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.
Old School
- Thread starter Raging Dufus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm telling you, that mug is crooked.
Someone built it wrong.
Last edited:
Well…it was a Hallmark store gift item. Back when Hallmark cards had stores and gift items.The original intent would have been to use it as a vase for flowers. Mass produced.
Probably has something to do with it I guess. I can remember seeing them in store for the Class of 87 and 88.
Doesn't get anymore 80s than that...
To put some perspective on the "old vs new" scenario here, it's like owning a workshop with tried and tested tools - I might have my favourite lathe, router, plane, beveling tools, chisels, etc. I know I can build beautiful furniture with these tools and have done so time and time again. These "limited" tools can produce great attention to detail and I know the tools like the back of my hand.
Then, a workshop pops up across the road with a series of CAD-driven robotic tools. They might have completely automated systems for quality reproduction of designs. The workshop across the road can certainly produce more furniture. They might push out 5 or 10 pieces for every 1 that I am doing... However... Do I stick with my trusty "old faithfuls" and remain with the slow and steady approach or do I ditch my tools, get a loan from the bank, buy, setup and learn, all new equipment to match the competition?
This can become a very personal question and there will be people on both sides of the fence.
The Intel Macs would allow faster production of content than a PowerPC Mac, probably. This would be quite major in the realm of virtualization and video editing, but otherwise? Any modern web-based work will suffer on the old systems, sure. But, if I am tasked with developing a new website or front-end system, wouldn't it be a refreshing approach to accommodate for the lowest possible system and work from there?
Imagine if every front-end web developer was forced to optimize for machines from 2005... The modern web would be a different experience in regards to bloat. I can guarantee however, that in the big picture, there would be nothing missing from the equation. Online banking, ecommerce, trade portals, any CMS and practically any website with front-end dynamic content, would certainly still work as expected, because the programmer will optimize things to suit the hardware requirements.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. I believe it is because Apple and every other hardware manufacturer have designed their revenue model to focus on sales of new hardware instead of upgrades and support of their old products. So the 3rd party developers (including front-end web developers) follow suit because it's _acceptable_ to remove support from an OS which is more than 3 years old. We will see this with El Cap systems soon enough.
The PowerPC systems, from my perspective, allow me a more intimate, almost hands-on approach to production and creativity. I'll often whittle the system down to zero distraction, switch off wifi and just "interface" with the keyboard, mouse and display without any notifications or distractions demanding attention.
I like the idea of choosing a tool (computer, vehicle, etc), treating it with respect, servicing it and learning all there is to know about it. I'll find something that works for me and then stand by it. So, yes, I am biased in respect to the Apple hardware I know and love.
I'm not against progress and I don't expect things to last forever, but I am enjoying my low-cost Macs from yesteryear which still have plenty of life in them. I find inspiration and creativity in having a tried and tested toolset in my hands to achieve the results I want.
TL;DR: The limitations of a PowerPC system can inspire creativity (in people like myself). That's not to say that the old can achieve more than the modern. It's also not to be interpreted as saying that a modern computer cannot allow for creative work (or inspiration in general) > Of course it can. It all comes down to the user and some of us simply choose to be Old School.
Last edited:
I will take your example and put it in my personal context…To put some perspective on the "old vs new" scenario here, it's like owning a workshop with tried and tested tools - I might have my favourite lathe, router, plane, beveling tools, chisels, etc. I know I can build beautiful furniture with these tools and have done so time and time again. These "limited" tools can produce great attention to detail and I know the tools like the back of my hand.
Then, a workshop pops up across the road with a series of CAD-driven robotic tools. They might have completely automated systems for quality reproduction of designs. The workshop across the road can certainly produce more furniture. They might push out 5 or 10 pieces for every 1 that I am doing... However... Do I stick with my trusty "old faithfuls" and remain with the slow and steady approach or do I ditch my tools, get a loan from the bank, buy, setup and learn, all new equipment to match the competition?
This can become a very personal question and there will be people on both sides of the fence.
The Intel Macs would allow faster production of content than a PowerPC Mac, probably. This would be quite major in the realm of virtualization and video editing, but otherwise? Any modern web-based work will suffer on the old systems, sure. But, if I am tasked with developing a new website or front-end system, wouldn't it be a refreshing approach to accommodate for the lowest possible system and work from there?
