Yes, and yes. The reason we have schools is because ten thousand years of human history has demonstrated that they work. Every generation, there are some kids born who think, for whatever reason, that they don't need school. These kids are simply mistaken. The lucky ones get over it. The unlucky ones don't. Which one will you be?
First: Jef Raskin did not design the Mac UI. He wasn't even involved with he. Rather, he was the vision guy behind the Macintosh. He came up with the idea of an easy-to-use computer and convinced Apple's board to pursue it. When Steve Jobs took over the Macintosh project, Jef left. That was 1981, years before there was anything even like the Macintosh UI.
Second: The Mac UI was essentially identical to the Lisa UI. The key difference was that on the Mac the pixels were square. The user experience -- overlapping windows, the mouse, the menu bar --was exactly the same.
That's complete bullshit, and probably a troll to boot.
The original Apple Computer logo was a woodcut drawing of Isaac Newton sitting beneath an apple tree with the inscription, "A mind forever voyaging through strange seas of thought alone. You can see a picture of it here. The bitten-apple logo was an invention of Rob Janoff of Regis McKenna.
The blurb was incorrect. Jef did not design the Mac user interface. He had basically nothing to do with the Mac, in fact. He started the project with his idea for a computer that should be easy to use, but he left the Mac project in 1981, years before the team produced an actual computer.
Jef Raskin had practically nothing to do with the Macintosh. He had the initial vision of an easy-to-use computer appliance, but he left the Mac project in 1981, a full three years before the Macintosh shipped. Apart from the core vision, which started with Jef but rapidly diverged from what he had in mind, there's essentially no Raskin in the Mac.
Well... yes and no. A smart person needs to understand that logic is just one tool among many. Common sense is another. Intuition is another. There are others. Just like having a hammer doesn't let you drive screws, knowing only about logic doesn't help you get through life. All this emphasis on "think for yourself" skirts around what I think is a very important fact: That other people are smarter than we are. To reject all authority is an incredibly arrogant thing to do.
Also, while skepticism is an important trait, some people take it too far. To assume someone is lying in the complete absence of any evidence to that effect is just another type of naïveté.
I don't think of it as learning for learning's sake, though I think that's probably a valid point of view. I look at it as learning so you can be smart.
Three key premises here. Premise number one: You are not smart enough. There's so much to know, so much to understand, so many ideas to which you've never been exposed. You are not smart enough yet.
Premise number two: The only way to become smart is to learn things.
Premise number three: The best way to learn things is to be taught.
Too many kids today go to school with the attitude that they want to study X so they can become a professional Y. That's a mistake. They need to go to school so that they can become smart, so that they can subsequently become a professional whatever they want.
A smart person should have a favorite poem. A smart person should be able to cook a gourmet meal. A smart person should be able to change his own oil. A smart person should be able to balance his check book. A smart person should be able to understand the law. A smart person should be able to discuss politics. A smart person should be able to appreciate music and art. A smart person should be able to juggle.
It's bad when somebody focuses on one area of study to the exclusion of all others. It's worse when somebody who has become expert in one particular discipline mistakenly thinks he's now smart. Somebody who knows everything there is to know about programming a computer but who is ignorant of poetry or biology or politics isn't smart. At best, he could be described as a sort of self-induced idiot savant.
I loaded up 18 credits every semester like an eager naive person only to discover 3 (1 class) of those 18 had any relevance whatsoever to my area of specialization.
It's important to be well-rounded. Specialization is for insects.
I've been to the local Mac users' groups and practically everyone who shows up there owns several Macs.
May I introduce you to a new and wonderful idea called the "self-selected sample?" Friend, only a tiny fraction of Mac users even know what a "user group" is.
Why are you arguing with statistically sound market research? Isn't that kind of like shouting into a hurricane?
Yes, yes, you're brilliant. Did you miss the fact that I specifically talked about the requirement for a dedicated AVC decoder chip in this comment? Then you came along and, in response to my notes about the death of SD video, said "How about H.264?" Making it clear that you were confused about the difference between the hardware and software aspects of the discussion.
Yet again, you are not understanding me. You should really see about getting that checked out.
Most people do not play computer games. Okay? I don't care how big the industry is in dollars. As a fraction of the potential customer base, people who play computer games just don't count. There aren't enough of them.
Apple's key demographic is young, professional parents. These folks just don't play computer games. Every penny Apple might spend trying to woo computer game makers to port to their platform would essentially be wasted, because the people who are going to buy Macs are not interested in computer games. They're interested in taking their home movies of their toddlers and putting them on DVDs to mail to the grandparents. That's the key Apple home user demographic, right there.
