I'm not really sure the direction they're taking the iMacs is optimal. Yes, they look lovely but ultimately they're a desktop and not portable in the first place. With a notebook I'll sacrifice upgrades for portability, with a desktop portability is irrelevant.
I suppose they're doing it largely for the style but surely Jonathan Ive and co can make a beautiful iMac that's a couple of centimetres thicker.
The VAST majority of people look at their computers the same way they do their DVD players, microwaves, and vacuums: they are a "unit" that they buy, plug in, and use until it's time to buy a new one. I've built more computers than I can count, but, due to the flattening out of the "end-user performance experience" (eg: there are very few upgrades I could do to a PC to make it faster without needing to replace everything), I'm becoming one of them.
Apple has recognized this and is using that knowledge to throw away old assumptions and put the resultant "compromise space" into beautiful products that people are proud to display in their home.
Sounds like a smart plan to me, but I can understand why there is a small percentage of the market who still sees their PC as a conglomerate of components. I'm pretty convinced Apple is not the company for people like that.
Totally agree with this, it isn't a computer to most people, its a TV. When is the last time you "upgraded" your TV without buying a completely new one?
Well... to most people it's still a computer and not a TV. That's why they buy both :). But they purchase computers like TVs (a single product with practically no user serviceable parts).
True people buy both, although most people who buy a device that you and I are calling a 'computer' those people are buying it strictly as information consumers, and to a lesser extent codified information producers (like instagram or uploading a youtube video). They will never change its configuration, or attempt to program it in any way. It is an information appliance, like a TV, except with a keyboard and a web cam.
Let's not forget there's still a model that allows storage/RAM upgrades easily, the Mac Pro. I've always seen the iMac as one of these TV-like devices, just due to the form factor alone.
The display is one of the primary elements I like to have an upgrade path for, something the iMac has never offered. The new model's sealed form factor is the logical conclusion for the product line.
I'm interested to see what they do with the Mac Pro.
On the other hand, Time Machine is a core feature of Macs and requires a separate hard drive, so Apple clearly doesn't believe that expansion in general is a concept only suitable for geeks. And when they charge such ridiculous markups on RAM and storage, I can't help but think that non-upgradability isn't a decision made in the interests of their customers.
> I can't help but think that non-upgradability isn't a decision made in the interests of their customers.
(triple negative yay!)
When is a decision of a for-profit corporation in a cut-throat market ever made in the interest of their customers? Sometimes, the corporate and customer interests align, but it is never made "in the interest of their customers" per se.
I don't get the point of upgrading a Mac. They retain value so well it's just easier to sell them on eBay and buy a new one, and the cost difference is usually minimal versus upgrading piecemeal.
Until recently, Apple RAM was so overpriced that I'd place simultaneous orders for a minimum-RAM machine and Crucial RAM at the same time. I wouldn't really upgrade an old mac.
I did this only because Apple didn't sell the 4-slot 27" iMac populaed with 4x8GB (32GB) - max BTO was 4x4GB so I got 2x2GB and threw them away and put in 32GB.
Other than that, the Apple ram is not so expensive that it's worth dicking around with making sure you have compatible speeds/pins/size imho (unless you are going Mac Pro in which case the difference on, say, 64GB or more would really add up).
Basically I just don't worry about stuff that amortizes out to under $500-1000/year. (e.g. an iMac for me has about a 36-month useful lifespan)
I blow $220 a lot more often than once every three years (the frequency with which I buy a computer), and on things a lot less important and time-consuming than swapping RAM.
I'm willing to pay some premium for Apple RAM, particularly if I'm not the end user of the machine. I also buy AppleCare for laptops, and AppleCare+ for iPad/iPhone devices, and increasingly, just get AppleCare for desktops, Mac Mini, etc. too. (I used to just rely on Amex Platinum 2x warranty extension, but that's a more annoying process than being able to just take it to the nearest Apple Store for OS or hardware diagnosis and repair.)
The purpose is to have a single point of contact for repair. Not having to personally figure out if the RAM is defective on someone else's machine is a big plus for me. Being able to have the entire thing drop-shipped directly from Apple to the user, also. It depends on the premium -- for a personal Mac Mini, I'd probably do the RAM through Crucial for $50-100 savings or more. If Crucial didn't exist, and I had to go hunting for "good" RAM every time, I'd probably go Apple for $200+. (it is so fun getting a $200k box of RAM for servers, especially left on a porch with no signature required, though. The actual RAM/chip distributor in Fremont that had an 18 person triad armed robbery a few years ago was amusing.)
The annoying part of all of this is that there are some machines where you must pull the drives before any warranty service. The correct thing to do is to have an Apple service rating internal to your company (it costs $200-300 I think, and not much training), but I've never gotten around to it. Lack of swappable externally accessible drives is one of my only complaints about Apple hardware now.
