Do you really think Jobs would change Pixars Hardware/Software setup to please his Apple side?
And why should he have to explain it? The fact that most of that software comes straight from the NeXT days should be "explanation" enough on the techie front. But go ahead and raise your fist for Linux dominance;-)
It's only very recent that Apple's making serious servers and raid solutions, and while they're very cool and cost effective, an established business will wait just a bit longer and see where it goes before switching the most processor-intensive part of their work to G5's.
OTOH, when there's a proven advantage and a clear cut in cost, you'll see them switch in no time, especially now that Linux and Windows Server have been certified to run on the Xservers.
I'd never expect a serious CEO to have to think about that in other terms than cost-reduction, productivity and quality.
Trying to block out noisy neighbours...
on
Friday Apple Fun
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
As with all conceptial weird ideas, the idea itself is nice, but I can't imagine myself cranking up the stereo to have a good listen...
If I had that kind of money to spend on a computer, it certainly wouldn't be a Windows compatible.
Shees, tell me again Apple is expensive.
OK, it's a game computer. Good. But if I really really wanted to have the coolest game right now instead of a few months later, I would definitely go for a desktop, and it most definitely wouldn't be a Dell. For that money? Man.
Oh, who am I kidding, I'd still go for Apple. And use the extra money to buy a GameCube and an XBox to complement my PS2. That would be the ideal game situation, an Apple G5 for The Brutal Slaying of My Enemies (you just can't play Quake with a stupid controller) and all the gameboxes for the rest.
Since I don't have the money, I'll settle for Dr3ver on PS2...
I'm glad someone acknowledges two facts in one statement: Office is an important application and Office keeps people on their platform.
If this is not acknowledged, it can't be properly addressed. Next time you say "it's just marketing" or whatever other BS on Office's success, realize you're not doing yourself and your favorite alternative Office program a favour.
Allow me to rant a bit on what's needed to get people (companies) to replace Windows and Office...
The big challenge is that apart from having to be every bit as good as Office, the working environment should also be better.
I think with KOffice and OpenOffice, Linux has two excellent candidates, KOffice for the more simplestupid crowd (me and most people although most won't admit it) and OpenOffice for the "power user". For obvious reasons though, they should be 100% interoperateble. Even if features are not fully supported, they should not result in document hell.
Right now, in a lot of environments you can't do away with MSOffice. Find out why (without resorting to arrogant BS) and fix it. Sometimes it's easy: a few people are seriously into Powerpoint, and the company distributes them to others. Well, that's enough reason not to switch.
But also, apart from having the clip art, dictionaries, etc etc etc all that stuff, there might be a lot of things that arguably are outside the scope of the software, but need to be looked into in order to fulfill the full productivity cycle people are running now with MSOffice.
Their Office runs on their OS and they don't really differentiate. So if you can map the whole experience and make that good, only then you can claim to be able to replace the desktop.
The same goes for the Gimp btw. If you already *have* Photoshop, there is not ONE single reason to go to Gimp.
Disclaimer: This mail not to make things seem easy or to in any way berate Linux developers (bless you) but in response to the many derogative remarks here on MSOffice. Comparison: SCO is not being beaten up and undressed by "Fuck You" comments but by a bunch of highly skilled lawyers - and appropriately the Groklaw crowd.
Well, if Dark Mmmmatter doesn't exist, we'll have to rethink gravity, won't we?
IMO (very humble indeed) the Dark Matter theory looks more like a shortcut, a quick patch than a solid sound theory. Yes, it fits the observed facts, but probably just because from how little we know right now, we can safely fill in the huge blanks with the right numbers. Those blanks are easy to be filled because they're totally unobservable.
I read something very interesting on gravity in deep space. A scientist who revised the rules of gravity so that the model worked without all this invisible stuff around. The amazing thing is that while this guy does exactly the same as dark matter believers - filling in blank spots until the model fits reality - he's not taken seriously at all.