Imagine if every front-end web developer was forced to optimize for machines from 2005... The modern web would be a different experience in regards to bloat. I can guarantee however, that in the big picture, there would be nothing missing from the equation. Online banking, ecommerce, trade portals, any CMS and practically any website with front-end dynamic content, would certainly still work as expected, because the programmer will optimize things to suit the hardware requirements.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. I believe it is because Apple and every other hardware manufacturer have designed their revenue model to focus on sales of new hardware instead of upgrades and support of their old products. So the 3rd party developers (including front-end web developers) follow suit because it's _acceptable_ to remove support from an OS which is more than 3 years old. We will see this with El Cap systems soon enough.
The PowerPC systems, from my perspective, allow me a more intimate, almost hands-on approach to production and creativity. I'll often whittle the system down to zero distraction, switch off wifi and just "interface" with the keyboard, mouse and display without any notifications or distractions demanding attention.
I like the idea of choosing a tool (computer, vehicle, etc), treating it with respect, servicing it and learning all there is to know about it. I'll find something that works for me and then stand by it. So, yes, I am biased in respect to the Apple hardware I know and love.
I'm not against progress and I don't expect things to last forever, but I am enjoying my low-cost Macs from yesteryear which still have plenty of life in them. I find inspiration and creativity in having a tried and tested toolset in my hands to achieve the results I want.
TL;DR: The limitations of a PowerPC system can inspire creativity (in people like myself). That's not to say that the old can achieve more than the modern. It's also not to be interpreted as saying that a modern computer cannot allow for creative work (or inspiration in general) > Of course it can. It all comes down to the user and some of us choose to be Old School.
In the newspaper/publishing industry there has been a recent uptick in interest for publishing using old methods, namely typesetting (hand-set lead type). That's Old School right there. It's short runs, low pressure and individualized attention to the product.
The reason interest is increasing is because those who still have this skill can produce quality work that has it's own distinct personality. It's something you cannot get with today's high speed, high volume presses.
So, that's the handtools part of your example.
The other side is digital presses than can be adjusted on the fly and can produce large amounts of the same work. Ideal for books, newspapers, etc. That's the other part of your example.
But somewhere in there you've got the middle…and that's where I'm at. The family that runs the business I work for waited so long to upgrade that when they were finally forced to it was so monstrously expensive that the only alternative was to have our competitor print our paper.
That was a bitter pill to swallow, but we were dealing with a 1950s press that couldn't cope. Had we been a daily this would have been much worse. But as it was, we completely missed out on direct to negative, direct to plate and all the hardware/software that accomodate it. Just upgrading all that (not including the press itself) would have run over $100K.
So now I make PDFs and send them via FTP to be printed by others. Our press was dismantled for scrap a few months ago.
So, to round this all up I think that if you are sticking with PowerPC and it meets your needs then great. It's what I currently use at home because it still meets my needs. But beyond certain specific applications it's just not viable at work any more. But for low pressure situations requiring personal detail and attention, yeah, it's still capable.
IMO it sounds as if you're speaking more to the OS than the hardware. If you were to run Tiger or Leopard along with the related contemporary applications on an Intel Mac your workflow would be unchanged. IOW it's the software which has altered your workflow, not the hardware.
I've been playing around with a couple of Apple //c computers. These systems are outfitted with 128KB of RAM. That's kilobyte, not megabyte. While doing so I am constantly amazed at what programmers were able to pull off with such little memory (and disk storage). While completely unusable for today's computing tasks I think every computer science school should be outfitted with them, or sometime similar, in order to teach developers how to write efficient code. I can just imagine how much more efficient software would be today if this skill were taught. It's unlikely as today it's the employees which cost the money whereas in those days it was the computer which was expensive.
I'm 100% in agreement with you about the usability of a 2005 vintage computer if developers accounted for them. I see no reason why a dual processor, 2.0GHz, 8GB RAM, PPC G5 should be such a struggle on today's modern web. The amount of wasted CPU and bandwidth for a modern web site is ridiculous. Especially when it doesn't seem to buy, at least me, anything. I've been using the Internet for a long time and it puzzles me why today's web sites, despite not providing any more information to me, struggle on a PPC G5 system.
