thatwendigo said:
The recent example of this is wireless display, and especially over the still-hypothetical "Wireless FireWire." I provide the facts - like bandwidth, calculated transmission sizes, and so on- and people can make their minds up on their own.
Yes, I find it weird that people talk about "wireless displays" like it was an easy thing to do. Even if you could only send "commands" to it, that means it'd need to be a smart display (instead of a dumb one which only displays raw data) and you couldn't play movies on it (unless, again, you'd stream H.264 to it or something). I don't think it's possible, or if it is, it'd costs a whole lot more than even Apple's prices.
thatwendigo said:
For one thing, Apple machines are not necessarily compatible with ever RAM manufacturer on the face of the planet
Well yes, of course. Your RAM would need to be compatible (speed, pinout, etc). Just as you'd need a USB mouse and keyboard and a P-ATA IDE HD. I never said the hypotetical "switcher eMac" had to support something the current eMac doesn't.
thatwendigo said:
and for another, there's really no reason to rip the basic elements of the machine out just to reach some arbitrary price point.
Well of course there is. My idea was about a low-cost switcher eMac. I still think it's possible, and it would be a good move on Apple's part.
thatwendigo said:
One of the strengths of the mac is that it's usable out of the box with basically no setup, aside from a little question and answer that's done when you boot up, so that the system can get your configuration up and running.
Yes, that's all good and nice for the "average user", but it's not the target market for my "switcher eMac" idea.
thatwendigo said:
However, to beat the hell out of your allegation that bargain PCs are such a deal at the $600 price point, I'd like to point out a few things. I'm currently looking at the Dell, HP, Compaq, Sony, and other major manufacturer sites and speccing their lowest models. They range from $500 to $700, but one thing remains true across the board... Every single one cuts all kinds of corners that would be noticeable to anyone who uses a computer and knows what they're doing.
But as I said in my post, the end-user first argument is always the price tag, and that's what my target was with my idea.
thatwendigo said:
We're talking about old processors (Celeron 2.4s, mainly), PC2100 or PC2700 RAM, Intel Extreme integrated graphics, XP Home instead of Pro, the need to buy about $300 in usability and security software to even remotely equal OS X, and a whole host of other issues. That doesn't even begin to cover how Sony, HP, and many others have secondary markets to prop their pricing schemes on, which leaves only Dell as even a remote comparison - they're profitable and primarily in computers.
- the Celeron 2.4 is a lot more recent than a G4 1.25
- the RAM argument is valid but beside the point (the price difference is minor)
- the on-board graphics is a valid point (but even in AGP card form, a 2-years-old graphic card isn't worth more than 50$CAN, so the price difference isn't huge)
- software, I already said it in my post: yes the overall value of OS X is better, but the fact that Microsoft makes crappy products doesn't force its customers to buy extra software (there's no contract or anything).
My "switcher eMac" is only an idea, something I think Apple should do for a low-cost option for switchers (hence the name "switcher eMac"). Nobody's going to make the jump before they're conviced Apple makes a better alternative than Windows. Having to pay 2000$CAN to "test-drive" a Mac isn't a good real-world option.
I never said Apple should do this for its regular, rich target customers. Chill out.
