Comments on: A tale of two retailers A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: OneOfTheSheep Wed, 04 Jan 2012 02:10:29 +0000 I agree with what you say, Felix. But here’s what everyone seems to miss.

Steve Jobs got one thing horribly WRONG! When he repackaged NeXT as OSX and customers did not flock to adopt it, he began a series of moves to FORCE migration. Gradually Macs could no longer boot in earlier systems.

The “Classic” OS 9 emulator preserved, for a time, one’s ability to run earlier owned and adequate software. Then he changed from the PPC chip to an Intel chip, and Classic didn’t work any more. Some older applications could run on Classic’s replacement “Rosetta” but, with Lion, that has been dropped.

Since developers always make new applications for the “latest and greatest” Apple system, with each “new” system owners of older Macs are left in the dust. I don’t WANT nor can I afford to live my computer life on the bleeding edge of technology.

I want no less than ten years out of an application I take the money to buy and the time to learn, and I want a “patch” when a new Mac comes out that will allow me to use the old software STILL if it continues to meet my needs. I’ll pay a nominal amount for that patch.

So my 2010 (Thanksgiving) Intel Mini will be the last Mac I buy. I was one of the first Mac customers, a 512K E with a 20MB HD in 1985, and I’ve been a customer ever since. But I didn’t like it when MacWrite was replaced with MacWrite II. I didn’t like it when I then had to transition to WriteNow.

In my transition to OSX, kicking and screaming, I left WriteNow for Word for six months…NOTHING would have tempted me to continue wrestling with Word. I still modify OSX to look and work as OS 9 did because much of the visual IN YOUR FACE difference was not technically necessary and yet not made optional.

I bought Pages when it came out and was again happy, but it does not run on my Intel Mac, so I bought a later version. None of this irritation and learning time has resulted in a meaningful increase of utility to my word processing efforts.

I guess everyone else in the world does not mind being exploited in this manner, or maybe they’re just used to it. This is the “down side” of some so-called genius convinced he knows what I “need”, both now and in the future. NO MORE!

I don’t have an iPhone, I don’t NEED an iPhone. The iPad may eventually get my attention since it’s handy in the cockpit of a private aircraft and could replace a laptop, but I don’t want my familiar computer interface constantly tweaked so functions can be the same as on devices I don’t use.

Obviously Apple wants frequent purchasers more than loyal customers, and this is more profitable. So be it.

By: resinaus Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:57:37 +0000 I think a more interesting comparison would be Sears vs. Ron Johnson’s JC Penney, to see whether the Apple retail magic will work in the same category as Sears.

By: Dollared Sat, 31 Dec 2011 16:16:09 +0000 Felix, this is you playing journalist, creating an “angle” where none existed. At the time of the Eddie-led Sears Merger, the excitement was not about the retail. It was about the theory that in a booming real estate market, the Sears and KMart franchises controlled a huge amount of re-developable real estate and Eddie was just the guy to unlock the value. It had nothing – zero, zip, nada – to do with retailing. The results with Sears are exactly what retail analysts predicted. Lampert did nothing to revive and reposition the stores, and they languished.

Apple, on the other hand – but why are we talking about Apple stores? There is no point to the comparison.

By: TFF Sat, 31 Dec 2011 14:33:53 +0000 Apple Stores might be the most expensive per square foot of any large chain? I wouldn’t know… But as you say, RevoD, their revenue per square foot is more than sufficient to justify the cost.

Dunno if a comparison of Apple and Sears makes any sense, though. The product lines are simply too different. Perhaps Best Buy would be a little closer?

Sears might be reasonably compared against Walmart or Target?

By: RevoDiamo Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:23:04 +0000 Saying Apple Stores are the most expensive on the planet is a 100% lie. Apple Flagships Stores might be the most expensive of all Apple Stores. Apple Stores are setting records for total retail sales and have the highest dollars per square foot in the history of the retail industry! Considering Apple Stores cost a fraction of what the Anchor stores like JC Penny, Macy’s, Nordstrom’s, Dillars, and such – Apple Stores are doing retail unlike anyone else on the planet!

By: FifthDecade Fri, 30 Dec 2011 03:03:20 +0000 My goodness ckbryant, you’re MILES behind the times – the Bondi Blue iMac was TWELVE years ago! lol! And much to the chagrin of PC advocates, most of them are still working. The PowerMac introduced in 2003 introduced a case design that is still in use today by the MacPro, EIGHT years later. Hardly an example of rapid design change dictated by fashion.

By: McGriffen Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:23:30 +0000 Apple I-Mac that I purchased in mid-2006 is still going along nicely. Whenever it may die, I’d gladly buy another. And I wasn’t forced into a software upgrade.

Maybe a PC notebook will be a less-expensive replacement today, but negating all PC-related troubles was well worth the expense 5+ years ago. Thanks AAPL !

By: ckbryant Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:06:23 +0000 “…if it has a function, is useful and helps the user Macs generally have it; if it’s glitzy and added for reasons of differentiation or to stand out, it’s on a PC.”

Well, whatever gets you through the night. But I’d be eager to hear about the usefulness of the translucent “bondi blue ice” iMac case, or the functionality of the white iPhone 4. (A white phone! Can you believe it?)

Apple spends a _lot_ of time on non-functional design. Haven’t you noticed how the fanboys drool over sixteen color choices one year, then swoon over the minimalist purity of a simple block of aluminum the next? It’s like a runway show in Milan: the hemlines are up! The hemlines are down!

By: JGorman Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:35:31 +0000 Sears still has a strangle-hold on being the store you walk-through to get to the stores you shop in.

By: markkolier Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:39:50 +0000 The comparison between Apple and Sears is so incongruent it’s laughable. Nobody should be surprised about Sears as I wrote yesterday –