🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <marke-2601961039200001@204.236.25.80>,
Mark Eaton <marke@nwlink.com> wrote:
>In article <4e8ror$ji1@sundog.tiac.net>, rlk@sunspot.tiac.net (Robert
>Krawitz) wrote:
>
>> There are essentially two markets for <$5000 desktop machines at
>> present: the PC architecture and the Mac architecture.  This
>> segmentation occurs because the two classes of machines are not
>> hardware and software interoperable with each other.  There is some
>> inter-segment competition because the machines can both do many of the
>> same things, but most people want either a Mac or a PC.
>> 
>
>There are essentially two markets for <$30,000 vehicles at present: the
>car and the truck. This segmentation occurs becuase the two classes of
>vehicles are not interchangeable. 

...and here is where your analogy breaks down.

You cannot compare the Mac vs. the PC by using a car/truck analogy,
because there are multiple manufacturers for both the car as a
category and the truck as a category, whereas there is only one
manufacturer of the Mac as a category: Apple.  This will soon change,
but it'll take some time before we start to see some significant
effects from it.

There are further differences that make your analogy flawed.  The
primary one is that in terms of functionality, the Mac and the PC are
approximately the same (they are both capable of doing the same thing,
what differs is *how* they do it).  Trucks have significantly
different capabilities than cars do, and this tends to segment that
market a bit more.  They also have different performance
characteristics, whereas Macs and PCs have roughly the same
performance characteristics (even if the PCs lag a little).


-- 
Kevin Brown                                     kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
            This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
                        Any questions?