I'm sure that a certain amount of consumer demand drove MS to release this thing in time for X-mas 2005, but it was the specter of the PS3 and the desire to get a jump on Sony for an early lead in market share that is primarily to blame here. MS has been stating their desire to dominate the console gaming market since the first Xbox was publicly spoken of. If there are problems with the 360, I'm certain that a compressed release schedule driven by Sony is as much to blame as anything, and that falls squarely back in MS's lap.
"Which is the essence of why people get macs. They're less annoying. If you don't think generic wintel boxes are annoying, then there is nothing of appeal in the mac for you."
This is probably true. Like I said in other posts, I can't argue that Apple doesn't make a well designed product. I guess that there are only so many people that see the value of a BMW and are willing to pay BMW prices. Same goes for Apple. I'd happily buy an Apple because I recognize that it's a superior product to WinTel if it were not for the sticker shock.
People keep saying that the first CU drove out a ton of subscribers but I've never seen any evidence to support that. I played SWG for 6 months after launch and picked it up again after the CU. The server I played on was as crowded as ever and I ran into a ridiculous number of people who recognized my old character despite the fact that he'd been on ice for quite a while. My suspicion is that there is a small but vocal contingent that was unhappy with the change and even more unhappy that it didn't sink the game.
I will now be accused of being an SOE employee and / or fanboi for expressing that opinion:)
I have a certain amount of respect for the people that have played SWG since launch and I do sympathize with them over the NGE. I'd be pretty ticked too if I spent all that time gathering resources, grinding out professions, collecting trinkets, earning your padawan, leveling him up, etc... to have all that toil basically dashed in a mass simplification upgrade.
That said, I'm kinda glad to see that SOE is doing this. I played SWG for a few month after it launched and found that it took what felt like a LOT of time to advance your character beyond a certain point and what was suposed to be an outlet for entertainment became a drudgery to me. I checked back in after CU and played out in space for a while, tried out the new combat system which, while confusing initially, seemed like an improvement over the old one to me. That feeling of drudgery was still there though.
SWG is the last of the old school MMOs. SWG is hugely complex and requires massive amounts of time to feel like you're accomplishing anything. Non hardcore gamers need not apply. I read a quote somewhere that summed up how I felt about it pretty accurately: playing SWG is like being a background extra in one of the Star Wars films.
Games like WOW and City of Heroes are the new gen which I think that SWG is wisely trying to become. In CoH, getting rolling is pretty quick, the game is easy to learn as you go along, combat is intuative and the whole package is just FUN. I can pop in and play for 30 minutes, have fun and feel like I got somewhere. As it functions right now, that is impossible with SWG and it's a shame because the Star Wars universe should be nothing but adventure and excitement. It's a mass market phenomenon that deserves an accessible MMO. Personally I hope that the NGE gets that parts right because they've been swinging and missing for nearly three years now and I really want to love that game:)
I have a certain amount of respect for the peopel that have played SWG since launch and I do sympathize with them over the NGE. I'd be pretty ticked too if I spent all that time gathering resources, grinding out professions, collecting trinkets, etc... to have it basically dashed in a mass simplification upgrade.
That said, I'm kinda glad to see that SOE is doing this. I played SWG for a few month after it launched and found that it took what felt like a LOT of time to advance your character beyond a certain point and what was suposed to be an outlet for entertainment became a drudgery to me. I checked back in after CU and played out in space for a while, tried out the new combat system which, while confusing initially, seemed like an improvement over the old one to me. That feeling of drudgery was still there though.
SWG is the last of the old school MMOs. SWG is hugely complex and requires massive amounts of time to feel like you're accomplishing anything. Non hardcore gamers need not apply. I read a quote somewhere that summed up how I felt about it pretty accurately: playing SWG is like being a background extra in one of the Star Wars films.
Games like WOW and City of Heroes are the new gen which I think that SWG is wisely trying to become. In CoH, getting rolling is pretty quick, the game is easy to learn as you go along, combat is intuative and the whole package is just FUN. I can pop in and play for 30 minutes, have fun and feel like I got somewhere. As it functions right now, that is impossible with SWG and it's a shame because the Star Wars universe should be nothing but adventure and excitement. Personally I hope that the NGE gets that parts right because they've been swinging and missing for nearly three years now and I really want to love that game:)
"Which isn't exactly obscene, considering bluetooth/wifi adapters could easily run you around $40 a piece, and it's $99 for both."
No, the $99 isn't obscene, but the point is that it's still a tack on price for an item (well, wireless networking if not bluetooth anyway) that is commonly found on other computers now a days. Add on that $99 and the price to performance / features value gets even worse.
