[MacPro2007]

Hello dizzle,
Sorry to be so long responding, I have multiple "other things" going on and have had only snatches of time available for this forum.

I won't go on at length, only wanted to say I'm glad we have (in Ayn Rand's ideas) some further basis for understanding. I doubt this forum or thread is the place for me to recount much about my "history" with her and her followers.

I will only offer:
1. There has always been a "grassroots movement" of what are called "Objectivists" or "Students of Objectivism" (the original term). The Ayn Rand Institute is the current major representative of the movement. Their representatives have appeared on radio talk shows, etc. (Including the Gordon Liddy Show not long ago). I will point out: There've been groups trying to split from the American mainstream from the very beginning. Such as: David Koresh's "Branch Davidians." But much before that: Irish Immigrants penetrating the Interior during post-colonial times (their desire: to produce as much whiskey as humanly possible without paying taxes on it).

2. Rand as a person was as interesting as her ideas. Before Johnny Carson's Tonight Show moved to California, she was an occassional guest (thereon). She was brought in more for her amusement value because of her absolutist statements. The most famous of which (on the TV show) was in rebuttal of the then nascent Environmental Movement (and attendant government regulations). She said, "We should go down on our knees and worship those factory smoke stacks."


3. Her emotional / psychological motives are clear: she was re-fighting (for her adored father) the battle against Communists. No one can blame her for that. It's only for us to be aware that there's value in knowing the motives behind "great campaigns."

4. Perhaps her greatest contribution was in reviving "the Law of Identity." Which states: A is A and cannot (also) be non-A.
The more common way to say it: A thing is what it is and cannot be anything else. (For example: cannot be what we WISH it to be.) So it is for Psystar to recognize this. So it is for Psystar supporters here to recognize. Even for me: Apple cannot be what I wish it to be, even if I have "their best interest in mind." ? That latter is just to confirm that I agree and affirm that principle... in all things.

5. I adamantly refuse to discuss religion on this or any forum. I am a follower of the Three Commandments of George Carlin. Commandment Three: Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.

All for now - best wishes.
MacPro2007

[dizzle]

I do think we understand each other better. As far as the religious issue, I certainly did not want anyone to debate it here, so if I gave that impression, I apologize. The only reason I said it is because I am well-known as a Christian, and I didn't want anyone coming across this posts and thinking that agreed with Rand wholesale. I wouldn't even agree with her laissez faire capitalism, but there is a lot of good economic philosophy in her writing.

I would have loved to debate Rand on how she grounds A is A. I agree with her, but I would like to know on what absolute grounds she would have made that argument. (that was just a comment thrown out there, if I were to explain what I would say to her, it would be too religious for this forum)

Have you read The Forgotten Man?

[MacPro2007]

Hello again dizzle!
Since I just noticed you included me in your response to mdawson, I thought I'd take another minute to reply to that portion.
(But also want to remark that I support mdawson's use of "the Law of Identity" with regard to this forum, to it's contributors and purpose. This forum and the people posting "are what they are" and cannot be what we wish them to be. ? Only, you have done a fine job of educating those who misstep out of ignorance of the legal issues. So you're "changing" the identity of these people from "ignorant" to "informed"... we hope.)

Main point: I fully accept that I can be wrong about "what Apple should do" (or not do). It's moot, I think, because I enthusiastically accept that I have no right and no means of forcing them to "my way." If I had a big position in Apple stock, I'd then address my thoughts directly to Apple's corporate leaders. Hoping of course, for nomination to their BoD. ;-)

My "guess" while informed, is really just a personal game I play: setting up what I think is the right course of action and seeing - later - if I was right or wrong. Several years ago, Apple stock was trading below 18. At that time, I urged all my close friends to buy Apple stock: maintaining that they had all it would take to move up in a big way in their market niche. I was dead-bang correct, I'm sure you'll agree. So when I suggest a possible NEW way for Apple to succeed: this hardly seems like I'm doing it out of hostility. :-)

