Re: imho: the cost of Mac vs others and their solutionsWas: docuscan is available
Aman, I apologize if you felt that my response was ladened with emotional adjectives. I agree that I was defending Apple products and the MacOS. In reading your subsequent posts to others who've responded to your assertions, it is clear to me that no matter how one slices it, your mind is made up as to the quote adaptability of the Mac and the MacOS. Those of us who own and use the Mac appreciate the efforts that Apple has made with respect to accessibility and providing us with a high quality alternative. Market share does not equate to adaptability in my opinion. I don't wish to belabour this thread anymore. We all have our own opinions, and are welcome to them but the point of this list is to assist each other with the use of the Mac, and threads such as this do not meet this goal. I also apologize to the List Moderators for perpetuating this topic. I will hold my tongue in the future. Later... On 2011-04-30, at 8:32 PM, Aman Singer wrote: Hi, John. Thank you for the civil reply. I agree with you that this thread risks wandering, so I will respond very briefly to all your points by saying three things. First, I do not deny that OSX has been increasing in market share for some years. I am just saying that, despite this increase, it still runs significantly behind Windows in the developed world and very significantly behind Windows worldwide. Obviously, I make no predictions about the future. Secondly, the numbers I quoted in my last message came both from data about sales and data of web usage. I also gave the numbers a wide margin of error. That is, the numbers I have read, if my memory has not gone back on me, are on the low end of the ranges I gave for them. Finally, the fact that Apple is the only seller of the operating systems is just the problem I have been talking about. If they allowed the product to be used by other manufacturers, I very probably wouldn't be complaining so loudly about lack of adaptability, and their market share might be significantly competitive. I think that deals with most of the issues you raise, my apologies if I've skimped. Aman On 4/30/11, John Panarese jpanar...@gmail.com wrote: This is not exactly true, though I fear the subject of this thread is starting to drift far astray. It is going to start getting a bit complicated if I were to explain to you the several marketing factors that make your asserted numbers very misleading. Yes, without a doubt, the share of OS X users compared to other operating systems, and that, by the way, incorporates more than just Windows users, is significantly smaller, but, again, you have to actually start to look at the numbers and break downs to see the shifts over the last 5 years alone. Also keep in mind that Apple is one company making the operating system and manufacturing the hardware. How many PC companies are out there competing against Apple and are forced to put Windows on to their systems by their agreements with Microsoft? Not to mention, how many other different operating systems, aside from OS X and Windows are often included when people start tossing around market share numbers? It gets way too complex and, again, this subject will start to drift into something far out of hand. Suffice it to say, examining overall trends worldwide over the last 5 years clearly demonstrates that Mac OS X is swiftly gaining ground as, by way of comparison, Windows is shrinking. Remember that while Apples 48 percent of laptop market share this passed year and 25 percent of desktop sales equals OS X users. Additionally, a lot of these surveys used to generate percentages does not consider the number of people who are running both Mac and Windows simultaneously in their house. And, of course, how many people are forced to use Windows at work, but use Macs at home. Then, of course, what the iPad has done and will continue to do to desktop and laptop sales figures also is a statistic that has not fully been grasped, especially when the iPad is actually running on OS X. Lastly, as a final fact that is often not addressed, one of the major differences between Apple and Microsoft in market data is how sales are counted. Apple only considers actual sales and activations by the end user in their numbers. Microsoft counts anything shipped to retail stores as sales. In other words, they don't consider how much inventory goes unsold and gathers dust on shelves, as was the case with the Zune, Windows Vista and as currently occurring with Windows Phone 7 handsets, Also, how many people take Windows off their PCs, laptops or net books after the sale to use Linux or another alternative. No matter how you slice it, the trend over the last 5 years shows that Windows use is decreasing while Mac OS X usage is growing rapidly. When Windows has owned the planet for some 15 years prior, breaking down that mammoth volume is
Re: imho: the cost of Mac vs others and their solutionsWas: docuscan is available
I love the fact that I don't have to beg someone else to fix my comptuer when windows blows a gasket and falls apart! i can reinstall and do all the maintinance on my mac myself windows yeah right you still have to see to install that trash 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
Re: imho: the cost of Mac vs others and their solutionsWas: docuscan is available
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
Re: imho: the cost of Mac vs others and their solutionsWas: docuscan is available
Compare the build quality of a cheap PC laptop to a Mac and you will see that you get what you pay for. The closest in build quality to Apple is Sony. Computers are like cars, you can buy cheap ones, or you can buy luxury ones. They all have 4 wheels and get you from A to B, just some do it quicker, sleeker and with more styling and comfort. On 30 Apr 2011, at 11:51, Scott Howell wrote: 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
