| Monday, July 29, 2002 |
09:29 - Yeah, what he said.
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=072802&ID=s1188630&cat=section.bu
|
(top)  |
David Saraceno of The Spokesman-Review says pretty much the same thing about Macs that I did last night:
I only use one word processor, and it runs just fine. I don't need another one.
Sub-argument: PCs are faster. They sure are. In fact, I read recently that a Pentium III can outrun a Pentium IV in certain operations. But my word processor runs plenty fast on a Mac.
Ever done video, MP3s, or DVDs on a PC? Have fun. A couple of years ago, an acquaintance of mine bought a $2,700 "preconfigured" Gateway computer to create digital video tapes. Months, hundreds of dollars in long-distance tech calls, and a bunch of gray hair later, he somehow got Gateway to take it all back for a complete refund. Then he bought a cheaper Mac-based system, and never made another support call.
What's more, Mac programs like iMovie, iTunes, iDVD and iPhoto are all FREE on a Macintosh, and work right out of the box. But then again, there are more word processors available on the PC.
He brings up a point which is a frequent bone of contention: the smaller pool of software which is available on the Mac. It's been the subject of plenty of jeering from PC users in the past, both in its own regard and when Mac users point out that having less software to choose from can be a benefit. "Ha! Look at the silly Mac users, trying to pretend that having less software is an advantage!"
But really, let's be realistic for a moment. How important is it for there to be fifty photo-organizer apps available rather than five? What's the point of having a dozen word-processing programs when everybody only uses one? Sure, it represents a wider user base for there to be more shareware and commercial apps available for a given task. Sure, there's a whole lot more choice. But in the real world, what's the benefit? If everybody chooses a different application for a particular task, doesn't that just contribute to stagnation and gridlock, as everybody tries in vain to interoperate with each other? And if everybody standardizes on the one clear victor in the field (like WinAmp or Word), then what's the point of having all that choice?
Sure, competition spurs innovation. But that can occur just as easily with three competitors as with thirty, especially if each of those competitors has a bigger piece of its respective pie to worry about. Besides, Apple and the third-party software developers on the Mac, as I've said before, don't appear to have had much difficulty demonstrating innovation above and beyond what the laws of the market would seem to dictate. And when's the last time Word was forced to incorporate new innovations because of pressure from competitors?
Of course, we know what people really mean when they say that the PC has more software: they mean "more games". That's all any of this comes down to. It's all about the gaming. It's all about the different flavors of crack. Never mind how a computing platform might inspire a person to create; all that really matters is how a platform might enable a person to consume.
It's in circumstances like this, though, that I love noting how the people who bitch at the Mac for its lack of games are the same people who scoff at it for being a "toy".
|
|