As for Apple moving into a "new niche" (lower end Macs): they did extremely well by entering (1) the personal music player market (iPods) and the cell phone market (iPhones). At least, there would still be a closer association to the product I advocate than for... cell phones!! :-)

I "dissed The Steve" - really, really funny! :-)

Actually, I greatly admire Mr. Jobs' ability as a salesman. He is "the greatest" in that respect. You see, I'm quite capable of being skeptical of a salesman's pitch (because to be legitimate, the claims must match the reality in the product). But I consider my position one of "professional regard" rather than mindless applause. I have photoshopped a picture of Mr. Jobs giving one of his MacWorld Expo presentation. There I am in the picture: in a T-shirt, sitting behind him with a skeptical expression on my face.

So, please don't cry all night. Or at all! Think: Happy Macs. :-)
MacPro2007

[MacPro2007]

Hi dizzle,
Thanks for your specificity re: religion.
For my part: see Carlin's Third Commandment.

I don't worry about the confusion of others: except when I see that I'm the cause of that confusion. I then move promptly (as promptly as I can) to clarify and / or explain. I don't like confusion. Confusion is the Deadly Dust Bunny under Civilization's bed. ? my own quote.

Laissez faire Capitalism: too much of anything isn't good for ya. This from, "Mom's Compendium of Essential Dictums" - which exists only in my memory and the memories of many former children of "concerned mom's." Still... an excellent cautionary proclamation.

Debating Ayn Rand: without insulting you - an honest assessment of Ayn Rand's actual treatment of debate opponents makes me certain that you'd not enjoy the experience. Ms. Rand preached (to everyone) absolute intransigence when responding to "opposing viewpoints." And she practiced what she preached: wickedly well.

As for her grounding the Law of Identity: she alternately treated it as self evident and as a provable concept (at least by example). In other words: she always stated it as fact - letting recipients accept it or not. Her views about those who do not accept the rightness of the concept are much like those you've expressed regarding the "whiners" and "Wesly Mooch types" here on this forum In other words: she'd likely attack you for even questioning her on this. And she'd likely deem you to be a "mystic" or "Witch Doctor" according to her own lexicon of "characters."

Not to say Rand wasn't brilliant and a real contributor to human thought. No, but she was "stiff" and judgmental... haughty.
So I postulate this trait of hers translated into the wooden characters she's so famous for creating. If you've seen the movie, "The Fountainhead" - Gary Cooper is the most wooden character in all of cinematic history. (I suspect that he was chosen for the role of Howard Roark especially due to his acting in "High Noon.") I should mention - in regard to my qualifications: I am a published fiction writer. Also, a long-time friend who has taught Cinema Arts at University of Michigan has been after me for years to write screen plays (where Ms. Rand got her start). So, at least I have the interest in those areas and do not levy such judgments lightly. I offer them here only for your information.

No, I haven't read Amity Schlaes' "The Forgotten Man." I understand (from reviews) that it's an entertaining biography-type account of certain figures (like Hoover and FDR) and their roles / actions during the Great Depression. Ms. Schleas is a economic columnist, so it figures she's timed her book to arrive during the current market for such books.
But I haven't read her columns either, so I can't make further comment - even if asked. :-)

[dizzle]

Hi MacPro2007, you haven't seen me really debate ;) As part of my "egoism," I am confident that could go toe to toe on foundational presuppositions (again, for me to go into further detail would require bringing in religion so I will not do so here). I have debated some very stiff, arrogant, and downright nasty people over the years. You have to remember that my background is theological debate (and helping to write arguments in legal cases). It doesn't get any rougher than that. Oh well it is all conjecture since she is deceased. She is a fascinating character.

No I didn't see the movie of The Fountainhead. I did not care for that book as much. Perhaps because it really brought out what I believe is creepy "rape fantasies" of Ms. Rand. Her positive portrayal of brutality in sexual relations in her characters would be another thing that I would distance myself from. Dominique was not a character to be admired at all. At least Dagney was a generally admirable character, you never dislike her.