Hi all,
My 2 cents
For me the main thing is "Why are these macs not capable of running new things?".
As far as I've gathered it's just because it wasn't tried before or wanted, even the last G5s were already
64 bit CPUs which no one ( especially apple ) took or could take advantage off.
The HTML5 era or CorePlayer I think are explicit cases for this, in many situations you can now ( 10 to 13 years later)
have those macs performing better than when they were sold.
THE WORD IS OPTIMISATION. These days "nothing" is very optimised except maybe smart phones and
even there it's not always the case because phone CPUs are getting a lot better at what they do.
Regards,
voidRunner
You know, I have to really agree with this. It rubs me the wrong way to think that it is "expected" to have to waste time and money on some kind of weird upgrade treadmill for no good reason. I have been using computers since I was a kid back in the 80's and I always go back to my experiences then. My first computer was a Commodore 64 and I used that thing for YEARS without having to upgrade any of the basic hardware. I used it for school work in middle school, then high school, then some into college....all on the same hardware. Yeah, I tried new software as the years passed, different word processors, spreadsheets, etc., but the same hardware was used. As time went on the software developers optimized the hell out of that machine until, fast forward to today, there are people still developing brand new software for a 30+ year old system that does AMAZING things that nobody thought could be done. We have kind of the same thing going on with the PPC hardware when you see software like "TenFour Fox" being OPTIMIZED for the hardware. Why is it "Okay" for people to accept phony planned obsolesce with their new purchases? When did consumers decide their money was worth so little? I just hate it. In fact, why do people put up with companies changing everything about their purchases after the fact? Would you buy a car that a year later no longer worked with gasoline because the manufacturer decided they knew best and you now needed to use propane in the thing after a software update? of course not, but no one seems to mind when phone manufacturers wreck their already purchased software with a ridiculous system update. How about if the manufacturer of your car decided "they knew best" and after a forced update the color of your car was different and all of the gauges and dials worked differently and were in different places? Once again, of course not, but we let them do this crap to us every time we are forced to update a computer or phone operating system just to keep up with a security update. Half of my older software "mysteriously" stops working but if I don't update the manufacturer refuses to maintain security updates with the older hardware (because they can't make money off of me).
Anyways, much like my old Commodore 64, I prefer to stay with my older platform and learn the hell out of it and enjoy watching smart software developers optimize for it rather than let the manufacturer "think they know best" and force me to update to make them more money.
MY two cents.
This is bang on - I use this analogy all the time and it 100% describes the madness we're being shackled to right now.
I understand your points, but to me it sounds a little as if you object to change. I can certainly understand objecting to change for the sake of it, but sometimes change is necessary. Oh, nowhere near as much as the manufacturers want you to accept. But they do it because they don't make any more money off you if you don't.You know, I have to really agree with this. It rubs me the wrong way to think that it is "expected" to have to waste time and money on some kind of weird upgrade treadmill for no good reason. I have been using computers since I was a kid back in the 80's and I always go back to my experiences then. My first computer was a Commodore 64 and I used that thing for YEARS without having to upgrade any of the basic hardware. I used it for school work in middle school, then high school, then some into college....all on the same hardware. Yeah, I tried new software as the years passed, different word processors, spreadsheets, etc., but the same hardware was used. As time went on the software developers optimized the hell out of that machine until, fast forward to today, there are people still developing brand new software for a 30+ year old system that does AMAZING things that nobody thought could be done. We have kind of the same thing going on with the PPC hardware when you see software like "TenFour Fox" being OPTIMIZED for the hardware. Why is it "Okay" for people to accept phony planned obsolesce with their new purchases? When did consumers decide their money was worth so little? I just hate it. In fact, why do people put up with companies changing everything about their purchases after the fact? Would you buy a car that a year later no longer worked with gasoline because the manufacturer decided they knew best and you now needed to use propane in the thing after a software update? of course not, but no one seems to mind when phone manufacturers wreck their already purchased software with a ridiculous system update. How about if the manufacturer of your car decided "they knew best" and after a forced update the color of your car was different and all of the gauges and dials worked differently and were in different places? Once again, of course not, but we let them do this crap to us every time we are forced to update a computer or phone operating system just to keep up with a security update. Half of my older software "mysteriously" stops working but if I don't update the manufacturer refuses to maintain security updates with the older hardware (because they can't make money off of me).
