 92% of new hard drive-based MP3 players being sold were iPods. They recently said that they had "70% of the market for portable music players."
I would rather have 70% of the market as compared to 92% of the hard drive based market.
SECOND It's been proven (a number of times) that simply having more features DOES NOT guarantee success.
The wi-fi feature sounds interesting, will non geeks "get it" in the same way they get the iPod?
In response to the 5 reasons given in the article:
1. Microsoft is hatching a consumer media "perfect storm."
Perfect storm? Please show me the proven Microsoft Media Store? Where is the proven iTunes equivalent? Where is the range in the Zune product line (from a $79 player to a $300+ player)?
2. The Zune is social and viral.
Call me an Apple zealot, but how ISN'T the "listen three times... before you buy" scheme going to sound like a scam? If my iPod had such a feature, I would never use it, and I have three friends with iPods. The wi-fi feature for sharing music seems like a gimmick.
3. Zune may have more programming.
I'll believe it when I see it.
4. Zune's screen is better for movies.
Today... that is true. One iPod update and that's no longer true. If you notice, the top of the iPod offerings is considerably lower than it has been in the past.
5. Zune is actually pretty cool.
So is the iPod... in fact, it's been cool for about 5 years.
"The iPod is the soul of Apple's entire business."
Bull... Yes, it's a BIG chunk of the company, but the computer business is still strong (accounting for 60% of all revenue). People aren't buying computers ONLY because of the iPod. I'm not saying it has hurt business, but OS X on NICE hardware is appealing to customers tired of their Windows 98 and Windows Me virus ridden computers. Windows 2000 and XP solved many of the problems, but that doesn't erase the fact that many people are willing to look to different options.
- I wonder how long it will take to break the security? [it's going to happen]
- I wonder from what distances the RDIF card will be able to be read? [I hear a few inches to a few yards and beyond]
- I wonder what interesting ways people will use this information. [I'm in marketing and can already think of a few]
Like most technologies, I can see the good and bad of this.
I'm fine with the developers expanding a game (in an incremental way as compared to major expansion packs) after the initial release, but the initial release MUST be a complete gaming experience. To release an incomplete game (no cars or courses as given in the example) and expect users to buy additional components to make the game playable is ridiculous.
I'm sure this will be sold as a "feature" and will be explained away with "why FORCE users to buy items that they don't want or need," but to me it sounds like a lovely way to force you to sign up for a "service."
There are a number or reasons to buy CDs over iTunes (or any other DRM music)
- Audio quality - I can't tell the difference, but many can. - Usability - My iPod is great, but what about my phone, media box, PSP... they love MP3, but aren't DRM friendly. - Backup - When you buy a CD, you automatically have a VERY high quality back up. - Future-proof - When the next amazing codec comes out... I can simply re-rip my collection.
I have a number of iTunes albums, but I keep it to a minimum.
I really do fear that the future will be riddled with incompatibilities from DRM.
I'm an "Apple Fanboy" but have limited my iTunes purchases to a few albums. CDs are still considerably more flexible regarding how and where I can use the music. Sure I own an iPod, but I also own a phone and PSP that can both play music. I also have a device that will play MP3s through my TV. None of those last three will play my FairPlay music. While I accept the limitations of the player, it's simply frustrating at times.
Regarding the new Apple Movie Store, let me get this right... we pay $9.99 (to $14.99) for a movie... that's of a lower quality than DVD and can't really be moved outside of your local network (it's not like you can take it over to a friends house without unauthorizing their computer and authorizing their computer under your username). Just trying to explain this to my fiance made her eyes glaze over. Her exact words: "sounds compleicated... why not just go to the movie store."
The problem is, the Mac mini isn't a headless iMac.
It:
- uses a smaller laptop hard drive (a bit slower than the iMac)
- has no video card
- "only" has a core duo (not a core 2 duo) [that may change]
- doesn't include a keyboard or mouse
- 2GB max of ram (ok, I'm stretching it a bit here)
That being said, it's clear that the Mac mini is a subset of the iMac beyond simply not having a screen.
