MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

You think you understand the other side, but you don't. The BWM analogy doesn't work. And guess what? People pay more for winter packages. I have no problem with that. The car-computer analogies almost never work. I'll try again:

I understand Apple's move and I agree with it. I just think, as others do, that it was done too early!

I feel, and this is my opinion, that Apple should take a little better care of their mac customers from the previous 2 to 3 years. You feel they shouldn't. I understand that not including the firewire cable is better for the bottom line, perhaps even better for the majority of recent (3 or less years) pc buyers and the even minority of recent (3 or less years) mac buyers.

From the MDN take above -- "If you want to switch iPod over to USB 2.0, that's fine, but perhaps you should wait until the majority of Mac owners have realistically had a chance to acquire USB 2.0 capable Macs?"

I think their position is clear, and I agree with them.

Others feel that it was wrong to drop firewire since they feel Apple should keep pushing firewire (arguably superior) over usb2 (this is the reason Apple chose not to include usb2 for so long on macs). I'm not in that crowd.

oh, and the candy bar analogy doesn't work either.

Im so angered by this, and other recent moves by Apple i can not even speak.

USB is a shiat interface, should be no where near any type of data transfer. i want to see a USB 2.0 vs Firewire benchmark, i dont think it will be in favor of USB. why would Apple choose to HINDER there beloved iPod? its just retarded, id anything drop the USB 2.0 cable from the box and only ship the firewire. granted i could care less about every person who chooses to use windows on this planet.

While coming up with a sane response to Apple regarding the recent iPod decision, I poked out this. Read it thru' - you may actually approve

-

It's been suggested that 80% of iPod owners are throwing out their FireWire cables. That would mean that 20% of iPod owners are throwing out their USB-2 cables.

The public are being told that Apple is reducing costs and passing on the savings to it's iPod customers by not including the less 'popular' FireWire cable.

Some folks have suggested, that Apple reduce the 'cost' a further $20. They think that this massive waste could be ended if customers could choose which is appropriate at the point of purchase. (Thinking, an outfit like BestBuy or FutureShop will acknowledge that most of their customers will need the USB-2 cable and correctly manage to have supplies that cover those customers. Conversely thinking, a Mac retailer will acknowledge that most of their customers will need the FireWire cable and correctly manage to have supplies that cover those customers.)

Many feel that as a consumer product - leaving out a connectivity cable would inconvenience ALL iPod customers.

I think that the difficulty that some of your Apple iPod customers (20%?) are having reconciling this decision, is that they are ALSO your Apple Mac customers. The delemma they see - is this is a decision that negatively effects their (Apple) computer product, not positively effects a consumer product - even an Apple one.

Leaving out the (superior, Apple) FireWire cable now - in favor of the USB-2 cable might be prudent IF most Mac users had USB-2. Currently, most don't. This probably would have been a non-issue if Apple had chosen to do this particular change 12-18 months from now.

As for today, do you think that a 'FireWire-for-USB2-Cable-Walk-in-and-Trade-in' program would work for your Mac customers that are also your iPod customers?
.

b,

I would agree with you if the end result was that you spent more (or the same) for less in the end. I just don't feel I'm getting fleeced when the product I buy now costs me less in the end than it did before (even if my USB 2.0 friends spend $18 less than me).

And yes the BWM analogy works becuase up here in the Northeast, it is pretty mandatory to have a winter package. I have to compare myself to my peers up here in the Northeast, and not include my peers in FL, CA, TX where they have no use for a winter package (but could buy it if they wanted).

Apple did take care of you - they lowered your total price while increasing functionality. They also happend to benefit the 80% of it customer base (the PC user who HAS USB 2.0) for the iPod a little more. And that is what irks you.

It clearly doesn't irk me because the $18 buys me more than $18 worth of saved time over the total cost of ownership of the product. And the next time I buy an iPod, I'll already have one.

What does irk me, is a feature like direct copying of digital camera files, took so long to make its way into iPods. That's worth way more than the cost of a pizza and beer to me.

zupchuck,

If you think the BMW analogy works, and I don't, we must be talking about different things. If you keep bringing up the argument that you're paying less than you were less week, and I say it's irrelevant, we must be talking about different things. We obviously don't understand each other.

-b

p.s. my attempt at a car analogy for what I'm talking about:
Imaging no cars ever had cigarette lighter or radios. About 4 or 5 years ago, cigarette lighters started showing up in cars. But BMW decided to use their own type of lighter. Everyone else used the "standard" type. You bought a BMW a couple of years ago, which you hope to keep for a couple of more. At the same time cigarette lighters showed up, BMW also introduced a great radio as and accessory to its cars that plugged into its lighter. After 6 months they decided they could sell these radios to people with cars other than BMW, they just needed to buy an adapter. Soon enough, BMW was selling more of these radios to non-BMW owners. And about a year ago, they started equipping their cars with both their own lighter and the "standard" one. So now they decide to sell their radios with the connection for the "standard" lighter. The adapter for their lighter is sold separately. Now who would need that adapter. Only BMW owners.

p.p.s. The fire wire cable costs Apple less than a $1. Even if they included the firewire cable, the prices of all the iPods would be the same. It's just that Apple would be making $1 less profit.

This essentially happens all the time in the auto industry. If you want a new radio for your car, you buy the harness (for extra), too. Anybody with an 18 month old BMW or newer was covered. Anybody with the old version needs a simple, inexpensive cable.

If I this radio had fewer features and/or cost more than the previous version, I'd be upset. But since the radio is better and cheaper (even if had to buy an extra cable) than before I find it a good deal - even though my other car buddies and newer BMW owners paid $18 less than me.

Context is everything. The timeline did not start when these iPods starting shipping. It started a couple of years before that. If the time line started today, I might perhaps feel inclinded to agree with you. But then so might PC users without USB 2.0, too, (and there are a lot of them) and they have a more messy upgrade path. I haven't seen the uproar from them.

Do you think the new iPod photo is a decent value for PC and Mac users - even though the PC user kind of gets shafted with the iPhoto end of it?

I clearly don't think there's much of an issue here at all, although, (as I mentioned in my first post on this subject in another article) a build-to-order option chossing which cable for the same price would be nice. I don't think of Apple as being morally better than other computer firms and I don't expect it. We clearly get a great deal for the money we spend, but I don't expect them to extend complete backwards compatibility much more than 18 months like any electronics manufacturer pretty much does.

And I'm not going to post on this topic again. So have at it!