While I as a non-scientist will just have to wait and see until someone explains it weally well in small words, I am betting 10 to 1 on a revision of the general theory of gravity.
IMO blowing people away in realistic everyday settings is horrible and tasteless. If that in itself makes people prone to acts of violence? I doubt it, although I wouldn't mind if some games were analyzed and academically studied for its content.
Would make for a far more interesting debate, I'm sure.
However, what is undeniably dangerous in violence (screen, games, books) is stereotyping. Making it OK and even funny to do acts of violence against some people in particular.
There are numerous studies on enforcement of prejudice. Once again, it would be interesting to see how they apply in the gaming world, where you are allowed and encouraged to act out.
So while I appreciate the BBC's vote of confidence, I'd rather see some human sciences opinions.
Side note: being currently deeply into Need for Speed Underground (illegal downtown racing) I must say I'm much more prudent in traffic, looking twice in every direction...
Which instantly makes me wonder: do games change our appreciation of reality? e.g. does playing violent games make you secure/insecure etc... does roleplaying make you inventive, trusting or distrusting in social exchanges?
Apart from politely pointing out they were misguided and at the very least should have offered the opinions of real virus experts, I wrote something in the line of
"not being a linux user myself but like any computer/science/engineering fan having a vested interest in this SCO thing where one contributing company suddenly turns around and decides to ride on the back of other people's voluntary work and charge for it."
I Thought this simplistic (but fundamentally true) non-techie angle would maybe make them see that they as one of the most daringly modernizing broadcasters in the world are very much involved.
I'm not criticizing Linux, its ways and its distro's. I was replying to a windows user and was trying to be helpful instead of bashing him on the head as others were.
Having said that, if you can't make a KISS installer, your programs WON'T SPREAD outside the technical community. It's that simple.
If you insist on using technical terms, your programs will only be used BY TECHNICIANS.
And also: if you want the programs/OS to be picked up by non-technical people, provide clear links to the binaries (and KISS installers) first and foremost. Programmers and contributors will know where to find their precious tarballs.
Every technical website should have a clear link to a KISS distribution or website(s) for non-techies. That is, if you care about picking up first time users. It's a jungle out there, and it's a bewildering place for first timers.
Disclaimer: I don't care, really, the only reason I've started giving this type of comments was when userlinux, desktoplinux and those other buzzwords were seen as reality. I think Linux is super cool in every way possible. I don't care about its shortcomings or geekyness. I don't. And I totally respect every Linux programmer who says thing in the vein of "I don't care about general users, I care about specific users, the ones I develop for, starting with me." I think that's very OK, and I apologise for walking on your turf.
But the snottyness of a lot of linux users (maybe not the same people as the programmers and contributors, I don't know, really) when confronted with LEGITIMATE usability concerns by the other 98% of computer users is pathetic.
Either you want your programs and/or even the whole OS to be adopted or you don't. If you do, you might make some concessions to non-engineers. If that hurts too much, don't bother.
The amount of Linux people who've migrated to OS X lately (whether they feel guilty or not) should tell you something. What it means is: even if you CAN do it in 20+ steps, isn't it nice to do it in just one?
Me, I'm totally enthousiastic that some programmers are now trying to get KDE programs on OS X without the need of even X. Isn't that great? Millions of people will be able to try out OSS in a (for them) stress free environment. That's the kind of experience that might win converts. I've checked out the installer, it's WONDERFUL. It's totally OS X compliant, which means people will trust it. And it looks very professional, which also means a lot for people who can't judge programs by the content of tarballs...
That's the way to talk to people. If you don't like that, fine. But don't expect people to walk your way by bashing them on the head or ignoring them.
Like it or not, Office is the standard everybody tries to copy. There isn't any product out there as integrated and feature rich - while still able to do the simple things. Office is best of breed for most people working in the erm office.
And while everybody's bitching, most developers are trying to copy and keep up, most users find they can't really replace Office, or in the end don't want to.