"Not necessarily, but it is nice. It's like any other feature. Some people might be fine with a big computer, no floppy drive, only a CD reader, no USB, no Firewire, and a 10 GB hard drive. If those people buy a mini, they'll be spending lots of money for things they don't really need. Regardless, when you compare the mini to a comparable machine running Windows, they're comparably priced."
At that same $499 Mini price point, you will get much more PC for your money. Find a PC that compares to it feature wise (obviously not size wise) and you'll spend much less, $150 to $200 less for a name brand machine if you keep your eyes open. Either way you gauge it, it's tough to argue that a Mini is a better value than a PC.
"First, you're ignoring the nice in-between machine, which is the iMac. The current iMacs are pretty great, and not badly priced. Yes, they have a built-in monitor, and if you don't like that, then you won't like the iMac. Still, I'm sure that if you compare comparable machines on the Windows side, and you'll find the iMac is well-priced (if you can find a comparable machine)."
You're right, I forgot about the iMac which is much more consumer than the PowerMac. The last iteration of iMacs (again, the most RECENT line, still trailing the rest of the industry) has gotten closer to the PC in terms of price for features / performance. Well priced? Better priced than it was in the past maybe, but you can still get a better PC for much less, LCD display included. It's hard to argue that the iMac is "well priced" when I can get a 3Ghz machine with 1GB of RAM and an LCD for the same price.
I'm not indifferent to the quality of the design of Apple products and I do believe that quality should allow them a certain premium price, but 30 to 50% higher prices than comparably spec'd products? If you have very specific needs from the form factor maybe but the Mini just isn't the great equalizer that some Apple fans claim it to be.
See, it's the "more and more" part and the "these days" part that I have issues with. On the $499 model, blue tooth and airport functionality are $99 additions. 512MB of RAM standard just started with the most recent Mini rev. It's still a computer at the tail end of the entery level spec chart. I'll give it some credit for its size, but I really don't think that most people go out and shop for a PC with "Must be no larger than a cigar box" at the top of their list. When you buy a computer, you have a budget in mind and a list of tasks you want it to be able to accomplish. If it's small, that's great, but it's not going to bring the average person in the door for a potential purchase.
When you get away from the Mini and start looking at Power Macs, they no longer have the size advantage, they're just nice looking towers that cost a lot and, again, run pretty OS slower than a similar priced PC runs Windows.
"The mini is still an Apple product and gets the same costs of development and QC. It's also marketed to PC users that are interested in Macs, who hopefully already have a monitor/keyboard/mouse.
Should it be $250? For a desktop computer? Whoa."
Well, $250 would be great obviously:) I was actually thinking more like, if that's what they care to charge for the Mini, it should at least be a competive computer with PCs at the same price point. The Mini can't even really run OSX well with all of the graphical flair turned on. Saying that a potential Mini buyer probably already has a keyboard, mouse, and monitor is making excuses for its short comings. The fact of the matter is that it's still a very pricey computer for what it is. And really, can you think of another major manufacturer that sells a computer and doesn't include a keyboard and mouse? Are basic input devices really optional in Apple's world?
The whole reason? Come on now. I can think of a bunch of others including percieved ease of use compared to Windows, stylish design, quieter hardware, and hip cache.
I kinda agree but have to take issue with a couple of points:
1) "Apple hardware costs more because it goes through more quality control and has better design. Neither of those comes cheap, and they are appreciated by people who appreciate such things." This is partly true. Yes, they're well designed and tested machines, but Apple's larger hardware prices also have a lot to do with them being married to a bottom line profit percentage. They don't command as large of a market share and people hang onto their Macs longer than the average PC user so Apple has a harder time making money in volume than, say, Dell or HP.
2) "what's wrong with the mini? Dirt cheap as far as computing goes and a very capable system to boot." Nothing's wrong with it per say, but when you add on the price of a keyboard, mouse, monitor, etc... and do a price to performance comparison, it still doesn't stand up to the average PC at the same price point. While the Mini is a decent low cost computer relative to *Apple's* usual offerings, price actually still is a reason to skip Apple though it may drop a little farther down the list now.
The Mini is a neat idea and a little bit tempting but it wreaks of Apple making a half hearted attempt at a lower cost offering that goes way out of it's way to not be a threat to their iMac, iBook, and Powerbook business.
How "uninitiated" would one have to be to confuse what The Onion does with what The New York Times does? Well, OK, the NYT isn't a great example since Judith Miller testified. How about the Washington Post?:)
"Will Yellowtab raise BeOS from the ashes and inflame public interest in the OS?""