Anyways, much like my old Commodore 64, I prefer to stay with my older platform and learn the hell out of it and enjoy watching smart software developers optimize for it rather than let the manufacturer "think they know best" and force me to update to make them more money.
MY two cents.
Let's just use the C64 here as an example. You bought one C64 in the mid to late 80s. 30+ years later you are still using the same computer, just using optimized software for it.
So, Commodore got one hardware sale from you in 30+ years. Assuming Commodore hadn't folded for other reasons would you consider yourself as one of their consistant buyers?
Not attacking you, just trying to point out that in the grand scheme of things - while you are very happy with your one singular purchase, Commodore never got any more money from you.
If this were a truly viable business model then car models would not change every so many years and Apple itself would still be making the original iPhone.
You're looking at this from the eyes of the consumer. That's fine, and I'm not saying that manufacturers don't have any blame in this. There's some sort of equilibrium we could all be happy at, but it would require spending a bit of money on our part and losing a bit of money on the manufacturers part.
Here's my example…Quark Inc. was the world leader from 1987 to about 2003 in page layout software with their product QuarkXPress. Quark DOMINATED the industry. But they changed very, very little. So little change that when the customer base demanded an OS X compatible version of QuarkXPress in 2003, Fred Ebrahimi the CEO of Quark in 2003, publicly trashed the customer base.
All the customer base wanted was up to date tools that took advantage of modern changes in the industry and to have it run on current hardware with a then current OS. Not a program that was 'optimised' for OS9.
You know what happened?
Adobe had a little program they called InDesign. It did page layout. And they started selling the FULL version to design schools for $99 a pop. It ran on OS X. Quark wanted $300+ for an OS9 only app with EDUCATIONAL restrictions (a full version was $800+). Industry business started looking for options, and while Quark was busy being arrogant about not changing, Adobe sold a lot of copies of InDesign. Adobe has remained smart by selling the entire suite of software for around the same price that Quark used to charge for ONE app!
At first Adobe took a hit in the price. But it paid off. Because those students found jobs in the industry using a program they were already familiar with - InDesign.
And now where is QuarkXPress?
Since 2003 they have been forced to play catchup. Their first version of XPress that ran on OS X was a shell that used the OS9 engines underneath. It wasn't until 2007 before they came out with their first REAL OS X version of XPress. And they are still behind in features. They use a third party PDF engine because they can't or won't pay the licensing fees Adobe requires. Guess what PDF engine InDesign uses?
And now Adobe is the doddering giant that's pushing upgrades nobody wants and didn't ask for. Maybe Quark can take advantage of that, maybe not. Quark is having to fend off Affinity now too.
So, upgrading for the sake of upgrading or having it forced on you for no reason isn't good. But neither is refusing to upgrade because you've decided that there is only one product that you ever want to use and you've bought it already.
Last edited:
I understand what you are saying, but I feel that you're missing something. Actually, Commodore got plenty of extra money from me as I continued to purchase additional hardware from them that enhanced my original computer. It was a great relationship for both of us because with all of the additional hardware purchases I made from them they NEVER did anything to render my original purchase unusable. I was able to use NEW software as well as the OLDER software on the same hardware, and still could today. What Apple (and other) manufacturers do now is try and force you to ABANDON your original hardware because they don't want you to use it anymore. Now I still purchase software licenses from shareware authors who support my older PPC hardware so they are making money off of me, why can't Apple sell me security updates for my older PPC? I would gladly pay a reasonable fee to not have to update my hardware if I was assured it was still safe to use in today's environment.
Of course you are 100 percent correct about needing compatibility with new software for your workflow, no argument there, the problem I have with a company is when they go out of their way to design a system that renders their older hardware obsolete simply because they break compatibility with a system update. That's totally not cool, and hence the "they want to change the color of the car I bought from them" analogy. I expect the product I bought as a consumer to work until I decide it doesn't work anymore, not when it's convenient for them to stop providing support for it.
If the hardware wasn't capable then the "Linux" options wouldn't exist for all of the older hardware out there, that "magically" will let that same hardware run current software.