I haven't opened Office in months, haven't used Entourage since Jaguar came out, but I'm still convinced it's a great product. Too expensive, but invaluable.
Am extremely enthousiastic about KOffice, this for the database mainly, but if I were to go back to a life that needed some office application, I have no doubt I'd ultimately - after much strugling and bitching - end up using M$ Office again.
KISS confused with features
on
KISS
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I've been reading halfway through the comments (what, you expect me to read the article?) and it suddenly grabbed me that a lot of people were complaining about features.
And some other people pointed out that people ask for features.
Yet at the same time we want things to be simple.
Well, I like lots and lots of features, but I want them to be simple. That's why I for instance Love Photoshop and won't use Gimp. Photoshop has more features though...
OK, I'm moving away from computer programs to avoid religious discussions...
My wife and I both have the cheapest, simplest phones around. They share the same feature set (games, diddly tunes, whatever), but mine has a Nokia-like interface, hers a weird one. Mine is simple, hers is complex.
Same features, same product, mine simple, hers complex. She uses hers every day, but still can do some things better on my phone, while they are quite different in approach.
It's not the amount of features, it's the DESIGN. That's what KISS means. There are more than enough one function devices around that are really really complex, bad or plain stupid (simple stupid: good. plain stupid: bad).
That's btw the difference between a good gui and a dumb-it-down pretty pictures approach.
Good marketing is wonderful, what you describe is commercialism and branding, not marketing. It's the attitude of "how can we cram this in people's budget" or rather "how can we let people choose our service over the others" instead of the marketing question "what do people want and what do people need". To be honest, most of those services are doing good marketing to try and reach some of their users, but not all succeed, for whatever reason. In every field however, you most likely can name one player that evokes a fuzzy feeling or at least an absense of annoyance. They got it right, whether by design or by luck.
Examples of good marketing are Philips DVD players (three buttons on the front panel and a KISS remote), the iPod (one function and some optional add-ons for those who want them), Toyota Rav 4 (a 4wheeler with normal-car conveniences) and a milion other products and services you most likely haven't really thought about.
Those are the result of three factors: marketing, focus on a known target group and KISS design. Mostly in that order as well, but with lots of reiterations.
Sounds really simple (sigh) but like all seemingly simple things it's incredibly hard to get it right.
Re:KISS is good, but it prevents progress.
on
KISS
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
KISS is the direct result of progress. Or a byproduct if you prefer.
Most designs go from simple to complicated to simple again.
A point in case is the computer interface. It has gone from command line to graphical interface, over time the gui has become so feature laden that in the end there was a demand for simplicity again.
Which BTW is far from the same as dumbing it down, a case in point being OS X which allows for extreme complexity but by doing Simple Stupid gestures.
Thus, I think we should follow KISS as much as we can, developers, engineers, product designers should always be on the lookout to incorporate existing complications and try to re-invent them in simple stupid ways.
Who doesn't like Rendezvous? It does extremely clever things with let's face it complicating protocols. And it allows for really cool things, like sharing pictures and music libraries over a network with a simple click.
That's another definition of progress: not just making technology, but making technology available.
(disclaimer: this is of course a very narrow definition of progress, since it doesn't enhance well being or general happiness, but you get my drift)
You know, I'm totally into Apple. I think their hardware, combined with the soft, is actually an incredibly good deal. I've been buying Apple's since before the macintosh and never felt cheated.
But, but... we're talking about commodities, appliances, walkman thingies, gadgets.
And if all's said and done, I won't buy one for $250 - and that's btw only the price in the USA, the rest of the world pays more. It's just not worth that kind of money TO ME.
I don't care about the intrinsic value, the clever positioning, the great looks. All true, all beautiful, but still too much money. I heard Jobs explaining the price position and even then I knew he wasn't talking to me.
I hope they will move beyond this strategic thinking and go back to the basic marketing tantra: "what is it that people want."