The cube wasn't an iMac without the monitor. It was a PowerMac packed into a very small case.
Why it failed:
Price... period.
You could buy a cheaper and faster PowerMac for $200 less (with expansion bays [still important in 2000], space for a 2nd [or third] HD, space for a full sized video cad, etc. etc.) Benchmarks showed that the singe 400MHz PowerMac was faster than the 450MHz cube [Macworld]
In my humble opinion, the cube would have sold much better if it had been $1199 ($100 less than the iMac of the time) while having the same feature set and a nice mini-tower type enclosure. It was VERY difficult to justify the price of the Mini in contrast to the PowerMac.
1) OS X users don't pay for upgrades for the OS either. We have had seven X.X.1 upgrades to Tiger since the original release. Granted, none of them were as significant as SP2 for Windows, but at the same time, we didn't need as many things completely overhauled.
2) Jaguar, Panther, Tiger and Leopard are FAR from a SP2 upgraded. I'm not trying to downplay what Microsoft provided in SP2, but rather highlighting just how fundamental every release of OS X has been... and Leopard seems to be continuing that trend. Apple says there are over 200+ new features... turn off the Jobs Reality distortion field, and it's more like 25+, but those 25+ are REAL (and new) features. Spotlight, Dashboard, Smart Folders, Updated Mail, iChat upgrade, Automator, QuickTime 7, Safari 2, Core Image and Core Video. You must admit, that those are far beyond what SP2 offered.
If these are the actual prices, it looks like OS X isn't all that much more expensive than what Microsoft is offering... which for most Mac users is fine.
It seems pretty ridiculous to say "We guarantee our OS is secure [unless you use hardware that wasn't made by us]." Well, then the OS isn't secure. If 3rd-party drivers can break your security, it wasn't really there to begin with, now was it?
Actually, that seems very reasonable to me. Regardless of the OS, if I introduce bug ridden code at the driver level, you are introducing problems.
Analogy Time: If I replaced the built in firewall of OS X with something I code myself, should I get upset with Apple when a buffer overflow is found in my code... resulting in the possible execution of code or some other vulnerability?
P.S. I'm in litigation with Ford because the cardboard tires I made out of old refrigerator boxes caused damage to the car.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't agree. I feel a majority of the Chrome users are former Firefox/Opera/Safari users. When a dominant minority group (Firefox) is fractured or segmented... it doesn't hurt Internet Explorer. In fact, it helps it.
----- Current Breakdown -----
Internet Explorer 71.11%
Mozilla Firefox 20.06%
Safari 6.62%
Opera 0.75%
Netscape 0.46%
Google Chrome 0.74%)
Other (0.24%)
----- Fun Numbers ----- (100% made up)
Internet Explorer 60%
Mozilla Firefox 15%
Safari 10%
Opera 1%
Netscape 1%
Google Chrome 12%
Other 1%
With the above made up numbers, I can still hear our CFO saying "see, we should focus on Internet Explorer... everyone else doesn't even have 20% share! And, that 'Firefox' thing is going DOWN! "
I'd love to see some information as to what browser current Chrome users transitioned away from.
There hasn't been a mid/low level (Under $1400) Mac tower in over six years... and I'm sure I'm not the only person upset with the other desktop/tower options.
I'm not asking Apple to offer the Mac Pro specifications for a huge discount...
I'm asking Apple to give me an iMac without a monitor and the ability to add a hard drive or two (AKA, what Dell and everyone else sells constantly).
Example Machine:
- 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
- 1GB memory
- 250GB hard drive
- 8x double-layer SuperDrive
- ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT
- Room for two additional HDs
PRICE: $999
I know it's "the age of laptops" but seriously...
You are the minority.
Most consumers are either rent or purchase their movies. The concept of a DVD player is now ubiquitous in the consumer culture. I consider myself to be VERY computer literate, but I can see major hurdles with trying to toss a 50GB movie file around a home network. Better yet, how would I permit a friend to watch the movie?