Re: imho: the cost of Mac vs others and their solutionsWas: docuscan is available
Cheree Heppe here: That isn't the real determiner. The determiner will be the long term committment to usability and universal accessibility from these developers and manufacturers. The guy who is fully able to use his whatsit now finds himself debilitated some way later. Right now, Apple has made the committment to universal accessibility and others have addressed accessibility as an inconvenient social issue and used poorly fitting third party overlays to solve it. Who know how this will continue to shake down. But now, I, for one, and I am not in the minority of one by any means, am willing and soon to be able, to migrate to Apple. I'm doing it because they have proven themselves, not because of any glitsy sales routines. Regards, cheree Heppe Sent from my iPhone On 30/04/2011, at 4:51 AM, Chris Moore moor...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Compare the build quality of a cheap PC laptop to a Mac and you will see that you get what you pay for. The closest in build quality to Apple is Sony. Computers are like cars, you can buy cheap ones, or you can buy luxury ones. They all have 4 wheels and get you from A to B, just some do it quicker, sleeker and with more styling and comfort. On 30 Apr 2011, at 11:51, Scott Howell wrote: 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
Re: imho: the cost of Mac vs others and their solutionsWas: docuscan is available
Good choice Cheree. Indeed, in my personal opinion, and based on my actual experience, you could not make a better choice than Apple. Sincerely, The Constantly Barefooted Ray!!! Now a very proud and happy Mac user!!! Skype name: barefootedray On Apr 30, 2011, at 8:26 AM, Cheree wrote: Cheree Heppe here: That isn't the real determiner. The determiner will be the long term committment to usability and universal accessibility from these developers and manufacturers. The guy who is fully able to use his whatsit now finds himself debilitated some way later. Right now, Apple has made the committment to universal accessibility and others have addressed accessibility as an inconvenient social issue and used poorly fitting third party overlays to solve it. Who know how this will continue to shake down. But now, I, for one, and I am not in the minority of one by any means, am willing and soon to be able, to migrate to Apple. I'm doing it because they have proven themselves, not because of any glitsy sales routines. Regards, cheree Heppe Sent from my iPhone On 30/04/2011, at 4:51 AM, Chris Moore moor...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: Compare the build quality of a cheap PC laptop to a Mac and you will see that you get what you pay for. The closest in build quality to Apple is Sony. Computers are like cars, you can buy cheap ones, or you can buy luxury ones. They all have 4 wheels and get you from A to B, just some do it quicker, sleeker and with more styling and comfort. On 30 Apr 2011, at 11:51, Scott Howell wrote: 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
Re: imho: the cost of Mac vs others and their solutionsWas: docuscan is available
Hi Aman, Interesting yet uninformed. Even without you admitting it, I would guess from your post that you don't use a Mac and follow the mainstream and archaic views of many PC users with respect to the usability and adaptability of the Macintosh platform. Your price comparisons are exaggerated and much of your arguments are flawed due to misinformation. • Yes, you can purchase a Mac Desktop for $2500, which is a pretty awesome machine, but you also can purchase a MacMini desktop for just over $500 or an iMac for about $1300, both quite powerful desktop machines. You can upgrade most of these machines from the basic unit to quite a powerful one. I can go to Walmart and purchase a Surround-Sound Audio system for $200 or I can go somewhere else and purchase a Harman Kardon system for $1500. The Walmart system will do the job, won't sound quite as nice and won't last as long, but will do the job. You get what you pay for. There are exceptions to that rule but holds true in most situations. • You obviously haven't carried or properly used a MacBook, MacBook Air or MacBook Pro. They are considered some of the lightest and thinnest laptops on the market. I can also remotely connect to my Desktop at home using these Macs. • I'm not sure where your concept of a narrow adaptability comes from. I have five Macs in my home, manage over 400 Macs at work and it would be entirely stupid to have that much money invested in something that does not meet the needs of the many users I support. These are primarily sighted users, although we also have numerous users with special needs who find the accessibility of the Mac platform superior to Windows on the PC. In fact, we've been using Macs for over 20 years and have no interest in moving to the PC world. Your arguments appear to me to stem from an age old stigma that many hardcore PC users hold, these arguments are out-of-date. • I also taught end-user skills both on the Mac and Windows for years. The skill-sets that the end-user develops by using either platform are totally transferrable if the end-user has a desire to do so. • Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that most screenreader venders expect you to purchase multiple licenses if you're using it on multiple computers. Many people don't actually purchase the multiple copies, but that is the expectation and, in many cases, the legal responsibility of the end-user. • If I read Brandt's post correctly, his primary factor for his decision is financial. He still is interested in the MacOS, and that is why he is considering the Hac-intosh route, so slamming the Mac in the manner you have is somewhat uncalled for. • If I break your post down to the nitty-gritty, you simply don't wish to own a Mac. In fact, that's totally OK and totally your choice. If your circumstances result in you preferring a PC with Windows, then so be it. Others may feel that the Mac better suits their purposes. It is an individual choice that each of us can make given accurate information. Take all the factors that are important to you and make your own informed decision. Just my opinion. Later... On 2011-04-29, at 8:34 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,