I mean, who is going to say "hey, I don't have $300 for 15GB, but for $250 I can either buy this 4GB mini or this 15GB Rio, Dell or whatever... Hey, the mini is so cleverly priced, only $50 more than a 1GB flashplayer, I think I'll go for the mini"
People want an iPod for less than $200. And given the nature of this market, I really really hope they will provide before someone else does.
Disclaimer: I realize I'm for once not Apple's target audience, so I might be totally off base here, but I can't keep from wondering if they have rightly assessed THEIR target audience. For their sake, I hope they have, but more importantly, for my sake, I hope they'll soon target ME ME ME and make a say 2GB mini for $100 (hey double the capacity of a flash player and 50% of the price, wow, whatever) and a say 10GB ipod for $250. (and inbetween I guess there's a nice price-point for the 4GB mini).
Because in the end, what's so strategically bad about playing THE WHOLE market?
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody play the radio anymore?
And plenty of internet radio's offering great music for free anyway.
I'm going to start a web-site and P2P initiative that allows you to copy and download every conceivable closed source program and game.
Then I'm going to sell out, go broke or to jail, not sure yet.
Then someone else is going to open a store with my "brand" name.
Then others can claim it was I who started this "revolutionary" business and talk woozy about it.
They appear to take the best of the Open Source world and give nothing in return.
Please to look into the history of NeXT and draw better founded conclusions, yes?
NeXT and Apple have given plenty and have developed even more. You're very much misinformed and needlessly emotional about this me thinks, yes yes.
Why bother when the rabid mac zelots will mod you down anyway?
Damn! I'm clean out of mod points...
Do you really think Jobs would change Pixars Hardware/Software setup to please his Apple side?
;-)
And why should he have to explain it? The fact that most of that software comes straight from the NeXT days should be "explanation" enough on the techie front. But go ahead and raise your fist for Linux dominance
It's only very recent that Apple's making serious servers and raid solutions, and while they're very cool and cost effective, an established business will wait just a bit longer and see where it goes before switching the most processor-intensive part of their work to G5's.
OTOH, when there's a proven advantage and a clear cut in cost, you'll see them switch in no time, especially now that Linux and Windows Server have been certified to run on the Xservers.
I'd never expect a serious CEO to have to think about that in other terms than cost-reduction, productivity and quality.
As with all conceptial weird ideas, the idea itself is nice, but I can't imagine myself cranking up the stereo to have a good listen...
If I had that kind of money to spend on a computer, it certainly wouldn't be a Windows compatible.
Shees, tell me again Apple is expensive.
OK, it's a game computer. Good. But if I really really wanted to have the coolest game right now instead of a few months later, I would definitely go for a desktop, and it most definitely wouldn't be a Dell. For that money? Man.
Oh, who am I kidding, I'd still go for Apple. And use the extra money to buy a GameCube and an XBox to complement my PS2. That would be the ideal game situation, an Apple G5 for The Brutal Slaying of My Enemies (you just can't play Quake with a stupid controller) and all the gameboxes for the rest.
Since I don't have the money, I'll settle for Dr3ver on PS2...
I'm glad someone acknowledges two facts in one statement: Office is an important application and Office keeps people on their platform.
If this is not acknowledged, it can't be properly addressed. Next time you say "it's just marketing" or whatever other BS on Office's success, realize you're not doing yourself and your favorite alternative Office program a favour.
Allow me to rant a bit on what's needed to get people (companies) to replace Windows and Office...
The big challenge is that apart from having to be every bit as good as Office, the working environment should also be better.
I think with KOffice and OpenOffice, Linux has two excellent candidates, KOffice for the more simplestupid crowd (me and most people although most won't admit it) and OpenOffice for the "power user". For obvious reasons though, they should be 100% interoperateble. Even if features are not fully supported, they should not result in document hell.
Right now, in a lot of environments you can't do away with MSOffice. Find out why (without resorting to arrogant BS) and fix it. Sometimes it's easy: a few people are seriously into Powerpoint, and the company distributes them to others. Well, that's enough reason not to switch.