Until you understand this, nothing Apple does will ever make sense to you. Your "wise the fuck up" remark is just a symptom of your overarching myopia.
I'm not going to bother arguing whether or not a electrical outlet and security cord is a dealbreaker
Then take my word for it: They are.
That was Apple Stores retail only.
No, that was a telephone survey conducted in January of all Apple customers who bought Macs between 9/25/04 and 12/25/04. Half of respondents self-identified as Windows users. It wasn't limited to retail store purchases.
When the original Bondi Blue iMac was first shipping, Apple sat down with their education customers and asked, "What can we do to this computer to make it more suitable for your needs?" They were given some very specific answers. The result was the eMac. In fact, when the eMac was first released, it wasn't even available to the general public. Only schools could buy it.
Now any EDU customer with their brain screwed on is going to figure out they can save ~$200 (25%!) per machine by going with 3rd Party monitors and keyboards.
The added cost would far outweigh. Just look at the simplest possible side-effect: You'd be doubling the number of electrical outlets you need. Doubling it. That's huge. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Procurement costs alone would be gigantic.
Not to mention the security problems. The customers would have to spend a fortune purchasing and installing security equipment to tie down each and every one of those little computers. Practically speaking, nobody can steal an eMac. It's big and bulky and impossible to conceal. Stealing a mini would be child's play... literally! The cost of labor required to lock each mini to a desk would be enormous.
Very few Mac users want more Macs???
Yes. There are about 40 million individual, non-business Mac owners out there. Of that number, fewer than one percent respond that they own more than one Mac. Of those, nine out of ten own one Mac desktop and one Mac laptop. When asked, Apple customers consistently respond that they are not interested in purchasing additional computers. Market research trumps anecdotal evidence every time.
As for "switchers", my guess is 20% of sales tops.
Fully one out of every two Mac sales during Q42004 was made to a customer who self-identified as a Windows user.
We don't have to guess at this stuff. We have actual data.
Um. Dude? H.264 is a video compression algorithm. It's better known as AVC. S-video is an analog video plug. DVI and HDMI are combination analog and video plugs; HDMI also carries audio.
H.264/AVC is software. The stuff I was talking about is hardware.
You bought the wrong Mac. If the mini is too slow for you, you should not have bought it. It is not meant to be a computer for just anybody. It's meant to be a computer for a very specific segment of the market. If you wanted more, an iMac or a Power Mac G5 should have been your choices.
Your comment about the wireless daughter-card looking "like a last-minute hack" made me laugh out loud. I hope the sharp blow to the head that you receive from a clue stick doesn't hurt you too much.
1) People who would otherwise buy eMacs (schools, etc)
No. The eMac was specifically designed to meet the needs of education customers. It all comes in one box. A mini would be the opposite of what these customers want.
2) People with older G3 Macs that are looking for a cheap upgrade
Possibly, but only for people with Power Mac G3s, because anybody with a G3-era iMac isn't going to want a mini. Replacing a G3 iMac with a mini would necessitate buying a new display to go along with it, and by that point you're up near iMac prices. And somebody who bought a Power Mac G3 is probably going to be a Power Mac G5 customer, not a mini customer, all other things being equal.
3) People with newer Macs that want a second machine
There are very, very few of these people. Of those that exist, most are going to want to buy an all-in-one second machine, like an eMac or an iMac.
4) Switchers or PC users who are Mac Curious.
Yes.
5) New computer users
Emphatically no. Have you priced a Mac mini as part of a complete computer kit? Monitor, keyboard, mouse plus mini adds up to being just a few bucks less than the significantly better equipped iMac. These customers will buy an iMac instead.
For numbers 1, 2, 3 and 5, the mini would be a bad choice. It's only a good choice for number 4. But that's okay, because there are probably 50 million number 4s out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Not bullshit. Just poorly worded. Can you tell the difference?
Yes, and yes. The reason we have schools is because ten thousand years of human history has demonstrated that they work. Every generation, there are some kids born who think, for whatever reason, that they don't need school. These kids are simply mistaken. The lucky ones get over it. The unlucky ones don't. Which one will you be?
Good lord, your post made my brain hurt.
First: Jef Raskin did not design the Mac UI. He wasn't even involved with he. Rather, he was the vision guy behind the Macintosh. He came up with the idea of an easy-to-use computer and convinced Apple's board to pursue it. When Steve Jobs took over the Macintosh project, Jef left. That was 1981, years before there was anything even like the Macintosh UI.
