R.I.P., Macintosh?

[Stupid American Pig]

So in light of THIS and THIS

Can we just agree that the Mac isnt R.I.Ping at the moment? I know that it is asking a lot, but instead of arguing over conjecture/rumor and innuendo- maybe, just maybe, possibly, just maybe move on to something else?

[debra1rlo]

Of course Mac owners need re-assurance, from Jobs.

No we don't. Some people may have some delusion that consumer electronics are a status symbol or believe the misconception that one tool can be inherently better than another but most don't.

Just because I prefer to use OSX on an Apple computer doesn't mean I couldn't easily move to Windows on some other hardware. Sure I'd be bummed but I know that if I can't adapt to changing technology, my career is over.

yeah, same here. we made music w/o computers back in the day, so changing platforms isn't much of a setback, relatively speaking. the differences these days are mostly cosmetic anyway. and if for some reason i couldn't make a new platform work, i know i can make tracks on a digital multitrack. Mac and PC are hardly the only two options these days.

i'll leave it at that before the subject turns to my continued bewilderment of why my grocer carries too many flavors of jam.

[UltraJv]

Of course Mac owners need re-assurance, from Jobs.

No we don't. Some people may have some delusion that consumer electronics are a status symbol or believe the misconception that one tool can be inherently better than another but most don't.

Just because I prefer to use OSX on an Apple computer doesn't mean I couldn't easily move to Windows on some other hardware. Sure I'd be bummed but I know that if I can't adapt to changing technology, my career is over.

So why so many pages of response, surely you guys would just pass the page by otherwise? If its no big deal then a lot of people are getting very defensive over it...

[blatanville]

Steve is like a kid in some ways - he's only interested in his very latest toys - and they become the focus of all the love. When Apple released their $350 plastic speakers for iPods a while back Steve (you know, a billionaire who likes gizmos) said he liked them more than his stereo (cough). If the lion's share of Apple's income comes from the iThings division then the business case for the PC division becomes a little tenuous. If IBM can walk away from selling PCs surely Apple can (and the Mac is manifestly a Personal Computer so don't nobody get cute). I think the thing is to work out which markets are going to be commodity markets in the near future. It is often said that iPods are going to be nowhere pretty soon in a world full of phones and other devices with the same capabilities and a lot more. The profitability of phones and pads looks better.

Now that's just sense talkin' and that won't do in around here!

[justin3am]

Of course Mac owners need re-assurance, from Jobs.

No we don't. Some people may have some delusion that consumer electronics are a status symbol or believe the misconception that one tool can be inherently better than another but most don't.

Just because I prefer to use OSX on an Apple computer doesn't mean I couldn't easily move to Windows on some other hardware. Sure I'd be bummed but I know that if I can't adapt to changing technology, my career is over.

So why so many pages of response, surely you guys would just pass the page by otherwise? If its no big deal then a lot of people are getting very defensive over it...

I have always held the same position on the topic and the Mac users on KVR are hardly a sufficient sample to determine how the whole market feels. Most of the people I work with on any given day, between recording gigs and my day job, are Mac users and as professionals they feel the same way I do. Career goes before the computer.

I'm just posting here to contradict this fallacy that Mac users would be helpless without the gospel of Jobs.

So why so many pages of response,

most of this thread seems to be speculation based on a blog post, by people who seem to feel validated by anything that indicates to them that Apple is doing poorly or Steve Jobs is abandoning his user base.

Honestly, why do you care if you don't like for the companies products?

[UltraJv]

Of course Mac owners need re-assurance, from Jobs.

No we don't. Some people may have some delusion that consumer electronics are a status symbol or believe the misconception that one tool can be inherently better than another but most don't.

Just because I prefer to use OSX on an Apple computer doesn't mean I couldn't easily move to Windows on some other hardware. Sure I'd be bummed but I know that if I can't adapt to changing technology, my career is over.

So why so many pages of response, surely you guys would just pass the page by otherwise? If its no big deal then a lot of people are getting very defensive over it...

I have always held the same position on the topic and the Mac users on KVR are hardly a sufficient sample to determine how the whole market feels. Most of the people I work with on any given day, between recording gigs and my day job, are Mac users and as professionals they feel the same way I do. Career goes before the computer.

I'm just posting here to contradict this fallacy that Mac users would be helpless without the gospel of Jobs.

Very fair and balanced comment. Jobs has been a major PITA in marketing terms, im against his methods and he just happens to work at Apple. I remember when both Steves made the first Apple in a garage and I was interested. The evangelist attitude changed that for me. Maybe someone should save Apple from him.

[blatanville]

For those of you just tuning in, here's a re-cap of most of the last 14 pages:

Well I think Blah-Blah-Blah.

Well I think Blah-Blah-Blah.

OMG! CounterBlah-CounterBlah-CounterBlah!