As far as updating an older product, yeah, but I like to decide when I want to spend my money to update on my schedule...not because of a "pretend" obsolescence. I like new hardware just as much as the next guy, I just don't like the old "bait and switch" when some slick "Herb Tarlik" salesman lies to me that what I have isn't good enough, only to find out that it is damn well good enough, it's just their corporate greed that stops the updates, compatibility and support.
I think we are both in the same general area as far as consensus is concerned.
I don't enjoy forced upgrades. Microsoft does the same with the OS that Apple does with hardware.
But I do want updates and upgrades, just on a more sedate schedule. I would be cool with the idea of a company allowing older products to still work and even selling things that make them still viable or productive. But I also ackownledge that at a certain point, an upgrade either of hardware or OS is justifiable.
For the record…I owned a C64 and C128 with three 1541 drives and by 1990 two 1581s. I ran a BBS using AABBS (All American BBS) off my C64 and later my C128 on weekends from 1988 to some time around mid-1990. I also had an Amiga 1000 at one point.
I got my C64 in the summer of 1984 when I was 13. Spent all summer playing Telengard on it. A year later I joined a local user group with my mom and that's when I discovered the BBS and modems! My life has been online ever since.
Commodore could do amazing things. Just a shame they folded.
Without a complete paradigm shift, we're now trapped in this cycle, as raw unbridled capitalism is seen as a good thing and computer/online technology is the ultimate commercial product allowing for a constant resale program.
At this stage, the only option is to drop out of the race if you can and reserve your money for more deserving, and lasting things.
For me the car analogy is perfect.
Imagine in 2006 you had a windfall and decided you wanted the best PC money could buy (and let's assume you're an average user) - so, under advice at the Apple Store you come away with an all singing and dancing G5 Quad - a considerable financial undertaking.
Within the year Apple have moved direction to Intel and within a few more years, as an average user, you're finding support harder and harder and your PC is looked on as a laughable relic.
Imagine buying a luxury car in 2006, imagine being restricted to the slow lane within a few years and despite the car still looking like showroom condition and firing on all cylinders, it's now resigned to the garage, waiting to be sold for pennies to a mechanic/enthusiast who can maybe get it roadworthy again...
At this stage, the only option is to drop out of the race if you can and reserve your money for more deserving, and lasting things.
For me the car analogy is perfect.
Imagine in 2006 you had a windfall and decided you wanted the best PC money could buy (and let's assume you're an average user) - so, under advice at the Apple Store you come away with an all singing and dancing G5 Quad - a considerable financial undertaking.
Within the year Apple have moved direction to Intel and within a few more years, as an average user, you're finding support harder and harder and your PC is looked on as a laughable relic.
Imagine buying a luxury car in 2006, imagine being restricted to the slow lane within a few years and despite the car still looking like showroom condition and firing on all cylinders, it's now resigned to the garage, waiting to be sold for pennies to a mechanic/enthusiast who can maybe get it roadworthy again...
Hi all,
Being the "igniter" of this obsolescence discussion I wan't to stress that I'm totally
in favour of change.
But change just for the "heck of it" does not equate to better but just different.
As I posted originally I use a lot of older to newer hardware and software and all of them
have their place so you can choose what's best for your needs.
I like the "linux" model the best because change has been gradual and you can have different
hardware specs running the same OS just with different "whistles and bells".
I think a good example might be a web browser.
For instance in my "custo" MacBook Pro 17" CoreDUO from 2006 I run Lion with Firefox 52esr very
fast, it's only when going into bloated javascript sites that things go wrong and somewhat slow.
As an example I've been working with iframes on a web page to get them to "resize" dynamically,
when I started looking how to do it all the answers in google pointed to using javascript to do this, when
looking further I found a CSS/Styles alternative which requires no programming language engine/support to make it work. If I had stopped looking in the first results my page would have required javascript.
Modern hardware/software might cope with this without breaking a sweat but that's like saying that the
solution for higher speed is a brick with a larger more powerful engine that requires more fuel as opposed
to a more aerodynamic vehicle with a lighter engine which requires less power/fuel to achieve the same
result hence optimization.
