I think the middle ground would be the cheaper, smaller, lower-megapixel SLR’s like the Nikon D40. Back to my original argument, this probably isn’t a huge deal to the average consumer.īut why do $200 cameras sell more than SLRs? Is it because all the features on the big SLRs scare people is it because the $200 camera is much smaller, easier to carry and costs $200?Īll of the above, I’m sure. On the other hand, with exception to memory, it certainly lacks expandability. Well, it does look different, has a few additional features (integrated video camera, for example) and runs OS X (legally) and iLife, which may or may not be important to you, but are certainly incentives to many (most?) Mac buyers. “the only difference between a standard desktop pc and the imac is two cords: monitor video input and monitor power cable.
#Iwork for mac software
And of course, no matter what the software or hardware platform today, the answer is yes to all three. “Can I use the internet, listen to MP3’s and send email?” are more of concern to the typical consumer. The average consumer isn’t overly concerned about the specific kind or speed of processor (or any other nitty-gritty technical detail) a computer uses. I was merely trying to reiterate Kroc’s point that we, as OSNews readers, aren’t very representative of technology buyers as a whole. But that’s not the point I was trying to make.Īnd, no, I don’t think a PC is that much more complex than a Mac, but I didn’t make that argument either I didn’t even comment on computers.
“want to compare profit margins on ferraris and toyota camrys? smaller audience does not mean smaller profit.”
0 kommentar(er)
