4 ms·

Hihi. Yours is exactly the kind of reaction I’m talking about. That inability to understand is always quite funny but let me try to explain regardless. I’m per

by ugh 15y ago

Hihi. Yours is exactly the kind of reaction I’m talking about. That inability to understand is always quite funny but let me try to explain regardless. I’m perfectly happy paying money – even a lot of money – for aesthetics. Aesthetics are something of substance for me. Specifications are only one factor for me. Design (how it is built) and aesthetics (how it looks and feels), specifications and familiarity are the four most important factors I personally use when deciding what computer to buy and they all are pretty much on equal footing for me. Four years ago, I payed $500 more (compared to a Dell laptop with similar specifications) for my MacBook Pro to get more (much better design and better aesthetics). You might be able to better understand me if you think about something where for you personally aesthetics are an important factor, something you are willing to pay money for. I would be very surprised if there isn’t something like that for you. Maybe office chairs? Cars? Curtains? Bikes? Whatever it is, how you feel about that is how I feel about computers. I really don’t want to convince you of that view. There is no right or wrong answer to this issue. Some care for aesthetics more, some care less. (Also: Some like Apple’s aesthetic, some don’t.) There is nothing wrong with all of that, just understand that not everyone shares your view.

quanticle 15y ago
Thanks for taking the time to respond in a fair and courteous manner. Looking back, my post comes off as more than a little abrasive, so your consideration is appreciated. I do see where you're coming from (sort of). I recognize that aesthetics can be of substantive value. If that was not the case, artwork would not sell for millions of dollars. That said, I still have to disagree with you regarding Apple. I suspect this may stem from a fundamental divergence in the way we view our computers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you view the form of the computer, in addition to the function, as a primary consideration in the value that you assign to it. I, on the other hand, view the function of the machine as the only consideration when assigning a value to it. Computers are different enough from other objects that analogies are always suspect, but a limited analogy to tools may be of use here. I would be willing to trade an ergonomic handle and a certain aesthetic look in a wrench for a 20% gain in torque strength. I suspect that you would not be as sure to make that trade-off. At the very least, you would perhaps consider whether you really needed the advantage in strength.

by ugh 15y ago

quanticle 15y ago

Thanks for taking the time to respond in a fair and courteous manner. Looking back, my post comes off as more than a little abrasive, so your consideration is appreciated. I do see where you're coming from (sort of). I recognize that aesthetics can be of substantive value. If that was not the case, artwork would not sell for millions of dollars. That said, I still have to disagree with you regarding Apple. I suspect this may stem from a fundamental divergence in the way we view our computers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you view the form of the computer, in addition to the function, as a primary consideration in the value that you assign to it. I, on the other hand, view the function of the machine as the only consideration when assigning a value to it. Computers are different enough from other objects that analogies are always suspect, but a limited analogy to tools may be of use here. I would be willing to trade an ergonomic handle and a certain aesthetic look in a wrench for a 20% gain in torque strength. I suspect that you would not be as sure to make that trade-off. At the very least, you would perhaps consider whether you really needed the advantage in strength.