Second: The Mac UI was essentially identical to the Lisa UI. The key difference was that on the Mac the pixels were square. The user experience -- overlapping windows, the mouse, the menu bar --was exactly the same.
That's complete bullshit, and probably a troll to boot.
The original Apple Computer logo was a woodcut drawing of Isaac Newton sitting beneath an apple tree with the inscription, "A mind forever voyaging through strange seas of thought alone. You can see a picture of it here. The bitten-apple logo was an invention of Rob Janoff of Regis McKenna.
The blurb was incorrect. Jef did not design the Mac user interface. He had basically nothing to do with the Mac, in fact. He started the project with his idea for a computer that should be easy to use, but he left the Mac project in 1981, years before the team produced an actual computer.
Jef Raskin had practically nothing to do with the Macintosh. He had the initial vision of an easy-to-use computer appliance, but he left the Mac project in 1981, a full three years before the Macintosh shipped. Apart from the core vision, which started with Jef but rapidly diverged from what he had in mind, there's essentially no Raskin in the Mac.
Shuffled off. Shuffled, not sloughed. It's from Shakespeare, from "Hamlet."
And what happens when you are already smart going into school?
By definition, you're not. You might be naturally talented, but you're not smart. If you're not educated, you're not smart.
People need to stop confusing raw talent with actual prowess.
It sounds from your description like you're going to end up educated, but not smart. Do you know the difference?
Well ... yes and no. A smart person needs to understand that logic is just one tool among many. Common sense is another. Intuition is another. There are others. Just like having a hammer doesn't let you drive screws, knowing only about logic doesn't help you get through life. All this emphasis on "think for yourself" skirts around what I think is a very important fact: That other people are smarter than we are. To reject all authority is an incredibly arrogant thing to do.
Also, while skepticism is an important trait, some people take it too far. To assume someone is lying in the complete absence of any evidence to that effect is just another type of naïveté.
Heh. Whatever you say, man. Whatever you say.
I don't think of it as learning for learning's sake, though I think that's probably a valid point of view. I look at it as learning so you can be smart.
Three key premises here. Premise number one: You are not smart enough. There's so much to know, so much to understand, so many ideas to which you've never been exposed. You are not smart enough yet.
Premise number two: The only way to become smart is to learn things.
Premise number three: The best way to learn things is to be taught.
Too many kids today go to school with the attitude that they want to study X so they can become a professional Y. That's a mistake. They need to go to school so that they can become smart, so that they can subsequently become a professional whatever they want.
A smart person should have a favorite poem. A smart person should be able to cook a gourmet meal. A smart person should be able to change his own oil. A smart person should be able to balance his check book. A smart person should be able to understand the law. A smart person should be able to discuss politics. A smart person should be able to appreciate music and art. A smart person should be able to juggle.
It's bad when somebody focuses on one area of study to the exclusion of all others. It's worse when somebody who has become expert in one particular discipline mistakenly thinks he's now smart. Somebody who knows everything there is to know about programming a computer but who is ignorant of poetry or biology or politics isn't smart. At best, he could be described as a sort of self-induced idiot savant.
I loaded up 18 credits every semester like an eager naive person only to discover 3 (1 class) of those 18 had any relevance whatsoever to my area of specialization.
It's important to be well-rounded. Specialization is for insects.
Mac sales were up 25%, but if 50% were "switchers", that means a large number of Mac customers have stopped buying Macs.
You do know that that's nonsense, right? People who buy a Mac do not typically go back to the Apple store and buy another Mac the next month.
Where do you think I got this data? Would it be too much trouble for you to use your brain for ten seconds and figure it out?
I've been to the local Mac users' groups and practically everyone who shows up there owns several Macs.
May I introduce you to a new and wonderful idea called the "self-selected sample?" Friend, only a tiny fraction of Mac users even know what a "user group" is.
Why are you arguing with statistically sound market research? Isn't that kind of like shouting into a hurricane?
Yes, yes, you're brilliant. Did you miss the fact that I specifically talked about the requirement for a dedicated AVC decoder chip in this comment? Then you came along and, in response to my notes about the death of SD video, said "How about H.264?" Making it clear that you were confused about the difference between the hardware and software aspects of the discussion.
Yet again, you are not understanding me. You should really see about getting that checked out.
Most people do not play computer games. Okay? I don't care how big the industry is in dollars. As a fraction of the potential customer base, people who play computer games just don't count. There aren't enough of them.
