XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: nuh-uh@nope.com
On 2026-01-14 10:45, Joel W. Crump wrote:
> On 1/14/26 1:29 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2026-01-14 10:17, Joel W. Crump wrote:
>>> On 1/14/26 1:11 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2026-01-14 09:32, Joel W. Crump wrote:
>>>>> On 1/14/26 12:20 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2026-01-14 03:06, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>> On 14 Jan 2026 06:31:02 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>>>> Lawrence D´Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 15:40:02 +1300, Your Name wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In fiscal year 2025, Apple's revenue by segment is as follows:
>>>>>>>>>> - Mac generated $33.71 B in revenue,
>>>>>>>>>> representing 8.1% of its total revenue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What would the unit sales be, though? Assuming an average selling
>>>>>>>>> price of, say, $3000, that translates into 11 million units for
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> year. If the average time a user keeps a machine is 3 years, that
>>>>>>>>> means the installed base is a bit over 30 million Macs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This would be roughly consistent with the idea that something like
>>>>>>>>> 10% of users on each platform have Steam accounts. It also means
>>>>>>>>> that macOS is left in the dust by desktop Linux.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ... not just the $3000 is wrong, the three years is. More likely
>>>>>>>> 5-7.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But now you’re going back into pre-ARM machines, which are more of
>>>>>>> museum pieces, not really worth using any more.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I’d say my $3000 figure is conservative. Apple users do tend
>>>>>>> to fit
>>>>>>> the category of “more money than sense”, don’t you think ... ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your figure is NONSENSE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mac Minis start at $599.
>>>>>
>>>>> Make that $999 with 24 GB RAM and 512 GB SSD. Face it, Apple are
>>>>> thieves. You're a willing victim.
>>>>
>>>> Not thieves.
>>>
>>> Those specs aren't worth the price.
>>
>> In YOUR opinion.
>
>
> With what's available today, Apple's prices are a tragic joke.
In YOUR opinion.
>
>
>>>> And you cannot take the obvious lesson from this:
>>>>
>>>> People pay that price because they believe it's WORTH IT.
>>>>
>>>> And what makes you think must people NEED "24 GB of RAM"
>>>>
>>>> I'm a very busy user and I'm currently running 9 programs--including
>>>> Safari with dozens of tabs open and I still have nearly 2GB free on
>>>> a 16GB system.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that your pubescent brain can't get is that people who use
>>>> Macs find they work very, very well. I've worked with, sold and
>>>> support both Macs and PCs since the late 1980s and in all that time,
>>>> I've only encountered two people out of hundreds if not thousands
>>>> who ever tried a Mac and didn't want to continue on with using it.
>>>
>>> 16 GB works fine for me, but when I had 32 GB it was a sweet spot.
>>
>> You aren't really able to spot the contradictions you write...
>>
>> ...are you?
>
>
> I didn't contradict myself, it's true that 16 GB is adequate, but it's
> equally true that I could utilize more.
Define "sweet spot".
>
>
>>> There's no question Apple is price gouging.
>
>> There's no question that people who buy them don't agree.
>
>
> Which is why no one outside the first world has a Mac.
>
There is no doubt that Macs are more expensive.
I've never said they weren't.
But you're kind of making MY point.
In North America, Macs make up nearly 25% of personal computer usage:
Linux is just a fifth of that, and even if you assume that all of the
"Unknown" usage is Linux, it's still only half of Mac usage.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