[mdawson]

Quote

MacPro2007 wrote:

>

Quote

First - let me say you have maintained a very high standard in this discussion. Also - I am not at all offended by what you say, though I think you may have misidentified me as a Psystar supporter. I am NOT of that group at all?

If I misidentified you as a Psystar supporter then I sincerely apologize. I do not know how long you have been following this matter, but what you originally posted came off as the typical ?Apple does not make such-and-such type hardware and therefore Psystar can jump in and fill in the gaps? argument. Qualifying your post with an ad hominem attack on Jobs, as if this case has anything to do with him personally, only served to reinforce that interpretation.

Quote

MacPro2007 wrote:

>

Quote

I'm not an unmitigated "fan" of Apple, I have suspicions, questions and outright objections to a FEW things "coming out of Apple, Inc."

Any true Mac fan on these boards has had their fair share of complaints about various Apple products or policies, criticism comes with praise. I have voiced mine disappointment from time-to-time on these boards?most recently about the new abridged keyboard now offered as a standard with new iMacs and Apple?s increasingly poor input device design of the past decade?as have Wondercow, Grapho and other long time frequent posters on these boards. Mac users are often times the harshest critics of Apple, but there is a dramatic difference between the criticism of those that favor the brand that wish to see Apple do the best it can and the trolls that are doing nothing more than launching attacks against a company they have wanted to see wiped off the face of the Earth since the 1980s.

Quote

MacPro2007 wrote:

>
While I criticized Apple for "going for the lower tier" - the fact is that I was one of those campaigning for Apple to do just that! They responded: mainly in the form of the Mac Mini. I was fool enough to believe that would quell the call for a product mimicking the conventional PC tower. I was wrong - and I'm guessing but I think Apple may have drawn the same conclusion.

If by lower tier you are referring to people with modest computing needs, as opposed to cheapskates, then the Mac mini is all they need. The problem is that the general public tends to be unrealistic about what even a basic computer should cost and they have been convinced that that have a need for features and functionality that they should by now know that they are not going to utilize. The average computer user needs an expandable tower about as much as they need gas guzzling SUVs. These people are technologically ignorant?which is fine, I do not know or have to know how my microwave oven operates to use it effectively?and it is highly unlikely that they have ever opened a computer to upgrade anything or ever will.

Apple recognizes that fact and that realization is reflected in the design of Apple?s consumer-grade systems. Apple is also in the unique position of having systems that genuinely meet the needs of a given market segment because Apple is just about the only PC OEM that does not assemble parts; they design and make computers. The fact that all Macs are custom designs and not cookie-cutter assemblages factors into the market price. Despite being a ?low tier? system, the Mac mini is still a custom-built boutique PC and not some tower that has been stripped down to sell on the cheap offering a level of expandability that will go mostly unused by the targeted market segment.

MacPro2007 wrote:
>
So that's what I meant by their being disingenuous: they still "refuse" to put out what a large segment of the market wants: a lower-cost tower (somewhat expandable) "Mac."

The only legitimate reason for Apple or any PC OEM to design such a system is to fit the needs of pro and prosumer users that would take advantage of such a system. Yes, it would be nice if Apple made a mid-range pro system for power users?I am in fact one of the biggest advocates of such a Mac on these boards?but for whatever reason, Apple does not. To state that Apple should make such a system for the lower end because consumers ?want? such a system is basically stating that Apple should mislead consumers by pushing stripped down Mac Pros on them so they can spend additional dollars for future-proofing that they will never use.

Sorry, but no. Accusing of Apple of being disingenuous then suggesting that they knowingly sell people what they do not need just to make a buck is a bit hypocritical on your part. Apple makes systems that fit the real needs of the average computer user in the form of the Mac mini or the iMac. If the consumer lacks the cognitive prowess to realize that they have almost never opened up any computer that they have ever owned and still insist that they need an expandable tower when they do not, then it is their problem and not Apple?s or that of any other OEM.