Using CSS is the OPTIMIZED way to do many things, JAVASCRIPT is the "easy way out". If you
use both in a modern/"recently purchased" laptop/desktop you won't notice the difference but for older specced machines it's completely the opposite because they were developed without those requirements in mind and hence
not prepared for them.
You can also look at smartphone apps. They are better for smartphones not just because of
the graphical layout but because phone chips were not developed for processing power but
are capable of handling "media/graphics" very well. Most apps could have been done using web technology
but then you could not use all the "core" optimizations in the OS and in the beginning it would have
restricted their widespread use as they would have seemed "impossibly slow" for any real day to day use.
PS. One of my current projects is getting my G5 quad running linux with a NVIDIA 7800gt and an SSD. I think for
everyday use it should still be powerful enough especially taking into account that it is a 12 year old
machine.
Best regards,
voidRunner
Being the "igniter" of this obsolescence discussion I wan't to stress that I'm totally
in favour of change.
But change just for the "heck of it" does not equate to better but just different.
As I posted originally I use a lot of older to newer hardware and software and all of them
have their place so you can choose what's best for your needs.
I like the "linux" model the best because change has been gradual and you can have different
hardware specs running the same OS just with different "whistles and bells".
I think a good example might be a web browser.
For instance in my "custo" MacBook Pro 17" CoreDUO from 2006 I run Lion with Firefox 52esr very
fast, it's only when going into bloated javascript sites that things go wrong and somewhat slow.
As an example I've been working with iframes on a web page to get them to "resize" dynamically,
when I started looking how to do it all the answers in google pointed to using javascript to do this, when
looking further I found a CSS/Styles alternative which requires no programming language engine/support to make it work. If I had stopped looking in the first results my page would have required javascript.
Modern hardware/software might cope with this without breaking a sweat but that's like saying that the
solution for higher speed is a brick with a larger more powerful engine that requires more fuel as opposed
to a more aerodynamic vehicle with a lighter engine which requires less power/fuel to achieve the same
result hence optimization.
Using CSS is the OPTIMIZED way to do many things, JAVASCRIPT is the "easy way out". If you
use both in a modern/"recently purchased" laptop/desktop you won't notice the difference but for older specced machines it's completely the opposite because they were developed without those requirements in mind and hence
not prepared for them.
You can also look at smartphone apps. They are better for smartphones not just because of
the graphical layout but because phone chips were not developed for processing power but
are capable of handling "media/graphics" very well. Most apps could have been done using web technology
but then you could not use all the "core" optimizations in the OS and in the beginning it would have
restricted their widespread use as they would have seemed "impossibly slow" for any real day to day use.
PS. One of my current projects is getting my G5 quad running linux with a NVIDIA 7800gt and an SSD. I think for
everyday use it should still be powerful enough especially taking into account that it is a 12 year old
machine.
Best regards,
voidRunner
While I agree with a lot of what you wrote I do have to say one thing: You don't have to change. You are free to continue using the contemporary operating system and application software for the system.
That said I hate the constant UI changes which, IMO, have not amounted to any tangible increase in productivity.
Being an unapologetic capitalism loving American, We can criticize unbridled capitalism as the culprit here however in any capitalist market, choice is a key component and the driver of the portrayed villain here “greed” is not any component of capitalism, rather it’s a human trait, a human shortcoming, not an economic one. The flaws we’re describing are those within ourselves, not the economic philosophy.
Choice is the key mechanism here - every single one of us has this choice - to use or not to use said service, to buy or not to buy said product. Certainly as a business, a solid portion of guiding principles that drive apple’s choices are derived from their product market analytics & our choices drive said data. So while I criticize the lack of fire in their guts & innovative culture, I understand at this point why they are the way they are. There is ALOT to lose at this point both as a private business & a publicly traded company - trillions + in dinero.
Yanno, I really can’t stand Apples shift towards glued together, throw away tech, but when the greatest market growth is in these areas, Apple’s financial responsibility to their shareholders (myself included) is to further develop & grow these markets & their net worth, not a buncha nerdy hobbyists (again myself included YIKES). It sucks to hear, but we’re not so much the folks driving their record growth. Our amazing & IMO thoughtful vision of Apple is not that of the majority of customers unfortunately. Ehh it is what it is.