Re: imho: the cost of Mac vs others and their solutionsWas: docuscan is available
Hi there, Well, let me put it in prospective for you. A Mac mini goes for what, $599? Over here the price is R6999 which translate in to $1076 as of this morning. Warm regards, Brandt Steenkamp If you like country, oldies and the ocasional 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: Tim Kilburn kilbu...@shaw.ca To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 5:14 PM Subject: Re: imho: the cost of Mac vs others and their solutionsWas: docuscan is available Hi Aman, Interesting yet uninformed. Even without you admitting it, I would guess from your post that you don't use a Mac and follow the mainstream and archaic views of many PC users with respect to the usability and adaptability of the Macintosh platform. Your price comparisons are exaggerated and much of your arguments are flawed due to misinformation. • Yes, you can purchase a Mac Desktop for $2500, which is a pretty awesome machine, but you also can purchase a MacMini desktop for just over $500 or an iMac for about $1300, both quite powerful desktop machines. You can upgrade most of these machines from the basic unit to quite a powerful one. I can go to Walmart and purchase a Surround-Sound Audio system for $200 or I can go somewhere else and purchase a Harman Kardon system for $1500. The Walmart system will do the job, won't sound quite as nice and won't last as long, but will do the job. You get what you pay for. There are exceptions to that rule but holds true in most situations. • You obviously haven't carried or properly used a MacBook, MacBook Air or MacBook Pro. They are considered some of the lightest and thinnest laptops on the market. I can also remotely connect to my Desktop at home using these Macs. • I'm not sure where your concept of a narrow adaptability comes from. I have five Macs in my home, manage over 400 Macs at work and it would be entirely stupid to have that much money invested in something that does not meet the needs of the many users I support. These are primarily sighted users, although we also have numerous users with special needs who find the accessibility of the Mac platform superior to Windows on the PC. In fact, we've been using Macs for over 20 years and have no interest in moving to the PC world. Your arguments appear to me to stem from an age old stigma that many hardcore PC users hold, these arguments are out-of-date. • I also taught end-user skills both on the Mac and Windows for years. The skill-sets that the end-user develops by using either platform are totally transferrable if the end-user has a desire to do so. • Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that most screenreader venders expect you to purchase multiple licenses if you're using it on multiple computers. Many people don't actually purchase the multiple copies, but that is the expectation and, in many cases, the legal responsibility of the end-user. • If I read Brandt's post correctly, his primary factor for his decision is financial. He still is interested in the MacOS, and that is why he is considering the Hac-intosh route, so slamming the Mac in the manner you have is somewhat uncalled for. • If I break your post down to the nitty-gritty, you simply don't wish to own a Mac. In fact, that's totally OK and totally your choice. If your circumstances result in you preferring a PC with Windows, then so be it. Others may feel that the Mac better suits their purposes. It is an individual choice that each of us can make given accurate information. Take all the factors that are important to you and make your own informed decision. Just my opinion. Later... On 2011-04-29, at 8:34 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
Re: imho: the cost of Mac vs others and their solutionsWas: docuscan is available
Hi, Tim. Rather than labelling your arguments with emotionally-laden terms such as archaic or misinformed, let me deal with them one by one on their merits, if I may. As an aside, it is astonishing to me that people generally are so defensive about the technology they use. Frankly, I hate all computers I use to about an equal extent, the day I find something better is the day I upgrade to it. I have no interest in defending my technological choices, as the name implies, they're my technological choices, made by me and for me. The whole point of my participation in this thread is to try to show that the cost of a Mac, and the unit's setup more generally, makes it a machine that isn't as adaptable as the units running Windows/Linux. Now, you write • Yes, you can purchase a Mac Desktop for $2500, which is a pretty awesome machine, but you also can purchase a MacMini desktop for just over $500 or an iMac for about $1300, both quite powerful desktop machines. You can upgrade most of these machines from the basic unit to quite a powerful one. I can go to Walmart and purchase a Surround-Sound Audio system for $200 or I can go somewhere else and purchase a Harman Kardon system for $1500. The Walmart system will do the job, won't sound quite as nice and won't last as long, but will do the job. You get what