Apple's key demographic is young, professional parents. These folks just don't play computer games. Every penny Apple might spend trying to woo computer game makers to port to their platform would essentially be wasted, because the people who are going to buy Macs are not interested in computer games. They're interested in taking their home movies of their toddlers and putting them on DVDs to mail to the grandparents. That's the key Apple home user demographic, right there.
Until you understand this, nothing Apple does will ever make sense to you. Your "wise the fuck up" remark is just a symptom of your overarching myopia.
I'm not going to bother arguing whether or not a electrical outlet and security cord is a dealbreaker
Then take my word for it: They are.
That was Apple Stores retail only.
No, that was a telephone survey conducted in January of all Apple customers who bought Macs between 9/25/04 and 12/25/04. Half of respondents self-identified as Windows users. It wasn't limited to retail store purchases.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, I guess.
You seem sure that the emac is what EDU wants.
... literally! The cost of labor required to lock each mini to a desk would be enormous.
When the original Bondi Blue iMac was first shipping, Apple sat down with their education customers and asked, "What can we do to this computer to make it more suitable for your needs?" They were given some very specific answers. The result was the eMac. In fact, when the eMac was first released, it wasn't even available to the general public. Only schools could buy it.
Now any EDU customer with their brain screwed on is going to figure out they can save ~$200 (25%!) per machine by going with 3rd Party monitors and keyboards.
The added cost would far outweigh. Just look at the simplest possible side-effect: You'd be doubling the number of electrical outlets you need. Doubling it. That's huge. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Procurement costs alone would be gigantic.
Not to mention the security problems. The customers would have to spend a fortune purchasing and installing security equipment to tie down each and every one of those little computers. Practically speaking, nobody can steal an eMac. It's big and bulky and impossible to conceal. Stealing a mini would be child's play
Very few Mac users want more Macs???
Yes. There are about 40 million individual, non-business Mac owners out there. Of that number, fewer than one percent respond that they own more than one Mac. Of those, nine out of ten own one Mac desktop and one Mac laptop. When asked, Apple customers consistently respond that they are not interested in purchasing additional computers. Market research trumps anecdotal evidence every time.
As for "switchers", my guess is 20% of sales tops.
Fully one out of every two Mac sales during Q42004 was made to a customer who self-identified as a Windows user.
We don't have to guess at this stuff. We have actual data.
Um. Dude? H.264 is a video compression algorithm. It's better known as AVC. S-video is an analog video plug. DVI and HDMI are combination analog and video plugs; HDMI also carries audio.
H.264/AVC is software. The stuff I was talking about is hardware.
You are completely out of your mind, dude.
You bought the wrong Mac. If the mini is too slow for you, you should not have bought it. It is not meant to be a computer for just anybody. It's meant to be a computer for a very specific segment of the market. If you wanted more, an iMac or a Power Mac G5 should have been your choices.
Your comment about the wireless daughter-card looking "like a last-minute hack" made me laugh out loud. I hope the sharp blow to the head that you receive from a clue stick doesn't hurt you too much.
1) People who would otherwise buy eMacs (schools, etc)
No. The eMac was specifically designed to meet the needs of education customers. It all comes in one box. A mini would be the opposite of what these customers want.
2) People with older G3 Macs that are looking for a cheap upgrade
Possibly, but only for people with Power Mac G3s, because anybody with a G3-era iMac isn't going to want a mini. Replacing a G3 iMac with a mini would necessitate buying a new display to go along with it, and by that point you're up near iMac prices. And somebody who bought a Power Mac G3 is probably going to be a Power Mac G5 customer, not a mini customer, all other things being equal.
3) People with newer Macs that want a second machine
There are very, very few of these people. Of those that exist, most are going to want to buy an all-in-one second machine, like an eMac or an iMac.
4) Switchers or PC users who are Mac Curious.
Yes.
5) New computer users
Emphatically no. Have you priced a Mac mini as part of a complete computer kit? Monitor, keyboard, mouse plus mini adds up to being just a few bucks less than the significantly better equipped iMac. These customers will buy an iMac instead.
For numbers 1, 2, 3 and 5, the mini would be a bad choice. It's only a good choice for number 4. But that's okay, because there are probably 50 million number 4s out there.
But that's the thing. DVI is both analog and digital on the same port. That's why you can plug a simple adapter cable into a DVI port and get VGA out.
It would be silly if HDMI didn't carry the analog signal as well.