I can walk into a Best Buy and pick up 250 GB of movies (I'm generalizing), go home and watch them, sell them, trade them, lend them to friends, etc. etc.
The disk is still a very efficient method of distributing film. (P.S. Most music is still sold on disks as well...)
For starters, one must ask what is in it for Apple.
Apple made the PPC --> x86 jump for a reason. For starters, Intel has a wide range of processors for portables, desktops and servers. IBM and Motorola didn't... and if you don't believe me, where is my G5 Powerbook?
With IBM and Moto, Apple basically had to take what they were given. Sure it was great when the G4 and G5 came out and leaped ahead of Intel, but months later, Intel would leap ahead for what usually ended up being years. Why would Apple once again lock into a chip?
The comment in the article which states "Apple could have AMD deal with HP, Dell and a slew of its current customers without a direct conflict of interest. Why wouldn't HP and Dell consider buying processors from Apple a conflict of interest?
Also, AMD is generally known as the "budget alternative to Intel." While that may not be a true representation of AMD, Apple doesn't do anything on the cheap.
The main problem with the all-in-one device is the risk associated with having "all your eggs in one basket" if you will.
I don't know about the rest of you, but the thought of having a $600 device with me all the time makes me cringe.
While I have a $400 digital camera, $200 phone and $250 iPod, I don't take them all with me wherever I go. There is some satisfaction with being able to protect some of the devices by not bringing them along. Also, I leave my cell phone at home sometimes when I don't want to be bothered.
If you compare our rather lower risk missions of the 90s/00s to the rather high risk missions of the 60s/70s, it's no surprise that it's less interesting.
Also, I believe the image of NASA has changed from that of a cutting edge government sponsored organization to a lumbering money pit. We really need to "fight" someone if we want public support... even if it's more PR than anything.
Basically HD-DVD and Blu-Ray aren't even options for me at this point as the DRM associated with it has me shaking my head. While I'm willing to pay $20+ for a movie, I want to be able to use the movie on my terms after the initial purchase.
If this hack proves to be valid, I would actually consider investing in the technology as it opens the format up to Linux/Unix/OSX/etc.
As a somewhat happy Verizon user, I can't deny that their COVERAGE is simply fantastic.
That being said, I feel that their disabling of their phones is ridiculous. The Motorola E815 that I purchased has numerous features that have either been disabled or crippled. Sure I can hack it, but that's not the point. It's one of the few reasons I have considered switching to someone with a more open policy regarding usage. Also, I pay significantly more than my friends/family that use Cingular/Sprint.
You are simply wrong. While I'm not a F-22 fanboy, the stealth features of the EuroFighter are basic and the F-22 has advanced stealth.
If you were talking about traditional dogfighting, the EuroFighter may edge out the F-22, but you can't fire a missile at something you can't lock on. The EuroFighter is a much easier target.
While this is a Mac solution, you could always pick up a Mac mini. This has motion detection, and can initiate an Apple Script.
http://www.evological.com/evocam.html
Alerting the police that you will be leaving, setting up an EvoCam Mac to alert you via text and to video anyone entering, and perhaps a few lights on different timers would do the trick.
how about this: j o e [ a t ] j o e b o t . c o m
Actually, the iMac could be upgraded in many ways. The CPU and GPU are socketed... so they could very well be upgraded down the road. Also, you can throw a good amount of ram in these systems.
The HD, RAM, etc. are obviously upgradable (We Mac users are sheep, but not THAT bad!), in fact, it's not that difficult.
If you need upgrades beyond USB 2 and Firewire, you really need a Mac Pro.
I own both a PSP and iPod.
Unless Sony comes out with something similar to iTunes... the PSP is little more than a novelty music player. It's much larger than the iPod, more expensive (when you add a good sized memory card) doesn't hold as much music, doesn't have a music store, doesn't have the market share [must I go on?].
I could buy a nice 2GB iPod mini for $149... or hundreds more for a PSP with similar storage.
In my case, I purchased both... because they both have their areas where they excel. The iPod for portable music, the PSP for portable gaming.
