Re: PC or Mac?

[mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon)]

Byron Q. Desnoyers replied:

>Michael J. Mahon wrote:
>> You think that if a thing can be done and would be useful, then
>> it should be done.
>> 
>> Developers think that if a thing can be done and would be profitable,
>> then it should be done.
>> 
>> I think that explains the paradox.
>
>To a degree.  Clearly most software developers do not make money when
>they force users to upgrade their operating system or hardware, yet
>they persist in creating software with higher and higher system
>requirements.  This leaves the user with a choice: upgrade to meet the
>requirements, or be left behind.  For whatever reason there is a
>stigma with being left behind.  I have even been in arguments where
>people insists that laptops are a necessity for primary and secondary
>students; while laptops, cd burners, and digital cameras are
>necessities for college and university students.  It is all tied into
>the myth that you are a lesser person if you do not have the latest
>gadgetry.  As such, the software industry has had it good and can
>expect users to upgrade.
>
>What you said explains the paradox, but only because we live in a
>culture of hysterical upgrading.  If consumers were more sensible in
>their purchasing decisions we would probably see software which would
>run on a broad range of systems.  There may only be three platforms on
>the market (Macintosh/Unix/Windows) as we see today, but you would be
>able to access email and usenet with modern tools on a 68030 and better,
>publish reasonably sophisticated documents and access the web with a
>68040 and better, and you could still get a G4 for video editing.  But,
>as it stands today, it is becoming difficult to access the web (without
>unecessary complications) with anything less than a 200MHz Pentium.

And a 200MHz Pentium is over three years old.

The entire PC industry is based upon delivering sufficiently compelling
reasons to upgrade hardware and software about every two years.

As long as the reason really _is_ compelling, then everybody wins,
since the users get a compelling new capability and the suppliers
get another sales cycle.  For two decades, the Moore's Law increase
in performance and memory capacity was almost enough to be
compelling, as long as users had demands on performance that
were not being met.

But for the last couple of years, while the performance and capacity
improvements have continued, the _need_ for them in the form of
compelling new performance-hungry applications has not kept up.
This is one of the fundamental reasons for the collapse of the PC
industry (in terms of relative growth) the last year or two.

It has been suggested that a fundamental bottleneck preventing
many new performance-hungry apps is the bandwidth to the typical
home, which has stalled at 56Kb/s for several years, and cannot
grow without massive investment in capital equipment on the part
of cable companies and telcos (neither of which is in a very good
position at the moment to make that investment).  Somehow, the
consumer (yep, that's us) is going to have to help them squeeze
through the keyhole, prime the pump, and get on the bandwidth
wagon (how's that for a positively swizzled batch of metaphors ;-).

Another possibility is that the next "big thing" that will motivate
the next upgrade cycle is not related to communication bandwidth--
maybe it's video editing, for example.  But most analysts don't
believe that, since even video editing is much more useful if the
results can be quickly communicated over the internet.  Perhaps
affordable (<$300) DVD+RAM drives will provide the video distri-
bution needed to create the motive force--and perhaps not.

In any event, upgrading is what makes the PC world go around.
And it is beneficial economically and technologically as long as
progress in user capability is being significantly advanced.

If all you need is word processing and small spreadsheets, then
you have no motive to upgrade, and an Apple II will do very well.
But if digital photography with multiple megapixels lights your
fire, or digital video, then more recent platforms are in order.

It's not too bad, really, since the cost of a very capable new
machine is around $1000-$1200, less than an Apple II with
floppy drives in 1981 in absolute terms, and much less in terms
of real (inflation-adjusted) dollars--closer to $350-$450.  If one
upgrades every three years or so (for a home user), that is
less than $15 per month for digital delights.  Not so expensive,
really.

Of course, if the regular upgrade cycle stops, or lengthens to
once every four years, on average, then the PC industry will
have to contract to half its present size, and the pace of
innovation will become unstable and eventually decrease.
Positive feedback is a wonderful thing--until it stops and
becomes negative feedback.  I'd rather think that we're
still nearer the beginning of the computer revolution than
the end.  ;-)


-michael

 Email:  mjmahon@aol.com
 Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/