(OTOH, my personal 2010 MBP 17 actually has Crucial RAM, a Crucial SSD 512 in an optical bay adapter, and a 750GB drive in the main bay, all aftermarket. The Crucial drive failed and required repeated disassembly and RMA and firmware loading on another machine, which consumed about 4h of my time, which kind of sucked, and makes me a lot more likely to stay 100% Apple in the future.)
They're just not targeting savvy people, which of course drives all us savvy mac fans up the wall. But then what's the alternative, run Windows? I'd run linux but unfortunately I need Adobe CS and MS Office.
I care if he's lying because his story was re-printed in The Guardian, where I read it, as truth. If it's not a true story, it's wrong to present it as such.
If it's not a true story, it's wrong to present it as such.
But why? Can you (or someone) please articulate what exactly is so bad about it?
Some of the best and most influential stories in human history were precisely that: lies presented as truth. Were the authors "bad" for doing this? At what point does it become bad? (And why?)
Hey look buddy, I'm an engineer; that means I solve problems.
Not problems like 'Why is lying wrong?', because that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy.
I solve practical problems.
If he comes on here and says I built this and you all need to buy it right now, well then he's obviously just a salesman.
If he comes on here and says I built this, don't buy it if you don't meet these criteria, I'm not even going to try to sell it because I don't want to turn HN into a sales venue, well then, he's a obviously just a particularly crafty salesman.
So while I see what you're saying I'm not sure how you expect patio11 to discuss this on HN without appearing like a salesman to at least a few people.
You make it out as if appearing like a salesman is a bad thing. Why not be proud of what you're good at? This product is all about sales, it's aimed squarely at the HN demographic and the page does a fantastic job of proving that Patrick is good at sales (as if anybody needed convincing).
And if that did not convince you that this product rocks there is a glowing testimonial from a satisfied customer on the homepage right now.
I think there is a huge difference between a top commenter on HN trying to sell something and a non-top commenter doing the same after achieving a nominal karma rate. (I'm thinking specifically about what appears to be the recent spate of attempts by an company that rhymes with "muffer" to blog about all types of things in order to draw attention to their products.)
Anyone who spends considerable time on HN should be allowed to sell whatever they want that relates to their expertise within reason.
Perhaps the jealousy surrounding people who view "selling" and "business guys" as bad comes from people who don't have the makeup to take rejection that comes with selling. Lest anyone think there is no value to a "business guy" that it's all about technology.
I agree, being a good salesman is fantastic. Good products don't go anywhere without good sales. Hell, bad products can go places with good sales. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Balance)
However, HN is fairly engineer heavy and sales carries a pejorative connotation, so when I read your posts they seemed (to me) negative, as in "Aha! You can't fool me! I'm wise to your game to sell stuff on HN!". I was responding to that.
I suspect we're basically in agreement, if you look somewhere on the page I'm effusive about Patrick's sales letter and I agree that by turning up, answering questions honestly and not trying to sell to people he hits the HN demographic dead on. My point was he may not even be trying to make sales here, just trying to interact with a community he's part of and the two look indistinguishable.
It doesn't have to be binary. Part of being a good marketer is knowing your target market. If you create something and, through smoke and mirrors, sell it to people who won't like it or don't need it, you're setting yourself up for a lot of complaint letters and angry blog posts. I guess that's fine if you're just a pump & dump con artist who's catching the next train out of town, but there are alternatives.
I prefer reading too but most people will pay more for a video than they will for an ebook regardless of the value contained within because they've been trained repeatedly that books are cheap.
Patrick and Ramit Sethi discuss this very thing in the last Kalzumeus podcast.
Book pricing isn't as hopelessly broken as music pricing, but that is faint praise indeed. It's sad. Writing a good book is a great deal of work, reading a good book provides a great deal of value, but the psychology of the book market recognizes neither of these facts. People vaguely imagine that producing books costs approximately the time required to type them, and expect to buy books for the cost of buying, inking, and shipping the paper - if the paper is absent they expect the price to be negligable.
Whereas the one good thing to be said about modern college tuitions is that they provide a nice big anchor for the cost of a "course". Practically anything looks like a bargain next to the list price of an hour of TA instruction at Harvard. [1]
[1] That's a fun math problem: Assuming five courses at Harvard, five hours per week of lecture and recitation per course, a fourteen-week semester and $38k tuition and fees, I come up with about $55 per hour per student. Of course, Harvard does not bill by the hour, but that's a whole 'nother essay.
That is a really nice sales letter and I've bookmarked it to read through repeatedly when I need to write one. It nails the long form sales format and manages to do so without sounding sleazy[1].
I particularly like the Do not buy this course section which qualifies potential customers.
[1] To be fair depending upon the target demographic the sleaziness can be increased without causing problems. If you were building a product for hard core sales guys Your Customers Can Still Afford Branded Groceries: Learn How To Capture This Wasted Revenue Today! might do brilliantly.
