Quote:
Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze
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.
|
I would argue that Apple is dominant to the point of holding a monopoly for computers in music and advertising as well as some circles in academia, at least in Sweden. I would also argue that in the long run, unless you get that user base to upgrade regularly, it is too small a segment of the total market to be sustainable. Most computers today are overpowered for their usage, isn't that why tablets has made such an in-road? I don't know anything about the computer needs in those market segments, but in most other segments the need to upgrade is not really there. Windows 8 penetration is mainly due to new computer purchases. My suspicion is that Apple is facing the same problem.