It’s really a tough fence to ride somedays because I’m a huge fan of what apple was & where they’ve gone yet where they’re going kinda makes me want to barf ... and then at the end of it all, I still gain monetarily from their continued growth. Feelings about this get tricky.
Choice is the key mechanism here - every single one of us has this choice - to use or not to use said service, to buy or not to buy said product. Certainly as a business, a solid portion of guiding principles that drive apple’s choices are derived from their product market analytics & our choices drive said data. So while I criticize the lack of fire in their guts & innovative culture, I understand at this point why they are the way they are. There is ALOT to lose at this point both as a private business & a publicly traded company - trillions + in dinero.
Yanno, I really can’t stand Apples shift towards glued together, throw away tech, but when the greatest market growth is in these areas, Apple’s financial responsibility to their shareholders (myself included) is to further develop & grow these markets & their net worth, not a buncha nerdy hobbyists (again myself included YIKES). It sucks to hear, but we’re not so much the folks driving their record growth. Our amazing & IMO thoughtful vision of Apple is not that of the majority of customers unfortunately. Ehh it is what it is.
It’s really a tough fence to ride somedays because I’m a huge fan of what apple was & where they’ve gone yet where they’re going kinda makes me want to barf ... and then at the end of it all, I still gain monetarily from their continued growth. Feelings about this get tricky.
Last edited:
That's true, any philosophy, no matter how pure in it's idealistic origin is subject to the selective filtering by those who choose to practice it.
Generating wealth is a wonderful philosophy when it's for a common collective good but unfortunately, it so often isn't, largely because the wrong people (greedy) jump on board and steer the ship in a precise direction of more wealth for personal gain above all else.
When you say it's about choice, to stick with the original analogy, how can it be choice for the poor user stuck with his new G5 Quad - buy another premium computer and sell your one year old ex-premium computer at a huge loss - or don't and be left behind because we've backed you into this corner?
That would be Apple's poor choice to immediately phase out his new G5 Quad. Their choice, albeit one that comes at the consumer's expense.
Even so, you still have a choice because you don't have to stay with Apple. Many have long ditched them out of frustration. You still have several computer company options and opportunities to choose from BECAUSE we're in a capitalistic society. To center around a single company's controversial ecosystem + way of business and blame their bad decisions on the free market can be seen as misguided.
But that's what I make of it.
@RhianB Great post.
Winner winner chicken dinner.
There is inherent risk in all choices we make. It’s part of the deal & there is no guarantee - Choose wisely. Seriously, don’t be a ding dong. Make good decisions and realize that even the most sound & thought out choices can be negatively impacted by others outside of your control. Be prepared for that risk.
The decisions of private enterprise are their own, purely. Capitalist markets have zero impact on this. They create the economic foundation & productive freedom for entrepreneurial business people to make those decisions - to innovate, produce & bring a product to market & conversely the freedom for other people to choose to buy it or not. People’s choices, not the market.
Capitalism is a great mechanism that has allowed humanity to produce an amazing & endless array of innovation & invention that certainly has improved our quality of life in dramatic ways allowing us to thrive.
I’m sure Apple PO’d more than a few customers with their abrupt shift from ppc to Intel & the short lived universal software support, but ultimately, like anyone, they either got over it or Apple lost a customer. Looking at their growth, Apple’s doing alright & was ok with a small loss upfront (dropping ppc)
for long term & predictable growth (smaller devices (intel). Jobs took a risk, Apple paid attention to the market & consumers responded in a huge way. You n myself would’ve loved to see something different perhaps but it’s obvious that Jobs & Apple delivered exactly what the vast majority of the market wanted (& still does). So while it was a tough pill for PPC owners to swallow & a bad decision/form in some eyes, it was undeniably the right decision for Apple to reposition their tech in a way that allowed them to once again reinvent, innovate & lead a new market of thin, ultra portable handheld devices.
There is inherent risk in all choices we make. It’s part of the deal & there is no guarantee - Choose wisely. Seriously, don’t be a ding dong. Make good decisions and realize that even the most sound & thought out choices can be negatively impacted by others outside of your control. Be prepared for that risk.
The decisions of private enterprise are their own, purely. Capitalist markets have zero impact on this. They create the economic foundation & productive freedom for entrepreneurial business people to make those decisions - to innovate, produce & bring a product to market & conversely the freedom for other people to choose to buy it or not. People’s choices, not the market.