First, the iPod was wildly popular LONG before the iTunes Music Store (now iTunes Store) opened. The iTunes Music Store opened (with a rather limited selection) on April 28, 2003. By that time, the iPod was already "cool" due to the wonderful iPod --> iTunes --> OS integration.
Second, there is a DRM-less music store... it's called your local music store. I get so sick of people saying they are "locked in" with an iPod. Nobody is locking you in, unless you let them lock you in! It's not like Apple infects your MP3 files with DRM so that they only play with the iPod or your authorized versions iTunes. (like Sony did)
The iPod plays my MP3 files flawlessly. It is popular NOT because of the iTunes Music Store, but because of the AMAZING iTunes/iPod integration.
DRM and Open standards killed the WalkMan.
The cassette walkman and CD walkman worked were icons of Sony. They were simple to use and people could easily enjoy the music without having to understand the technology too much.
That all changed with the MiniDisc player (MD)
The MiniDisc player was one of the first players to introduce DRM to the music world (and people didn't really get it [trying to explain DRM in the late 1990's was a nightmare... yes, even worse than today]). Also, ATRAC/ATRAC3 wasn't really an open standard (there is a reason the MP3 took off and ATRAC/ATRAC3 didn't.)
IF Sony had introduced an MD player that would play MP3 player in 1997-1998 (that didn't change the MP3 in ANY WAY)... I really wonder if the iPod would be as popular as it is today. The technology was there... but ultimatly Sony killed the Walkman.
The funny part is... Sony now offers an MP3 based player... so after all energy and time trying to force DRM and ATRAC/ATRAC3 on the world... they offer what others have been doing for years.
[NOTE: I'm not saying the ATRAC/ATRAC3 format is inferior from a technical standpoint to MP3]
FIRST
I would like to point out an ERROR in the article. Apple NEVER said they had 92% of music player market. A while back, they said that 92% of new hard drive-based MP3 players being sold were iPods. They recently said that they had "70% of the market for portable music players."
I would rather have 70% of the market as compared to 92% of the hard drive based market.
SECOND
It's been proven (a number of times) that simply having more features DOES NOT guarantee success.
The wi-fi feature sounds interesting, will non geeks "get it" in the same way they get the iPod? In response to the 5 reasons given in the article:
1. Microsoft is hatching a consumer media "perfect storm."
Perfect storm? Please show me the proven Microsoft Media Store? Where is the proven iTunes equivalent? Where is the range in the Zune product line (from a $79 player to a $300+ player)?
2. The Zune is social and viral.
Call me an Apple zealot, but how ISN'T the "listen three times... before you buy" scheme going to sound like a scam? If my iPod had such a feature, I would never use it, and I have three friends with iPods. The wi-fi feature for sharing music seems like a gimmick.
3. Zune may have more programming.
I'll believe it when I see it.
4. Zune's screen is better for movies.
Today... that is true. One iPod update and that's no longer true. If you notice, the top of the iPod offerings is considerably lower than it has been in the past.
5. Zune is actually pretty cool. So is the iPod... in fact, it's been cool for about 5 years.
"The iPod is the soul of Apple's entire business."
Bull... Yes, it's a BIG chunk of the company, but the computer business is still strong (accounting for 60% of all revenue). People aren't buying computers ONLY because of the iPod. I'm not saying it has hurt business, but OS X on NICE hardware is appealing to customers tired of their Windows 98 and Windows Me virus ridden computers. Windows 2000 and XP solved many of the problems, but that doesn't erase the fact that many people are willing to look to different options.
- I wonder how long it will take to break the security? [it's going to happen]
- I wonder from what distances the RDIF card will be able to be read? [I hear a few inches to a few yards and beyond]
- I wonder what interesting ways people will use this information. [I'm in marketing and can already think of a few]
Like most technologies, I can see the good and bad of this.
I'm fine with the developers expanding a game (in an incremental way as compared to major expansion packs) after the initial release, but the initial release MUST be a complete gaming experience. To release an incomplete game (no cars or courses as given in the example) and expect users to buy additional components to make the game playable is ridiculous.