MacPro2007 wrote:
>
Within a couple weeks of the introduction of the Mac Mini, the Mac-using internet was "alive" with (ILLUSTRATED!) instructions for hacking Mac Minis. Clear evidence that Apple's effort to enter the lower tier market by the back door had failed.

All this phenomenon proved was that Apple designed a system that was ideal for hobbyists to incorporate into custom home theater systems, automobiles and cube enclosures. The Mac mini is small, but unlike a laptop, there was no display or attached keyboard to contend with. If anything, the Mac mini was evidence of Apple?s ability to create something that some found a use for beyond its primary purpose.

MacPro2007 wrote:
>
Specifically, I have just one other real gripe with Apple's strategy: it's the fact that they created Apple Stores - and made them seem like "car dealerships." One can go to an auto dealer, order a car with options, get service and maintenance. - But if you try to order Mac options at an Apple Store: they tell you (at least they told me): We aren't allowed to accept extra-option orders, only orders for "basic" models.

Well then you fooled yourself, because to the best of my recollection, Apple neither stated nor implied the notion that an Apple Store was anything like a car dealership. I also do not recall ever reading any articles about Apple Stores that stated or implied that Apple was taking that approach to their stores. If anything, the Apple Stores were initially compared to The Gap. The reasoning for the introduction of the brick and mortar stores was to quell the misrepresentation and redirecting from Macs that was all too often occurring when Macs were sold through the major electronics outlets.

Car dealerships are near unique in permitting you to customize what you buy. Apple?s business model is that of just about all brick and mortar stores; that is, you buy a product as is off the shelf. Your assumption that you could walk into an Apple Store and get a customized Mac was just that your (incorrect) assumption. The fact that you pay for the product in the Apple Store, or any store, does not dictate the business model for that store. Contrary to popular belief, customers are not always right.

MacPro2007 wrote:
>
Buyers have legitimate reason to expect satisfaction of the desires they are ready to PAY FOR.

And buyers with unrealistic expectations that think the universe revolves around them are in for a reality check if they expect any store to change their business model just for them. ;) Payment is not an entitlement.

MacPro2007 wrote:
>
I have every right to be skeptical of Mr. Jobs. He is a salesman, first, last and always.

No one contests that, but when you make a statement attacking him in reference to a case that has no bearing on Steve Jobs as a person, it makes what was already a questionable post seem like more pro-Psystar/anti-Apple trolling.


MacPro2007 wrote:
>
Your "advice" might be right if you were properly positioned, meaning you didn't have a clue to my actual experience when you said to me: "get over yourself."

Not to be cruel MacPro2007, but when you state that the Apple Store has to operate to your (unfounded) expectation and go into a diatribe on Steve Jobs of being a contemporary Jim Jones that will eventually pay for his ?mystic medicine?, get over yourself does quite aptly apply. If you have misgivings about Jobs, fine, but that is not relevant to this case or the discussion at hand. Again, that diatribe in context made you seem like another pro-Psystar troll.

MacPro2007 wrote:
>
?let me counsel you to be less the loyal, defending fan and more the astute, informed buyer.

If you honestly believe that I just run out and buy products from Apple based on some blind loyalty, you are sadly mistaken. Secondly, when someone comes onto these boards with a legitimate grievance, I will, and have, support them. When trolls come onto these boards, then will shoot them down. I have read through a number of your posts since you original and it is now obvious that you are not a troll, but you initial post was definitely bordering on baiting at the very least.

MacPro2007 wrote:
>
So I object to your egregious characterization.

You may want to take your own advice (see previous). :)

MacPro2007 wrote:
>
I have deeper "roots" in the Mac than you can imagine. I also have MIT graduate friends who have nearly 25 years of professional experience with Macs (and PCs) - we all agree that Apple is great, we all agree that Macs are "superior" - but NONE of us thinks Apple's strategies or products are "perfect." Get over yourself. Statements like yours only enforce the impression that you're an Apple ideologue. It's unseemly in view of your otherwise excellent handling of things here.