But also, apart from having the clip art, dictionaries, etc etc etc all that stuff, there might be a lot of things that arguably are outside the scope of the software, but need to be looked into in order to fulfill the full productivity cycle people are running now with MSOffice.
Their Office runs on their OS and they don't really differentiate. So if you can map the whole experience and make that good, only then you can claim to be able to replace the desktop.
The same goes for the Gimp btw. If you already *have* Photoshop, there is not ONE single reason to go to Gimp.
Disclaimer: This mail not to make things seem easy or to in any way berate Linux developers (bless you) but in response to the many derogative remarks here on MSOffice.
Comparison: SCO is not being beaten up and undressed by "Fuck You" comments but by a bunch of highly skilled lawyers - and appropriately the Groklaw crowd.
Well, if Dark Mmmmatter doesn't exist, we'll have to rethink gravity, won't we?
:-)
IMO (very humble indeed) the Dark Matter theory looks more like a shortcut, a quick patch than a solid sound theory. Yes, it fits the observed facts, but probably just because from how little we know right now, we can safely fill in the huge blanks with the right numbers. Those blanks are easy to be filled because they're totally unobservable.
I read something very interesting on gravity in deep space. A scientist who revised the rules of gravity so that the model worked without all this invisible stuff around. The amazing thing is that while this guy does exactly the same as dark matter believers - filling in blank spots until the model fits reality - he's not taken seriously at all.
While I as a non-scientist will just have to wait and see until someone explains it weally well in small words, I am betting 10 to 1 on a revision of the general theory of gravity.
Who's in?
IMO blowing people away in realistic everyday settings is horrible and tasteless. If that in itself makes people prone to acts of violence? I doubt it, although I wouldn't mind if some games were analyzed and academically studied for its content.
Would make for a far more interesting debate, I'm sure.
However, what is undeniably dangerous in violence (screen, games, books) is stereotyping. Making it OK and even funny to do acts of violence against some people in particular.
There are numerous studies on enforcement of prejudice. Once again, it would be interesting to see how they apply in the gaming world, where you are allowed and encouraged to act out.
So while I appreciate the BBC's vote of confidence, I'd rather see some human sciences opinions.
Side note: being currently deeply into Need for Speed Underground (illegal downtown racing) I must say I'm much more prudent in traffic, looking twice in every direction...
Which instantly makes me wonder: do games change our appreciation of reality? e.g. does playing violent games make you secure/insecure etc... does roleplaying make you inventive, trusting or distrusting in social exchanges?
Obviously GTA. Who in the western world feels secure with belief, institutions and gods that are to be beyond questioning.
Apart from politely pointing out they were misguided and at the very least should have offered the opinions of real virus experts, I wrote something in the line of
"not being a linux user myself but like any computer/science/engineering fan having a vested interest in this SCO thing where one contributing company suddenly turns around and decides to ride on the back of other people's voluntary work and charge for it."
I Thought this simplistic (but fundamentally true) non-techie angle would maybe make them see that they as one of the most daringly modernizing broadcasters in the world are very much involved.
I'm not criticizing Linux, its ways and its distro's. I was replying to a windows user and was trying to be helpful instead of bashing him on the head as others were.
Having said that, if you can't make a KISS installer, your programs WON'T SPREAD outside the technical community. It's that simple.
If you insist on using technical terms, your programs will only be used BY TECHNICIANS.
And also: if you want the programs/OS to be picked up by non-technical people, provide clear links to the binaries (and KISS installers) first and foremost. Programmers and contributors will know where to find their precious tarballs.
Every technical website should have a clear link to a KISS distribution or website(s) for non-techies.
That is, if you care about picking up first time users. It's a jungle out there, and it's a bewildering place for first timers.
