Comment by andrew_
4 years ago
Windows user from 3.1 to Win 7 here. Once I saw the MacOS experience in 2012, I never looked back. an engineer might say the juice isn't worth the squeeze, but to a consumer, and a power user, the swath of UI and UX inconsistencies is what keeps me away from Windows.
For the price of the absolute cheapest MacOS running computer (Mac Mini, with a monitor) one can get basically 2 entire Windows computers.
For the cost of the average computer running MacOS, one could buy a TV, a console, a desktop Windows computer, and a laptop. Or whatever it may be. ($1500 on an iMac could be $400 console, $500 TV, $500 computer. Or whatever your break down is. For the lower middle class and working class, trying to 'gear up' their family and make their kids happy and be happy with their home, this is real math they have to do).
While it is true that for those who are wealthy or who can justify the cost, the experience is very nice and justifiable, the cold hard facts of living in the western world is that most people would need to spend irresponsibly to use MacOS regularly.
It is what it is but it's no surprise that the cheapest mass market OS has 90% market share, and anyone who thinks that "UX" is the reason instead of cost doesn't understand the industry fundamentally.
> the cold hard facts of living in the western world is that most people would need to spend irresponsibly to use MacOS regularly.
A $900 MacBook Air would probably have lasted far longer and needed less time troubleshooting than a $500 computer made with subpar components. The amortized costs are far lower with Apple products (or other products using higher quality components) compared to buying the cheapest devices made with the lowest quality components, so there is no point in comparing the two.
And most people only need 1 computer, if that. I would actually bet most people can do everything they need to with iOS and an iPad would suffice. And other than the smaller screen size, I can see people make do with an iPhone even, especially if all you are doing is consuming.
> A $900 MacBook Air would probably have lasted far longer and needed less time troubleshooting than a $500 computer made with subpar components.
I've never seen a more-true statement on this site. Years ago, my wife was using a $500 Acer laptop, which was a cheap plastic POS, which broke after a couple of years. I bit the bullet, and bought a pre-owned Air for $900. She is still using it, 11 years later. I used to have to fix something on her Windows computer every other week. Now I hardly ever have to help her with anything.
A year later, I bought another $900, used Air for my daughter. She is still using that, 10 years later. I bought a new MBP, and gave my son my 7-year-old version. I expect him to get many more years out of it.
People who have never owned a MacBook expect that they "wear out" like a $500 laptop, but they just don't. They cost much less over the long run. It's like hiking boots. You can buy cheap ones every year, or bite the bullet, and pay 3 times more, and have a pair that lasts for 10 years.
5 replies →
Perhaps it would have but the Boots theory of wealth from Terry Pratchett still applies.
I don't understand how your views on cost-value are related to my views on the user interface and experience.
I don't understand how your views on the user interface and experience are related to the Microsoft engineering tradeoffs you commented on.
Really? It seems very obvious. This is a discussion of how "UX is why Microsoft is losing market share", which is what you replied to.
I'm reminding some tone-deaf wealthy users that COST is the #1 factor behind OS usage, and the rest is basically irrelevant window dressing except to the upper class.
Is what it is, but you'll struggle to find a more privledged and clueless group of commenters than here. Part of the charm, I suppose.
Cost is not the same as value. Apple hardware routinely runs better, lasts longer, and has longer software support. This is reflected in the incredible demand and higher resale values.
This actually helps makes new devices more affordable as the cost is amortized over a longer and more useful lifespan, while the secondary market serves others very well.
Incredible demand? Are you referring to their stable ~15% market share? And decades of uninspiring market performances? The company which didn't experience its meteoric success and growth until after the computer, with the smartphone?
Interesting. I figured the people here are completely ignoring maybe half of all users, but you seem to be ignoring about 85%!
1 reply →