Aman, For The best thing is you have choice. APple has not failed at all and in fact has made an absolutely significant leap in the market. THe numbers speak for themselves and based on that it is apparent many feel the Mac is a worthwhile investment. I understand your point concerning a mobile solution and you want something that is cheap, so if it is stolen or damaged, you are out hundreds instead of a $1,000 etc. That works for you and You are correct that a computer is a tool, but in purchasing any tool, you have to consider your needs and what you are willing to invest in the tool. An inexpensive machine might be perfect for you when traveling etc., and again you have choice, which is great. However, if you have the money or are willing to make the investment in a more expensive tool because it will better meet your needs, then at least you have options. I could not disagree more though that APple has failed to consider consumers. If that were the case they would not be in the position they are today. Is Bose wrong for charging what they do for their products? THey charge more for headphones etc. then most manufacturers, but there is again even in this space a price point to fit all budgets. Bose however charges what they believe is a reasonable price for their product and this holds true for APple. Just because someone cannot afford or wishes to spend the money does not mean the company has failed. Does this make sense? On Apr 29, 2011, at 10:34 PM, Aman Singer wrote:
> Hi, Carolyn and all. > I do not use a Mac for two reasons. The first, and most important, > has nothing to do with this thread, but a second, and almost equally > important reason is one which Carolyn's message below hints at. > Carolyn writes > The Mac is a totally different system, and built to some stringent > specifications. You don't see any Macs for $300 as you do for PC > machines. And there's > a good reason. They're worth more. > > I think they are worth more. That's not to say that they're worth > what is being charged for them, but if you're saying that a Mac is > worth more than most netbooks, I absolutely agree. The problem with > Apple is, though, that they don't realize that technology needs to be > adaptable to be taken up by a large number of people. I want a very > good desktop and an adequate laptop. That's because I want to carry my > laptop around with me everywhere. I want it light and I don't want to > worry about damaging it, losing it, etc. I can use my powerful desktop > remotely and everything works well. A $300 netbook is just the thing > for me. No Mac is. The wonderful thing about both Windows and Linux is > that they are so adaptable. Your $250 netbook runs Windows, and your > $1000 laptop runs Windows, and your $2500 desktop runs Windows. Your > plug PC costing $50 runs Linux and your $500 laptop Runs Linux and > your $2500 desktop runs Linux. Obviously, I could say more, but I'm > speaking strictly as a consumer. Anyhow, this is where Apple fails. > Their products are adaptable over a narrow range. For many > circumstances, what you want is simply something that will do the job > cheaply and reasonably, and that usually isn't a Mac. Sometimes you > want the fastest/best components on the market and here, again, Apple > fails because of its stringency. For example, SSDs were available for > other computers for nearly a year before they were available for the > Mac. I think what Brant is pointing out here isn't that the Mac is too > expensive for what you get, though that may well be true, but is too > rigidly expensive for certain users, and too rigidly cheap for others. > The fact that he finds the prices high is just a symptom, the disease, > if I may be so fanciful, is that a Mac machine doesn't adapt to his > situation. If you want the very high-end or the somewhat/very low-end, > you don't want a new Mac. If you want to spread your money > differently, spending more on certain components and less on others, > you don't want a Mac at all. Of course, that also means that your > skill set on a Mac, and this is particularly as an AT user, isn't as > useful because it isn't used on as many devices and at as many > locations. > Now, you may argue that all of the above is well and good for the > ordinary user but that it doesn't apply to the blind user because of > the cost of screen readers and other at. The cost savings, though, on > AT, have been somewhat exaggerated, in my view. They apply most > obviously to a person who has never bought a screen reader or other AT > before, and who wants something a bit more complicated than NVDA. This > person saves money, and gets capability, with the Mac. Others don't > save money quickly, don't save it at all, or take a cut in capability > when they buy a Mac. An example of where the financial savings take > quite a while to kick in is where people have already purchased a > screen reader, Say Jaws or Window Eyes, and are purchasing a Mac > rather than purchasing an SMA. Depending on the cost of the Mac and > the SMA, their savings may not kick in for anywhere from 2-5 years. > Again, people who want multiple computers, even if it is two