I read this sort of story on Slashdot every month or so. Some company or user group is trying to keep their 0% market share OS alive, like Newton OS, Amiga, Be, OS/2, and I'm sure there are others. Has there ever been a success story? Has anyone ever managed to resurect an OS and give it a respectable application base and user base? With all respect to the supporters, I just have to roll my eyes everytime I read something like this because I've never seen anyone succeed at keeping an OS viable. Maybe it depends on your personal definition of success...
Yeah, but Apple's been down that road before and didn't hang with it. One of Steve's first actions upon returning to Apple was to kill the OS license program.
The size of the screen is nice, the guts no the low end model are reasonably powerful but this design is just... Blah. Tons of white space on the front of it, it just looks so bland. And, while the guts are reasonably powerful, it still can't keep pace with a typical PC at the same price point...
Let's not forget that AAC was developed by Apple. Windows Media and MP# "work" too, but Apple has a vested interested in establishing their audio format, especially since it's got a little DRM built into it.
...but based on the tried and true formula that fueled the adoption of many other technologies, I think we should consider a PORN based distro. It worked for VCRs, DVD, cable TV, and broadband internet, why couldn't it work for Linux?:)
Yeah, but it's over a grand for a 12.1" screen. Who in their right mind would buy something like that when it's sitting on the shelves at Best Buy next to a lot of laptops by HP, Sony, and Toshiba that are snappy dressers too, along with a LOT more Mhz, MBs, and GBs for the same amount of money. Gee, they're cool, but a terrible value...
Sales will never "soar" as long as they are as expensive as iPods are as expensive as they are. At some point Apple's iPod sales will come to a screeching halt because everyone who really wants one will have bought one and, like their Macs, they'll hang onto it for a good long time because it was so expensive. As for the rest of us that like the idea of an iPod but bristle at the price, we'll find a reasonable alternative in something like the Nomad Zen (or whatever else is close enough for you).
Slashdot Mirror
That's nothing compared to what they'll loose if this instability thing turns out to be a production or design flaw :)
Chris
I'm sure that a certain amount of consumer demand drove MS to release this thing in time for X-mas 2005, but it was the specter of the PS3 and the desire to get a jump on Sony for an early lead in market share that is primarily to blame here. MS has been stating their desire to dominate the console gaming market since the first Xbox was publicly spoken of. If there are problems with the 360, I'm certain that a compressed release schedule driven by Sony is as much to blame as anything, and that falls squarely back in MS's lap.
Chris
"Which is the essence of why people get macs. They're less annoying. If you don't think generic wintel boxes are annoying, then there is nothing of appeal in the mac for you."
This is probably true. Like I said in other posts, I can't argue that Apple doesn't make a well designed product. I guess that there are only so many people that see the value of a BMW and are willing to pay BMW prices. Same goes for Apple. I'd happily buy an Apple because I recognize that it's a superior product to WinTel if it were not for the sticker shock.
Chris
People keep saying that the first CU drove out a ton of subscribers but I've never seen any evidence to support that. I played SWG for 6 months after launch and picked it up again after the CU. The server I played on was as crowded as ever and I ran into a ridiculous number of people who recognized my old character despite the fact that he'd been on ice for quite a while. My suspicion is that there is a small but vocal contingent that was unhappy with the change and even more unhappy that it didn't sink the game.
:)
I will now be accused of being an SOE employee and / or fanboi for expressing that opinion
Chris
I have a certain amount of respect for the people that have played SWG since launch and I do sympathize with them over the NGE. I'd be pretty ticked too if I spent all that time gathering resources, grinding out professions, collecting trinkets, earning your padawan, leveling him up, etc... to have all that toil basically dashed in a mass simplification upgrade.
:)
That said, I'm kinda glad to see that SOE is doing this. I played SWG for a few month after it launched and found that it took what felt like a LOT of time to advance your character beyond a certain point and what was suposed to be an outlet for entertainment became a drudgery to me. I checked back in after CU and played out in space for a while, tried out the new combat system which, while confusing initially, seemed like an improvement over the old one to me. That feeling of drudgery was still there though.
SWG is the last of the old school MMOs. SWG is hugely complex and requires massive amounts of time to feel like you're accomplishing anything. Non hardcore gamers need not apply. I read a quote somewhere that summed up how I felt about it pretty accurately: playing SWG is like being a background extra in one of the Star Wars films.