Well I think Blah-Blah-Blah.

OMG! CounterBlah-CounterBlah-CounterBlah!"

Gah! Redundant-Redundant-Redundant!

Well I think Blah-Blah-Blah.

OMG! CounterBlah-CounterBlah-CounterBlah!"

Gah! Redundant-Redundant-Redundant!

Oh, yeah? Well I heard otherwise! Redundant-redundant-redundant!

And so on...
Jeepers, people, let it end! There's nothing but rumour and speculation to go on. There's nothing new to add to the PC vs Mac debate.

[UltraJv]

For those of you just tuning in, here's a re-cap of most of the last 14 pages:

Well I think Blah-Blah-Blah.

Well I think Blah-Blah-Blah.

OMG! CounterBlah-CounterBlah-CounterBlah!

Well I think Blah-Blah-Blah.

OMG! CounterBlah-CounterBlah-CounterBlah!"

Gah! Redundant-Redundant-Redundant!

Well I think Blah-Blah-Blah.

OMG! CounterBlah-CounterBlah-CounterBlah!"

Gah! Redundant-Redundant-Redundant!

Oh, yeah? Well I heard otherwise! Redundant-redundant-redundant!

And so on...
Jeepers, people, let it end! There's nothing but rumour and speculation to go on. There's nothing new to add to the PC vs Mac debate.

[headquest]

Just because a minority of power users who use a computer for creative purposes don't want it doesn't mean it won't happen.

But the power users - and I think you have to include all corporate users there, plus public sector agencies, hospitals, science users, etc as well as "creative types" - will still need a machine.

So again I ask - will Apple continue making/selling machines for those users (i.e. people here included) - or phase out their development of personal computers...? This is the big question, honestly. Judging by the apparent lack of recent development the signs do seem to suggest they are losing interest in this segment. BUT... they may have something huge up their sleeve...

Brainless consumer types would love it - a shiny touch-screen interface with all-day battery life that was silent, portable and didn't get hot. We tend to forget here that most computer users just surf, shop online, listen to tunes, watch vids and dick around with their holiday photos.

Actually I think most computer users are interested in "content". Apple scored highly with iTunes and iPhone apps, but when it comes to other areas they have failed here. While SONY own the biggest record company (CBS) and the biggest film company (Columbia) and will always get their content onto blu-ray and whatever they choose to support in the future. This is the next arena where Apple will need to compete...

Then there's Gamers. And they constitute a huge market area where Apple have totally failed, once again because they missed the trick of getting into *content* for their platform. I think it's possibly too late for Apple to get into that market. But Gamers spend big bucks to get the best PC, and this is an area that has particularly driven computer development over the years...

Apple / whoever seeds the cloud would love it too. No piracy issues, lots of opportunity for proprietary file types / drm and total control over the software people use. Brilliant.

Unpopular though this is... ordinary users actually want piracy. It sucks, but there it is... and this is going to go against Apple too.

[jupiter8]

But the power users - and I think you have to include all corporate users there, plus public sector agencies, hospitals, science users, etc as well as "creative types" - will still need a machine.

Actually those are the ones who benefit most from the "cloud". Companies don't have to invest thousands of dollars in computers.It'll be a commodity like electricity. It just makes so much sense to have a big computer park instead of single ones. You can have them running 24 hours a day as opposed to just 8 cutting costs to third in one fell swoop. Computers are too fast when you don't use them and to slow when you do. Not to mention the savings in software and upgrading costs.

Then there's Gamers. And they constitute a huge market area where Apple have totally failed, once again because they missed the trick of getting into *content* for their platform. I think it's possibly too late for Apple to get into that market. But Gamers spend big bucks to get the best PC, and this is an area that has particularly driven computer development over the years...

Gamers will be one group that'll benefit the most from the "cloud". There's already a firm that has a huge computer park filled with the latest GFX cards that provide streaming video over internet. If you play games 2 hours a day that is a saving of 92 %.
http://www.nicholasgcarr.com/bigswitch/

[UltraJv]

But the power users - and I think you have to include all corporate users there, plus public sector agencies, hospitals, science users, etc as well as "creative types" - will still need a machine.

Actually those are the ones who benefit most from the "cloud". Companies don't have to invest thousands of dollars in computers.It'll be a commodity like electricity. It just makes so much sense to have a big computer park instead of single ones. You can have them running 24 hours a day as opposed to just 8 cutting costs to third in one fell swoop. Computers are too fast when you don't use them and to slow when you do. Not to mention the savings in software and upgrading costs.

Then there's Gamers. And they constitute a huge market area where Apple have totally failed, once again because they missed the trick of getting into *content* for their platform. I think it's possibly too late for Apple to get into that market. But Gamers spend big bucks to get the best PC, and this is an area that has particularly driven computer development over the years...