you pay for. What you cannot do, however, is purchase a Mac for $250-300. You can purchase such a computer running Windows. Similarly, you cannot purchase a Mac for $50. You can purchase such a computer running Linux. I did not say, and don't think, that Macs cannot be found at many price points. My point is simply that machines running other operating systems can be found at many more price points, and at many more power levels, and thus can be used in many more circumstances. You raise the analogy of a sound system. With respect, the analogy seems to prove my own point. There are certain circumstances where what I want is a very cheap sound system from Walmart. Consider a vacation house, or a child's room, or a moving RV/boat, and so on. The problem I am pointing out here is that buying even the lowest-end new Mac is like buying a high-end sound system for these places. It's overkill. Sometimes, because of the limitations on the Mac line, buying even the highest-end Mac is underkill, you want to spend your money differently on different components. This is my whole point, that Macs simply are not so adaptable as other machines. You write • You obviously haven't carried or properly used a MacBook, MacBook Air or MacBook Pro. They are considered some of the lightest and thinnest laptops on the market. You are quite right, my experience has been with a Mac Mini, rather than the Mac laptops. However, my laptop weighs less than a pound (around 400 G) and has a 5 inch screen. Now, I am by no means saying that everyone should use a laptop that I use. The small size requires tradeoffs. My point, in case I haven't made you sick of it by now, is that I can get a laptop with a 5 inch screen and which weighs less than a pound because Windows/Linux is adaptable, the Mac adapts over a narrower range. My laptop runs Windows at the moment, but can run Linux if I want it. Further, you did not address my argument concerning damage/theft. If my $300 netbook has coffee spilled all over it, then I'm out $300. If my $1000 Mac laptop is similarly drenched, I'm out a much larger amount. Again, the circumstances make it useful for me to compute on a lower end machine. Apple has no such machine, and thus their machines are not as adaptable as those running other units. You write I can also remotely connect to my Desktop at home using these Macs. This has nothing to do with this thread, so I will, if I may, ask questions about this on another thread. You write • I'm not sure where your concept of a narrow adaptability comes from. I have five Macs in my home, manage over 400 Macs at work and it would be entirely stupid to have that much money invested in something that does not meet the needs of the many users I support. These are primarily sighted users, although we also have numerous users with special needs who find the accessibility of the Mac platform superior to Windows on the PC. With respect, I don't see why you limit your argument to the computers you use and support. Why not mention the several million Mac systems out there? The fact that you know of 500 systems and that there are many Mac OS machines out there does not challenge what I'm trying to say at all. All the systems may well be within the range of what the Mac is designed for. My point is that the range is narrower, usually a good deal narrower, than that which Windows/Linux is designed for. As for where my idea of lack of adaptability comes from in the Mac, I have tried to show that throughout this message. You write • I also taught end-user skills both on the Mac and Windows for years. The skill-sets that
Re: imho: the cost of Mac vs others and their solutionsWas: docuscan is available
Hi, Scott. Let me first thank you for a civil reply. I am grateful for your answering my message without a hint of emotionalism and without trying to defend any particular technology or option in a sharp way. I think my reply to Tim deals with everything below except for one matter, and that is market share. You say APple has not failed at all and in fact has made an absolutely significant leap in the market. THe numbers speak for themselves With respect, I think the numbers indicate that Apple is a very successful tablet and music player maker, a successful phone maker, a fairly successful hardware maker, and a failure as an operating system development company. So far as I know, Apple has yet to hit the ten percent mark in operating system usage, and is significantly below that worldwide. Even in the United States, their home territory, their operating system usage is still somewhere between ten and twenty percent, so far as I know. This indicates that, though they have improved, they are still very far behind Microsoft. The fact that a student has progressed from getting 10% on an examination to getting 35%, while creditable, does not mean he is passing the course, still less that he is doing very well. I have no financial or emotional investment in Apple or any other OS company. I am just noting what I see, and what I see is that Apple is still doing fairly badly in OS usage, even after a great deal of hype and a long period of improvement. My conclusion, based on the evidence I've put up in my other messages on this thread, is that some of this is due to their product not being as adaptable as the other OS products. Aman scottn3...@gmail.com wrote: 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
Re: imho: the cost of Mac vs others and their solutionsWas: docuscan is available
