Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How many find this offensive?
- Thread starter applephysci
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
no offense at all.
But I think they are some kind of ignorant about the potential to sell stuff to the mac users community.
But who buys screen savers nowadays?
But I think they are some kind of ignorant about the potential to sell stuff to the mac users community.
But who buys screen savers nowadays?
I agree, also a touch of arrogance. I didn't like it's tone - it came off as too patronizing - worded for Windows users but intended for Mac users.
I find them rather regressive. The screen has the ability to power down and save energy. Particularly with LED screens, AFAIK there's not that much of an issue of burning out the light element by excessive power cycling. Most of my computers are set to blank briefly (or in the case of my iMac, do the iTunes screensaver briefly) and then turn the display off for longer periods of time.
who uses screensavers these days? LCD and LED displays are designed so that they dont burn out or be left with a picture image of their previous display. Back then with the CRT monitors a screen saver was needed to prevent that
or screen savers were just for show. but nowadays ppl just turn off their screens or set it to blank to save power. theres no need for a screen saver these days unless you want it to show something nice
just my lil rant about this
i take no offense just rather, thats an ignorant statement.
or screen savers were just for show. but nowadays ppl just turn off their screens or set it to blank to save power. theres no need for a screen saver these days unless you want it to show something nice
just my lil rant about this
i take no offense just rather, thats an ignorant statement.
I see it as nothing more than an opinion. As to screensavers, I have the artwork one, as default, though it rarely ever kicks in.
Yeah I think so too; I use a screensaver only because I can - I don't need to, I just like having something on the screen for those few minutes while I step away. I could just as easily go without it and be fine.
Meh! No offense taken here, even if I used screen savers any more ... (now desktop background art--THAT I care about, but I create my own! 
)
)
None whatsoever. The point is, is that a true figure? If it is then obviously no offence since it's correct. If it's wrong then whoever wrote it demonstrated ignorance in not checking facts (and presenting a spurious statistic as fact) and that's their problem. If the author was trying to rile Mac users then (s)he's just sad. Personally, I'm more offended by people whose appliances become such an extension of themselves that they can suffer 'offence by proxy'...
Screen "savers" are an anachronism. and total of zero use today.
It used to be that everyone used CRT monitors and in the early days there was no way for the computer to turn off the power on the monitor or to switch it to standby. The power switch was the only way. CRTs have a problem that if the same non-moving image is left on the screen it will "burn" that image into the phosphor and there will be a ghost image even when the CRT is powered off. It was common to see CRTs with a burned-in login screen. So a moving image that came on automatically actually did "save" your CRT.
Today CRTS can be switch to standby of off from the computers so there is no need for a screen saver. Also LCD panels don't have the burn in problem.
It used to be that everyone used CRT monitors and in the early days there was no way for the computer to turn off the power on the monitor or to switch it to standby. The power switch was the only way. CRTs have a problem that if the same non-moving image is left on the screen it will "burn" that image into the phosphor and there will be a ghost image even when the CRT is powered off. It was common to see CRTs with a burned-in login screen. So a moving image that came on automatically actually did "save" your CRT.
Today CRTS can be switch to standby of off from the computers so there is no need for a screen saver. Also LCD panels don't have the burn in problem.
It all really depends when the 'article' was created. If it was created in 1999, which is the first year of the website's copyright, then 3 out of 100 users (or 3% market share) is actually more then actual ratio of Mac vs. PC users. Though I hate to quote wikipedia, the entry regarding "Macintosh" is well cited and includes links to Apple's market share throughout different years.
Link.
The FAQ entry the OP displays was probably written pre 2005 where Apple's market share was around 2-3%. The website is probably run by a few individuals who care more about making screen savers and earning money than keeping an up to date FAQ.
Personally I do not find the article offensive in the least bit. All of the information they provided aureately describes why they don't make screen savers for Mac. They are essentially saying it is possible to make high quality screen savers for Mac, but it is expensive for them, and they can't do it without loosing features of their product. They justify not learning how (or taking the time to make them from scratch) by saying the Apple's market share is low. Again probably at the time the FAQ was written, 3% market share was accurate.
Early 2009 reports indicate that the Macintosh market share is at 7.5% (US market). The developers of this screensaver website must ask themselves, is it financially productive to spend the time and money catering to a group which only comprises of around 8% of the market? Or cater to the Windows audience which makes up most of the remaining 92% of the market (I could not find decent unbloated market share numbers for Linux or Microsoft).
Link.
The FAQ entry the OP displays was probably written pre 2005 where Apple's market share was around 2-3%. The website is probably run by a few individuals who care more about making screen savers and earning money than keeping an up to date FAQ.
Personally I do not find the article offensive in the least bit. All of the information they provided aureately describes why they don't make screen savers for Mac. They are essentially saying it is possible to make high quality screen savers for Mac, but it is expensive for them, and they can't do it without loosing features of their product. They justify not learning how (or taking the time to make them from scratch) by saying the Apple's market share is low. Again probably at the time the FAQ was written, 3% market share was accurate.
Early 2009 reports indicate that the Macintosh market share is at 7.5% (US market). The developers of this screensaver website must ask themselves, is it financially productive to spend the time and money catering to a group which only comprises of around 8% of the market? Or cater to the Windows audience which makes up most of the remaining 92% of the market (I could not find decent unbloated market share numbers for Linux or Microsoft).
Only 2% of Americans are overweight and use overpriced cell/internet providers.
It's wrong (the number is wrong) - but it's right ( for many, developing for Mac isn't an option. Investing in hardware, training, and development for comparatively negligible increase in sales? Not a financial plus).
It's certainly not offensive - why on earth would you think it that?
It's certainly not offensive - why on earth would you think it that?