Games like WOW and City of Heroes are the new gen which I think that SWG is wisely trying to become. In CoH, getting rolling is pretty quick, the game is easy to learn as you go along, combat is intuative and the whole package is just FUN. I can pop in and play for 30 minutes, have fun and feel like I got somewhere. As it functions right now, that is impossible with SWG and it's a shame because the Star Wars universe should be nothing but adventure and excitement. It's a mass market phenomenon that deserves an accessible MMO. Personally I hope that the NGE gets that parts right because they've been swinging and missing for nearly three years now and I really want to love that game
Chris
I have a certain amount of respect for the peopel that have played SWG since launch and I do sympathize with them over the NGE. I'd be pretty ticked too if I spent all that time gathering resources, grinding out professions, collecting trinkets, etc... to have it basically dashed in a mass simplification upgrade.
:)
That said, I'm kinda glad to see that SOE is doing this. I played SWG for a few month after it launched and found that it took what felt like a LOT of time to advance your character beyond a certain point and what was suposed to be an outlet for entertainment became a drudgery to me. I checked back in after CU and played out in space for a while, tried out the new combat system which, while confusing initially, seemed like an improvement over the old one to me. That feeling of drudgery was still there though.
SWG is the last of the old school MMOs. SWG is hugely complex and requires massive amounts of time to feel like you're accomplishing anything. Non hardcore gamers need not apply. I read a quote somewhere that summed up how I felt about it pretty accurately: playing SWG is like being a background extra in one of the Star Wars films.
Games like WOW and City of Heroes are the new gen which I think that SWG is wisely trying to become. In CoH, getting rolling is pretty quick, the game is easy to learn as you go along, combat is intuative and the whole package is just FUN. I can pop in and play for 30 minutes, have fun and feel like I got somewhere. As it functions right now, that is impossible with SWG and it's a shame because the Star Wars universe should be nothing but adventure and excitement. Personally I hope that the NGE gets that parts right because they've been swinging and missing for nearly three years now and I really want to love that game
Chris
"Which isn't exactly obscene, considering bluetooth/wifi adapters could easily run you around $40 a piece, and it's $99 for both."
No, the $99 isn't obscene, but the point is that it's still a tack on price for an item (well, wireless networking if not bluetooth anyway) that is commonly found on other computers now a days. Add on that $99 and the price to performance / features value gets even worse.
"Not necessarily, but it is nice. It's like any other feature. Some people might be fine with a big computer, no floppy drive, only a CD reader, no USB, no Firewire, and a 10 GB hard drive. If those people buy a mini, they'll be spending lots of money for things they don't really need. Regardless, when you compare the mini to a comparable machine running Windows, they're comparably priced."
At that same $499 Mini price point, you will get much more PC for your money. Find a PC that compares to it feature wise (obviously not size wise) and you'll spend much less, $150 to $200 less for a name brand machine if you keep your eyes open. Either way you gauge it, it's tough to argue that a Mini is a better value than a PC.
"First, you're ignoring the nice in-between machine, which is the iMac. The current iMacs are pretty great, and not badly priced. Yes, they have a built-in monitor, and if you don't like that, then you won't like the iMac. Still, I'm sure that if you compare comparable machines on the Windows side, and you'll find the iMac is well-priced (if you can find a comparable machine)."
You're right, I forgot about the iMac which is much more consumer than the PowerMac. The last iteration of iMacs (again, the most RECENT line, still trailing the rest of the industry) has gotten closer to the PC in terms of price for features / performance. Well priced? Better priced than it was in the past maybe, but you can still get a better PC for much less, LCD display included. It's hard to argue that the iMac is "well priced" when I can get a 3Ghz machine with 1GB of RAM and an LCD for the same price.
I'm not indifferent to the quality of the design of Apple products and I do believe that quality should allow them a certain premium price, but 30 to 50% higher prices than comparably spec'd products? If you have very specific needs from the form factor maybe but the Mini just isn't the great equalizer that some Apple fans claim it to be.
Chris
See, it's the "more and more" part and the "these days" part that I have issues with. On the $499 model, blue tooth and airport functionality are $99 additions. 512MB of RAM standard just started with the most recent Mini rev. It's still a computer at the tail end of the entery level spec chart. I'll give it some credit for its size, but I really don't think that most people go out and shop for a PC with "Must be no larger than a cigar box" at the top of their list. When you buy a computer, you have a budget in mind and a list of tasks you want it to be able to accomplish. If it's small, that's great, but it's not going to bring the average person in the door for a potential purchase.
When you get away from the Mini and start looking at Power Macs, they no longer have the size advantage, they're just nice looking towers that cost a lot and, again, run pretty OS slower than a similar priced PC runs Windows.
Chris
"The mini is still an Apple product and gets the same costs of development and QC. It's also marketed to PC users that are interested in Macs, who hopefully already have a monitor/keyboard/mouse.
