Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
I forgot nothing. 
Read again: I explicitly said cash cows.
(Most of Apple's money is iOS and more precisely, iPhone.)
The Mac hasn't been a cash cow at Apple for over a decade.
At best it is a legacy product line, at worst an afterthought.
It rates just ahead of the non-touch iPods and AppleTV.
Apple could lose the entire Mac business and they wouldn't blink.
Stock price might even go up.
(When I use weasel words it's to simply the discussion. In this case: no Mac, no XBOX or MS mice and keybiards. No need to bring in the outliers; Apple is 99% entertainment and fun--even the phones. MS is mostly business.) |
This is how one knows that a discussion is moving in a constructive direction: When people focus on points of clarity rather than defenses and self-vindication.
My point about your previous point was that you focused on the idea of Apple users as a homogeneity of shallow awe. Like you, I'm not using harsh words to criticize an opponent's imagined attitude but to explain a point of disagreement.
First, I don't agree that mac laptops are irrelevant. We've been talking about them all along and they're still viable. I can agree with you about the Mac Pro.
Second, saying that Apple hardware is not essential to any business and that its user base isn't driven by need is saying that none of the artists and writers I know matter because they aren't real business people and aren't really dependent on macs for making a living.
The error is associating a mindset, attitude and IQ level with a product, as if said product revealed anything significant about the person who used it. Personal analysis by product choice is the phrenology of capitalism. I'm not saying this because I think you're guilty of dismissing artists' intelligence and depth by design. I'm saying that that's what the argument itself implies.