Disclaimer: I don't care, really, the only reason I've started giving this type of comments was when userlinux, desktoplinux and those other buzzwords were seen as reality. I think Linux is super cool in every way possible. I don't care about its shortcomings or geekyness. I don't. And I totally respect every Linux programmer who says thing in the vein of "I don't care about general users, I care about specific users, the ones I develop for, starting with me." I think that's very OK, and I apologise for walking on your turf.
But the snottyness of a lot of linux users (maybe not the same people as the programmers and contributors, I don't know, really) when confronted with LEGITIMATE usability concerns by the other 98% of computer users is pathetic.
Either you want your programs and/or even the whole OS to be adopted or you don't. If you do, you might make some concessions to non-engineers. If that hurts too much, don't bother.
The amount of Linux people who've migrated to OS X lately (whether they feel guilty or not) should tell you something. What it means is: even if you CAN do it in 20+ steps, isn't it nice to do it in just one?
Me, I'm totally enthousiastic that some programmers are now trying to get KDE programs on OS X without the need of even X. Isn't that great? Millions of people will be able to try out OSS in a (for them) stress free environment. That's the kind of experience that might win converts. I've checked out the installer, it's WONDERFUL. It's totally OS X compliant, which means people will trust it. And it looks very professional, which also means a lot for people who can't judge programs by the content of tarballs...
That's the way to talk to people. If you don't like that, fine. But don't expect people to walk your way by bashing them on the head or ignoring them.
Cheers!
Wait until someone posts BINARIES. The source files are for programmers (and SCO lawyers).
;-)
Installers is too non-technical a term for most geeks...
And wait until manuals and help-sites are up to date.
A linux program is finished when it compiles (after doing the required voodoo).
So compared to Win or Apple apps, you just wait a month or so after it's anounced "available" and you'll have a smoother ride from there.
Weird, but that's the way most current users seem to enjoy it - the same ones wondering why oh why we don't join them in their desktop revolution
Oh and btw, a tarball is a compressed file or archive. A zip.
Don't you just love a snitch? An AC snitch?
You leave the outing to others, you hear girl?
What'd he do to you, broke a nail?
Like it or not, Office is the standard everybody tries to copy. There isn't any product out there as integrated and feature rich - while still able to do the simple things. Office is best of breed for most people working in the erm office.
And while everybody's bitching, most developers are trying to copy and keep up, most users find they can't really replace Office, or in the end don't want to.
I haven't opened Office in months, haven't used Entourage since Jaguar came out, but I'm still convinced it's a great product. Too expensive, but invaluable.
Am extremely enthousiastic about KOffice, this for the database mainly, but if I were to go back to a life that needed some office application, I have no doubt I'd ultimately - after much strugling and bitching - end up using M$ Office again.
I've been reading halfway through the comments (what, you expect me to read the article?) and it suddenly grabbed me that a lot of people were complaining about features.
And some other people pointed out that people ask for features.
Yet at the same time we want things to be simple.
Well, I like lots and lots of features, but I want them to be simple. That's why I for instance Love Photoshop and won't use Gimp. Photoshop has more features though...
OK, I'm moving away from computer programs to avoid religious discussions...
My wife and I both have the cheapest, simplest phones around. They share the same feature set (games, diddly tunes, whatever), but mine has a Nokia-like interface, hers a weird one. Mine is simple, hers is complex.
Same features, same product, mine simple, hers complex. She uses hers every day, but still can do some things better on my phone, while they are quite different in approach.
It's not the amount of features, it's the DESIGN. That's what KISS means. There are more than enough one function devices around that are really really complex, bad or plain stupid (simple stupid: good. plain stupid: bad).
That's btw the difference between a good gui and a dumb-it-down pretty pictures approach.
Good marketing is wonderful, what you describe is commercialism and branding, not marketing. It's the attitude of "how can we cram this in people's budget" or rather "how can we let people choose our service over the others" instead of the marketing question "what do people want and what do people need". To be honest, most of those services are doing good marketing to try and reach some of their users, but not all succeed, for whatever reason. In every field however, you most likely can name one player that evokes a fuzzy feeling or at least an absense of annoyance. They got it right, whether by design or by luck.
