Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 07:07:52 -0700 From: "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <chad@shire.net> To: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Cc: David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net>, FreeBSD-Questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems Message-ID: <5477BA08-D93B-49F9-BE73-CBCADDD25BE6@shire.net> In-Reply-To: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNGENBFCAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> References: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNGENBFCAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 19, 2005, at 2:43 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC [mailto:chad@shire.net] >> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 10:33 AM >> To: Ted Mittelstaedt >> Cc: David Kelly; FreeBSD-Questions@freebsd.org >> Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems >> >> >> >> On Nov 17, 2005, at 6:01 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> >>> >>> The plan is to come out with new gear every few years so as to >>> extract >>> money from >>> the customer base. As I already said in my first post, lots of >>> people >>> are like you - >>> perfectly happy NOT buying the latest Apple product. Apple wants >>> money >>> from them - >>> so Apple has to shake things up. >> >> Those same people will continue to use their older Apple HW. No need >> for them to be shook up. > > So then Apple is coming out with all that new hardware for > nothing. Too > bad > for them then since according to you nobody will be buying it. > > You can't have it both ways. Either the Apple userbase will > continue to > use their older Apple hardware and not buy the new WintelApple gear - > in which case this move to Intel chips will be a giant flop - or they > will > rush to the new gear and dump all their old gear, thus causing untold > millions of bucks to flow into the Apple coffers. Whatever you say Ted. No one is asking to have anything both ways. People will upgrade their Macs on pretty much the schedule they would have before. A few early adopters will rush in. Whatever you say Ted. > > I think Apple knows it's userbase and they know that if they simply > kept > going with the same Power PC architecture that there would not be > a compelling enough reason for the userbase to pay money for new > hardware. Whatever you say Ted > Since the goal is to get money, they needed to do something that would > cause real differentiation with the new product. Changing the CPU is > definitely > that. Now, with MacOS X86, Apple can put real marketing pressure > on the > laggarts in it's customer base to upgrade. And they will, and > Apple will > get a pile of money for doing it. Whatever you say Ted. Yes, Apple's goal os to make money, and over the long run the change will pay off since if they fall behind the curve over the long run they suffer. But it won't cause a huge spike in sales and a huge jump in profits. You need to understand the market better Ted. > >> You make claims but have nothing more than >> your opinion to support it. > > Naturally, since Apple isn't going to tell the real truth - which > is they > want to > extract a pile of money from you - their customer. Whatever you say Ted > > You keep talking like the laptop market is paramount - but who says it > is? Laptops are always more expensive, and much more fragile. Do you > honestly think that laptops make up the bulk of Apple's sales today? Yes, Ted, laptops are fragile, but they are also a very important part of ANY computer manufacturer's lineup and a growing part of their mix. Go read the sales stats Ted. For any PC manufacturer the laptop is growing greater than the desktop. > When > you can get a G4 minimac for under $500? > >> Logic doesn't even support it. >> > > No, in this case there's real logic behind it. It is rather > unflattering > to the > typical Apple consumer of course - nobody wants to admit that they are > being manipulated, obviously - but it is very logical. No its not Ted. Only to you Ted. History doesn't support it. Logic doesn't support it. Apple's efforts to continue support for PPC for a long while don't support it. The chip market facts don't support it. Whatever you say Ted > Much more so than > the official line from Apple which basically is a statement that the > Apple > hardware designers aren't smart enough to design a laptop that will > handle the G5 "Mommy, the chip is to hot, it hurts our hands, wahhh > wahhhh > wahhh" Whatever you say Ted. Just remember that chip experts, who don't work for Apple, agree with me, not you. IBM agrees with me, not you. Motorola agrees with me, not you. If Apple really only cared about pushing more kit (instead of creating and nurturing a growing market over the long haul) don't you think they would have come out with a G5 laptop if it were possible? Go read Apple's statements over the last 2 years on a G5 laptop. Google is your friend > > But on second thought, these are the designers that made a computer > look like a table lamp, so maybe they really -aren't- smart enough > to do > it. Whatever you say Ted. Chad > > Ted > --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad@shire.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5477BA08-D93B-49F9-BE73-CBCADDD25BE6>