I'm sure this will be sold as a "feature" and will be explained away with "why FORCE users to buy items that they don't want or need," but to me it sounds like a lovely way to force you to sign up for a "service."
With all the copyrighted material on YouTune, all you need is a few well calculated lawsuits.
I can see YouTube making a nice chunk of money, but 1.5 billion for a service that could easily be replicated doesn't seem realistic.
There are a number or reasons to buy CDs over iTunes (or any other DRM music)
- Audio quality - I can't tell the difference, but many can.
- Usability - My iPod is great, but what about my phone, media box, PSP... they love MP3, but aren't DRM friendly.
- Backup - When you buy a CD, you automatically have a VERY high quality back up.
- Future-proof - When the next amazing codec comes out... I can simply re-rip my collection.
I have a number of iTunes albums, but I keep it to a minimum.
I really do fear that the future will be riddled with incompatibilities from DRM.
I'm an "Apple Fanboy" but have limited my iTunes purchases to a few albums. CDs are still considerably more flexible regarding how and where I can use the music. Sure I own an iPod, but I also own a phone and PSP that can both play music. I also have a device that will play MP3s through my TV. None of those last three will play my FairPlay music. While I accept the limitations of the player, it's simply frustrating at times.
Regarding the new Apple Movie Store, let me get this right... we pay $9.99 (to $14.99) for a movie... that's of a lower quality than DVD and can't really be moved outside of your local network (it's not like you can take it over to a friends house without unauthorizing their computer and authorizing their computer under your username). Just trying to explain this to my fiance made her eyes glaze over. Her exact words: "sounds compleicated... why not just go to the movie store."
The problem is, the Mac mini isn't a headless iMac.
It:
- uses a smaller laptop hard drive (a bit slower than the iMac)
- has no video card
- "only" has a core duo (not a core 2 duo) [that may change]
- doesn't include a keyboard or mouse
- 2GB max of ram (ok, I'm stretching it a bit here)
That being said, it's clear that the Mac mini is a subset of the iMac beyond simply not having a screen.
The cube wasn't an iMac without the monitor. It was a PowerMac packed into a very small case.
Why it failed:
Price... period.
You could buy a cheaper and faster PowerMac for $200 less (with expansion bays [still important in 2000], space for a 2nd [or third] HD, space for a full sized video cad, etc. etc.) Benchmarks showed that the singe 400MHz PowerMac was faster than the 450MHz cube [Macworld]
In my humble opinion, the cube would have sold much better if it had been $1199 ($100 less than the iMac of the time) while having the same feature set and a nice mini-tower type enclosure. It was VERY difficult to justify the price of the Mini in contrast to the PowerMac.
Regarding your #2:
1) OS X users don't pay for upgrades for the OS either. We have had seven X.X.1 upgrades to Tiger since the original release. Granted, none of them were as significant as SP2 for Windows, but at the same time, we didn't need as many things completely overhauled.
2) Jaguar, Panther, Tiger and Leopard are FAR from a SP2 upgraded. I'm not trying to downplay what Microsoft provided in SP2, but rather highlighting just how fundamental every release of OS X has been... and Leopard seems to be continuing that trend. Apple says there are over 200+ new features... turn off the Jobs Reality distortion field, and it's more like 25+, but those 25+ are REAL (and new) features. Spotlight, Dashboard, Smart Folders, Updated Mail, iChat upgrade, Automator, QuickTime 7, Safari 2, Core Image and Core Video. You must admit, that those are far beyond what SP2 offered.
If these are the actual prices, it looks like OS X isn't all that much more expensive than what Microsoft is offering... which for most Mac users is fine.
Actually, that seems very reasonable to me. Regardless of the OS, if I introduce bug ridden code at the driver level, you are introducing problems.
Analogy Time: If I replaced the built in firewall of OS X with something I code myself, should I get upset with Apple when a buffer overflow is found in my code... resulting in the possible execution of code or some other vulnerability?
P.S. I'm in litigation with Ford because the cardboard tires I made out of old refrigerator boxes caused damage to the car.