This is not exactly true, though I fear the subject of this thread is starting to drift far astray. It is going to start getting a bit complicated if I were to explain to you the several marketing factors that make your asserted numbers very misleading. Yes, without a doubt, the share of OS X users compared to other operating systems, and that, by the way, incorporates more than just Windows users, is significantly smaller, but, again, you have to actually start to look at the numbers and break downs to see the shifts over the last 5 years alone. Also keep in mind that Apple is one company making the operating system and manufacturing the hardware. How many PC companies are out there competing against Apple and are forced to put Windows on to their systems by their agreements with Microsoft? Not to mention, how many other different operating systems, aside from OS X and Windows are often included when people start tossing around market share numbers? It gets way too complex and, again, this subject will start to drift into something far out of hand. Suffice it to say, examining overall trends worldwide over the last 5 years clearly demonstrates that Mac OS X is swiftly gaining ground as, by way of comparison, Windows is shrinking. Remember that while Apples 48 percent of laptop market share this passed year and 25 percent of desktop sales equals OS X users. Additionally, a lot of these surveys used to generate percentages does not consider the number of people who are running both Mac and Windows simultaneously in their house. And, of course, how many people are forced to use Windows at work, but use Macs at home. Then, of course, what the iPad has done and will continue to do to desktop and laptop sales figures also is a statistic that has not fully been grasped, especially when the iPad is actually running on OS X. Lastly, as a final fact that is often not addressed, one of the major differences between Apple and Microsoft in market data is how sales are counted. Apple only considers actual sales and activations by the end user in their numbers. Microsoft counts anything shipped to retail stores as sales. In other words, they don't consider how much inventory goes unsold and gathers dust on shelves, as was the case with the Zune, Windows Vista and as currently occurring with Windows Phone 7 handsets, Also, how many people take Windows off their PCs, laptops or net books after the sale to use Linux or another alternative. No matter how you slice it, the trend over the last 5 years shows that Windows use is decreasing while Mac OS X usage is growing rapidly. When Windows has owned the planet for some 15 years prior, breaking down that mammoth volume is not an immediate figure as it stands on its own. Anyway, folks, my apologies for wandering. On Apr 30, 2011, at 3:17 PM, Aman Singer wrote: Hi, Scott. Let me first thank you for a civil reply. I am grateful for your answering my message without a hint of emotionalism and without trying to defend any particular technology or option in a sharp way. I think my reply to Tim deals with everything below except for one matter, and that is market share. You say APple has not failed at all and in fact has made an absolutely significant leap in the market. THe numbers speak for themselves With respect, I think the numbers indicate that Apple is a very successful tablet and music player maker, a successful phone maker, a fairly successful hardware maker, and a failure as an operating system development company. So far as I know, Apple has yet to hit the ten percent mark in operating system usage, and is significantly below that worldwide. Even in the United States, their home territory, their operating system usage is still somewhere between ten and twenty percent, so far as I know. This indicates that, though they have improved, they are still very far behind Microsoft. The fact that a student has progressed from getting 10% on an examination to getting 35%, while creditable, does not mean he is passing the course, still less that he is doing very well. I have no financial or emotional investment in Apple or any other OS company. I am just noting what I see, and what I see is that Apple is still doing fairly badly in OS usage, even after a great deal of hype and a long period of improvement. My conclusion, based on the evidence I've put up in my other messages on this thread, is that some of this is due to their product not being as adaptable as the other OS products. Aman scottn3...@gmail.com wrote: 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
Re: imho: the cost of Mac vs others and their solutionsWas: docuscan is available
Another difference is, compare the bloatware that is installed with cheaper PCS. In most cases, if you build a PC yourself and use good quality parts, you will end up paying about what you do for a mac. On Apr 30, 2011, at 6:51 AM, Chris Moore wrote: Compare the build quality of a cheap PC laptop to a Mac and you will see that you get what you pay for. The closest in build quality to Apple is Sony. Computers are like cars, you can buy cheap ones, or you can buy luxury ones. They all have 4 wheels and get you from A to B, just some do it quicker, sleeker and with more styling and comfort. On 30 Apr 2011, at 11:51, Scott Howell wrote: 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
Re: imho: the cost of Mac vs others and their solutionsWas: docuscan is available
Aman, Your message does mix a number of things here, but the end result is the Mac is beyond what your willing to spend and that is pretty much where it should end. Any argument beyond that is pointless. The most unrealistic part is breaking this down to components. The average user is not at all interested in choosing an Asus board over an Intel board. ALl they want is to turn it on and get their tasks accomplished. I used to build my own machines and spent a great deal of time and money trying to get the best box I could. If the Mac is more than you want to spend then fine, you get what works for you. ALl the rest of this is unnecessary pointless piffle. -- 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.
