On Oct 26, 2010, at 11:19 AM, Swigart, Kurt A [NTK] wrote: > > I think Bruce Johnson missed the point on that last poster. You're not > exercising a sense of entitlement by pointing out that a corporation has > abandoned their original core beliefs.
>From where are you getting "Apple's original core beliefs"? The only such >statement I've ever seen is in an interview with Steve Jobs several years ago >(I believe it was in Time magazine) which was (paraphrased): "Our primary goal at Apple is to make the coolest stuff on the planet, our secondary goal is to sell enough of that stuff to keep on making the coolest stuff on the planet." There's NEVER been ANYthing on Apple's part ever about 'avoiding forced obsolescence', indeed, given the pace of advancement in the computing industry, 'forced obsolescence' is a nonsensical term. We have gone, in the space of 40 years, from crude, character-based 8-bit systems (the Apple II) to what has been described as 'one of those cool hand computers you've always seen in those sci-fi movies' ; the iPad. Apple has built and deliberately demolished their business several times: Apple II to Mac, Mac OS to OS X (and on to iOS), PowerPC to Intel. They even killed one of their most popular products EVER, at the very peak of its popularity (the original iPod Nano) to make way for the next version. My point about 'sense of entitlement' was about Wallace pretty much demanding that Apple make 'a $500 midrange tower with slots and an upgradeable CPU' which is something that Apple HAS NEVER MADE. For one, $500 isn't 'midrange' anything, it's dirt cheap. The only concession they've EVER made to 'cheap' is the Mini. > If I offer to deliver a superior product while promising to avoid the forced > obsolescence shenanigans characteristic of my competitors, and then break my > promise, you're not displaying an entitlement complex by calling me on it. When did Apple ever promise that? The only concrete example I can think of is at the Intel introduction where Jobs stated that the PowerPC was definitely going to be supported through the next OS version, which it was. 10.4 to 10.5 also took a lot longer than previous iterations of OS X. No one official has said anything one way or another about 32-bit Intel systems not being supported in 10.7. All we have to go on is rank speculation and rampant paranoia. Truthfully, beyond hobbyists and specialized cases, there really ISN'T a large market for CPU upgrades, add-in cards, etc etc etc. They only flourished when Macs were hugely expensive (The G4-450 Sawtooth cost nearly $3300 in today's dollars) and Apple could not acquire the improved CPU's in quantity (most third-party add-ins were overclocked or part of the small numbers of processors that Motorola or IBM could produce that met the higher speed specs.) These things add nothing to Apple's bottom line, either. Microsoft's long been hampered by their inability to engage in the sort of creative destruction that Apple does routinely; it's only this week that they're finally forbidding their OEM's to stop installing Windows XP. That 'Long Tail' may suit the kind of corporate office systems that MS targets, but Apple has NEVER made any bones about not chasing that market. -- Bruce Johnson "Wherever you go, there you are" B. Banzai, PhD -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