Capitalism is a great mechanism that has allowed humanity to produce an amazing & endless array of innovation & invention that certainly has improved our quality of life in dramatic ways allowing us to thrive.
I’m sure Apple PO’d more than a few customers with their abrupt shift from ppc to Intel & the short lived universal software support, but ultimately, like anyone, they either got over it or Apple lost a customer. Looking at their growth, Apple’s doing alright & was ok with a small loss upfront (dropping ppc)
for long term & predictable growth (smaller devices (intel). Jobs took a risk, Apple paid attention to the market & consumers responded in a huge way. You n myself would’ve loved to see something different perhaps but it’s obvious that Jobs & Apple delivered exactly what the vast majority of the market wanted (& still does). So while it was a tough pill for PPC owners to swallow & a bad decision/form in some eyes, it was undeniably the right decision for Apple to reposition their tech in a way that allowed them to once again reinvent, innovate & lead a new market of thin, ultra portable handheld devices.
Last edited:
Again, I agree and in principle it's largely true but everything I say in this forum is based from experience not in principle, and in my experience, it's greed that I see rife here in the UK - if a consumer/customer can be exploited, knowing there doesn't have to be any justification, they will be.
I absolutely agree that Steve Jobs took Apple where they needed to go but sticking with the Intel transition and ignoring their business model now, how difficult and how much of a risk would it have been at the launch of Intel to have offered a substantial discount for all recent buyers of PPC Macs - you know, the very customers who put Apple back on the map, were Thinking Differently and were active ambassadors for the brand?
I'd prefer a catfish dinner. Delicious.
You have no idea how refreshing it is to hear this in modern times. A good chunk of the country could learn a lot from you. Especially California.
Great idea.
It's because Apple stopped Thinking Differently when they announced the switch to Intel. Now, they wouldn't do something so good-natured like that.
Because the sad truth is that they are ultimately just another company whose goal is to make a good bottom line, and that's what they internally see themselves as. It's really the loyal customer that has placed Apple so close to their heart. All Apple does is capitalize on it and take advantage by needlessly raising prices incrementally on products that should be nowhere near expensive as they are. A stupid keyboard should not cost $100! And it doesn't even have a numpad!
Although I can't concur in that I've seen callous capitalism occur rampantly myself, I understand what you're saying when you look a little deeper, especially at scenarios like these.
Depressing, really.
So we can (and it seems everyone at this table DOES) choose not to buy said keyboard. After all why pay a lot of money for it when I can score them used for 5-10 bucks consistently at my local thrifts
It’s part of being that savvy consumer ie: making smart choices for our personal financial & emotional well being.
I do agree endlessly with you all that considering their premium pricing on new machines that Apple needs to in an earnest way improve their customer service experience & it’s percieved value overall.
The Apple store does not cut this for me. All it is is an Apple ecosystem I/OSX teaching tool for those newly initiated consumers.
It’s part of being that savvy consumer ie: making smart choices for our personal financial & emotional well being.
I do agree endlessly with you all that considering their premium pricing on new machines that Apple needs to in an earnest way improve their customer service experience & it’s percieved value overall.
The Apple store does not cut this for me. All it is is an Apple ecosystem I/OSX teaching tool for those newly initiated consumers.
Oh, that really sums it up! - It's time to hurry up for the last and latest pre-Retina MacBooks, that allow swapping harddrive and RAM ...
"Capitalism" - that's a slogan ... Competition is a good thing to find the commonly accepted best way.
But it's nothing without welfare and risk-sharing (health, poverty etc.)
MS, Apple and ... (the list is endless) are apparently not branches of the salvation army ... too bad, everyone is glueing together that throwaway tech now (or sell you stinking cars).
And the 2nd hand stuff: business buys the expensive stuff first, consumers buy it cheaper 2nd-hand on the aftermarket. Basicly consumers already paid for the expensive stuff, because costs already had been added to the price of things or service.
It all comes down to the value of the tool you need for your work. It might be expensive, but if long-lasting, serviceable, time-savy and doing the best job it's worth the money.
Well, currently most of the old hardware (PPC/pre-Retina) meet that needs ... ("Think different"!)