Re: imho: the cost of Mac vs others and their solutionsWas: docuscan is available
Aman, Incorrect. Microsoft has been able to dominate the market simply by virtue of the fact that so many manufacturers install that OS. If APple were to allow the same thing, I suspect the song would be quite different. THis whole issue of adaptability holds no water and as I said is pointless piffle. THe fact is Apple has made some real strides in the computing world because of their innovation in hardware and OS technology. Microsoft has finally begun to make some real efforts in turning out WIndows 7. Now there is no question that tablets including the iPad are hurting PC sales, but this is more a shift in how people want to interact with their computers. Aman, as I said, at the end of the day, all people want is to turn on the machine and get the work/task done. Linux, WIndows, Mac, it makes no difference. I use a LInux VM for some very specific tasks, so I really can speak to this issue. The important thing is not to mix cost and such because all of these things do impact the decision to purchase a Mac or PC perhaps, but have to be considered independently and in the proper context. Look Macs are not cheap and no argument there. I'm all about using the tool that meets your needs. Unfortunately this topic has run off the rails perhaps. All I can say is I made the switch and defend that decision only based on the fact my needs are being met. There is no emotion in my decision because I realize there is always a better tool just around the corner and you never know what that might be. So, I keep an open mind for the most part. :) I just have to say I've never liked WIndows, but I use it as well at work. :) On Apr 30, 2011, at 3:17 PM, Aman Singer wrote: Hi, Scott. Let me first thank you for a civil reply. I am grateful for your answering my message without a hint of emotionalism and without trying to defend any particular technology or option in a sharp way. I think my reply to Tim deals with everything below except for one matter, and that is market share. You say APple has not failed at all and in fact has made an absolutely significant leap in the market. THe numbers speak for themselves With respect, I think the numbers indicate that Apple is a very successful tablet and music player maker, a successful phone maker, a fairly successful hardware maker, and a failure as an operating system development company. So far as I know, Apple has yet to hit the ten percent mark in operating system usage, and is significantly below that worldwide. Even in the United States, their home territory, their operating system usage is still somewhere between ten and twenty percent, so far as I know. This indicates that, though they have improved, they are still very far behind Microsoft. The fact that a student has progressed from getting 10% on an examination to getting 35%, while creditable, does not mean he is passing the course, still less that he is doing very well. I have no financial or emotional investment in Apple or any other OS company. I am just noting what I see, and what I see is that Apple is still doing fairly badly in OS usage, even after a great deal of hype and a long period of improvement. My conclusion, based on the evidence I've put up in my other messages on this thread, is that some of this is due to their product not being as adaptable as the other OS products. Aman scottn3...@gmail.com wrote: 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
Re: imho: the cost of Mac vs others and their solutionsWas: docuscan is available
Hi, Scott. You write Your message does mix a number of things here, but the end result is the Mac is beyond what your willing to spend and that is pretty much where it should end. Any argument beyond that is pointless. I'm glad, Scott, that you know my motives better than I do. I must be a bit irrational, though, given that the desktop I'm typing this on cost more, originally, than most Macs. However, faced with omniscience, I have nothing to say. We might as well say that I must have been a bit off my rocker when I had it built. You write The most unrealistic part is breaking this down to components. The average user is not at all interested in choosing an Asus board over an Intel board. ALl they want is to turn it on and get their tasks accomplished. That is precisely my point. Apple is targeting a certain type of user and ignoring all others. This user is not interested in what components go into the machine. He also lives in the developed world, has an income which puts him into at least the lower middle-class, regularly uses one, or at most two, machines, outside of work, and possibly owns several other Apple products. If you don't fit that mould, then the Apple products will not adapt to your circumstances. You can deviate from that mould slightly, but deviate too much and Apple OSX just don't work for you. Both Windows and Linux, on the other hand, do not have such a mould. They will work on the machine you put them on. They may work more slowly or rapidly, but they will work. This is my understanding of adaptability, that the OS should adapt to the user's circumstances and desires. The OS should be usable by, and satisfactory to, the vast majority of users, not just the average user, with the word average being defined by Apple. OSX is not adaptable in that sense, partially because of its artificial hardware limitations. This is the entirety of my point about this issue, and has been my point in this thread. Aman On 4/30/11, Scott Howell scottn3...@gmail.com wrote: Aman, Your message does mix a number of things here, but the end result is the Mac is beyond what your willing to spend and that is pretty much where it should end. Any argument beyond that is pointless. The most unrealistic part is breaking this down to components. The average user is not at all interested in choosing an Asus board over an Intel board. ALl they want is to turn it on and get their tasks accomplished. I used to build my own machines and spent a great deal of time and money trying to get the best box I could. If the Mac is more than you want to spend then fine, you get what works for you. ALl the rest of this is unnecessary pointless piffle. -- 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.
