No, there is little practical use for expensive, overpriced, computers. There is no compelling reason to purchase them mainstream. Why buy a Ferrari to drive to work when a Ford will get you there for a lot less money. Simple economics.
As for the Apple TV. I am cautious because I don't want to get burned again. And there is a good chance that it will happen. But I am giving Apple (and you, the Apple spokesperson) another chance.
Lastly, why purchase media that will only run on Apple platforms? RE: ITunes? Again, that is my conflict with Apple — their media only runs on their hardware and nowhere else. So, in a way, if forces me to continue being an Apple customer because of the investment in Apple proprietary media — music, movies, etc. But that is the game, isn't it?
Bottom line: Apple is closed off/locked off... so that they can increase profits and discontinue support so that I am forced to buy the next Apple widget. Apparently, that business model works for them and yes there are some fools who are stuck in the Apple rut. Apparently they are happy. Not me, I can see above the rut.
Uh, I was running iTunes on my Windows PCs to support my iPod, long before running it on a Mac. Early 2000's. iTunes will run on current PCs.
Dhs, it is you who is the brainwashed one here. I’m completely familiar with multiple platforms while your postings show you are completely ignorant of the modern Apple Mac platform, basing your opinions on at least twenty year out-dated "facts" which were wrong even then. Rich like IBM has nothing to do with the total costs of ownership. Those are scaleable from the Enterprise level down to the micro business level.
I’ve converted many small businesses from PC centric to Apple oriented and I’ve learned I’ve made far less money from them after they switched to Apple BECAUSE THEY HAD FAR FEWER PROBLEMS that required me extensive attention and expertise. Instead, I made more money because a happy client referred other friends to my company due to their experience and savings.
You, dhs, are the typical IT guy who COST your company’s money by assuring your and fellow IT department tech’s jobs by always recommending Microsoft Windows PCs as a Solution because they kept ALL OF YOU EMPLOYED!
What part of IBM’s VP’s statement that it required only one Mac tech for 5,435 Macs installed but one Windows PC tech for every 400 PCs, did you skip over? That’s better than 13.5 to one, dhs. . . That’s a HUGE savings in the number of IT guys that must be employed when you’re supporting 400,000 computers. For IBM it translates to more than $50 million a year!
For a small company it means far fewer calls to an expensive outside tech support company per year, or that most problems are solved in house by the users themselves. More importantly, it means far less lost productivity!
IBM was experiencing a 45% help desk call rate PER YEAR from their employees using Windows PCs. Each call represented down time and hence anywhere from one to as much as a day’s lost productivity. 45%, dhs. The Apple Mac users call for help at only a 3.5% rate, . . .13.85 times less frequently than their Windows PC using counterparts. Right there’s why IBM found they did not need so many IT guys to keep their fleet of Macs running. . . They weren’t being called; the Macs weren’t having problems!
You condemned your employers to that Windows PC hell. You suffer from Windows Stockholm Syndrome. I’m not.