The ?get over yourself? statement was in reference to the Jobs diatribe and clearly disjoint from responses to other points in your post. As to your background, you made the statement that Apple should ?remain the stylish purveyor of computer products for more advanced users,? which conveys a lack of knowledge about what the Mac is and has always been about. The Mac was created as a computer ?for the rest of us.? Macs are and have always been designed to be easy to use whether it is a low-end consumer model or a top of the line pro system. In fact, there is nothing that precludes a casual user from effectively using Mac Pro beyond the fact that the hardware capabilities far exceed any activity in which they are likely to engage. Style has only become a major facet of Mac design since the introduction of the iMac in 1998.

Secondly, I never stated or implied that Apple is perfect. I would not even go as far as to say that Macs are superior. Apple simply employs a business model that permits them better quality control in terms of the interaction between the hardware and the operating system. That is the advantage Apple has over other PC OEMs that do not develop an operating system and Microsoft who does not design or manufacture PCs.

There are a number of other PC OEMs that assemble very good hardware, but in that open platform, there are also many companies producing utter crap on the cheap; even some of the better brands produce crapware to meet absurdly low price points for something that is justifiably expensive. Windows has its issues, but a good part of that is that it is developed to run on an open platform forcing the developers to deal with numerous unknowns.

I admit that I prefer Macs and that the Macintosh platform is the better choice for home users that have no technical expertise. That stated, I can also recognize that Macs are not the perfect choice for everyone. I for one would not suggest a Mac to an accountant or an architect dependant on AutoCAD for obvious reasons.

MacPro2007 wrote:
>
While Apple is rightly and properly defending its market rights in the Psystar case, they still show (by my previous bringing of facts) that they have no interest in entering the lower tier market. Despite that this is exactly how they might thwart the Psystar-charlatans and make money doing it.

Actually, Apple cannot make money selling bargain basement computers because Apple does not just assemble parts. Every Mac currently sold and every Mac that has ever been sold is a custom design. Having a design team costs money and companies like Dell, HP, et al., do not have that cost incorporated in their product pricing because they have no such overhead. Bargain basement systems are sold at a loss; Macs are not. Apple has the highest profit margin in the PC market. That hardware revenue is used to continue the development of the Mac OS and venture into side projects as they have from the very beginning.

Opportunist leeches will always be opportunist leeches and selling stripped down pieces of s? with the Apple logo below cost will do nothing to stop such people. A company does not need to lower the bar to prevent others from misusing their product and brand. If you look at the state of the US today, I think we have done enough lowering of standards and settling for mediocrity or worse. If the other PC OEMs want to operate in that manner that is their prerogative, Apple chooses to maintain the high standard they are known for and they have already sacrificed some of that to get Mac pricing more competitive.

MacPro2007 wrote:
>
In the hope my reply has cleared up your objections to my post?

Actually, having read through your other postings before you responded directly to me cleared up your position. As I stated earlier, I had already reassessed that you were not trolling based on your dialogue with dizzle.

[MacPro2007]

Actually dizzle, I now have to apologize because, in my attempt at "friendly banter" regarding Ayn Rand, her ideas and her works - in response to your post in that vein - I "help" further diversion from the topic of this thread:
"Apple and Psystar agree on trade secret confidentiality"

Since I don't want to be impolite, I will just say that I think I should "stop here" - without responding further. It has been an enjoyable exchange. :-)

[MacPro2007]

Hello mdawson,
Reviewing your detailed and exhaustive critique of my "thinking" and "opinions" - I conclude that you and I disagree on the nature of the market and of its players.

To argue about such things only reflects the confusion that has finally pervaded every aspect of the consumer market place. I do not agree that you have an accurate assessment of that - and because you do not adequately grasp it - you cannot further use your assumptions to draw misguided or mistaken conclusions about my statements.

I do not have the amount of time you apparently have to write a point-by-point rebuttal. I'll will specify that I still believe that Apple was "content" to leave the impression in the minds of potential (return!) customers that their "new Apple Stores" were the Eighth Wonder of the World but then those stores were found to be mere (as you say) "GAP" boutiques- with the addition of service / repair departments. WHY they couldn't have them accept extra-option orders is the question that's never been answered by them - or by you.

