Linked by David Adams on Tue 7th Jun 2011 17:54 UTC
Editorial Bob Cringeley makes a bold statement in a blog post responding to Apple's iCloud announcement: "Jobs is going to sacrifice the Macintosh in order to kill Windows." He says, "The incumbent platform today is Windows because it is in Windows machines that nearly all of our data and our ability to use that data have been trapped. But the Apple announcement changes all that. Suddenly the competition isn't about platforms at all, but about data, with that data being crunched on a variety of platforms through the use of cheap downloaded apps."
Thread beginning with comment 476425
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: huh????
by fizzled on Wed 8th Jun 2011 04:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: huh????"
Member since:

a few grand? Are we living in the same world? I haven't seen an apple product that is "a few grand" more expensive than its competitors.

Here's a new laptop from Lenovo for US$329--

The least expensive MacBook is $999.

The MacBook is not 3x better.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: huh????
by Morgan on Wed 8th Jun 2011 08:18 in reply to "RE[4]: huh????"
Morgan Member since:

It's not about whether the Mac laptop is "better", it's about whether it is what the consumer desires and/or needs. It's all about balance.

For example, I own a Dell Latitude D620, roughly equivalent to the second generation MacBook that was released at the same time (Core2Duo, DDR2-800 RAM, etc). The Dell was about $300 cheaper, with a larger screen, ambient light sensor, lighted keyboard, smart card reader, bluetooth, built-in WWAN support, Gigabit ethernet, dual pointing devices, and Nvidia graphics. The system is highly upgradeable for a laptop, with two-minute access to the hard drive, RAM, and all wireless devices. With a RAM upgrade I am now running Windows 7, Slackware Linux and Xubuntu 10.04 with ease, and it handles HD video and software compiling equally like a champ. In other words, much more flexible and useful to me than the more expensive Macbook.

Yet, given all of that I desire the Macbook instead some days, if only for the combination of aesthetics and a powerful, innovative OS that combines the best ideas from Windows, *nix and Apple's own classic OS. I can somewhat compromise with a 95% functional Hackintosh install on a spare hard drive for the Dell, but the slightest little incompatibility destroys the magic of using OS X on this "commodity" hardware.

All of the above is the reason why the only Mac I've bought new was the first gen Mac mini, the cheapest Mac of all time. And while I loved it for about a year, I soon felt the impact of buying what was essentially $300 worth of low-end hardware for $600. I decided then and there I would never buy another Mac brand-new. Since then I've owned an eMac, a G3 PowerBook and a Core Duo mini. Buying them used meant I paid what they were actually worth to me.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: huh????
by daedalus on Wed 8th Jun 2011 12:49 in reply to "RE[4]: huh????"
daedalus Member since:

No, but it is a lot better. You pay a premium for better goods in all areas of technology and beyond. If you have two TVs side-by-side, and one cost 3 times more than the other, will you be able to see a three times better picture? Even for AA batteries - you pay double the price for some brands that last longer, but not twice as long. Of course there's the Apple tax, but that aside, there's a lot more love gone into the MacBook than that Lenovo...

Reply Parent Score: -1