SterlingNorth's Profile

Impressive. James managed to get every single prediction wrong in this article.

John Welch made the point in a way I cannot disagree with at all. Steve shouldn't tweet or social-mediaize himself just because everyone else is. Apple would be a disaster on it, unless they really want to become more open, which it does not seem to want to be.

I think to most Americans "stat" means right now, as in that's how they use it in hospitals (and medical shows)! The short form for statistics is stats (with an 'S' at the end.)

Ha ha!

ohh macs are for (sorry for the racism) black musicians who don’t know any better

That's hilarious given the controversy at a Mac-developer conference when one speaker asserted that black people don't use Macs. There's a bit of a grain of truth to the statement -- was not presented well at all by that speaker -- which sort of relates to Chris Howard's point: Macs are expensive, and it is hard to justify the price differential.

PS: Going slightly off topic, but thanks for the shoutout in the piece, Chris Howard. I want to note that (aside from the occasional spambot that gets through) that the comments are great here. There are so many computer sites where I am tempted to leave a comment, but I'm discouraged by numerous one-paragraph or less nyah-nyah posts. I think it speaks well of the hosts that they can cultivate a good dialog in a blog.

"Do you ever wish for Apple to fill a bit more of that square hole?"

I think everybody's answer to that question is yes. On the technical message board I frequent, there is a running wish for a desktop tower Macintosh in the iMac price range, which they dub the xMac. (Pystar exists because that need is unfilled.) Many of the rumors I see on sites I see as people wishing upon stars for their hoped for system (Tablet Mac, Netbook Mac, an Intel version of the 12" Powerbook [or smaller]). I think that you're still slightly missing the point of what I am saying, but you came up with a great metaphor. Let me present it to you like this. There aren't perfectly round holes or square holes at all that people are looking to fill, but irregularly shaped ones ... round-rects, ovals, ellipses, rectangular, etc. But, from all of the computer manufacturers, all they have to fill those holes with are cylindrical and rectangular pegs. I don't think there exists a computer that perfectly fits every system requirement one has, so everybody has to prioritize what they want. It's how everybody shops, PC and Mac users. If you want a Mac, well, you've prioritized that requirement. Most people really don't care about the OS (or don't think they do... they really do, but only in that the OS is familiar and works. Windows is familiar, and for the most part works. OS X is familiar enough, and again for the most part works. Linux really hasn't crossed either threshold with consumer systems. Linux proves the OS matters only when the OS doesn't work.) The big priorities for computer shoppers are price, and following that are all of the performance metrics. (Being CPU, storage space, screen size, and various extras.) I suspect people when shopping will actually think of it as though it's on a Libra scale with price/cost on one side and everything else on the other side. There might be one or two thing on the feature side that will make him consider adding dollars to the cost side, but he will more likely take stuff out of the features side until they see a good balance. This is the thing that seems to offend some Mac users like Sean Weintrab, Daniel Eran "Prince McLean" Dilger and others. They seem to prefer that you seek out the best features and compromise on price, or go after the best of each feature you can afford. If you shop like that, Macs stand a better chance (though its not guaranteed). However, most people can't shop like that. Price is generally a hard limit, and many people will rather have more 2nd best of breed feature at a price than fewer but 1st of breed features. (And I'm granting them the conceit that the PCs are 2nd best. Now, if I wanted a machine with a Blu-Ray drive, or four USB ports, or a 12" screen, well you see where I'm going.) Now, back to the ads. At first I dismissed speculation that one of the goals was to provoke a reaction in the Mac world, but I am reconsidering, given remarks from the agency. Looking at the tizzy the Mac sphere is in, with Weintraub, Dilger, John Gruber and even you here writing multiple pieces on the campaign, it appears to have worked. And the Mac sphere risks looking mean-spirited with this (given how many people have called Lauren and Giampaolo stupid, and how many dismissed the whole campaign as fraudulent when it turned out Lauren works as an actress), especially given that most people shop the way those two do. But the point the ads seem to want to get to, is that you can far more easily get a PC that fits your supposed needs on your budget than you can with a Mac. You can choose what you want, and what you don't with a PC. Those decisions are taken away from you on the Mac. It's the difference between being able to whittle the peg into the shape you think you need than surrendering to Apple and buying a round peg. The ads are empowering.

Amazingly, I forgot about the one bit of idiotic segmenting that hits me personally. Running a 64-bit version of Windows. Every single Mac currently produced have 64-bit processors, but you only get official support and bootcamp drivers if you have purchased a Mac Pro or a MacBook Pro. There is absolutely no good reason for that, except as a cash grab! Especially given you can upgrade a iMac to use up to 8GB of RAM.

I get the suspicion that zato3 is a macro-bot of some sort of automatron. I can't figure out how the quote he is complaining about is in anyway "anti-Apple". To me, it seems like a rational defense of Apple.