If their security is as good as their blogging it's time to consider travelling by bus.
Also their "20 layers of security" chart[1] is an unintentionally hilarious masterpiece. Note the arrow they've drawn circumventing every layer of security apart from passengers. So really, we can't say they didn't warn us.
This is why so many men find "getting laid" very important in their lives.
I hate to be That Guy, but speaking as someone who's actually had sex I can attest that there are actually other reasons.[1]
Enough so that in the middle east women who reject a man's marriage proposal might find themselves doused with acid or gasoline and set on fire.
Equating harassment on the internet with middle eastern acid attacks is baffling and offensive.
Finally, and I know this'll be unpopular, but there's some great stuff on Reddit. The comments are never as good as HN, but some of the AMAs are phenomenal. It's a bit tiring seeing it get bashed without respite over here.
[1] Like (and I can't believe I'm typing this) it's fun and makes you feel closer to the person you're doing it with.
Oh if it weren't for Reddit I'd still be a Christian Extremist waiting for the rapture. It's got its pros and cons. For me the cons began to outnumber the benefits I was getting from it and I left.
"Equating harassment on the internet with middle eastern acid attacks is baffling and offensive."
I don't. I find it very relevant to my theory actually. Hate and resentment takes place in many forms, from subtle to extreme, and tying it all together isn't baffling to me at all.
"as someone who's actually had sex I can attest that there are actually other reasons. It's fun and makes you feel closer to the person you're doing it with"
So you're a nice guy then. Maybe I was just surrounded by men who are assholes. Every job I've had the guys just fuck around for the sake of adding another "bitch" to the list of women they've "conquered and dominated". From taco bell to universal studios I knew all the places the employees screwed in and with who and why. The ones who didn't get laid were looking for a quick and easy one night stand just to get it out of the way and feel like they too have something in common with the alpha males. I've worked with really immature young guys and very mature older men and they all seem to have the same mindset. And it sure isn't to feel closer to the person they love. I normally would give humanity the benefit of the doubt and say there's lots of men like you but sorry. I'm all out of hope this year, maybe next.
The worst thing about working yourself to death at Zynga would be knowing you were toiling to produce shoddy little pseudo-games. At least when, say, jwz was putting in insane hours at Netscape he was building Netscape Navigator.
Also those Farmville character cutouts in the photo are possibly the creepiest thing in the universe.
Those 'pseudo-games' keep my wheelchair bound grandmother occupied (and possibly even entertained) throughout her day. They provide value to some people.
And millions more waste atrocious amounts of time being unproductive--or worse, becoming addicted or going into debt.
Farmville abuses the social guilt that evolution built into our human nature to bring profit to Zynga. Do you really think its net contribution to society is positive because of your grandmother and people like her?
Those 'pseudo-games' keep my wheelchair bound grandmother occupied (and possibly even entertained) throughout her day.
First of all, let me agree with the general principle that in a free country with a free-enterprise economy, people ought to be able to spend their money (and time) in the way that they find most valuable, based on their personal circumstances. I was one customer among millions for what was then the best-selling phonograph album of all time (Michael Jackson's Thriller album, one of the first compact discs I bought). You can argue legitimately that listening to recorded music is a frivolous activity, and argue even more legitimately that Jackson, born the same year I was, was already rich enough in his twenties that he didn't need my money, but I was happy to spend money on something that added fun to my day while I was working hard to establish my career. There's no particular policy reason for any of us to oppose people spending time or money on what helps them get through the day.
With reference to your grandmother needing to be in a wheelchair at all times, you have my deepest sympathies. My late dad had a slip and fall on the ice from a late-season snowstorm (in APRIL!) and then was a quadriplegic from his spinal cord injury for the last six years of his life. Surgery attempting to treat his injury took him from being unable to use his limbs to being unable to swallow and having great difficulty even speaking, both things he could do just fine immediately after his injury. Once people lose mobility, they undergo a radical change in lifestyle, and no decent person will begrudge paraplegics or quadriplegics the opportunity to choose recreation that helps them cope with new circumstances. My dad never took up playing computer games--and of course had no mobility for operating a computer after his injury. I remember spending about a month, in a series of visits, reading aloud to him the book The Endurance: Shackleton's Legendary Antarctic Expedition,
which is an inspiring story of human beings facing other extremely tough challenges. I was glad I took the time to do that--reading the book was good for me. My best wishes go to anyone who has a relative not fully able to do the normal daily activities able-bodied people take for granted.
I'd say it's true that social games create a wonderful opportunity for people to socialize. That said, there is nothing challenging or cutting-edge about making these games.
I suppose they're doing it largely for the style but surely Jonathan Ive and co can make a beautiful iMac that's a couple of centimetres thicker.