3 ms·
> It’s a business decision. That doesn't make it less frustrating. > If they thought it would sell more Macs, they would do it. It's short term thinking, it
by masklinn 3y ago
> It’s a business decision.
That doesn't make it less frustrating.
> If they thought it would sell more Macs, they would do it.
It's short term thinking, it generates bad feeling of nickel and diming and unnecessary upsells: on M3 you need to pay $2000 to be able to use two external displays, and $3200 for 3, even if you have no need for the rest of the processing power.
Not only that but they managed to create more range confusion with the expensive but gimped entry-level 14".
- willseth 3y agoWhat you describe is only considered by a vanishingly small number of their customers. The vast majority don’t care or even own an external display. You could be right about range confusion, but I doubt it simply because, like everything else, Apple is so disciplined about market research. Time will tell
- matwood 3y ago> The vast majority don’t care or even own an external display. Or more than 1 external display. The vast majority own none or a single. Few people have multiples, and those people are generally enthusiasts who will also tend to pay more.
- Tool_of_Society 3y agoI'm curious where people are getting this data point?
- matwood 3y agoFair point. It's a bit anecdotal and things I've read over the years. Multi-monitor was growing quickly for desktops until the big wide screens came out. Then it seemed to slow. As many people shifted to laptops, the one larger monitor seemed to be more common or no monitor at all. There's also the challenge of defining multi-monitor as I use 3, but one of those is my laptop. In that sense nearly everyone can run 2 screens. I'd love to see some modern stats that take into account these nuances.