I have worked in three OEM companies over a period of decades. I am equipped to know "what's what" when it comes to Apple or any OEM. For those companies: there was never any question about the phrase: The customer is always right." And they did their utmost to satisfy any reasonable demand. That is what "the market" is intended to do: satisfy demand.
The motive is (or should be): to make a profit by offering value for value. It has NEVER been, "What's good for the company is good for everyone." (paraphrasing a former GM CEO)

Finally, your tactic is to blame customers for "not knowing" such products as the Mac Mini are really intended for the lower-tier market. You, I think, misinterpret the fact that buyers created a cottage industry while trying to "upgrade" the Mac Mini. Your argument here is the same as when you say that I'm responsible for my own expectations: Deceptive hype advertising is responsible for such confusion. Trying to deflect blame onto the paying customer is just that: a deflection from logic and justice - because it unjustly "punishes" honest people who are willing to pay for what they want.

As for whether Apple should do as many (including me) suggest - i.e., go ahead and make a "familiar looking" but lower priced tower: I don't know for certain and have said I don't know. I think it may work, I would hope that it would for everyone's sake.

You habitually use phrasing and language structure which is provocative and is clearly aimed at casting negative characterizations about. One sees it in every post you make. Just a clue: If you honestly want to show someone is mistaken,all you have to do is make your case - offer the correct information. Avoid offering "your opinion" as if it were actually meaningful information about the question or statement you're trying to correct isn't going to do anything but further muddle the discussion.

Try to avoid the Straw Man fallacy as in:
"If the consumer lacks the cognitive prowess to realize that they have almost never opened up any computer that they have ever owned and still insist that they need an expandable tower when they do not, then it is their problem and not Apple?s or that of any other OEM."

You assume (1) consumers lack the cognitive prowess to make clear decisions, (2) you assume they have never attempted to open or upgrade their (obviously not Mac Pro) computers. By this and several other statements: you demonstrate your hostility to anyone who wants what YOU say Apple doesn't want. How the devil have you become so well informed about what Apple wants? If you're an Apple employee, just say so, then at least we'd understand the reason for your arrogance.
;-)

And even if you are an Apple employee: I still suggest you and your company need some attitude adjustment when it comes to serving the market. People who are willing to pay for what they want are worthy of respect: you've said so yourself but then contradict yourself with statements like the above. Product producers, in case you've forgotten, stay in business by LISTENING TO their customers.

Finally - your "defense" of CEO Jobs through launching ad hom attacks on me is virtual proof that I'm right: I never said he's less than a sterling salesman. What I said is that he's "the perfect salesman" and that is cause for skepticism and caution on the part of investors and customers. I - am at liberty to be sarcastic about anyone who obviously puts up a front (i.e., projects a phony image) and who "chooses" to try questionable-on-a-scientific basis remedies in place of getting vetted medical treatment - for a serious medical condition. His "delay" while he "experimented" shows bad judgment, to say the least. Hence: my sarcasm. I suppose no one can stop you form flailing about in defense of Mr. Jobs, but anyone with self-respect will tell you it's not doing any good to do that by trying to become his self-designated soldier. Unless of course, Apple has hired you to be his soldier and to speak for him.

So I guess it all boils down to the questions: Are you authorized to speak for Apple? Are you saying that Apple says that its customers have no right to expect attainable products and services? Are you saying that Apple won't be producing a "Tower PC" replacement under their own brand and with their own production facilities? Are your pronouncements (to me and others here) official Apple statements?

Come on, mdawson, inquiring minds want to know!

PS: You are flat wrong about the comparison between Apple stores and car dealerships: the ordering systems are or could be identical (between dealer and factory). There are ZERO reasons for Apple not using their ordering systems to satisfy "with options" orders. BTW - only teenagers and fools buy stuff from "boutiques."

[Don_Quixote]

.
Message canceled by: Don_Quixote