machines, > can, because they need only purchase the screen reader once, end up > spending less on the Windows option over all. The more computers you > have, the more the cost of a screen reader purchase is wiped out by > cheaper hardware. Again, people who run Windows for any reason do not > save money except possibly for upgrade costs in their screen reader. > Again, people who want fairly simple computing can buy a netbook, use > NVDA, and save large amounts of money compared to those who buy a Mac. > My point, as if I haven't belaboured it enough, is that the Mac is not > adaptable in the same way the PC is, and that what I hear from those > who say that "the Mac costs more because it's better than Windows > Machines", ignores the further question "Why should I care if I don't > need to pay for a better machine?". > Note that where Apple has been really successful, they have brought > out devices which either push forward a category in its infancy (the > iPad and iPod), or fit into a fairly narrow category (iPhone). They > haven't been general purpose, like PCs are. > I should say that I know about, but completely ignore, the cool/other > emotional factors in buying any computer. I understand that people buy > the Mac because they feel that they're supporting accessibility, or > that buying mainstream technology rather than specialized access > technology is somehow important/beneficial, or that they like Apple's > design philosophy, or that their friends have Macs, and so on. I > acknowledge that these are reasons for some people, they're just not > reasons for me. I am not emotionally invested in any platform or > computer, a computer is a tool, and the only questions that matters to > me is what can it do and how much does it cost? It seems to me that > the Mac is still on the high-cost end of the curve, and that its > capabilities do not justify the premium charged by Apple which, as I > understand Brandt, is what he is saying. > Aman > > > > On 4/29/11, carolyn Haas <chaas0...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Brandt: >> Couldn't disagree with this point of view more. First you're comparing >> Apples and raspberries.:) >> The Mac is a totally different system, and built to some stringent >> specifications. You don't see any Macs for $300 as you do for PC machines. >> And there's a good reason. They're worth more. >> Secondly: you're buying mainstream technology, and not having to fork out >> the price of a second machine just to get it to talk. Voiceover is built >> into the system, not as an adaptation of the system. >> As such, Vo is intended to give the VI Mac user a more accurate picture of >> the screen. >> >> >> Finally, even at $299, if docuscan works as well as we're hoping it does, >> it's still a third of the price of your krzweil or openbook programs. >> >> Sorry, but I believe when you buy a Mac, you get what you pay for. >> >> >> Carolyn >> >> On Apr 29, 2011, at 12:33 AM, brandt wrote: >> >>> Hi there, >>> >>> Yes, $299 is a fair bit of money, but how many actually went and bought >>> open Book or something similar back when ever for 3 ore 4 times more? My >>> biggest complaint is not the cost of software but the ridiculous prices of >>> Mac computers. I can and probably will go the Hakintosh route just because >>> of that. >>> >>> Warm regards, >>> >>> Brandt Steenkamp >>> >>> If you like country, oldies and the occasional modern track, you can tune >>> in to my show, "an Eclectic mess" every Wednesday afternoon at 3 PM UTC by >>> going to www.TheGlobalVoice.info >>> >>> Contact me: >>> >>> Skype: brandt.steenkamp007 >>> MSN: brandt...@live.com >>> Google talk/AIM: brandt.steenk...@gmail.com >>> Twitter @brandtsteenkamp >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: E.J. Zufelt >>> To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com >>> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 5:23 AM >>> Subject: Re: For those who can actually afford this, DocuScan Plus is now >>> on the mac app store. >>> >>> I know nothing at all about this app. But, I suspect that a significant >>> portion of the cost is related to licencing a OCR SDK >>> >>> >>> Everett Zufelt >>> http://zufelt.ca >>> >>> Follow me on Twitter >>> http://twitter.com/ezufelt >>> >>> View my LinkedIn Profile >>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/ezufelt >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2011-04-28, at 10:05 PM, Matthew Campbell wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Listers. >>>> DocuScan is now mac compatible and can be found on the mac app store. >>>> Don't get too excited though, unless you have $299.00 to burn on it. >>>> Hope this actually benefits someone. >>>> the Infuriated Matt Campbell. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>> "MacVisionaries" group. >>>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "MacVisionaries" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group >>> athttp://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "MacVisionaries" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "MacVisionaries" group. >> To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