:) I was actually thinking more like, if that's what they care to charge for the Mini, it should at least be a competive computer with PCs at the same price point. The Mini can't even really run OSX well with all of the graphical flair turned on. Saying that a potential Mini buyer probably already has a keyboard, mouse, and monitor is making excuses for its short comings. The fact of the matter is that it's still a very pricey computer for what it is. And really, can you think of another major manufacturer that sells a computer and doesn't include a keyboard and mouse? Are basic input devices really optional in Apple's world?
Should it be $250? For a desktop computer? Whoa."
Well, $250 would be great obviously
Chris
The whole reason? Come on now. I can think of a bunch of others including percieved ease of use compared to Windows, stylish design, quieter hardware, and hip cache.
Chris
I kinda agree but have to take issue with a couple of points:
1) "Apple hardware costs more because it goes through more quality control and has better design. Neither of those comes cheap, and they are appreciated by people who appreciate such things." This is partly true. Yes, they're well designed and tested machines, but Apple's larger hardware prices also have a lot to do with them being married to a bottom line profit percentage. They don't command as large of a market share and people hang onto their Macs longer than the average PC user so Apple has a harder time making money in volume than, say, Dell or HP.
2) "what's wrong with the mini? Dirt cheap as far as computing goes and a very capable system to boot." Nothing's wrong with it per say, but when you add on the price of a keyboard, mouse, monitor, etc... and do a price to performance comparison, it still doesn't stand up to the average PC at the same price point. While the Mini is a decent low cost computer relative to *Apple's* usual offerings, price actually still is a reason to skip Apple though it may drop a little farther down the list now.
The Mini is a neat idea and a little bit tempting but it wreaks of Apple making a half hearted attempt at a lower cost offering that goes way out of it's way to not be a threat to their iMac, iBook, and Powerbook business.
Chris
If that isn't geek porn, I don't know what is...
Chris
How "uninitiated" would one have to be to confuse what The Onion does with what The New York Times does? Well, OK, the NYT isn't a great example since Judith Miller testified. How about the Washington Post? :)
Chris
"Will Yellowtab raise BeOS from the ashes and inflame public interest in the OS?""
I read this sort of story on Slashdot every month or so. Some company or user group is trying to keep their 0% market share OS alive, like Newton OS, Amiga, Be, OS/2, and I'm sure there are others. Has there ever been a success story? Has anyone ever managed to resurect an OS and give it a respectable application base and user base? With all respect to the supporters, I just have to roll my eyes everytime I read something like this because I've never seen anyone succeed at keeping an OS viable. Maybe it depends on your personal definition of success...
Chris
Big deal, the HP in our office automatically becomes a high volume paper shredder if it isn't cleaned every 3 months or so...
Chris
Yeah, but Apple's been down that road before and didn't hang with it. One of Steve's first actions upon returning to Apple was to kill the OS license program.
Chris
The size of the screen is nice, the guts no the low end model are reasonably powerful but this design is just... Blah. Tons of white space on the front of it, it just looks so bland. And, while the guts are reasonably powerful, it still can't keep pace with a typical PC at the same price point...
meh,
Chris
Let's not forget that AAC was developed by Apple. Windows Media and MP# "work" too, but Apple has a vested interested in establishing their audio format, especially since it's got a little DRM built into it.
Chris
Well, we are looking for greater market penetration...
Chris
...but based on the tried and true formula that fueled the adoption of many other technologies, I think we should consider a PORN based distro. It worked for VCRs, DVD, cable TV, and broadband internet, why couldn't it work for Linux? :)
Chris
Maybe they got $87 million AND a couple of free Word licenses :)
Chris
The only Music Industry / UNIX Industry analogy I can see here is Darl = Michael Jackson / Linux Users = Little Boys.
Chris
It's a pilotless helicopter? Maybe it just ran away on it's own? :)
Chris
Yeah, but it's over a grand for a 12.1" screen. Who in their right mind would buy something like that when it's sitting on the shelves at Best Buy next to a lot of laptops by HP, Sony, and Toshiba that are snappy dressers too, along with a LOT more Mhz, MBs, and GBs for the same amount of money. Gee, they're cool, but a terrible value...
Chris
Sales will never "soar" as long as they are as expensive as iPods are as expensive as they are. At some point Apple's iPod sales will come to a screeching halt because everyone who really wants one will have bought one and, like their Macs, they'll hang onto it for a good long time because it was so expensive. As for the rest of us that like the idea of an iPod but bristle at the price, we'll find a reasonable alternative in something like the Nomad Zen (or whatever else is close enough for you).
Chris