Examples of good marketing are Philips DVD players (three buttons on the front panel and a KISS remote), the iPod (one function and some optional add-ons for those who want them), Toyota Rav 4 (a 4wheeler with normal-car conveniences) and a milion other products and services you most likely haven't really thought about.
Those are the result of three factors: marketing, focus on a known target group and KISS design. Mostly in that order as well, but with lots of reiterations.
Sounds really simple (sigh) but like all seemingly simple things it's incredibly hard to get it right.
KISS is the direct result of progress. Or a byproduct if you prefer.
Most designs go from simple to complicated to simple again.
A point in case is the computer interface. It has gone from command line to graphical interface, over time the gui has become so feature laden that in the end there was a demand for simplicity again.
Which BTW is far from the same as dumbing it down, a case in point being OS X which allows for extreme complexity but by doing Simple Stupid gestures.
Thus, I think we should follow KISS as much as we can, developers, engineers, product designers should always be on the lookout to incorporate existing complications and try to re-invent them in simple stupid ways.
Who doesn't like Rendezvous? It does extremely clever things with let's face it complicating protocols. And it allows for really cool things, like sharing pictures and music libraries over a network with a simple click.
That's another definition of progress: not just making technology, but making technology available.
(disclaimer: this is of course a very narrow definition of progress, since it doesn't enhance well being or general happiness, but you get my drift)
"Hmmm, does this mean windows will now expire after 3 uses!"
;-)
One can only hope.
In many cases, this is actually the user experience, but I've been told it's a bug, not a feature.
Knock yourself out you horrible linux user you.
...trying some reverse psychology here, aiming for guilt, revulsion and a subconscious unnatural urge to play with his erm... garageband)
I am really cheering on the port to OS X, and I really really hope it'll include the database.
You have No Idea how popular this could become.
Please, include a simple mySQL installer and setup wizzard (or better yet, integrate that in the KOffice installer).
If they succeed, they deserve the world (and maybe a chunk or two of Mars).
You know, I'm totally into Apple. I think their hardware, combined with the soft, is actually an incredibly good deal. I've been buying Apple's since before the macintosh and never felt cheated.
... we're talking about commodities, appliances, walkman thingies, gadgets.
But, but
And if all's said and done, I won't buy one for $250 - and that's btw only the price in the USA, the rest of the world pays more. It's just not worth that kind of money TO ME.
I don't care about the intrinsic value, the clever positioning, the great looks. All true, all beautiful, but still too much money. I heard Jobs explaining the price position and even then I knew he wasn't talking to me.
I hope they will move beyond this strategic thinking and go back to the basic marketing tantra: "what is it that people want."
I mean, who is going to say "hey, I don't have $300 for 15GB, but for $250 I can either buy this 4GB mini or this 15GB Rio, Dell or whatever... Hey, the mini is so cleverly priced, only $50 more than a 1GB flashplayer, I think I'll go for the mini"
People want an iPod for less than $200. And given the nature of this market, I really really hope they will provide before someone else does.
Disclaimer: I realize I'm for once not Apple's target audience, so I might be totally off base here, but I can't keep from wondering if they have rightly assessed THEIR target audience. For their sake, I hope they have, but more importantly, for my sake, I hope they'll soon target ME ME ME and make a say 2GB mini for $100 (hey double the capacity of a flash player and 50% of the price, wow, whatever) and a say 10GB ipod for $250. (and inbetween I guess there's a nice price-point for the 4GB mini).
Because in the end, what's so strategically bad about playing THE WHOLE market?
That hot new auto-toast functionality. You can buy a latte upgrade set to boot.
I'm super happy with 10.3.2, but why not want more? Gimme gimme gimme!
OK, this is a great opportunity for other linux groups to offer support and immigration options to latin american and african users.
:-)
Go forth and multiply