Re: imho: the cost of Mac vs others and their solutionsWas: docuscan is available
Hi, John. Thank you for the civil reply. I agree with you that this thread risks wandering, so I will respond very briefly to all your points by saying three things. First, I do not deny that OSX has been increasing in market share for some years. I am just saying that, despite this increase, it still runs significantly behind Windows in the developed world and very significantly behind Windows worldwide. Obviously, I make no predictions about the future. Secondly, the numbers I quoted in my last message came both from data about sales and data of web usage. I also gave the numbers a wide margin of error. That is, the numbers I have read, if my memory has not gone back on me, are on the low end of the ranges I gave for them. Finally, the fact that Apple is the only seller of the operating systems is just the problem I have been talking about. If they allowed the product to be used by other manufacturers, I very probably wouldn't be complaining so loudly about lack of adaptability, and their market share might be significantly competitive. I think that deals with most of the issues you raise, my apologies if I've skimped. Aman On 4/30/11, John Panarese jpanar...@gmail.com wrote: This is not exactly true, though I fear the subject of this thread is starting to drift far astray. It is going to start getting a bit complicated if I were to explain to you the several marketing factors that make your asserted numbers very misleading. Yes, without a doubt, the share of OS X users compared to other operating systems, and that, by the way, incorporates more than just Windows users, is significantly smaller, but, again, you have to actually start to look at the numbers and break downs to see the shifts over the last 5 years alone. Also keep in mind that Apple is one company making the operating system and manufacturing the hardware. How many PC companies are out there competing against Apple and are forced to put Windows on to their systems by their agreements with Microsoft? Not to mention, how many other different operating systems, aside from OS X and Windows are often included when people start tossing around market share numbers? It gets way too complex and, again, this subject will start to drift into something far out of hand. Suffice it to say, examining overall trends worldwide over the last 5 years clearly demonstrates that Mac OS X is swiftly gaining ground as, by way of comparison, Windows is shrinking. Remember that while Apples 48 percent of laptop market share this passed year and 25 percent of desktop sales equals OS X users. Additionally, a lot of these surveys used to generate percentages does not consider the number of people who are running both Mac and Windows simultaneously in their house. And, of course, how many people are forced to use Windows at work, but use Macs at home. Then, of course, what the iPad has done and will continue to do to desktop and laptop sales figures also is a statistic that has not fully been grasped, especially when the iPad is actually running on OS X. Lastly, as a final fact that is often not addressed, one of the major differences between Apple and Microsoft in market data is how sales are counted. Apple only considers actual sales and activations by the end user in their numbers. Microsoft counts anything shipped to retail stores as sales. In other words, they don't consider how much inventory goes unsold and gathers dust on shelves, as was the case with the Zune, Windows Vista and as currently occurring with Windows Phone 7 handsets, Also, how many people take Windows off their PCs, laptops or net books after the sale to use Linux or another alternative. No matter how you slice it, the trend over the last 5 years shows that Windows use is decreasing while Mac OS X usage is growing rapidly. When Windows has owned the planet for some 15 years prior, breaking down that mammoth volume is not an immediate figure as it stands on its own. Anyway, folks, my apologies for wandering. On Apr 30, 2011, at 3:17 PM, Aman Singer wrote: Hi, Scott. Let me first thank you for a civil reply. I am grateful for your answering my message without a hint of emotionalism and without trying to defend any particular technology or option in a sharp way. I think my reply to Tim deals with everything below except for one matter, and that is market share. You say APple has not failed at all and in fact has made an absolutely significant leap in the market. THe numbers speak for themselves With respect, I think the numbers indicate that Apple is a very successful tablet and music player maker, a successful phone maker, a fairly successful hardware maker, and a failure as an operating system development company. So far as I know, Apple has yet to hit the ten percent mark in operating system usage, and is significantly below that worldwide. Even in the United
Re: imho: the cost of Mac vs others and their solutionsWas: docuscan is available