Gamers will be one group that'll benefit the most from the "cloud". There's already a firm that has a huge computer park filled with the latest GFX cards that provide streaming video over internet. If you play games 2 hours a day that is a saving of 92 %.
http://www.nicholasgcarr.com/bigswitch/

In the UK, there is an argument over who pays for the extra bandwidth needed for TV over the net. ISPs dont like the idea of everyone having full bandwidth 24/7 so they use traffic shaping. If all services allow constant streaming, no one will be able to acess the net attall. Thin clients were tried years back but didnt pan out well.

[jupiter8]

But the power users - and I think you have to include all corporate users there, plus public sector agencies, hospitals, science users, etc as well as "creative types" - will still need a machine.

Actually those are the ones who benefit most from the "cloud". Companies don't have to invest thousands of dollars in computers.It'll be a commodity like electricity. It just makes so much sense to have a big computer park instead of single ones. You can have them running 24 hours a day as opposed to just 8 cutting costs to third in one fell swoop. Computers are too fast when you don't use them and to slow when you do. Not to mention the savings in software and upgrading costs.

Then there's Gamers. And they constitute a huge market area where Apple have totally failed, once again because they missed the trick of getting into *content* for their platform. I think it's possibly too late for Apple to get into that market. But Gamers spend big bucks to get the best PC, and this is an area that has particularly driven computer development over the years...

Gamers will be one group that'll benefit the most from the "cloud". There's already a firm that has a huge computer park filled with the latest GFX cards that provide streaming video over internet. If you play games 2 hours a day that is a saving of 92 %.
http://www.nicholasgcarr.com/bigswitch/

In the UK, there is an argument over who pays for the extra bandwidth needed for TV over the net. ISPs dont like the idea of everyone having full bandwidth 24/7 so they use traffic shaping. If all services allow constant streaming, no one will be able to acess the net attall. Thin clients were tried years back but didnt pan out well.

In the beginning all companies provided their own power (be it water,steam or electricity). They were in effect power companies as well. The mere thought of outsourcing power supply to third party was absurd. How could you trust someone with a matter of that importance ?

But are you really saying that private companies are afraid of too many customers ? That is usually something that plagues public services. Private rarely have a problem with that. Au contraire, it's kind of the business model.

EDIT: But ok,since that one particular example failed (i'm sure it was choosen as a typical situation,not one that happened to suit your stance) it will probably fail. Just because they argue over who should pay for streaming TV in one country the whole model is doomed to failure. Makes sense.

[UltraJv]

But the power users - and I think you have to include all corporate users there, plus public sector agencies, hospitals, science users, etc as well as "creative types" - will still need a machine.

Actually those are the ones who benefit most from the "cloud". Companies don't have to invest thousands of dollars in computers.It'll be a commodity like electricity. It just makes so much sense to have a big computer park instead of single ones. You can have them running 24 hours a day as opposed to just 8 cutting costs to third in one fell swoop. Computers are too fast when you don't use them and to slow when you do. Not to mention the savings in software and upgrading costs.

Then there's Gamers. And they constitute a huge market area where Apple have totally failed, once again because they missed the trick of getting into *content* for their platform. I think it's possibly too late for Apple to get into that market. But Gamers spend big bucks to get the best PC, and this is an area that has particularly driven computer development over the years...

Gamers will be one group that'll benefit the most from the "cloud". There's already a firm that has a huge computer park filled with the latest GFX cards that provide streaming video over internet. If you play games 2 hours a day that is a saving of 92 %.
http://www.nicholasgcarr.com/bigswitch/

In the UK, there is an argument over who pays for the extra bandwidth needed for TV over the net. ISPs dont like the idea of everyone having full bandwidth 24/7 so they use traffic shaping. If all services allow constant streaming, no one will be able to acess the net attall. Thin clients were tried years back but didnt pan out well.

In the beginning all companies provided their own power (be it water,steam or electricity). They were in effect power companies as well. The mere thought of outsourcing power supply to third party was absurd. How could you trust someone with a matter of that importance ?

But are you really saying that private companies are afraid of too many customers ? That is usually something that plagues public services. Private rarely have a problem with that. Au contraire, it's kind of the business model.

Its more a case of restructuring the business model for charging for continual streaming net access. its a fierce market, any additional cost will be seen as a big issue by both parties. A new premium tier structure may be created to cope. Its down to contention ratio. This is covered in "fair use" policy.

[jupiter8]

Its more a case of restructuring the business model for charging for continual streaming net access. its a fierce market, any additional cost will be seen as a big issue by both parties. A new premium tier structure may be created to cope. Its down to contention ratio.

Your point being ?

[IncarnateX]

Finally I found the thread where you all are this evening (I'm in Europe).Why do I always miss all the fun?

14 pages...shit...
Someone care to give me a recap?