Hi Aman, Honestly, I have seen numbers that range from Apple having anywhere from 9 percent to 15 percent of the overall market. It all depends on what you read, what they use for statistical data and what they are actually including as market share. Additionally, as I mentioned and Scott pointed out, when you have all other vendors putting Windows on their systems sold or most of their systems sold up against a single company, well, it's like one guy taking on an army on his own. To me, the trends are far more telling than taking a look at a statistic that does not tell the story. It's like looking at a team that has won several championships years ago, yet have finished at the bottom of the standings for practically every season since 2001. The glories of the past are relatively meaningless in the present. I also have to disagree with you about Apple's choice not to allow others to make their hardware or install their software being a bad thing. This is exactly why OS X is so secure and why OS X runs far better than Windows. You don't have so many fingers in the pie and you don't have the aspect of compatibility issues with every upgrade. in fact, this is why iOS can be upgraded and updated so easily across devices. Take one look at what happens any time Microsoft comes out with a new OS or Android is updated on the countless types of phones that run it. You have so many issues and problems all over the place. That would simply destroy the user experience for the Mac user. It would also open the door to turn OS X into Windows as far as security and stability goes. It's funny that you say Apple targets a certain type of user. I think you are really missing the point with that notion. Again, you might not want to consider the current trends, but, obviously, the end user experience Apple is famous for out weighs the extra money folks will have to pay for an Apple product. I know MANY people who could have gone with a Dell or an HP or a Toshiba and paid far less than they did for their Mac Book Pro or iMac. These weren't certain types of users either, but, instead, college students and professionals alike. Times are a changing, my friend. That is really my point. Even the more expensive, high end Macs blow the doors off of PCs with similar specs and which are, by the way, even more expensive than Macs. I am thinking of someone right now who spent almost a thousand dollars more for a PC than a friend spent on his Mac Pro, and the Mac is a much better machine. Frankly, I never want to see Apple go the Microsoft route. I don't want to see Mac OS X turn into the nightmare Windows is. Yeah, market share would increase significantly, but I think that's going to happen on its own. As the halo effect of the iDevices continues and Microsoft continues to implode under Steve Balmer, it's only going to help Apple and Google in the long term. I don't exactly know what you mean by, adaptability, but we are already seeing that as far as WHO is using Macs and who has been switching from Windows. As a side note, I find it interesting that Windows 8 is being made to look more and more like Mac OS X. I think this fact is probably more telling than anything else. Take Care John D. Panarese Director Mac for the Blind j...@macfortheblind.com http://www.macfortheblind.com AUTHORIZED APPLE STORE BUSINESS AFFILIATE MAC VOICEOVER TRAINING AND SUPPORT On Apr 30, 2011, at 10:32 PM, Aman Singer wrote: Hi, John. Thank you for the civil reply. I agree with you that this thread risks wandering, so I will respond very briefly to all your points by saying three things. First, I do not deny that OSX has been increasing in market share for some years. I am just saying that, despite this increase, it still runs significantly behind Windows in the developed world and very significantly behind Windows worldwide. Obviously, I make no predictions about the future. Secondly, the numbers I quoted in my last message came both from data about sales and data of web usage. I also gave the numbers a wide margin of error. That is, the numbers I have read, if my memory has not gone back on me, are on the low end of the ranges I gave for them. Finally, the fact that Apple is the only seller of the operating systems is just the problem I have been talking about. If they allowed the product to be used by other manufacturers, I very probably wouldn't be complaining so loudly about lack of adaptability, and their market share might be significantly competitive. I think that deals with most of the issues you raise, my apologies if I've skimped. Aman On 4/30/11, John Panarese jpanar...@gmail.com wrote: This is not exactly true, though I fear the subject of this thread is starting to drift far astray. It is going to start getting a bit complicated if I were to explain to you the several marketing factors that make
Re: imho: the cost of Mac vs others and their solutionsWas: docuscan is available
Carolyn, I would normally avoid posting I agree messages, but you really did state this very well. It is difficult to compare Macs to PCs because the comparison is not so clear. They both are computers, but the quality is very different. There is a reason why a PC can cost as little as $300 or less. People do not realize that some of the cost is also subsidized by third-party vendors for having their trial software or other junk installed. I agree the DocuScan program is considerably less than the other AT solutions of its kind available on the market. I was impressed by the demo recorded and I might even consider trying this out. However, I think my main concern is the fact it does the processing in the cloud, where I would like to have that as an option myself. However, it is again a fascinating idea. On Apr 29, 2011, at 2:18 PM, carolyn Haas 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
Re: imho: the cost of Mac vs others and their solutionsWas: docuscan is available
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
