iWorks?

Why are you paying for software? Havn't you heard? You don't have to do that anymore...

--
Caleb
 

If your question is a Socratic one, intending to direct my attention to Open Source software, I would like to point out that Open Source software is not free. There may not be a cost to download it, but there is a cost involved in using it and, frankly, dealing with it...

And $79 for a polished page-layout program that integrates with *everything*else* on my computer, with little further effort on my part, my friend, is a bargain...
 

Maybe I don't understand because I don't know what a "Page Layout Program" does...is that like M$ Publisher? Whatever it is that it does, I am pretty sure that some component of the OpenOffice.org suite duplicates it's functionality.

You are right that Open-Source-Software still has non-fiscal costs. On the other hand, there are often Open Source Solutions that are free in both ways (like OpenOffice).

A good example of your point is in image editing. Right now, I don't think that the gimp can quite compare to something like PSP or Photoshop. On productivity suites, I think your point is less valid.
--
Caleb
 

I'm reminded of an argument I used to have with my dad. He had an old Datsun 510 that had had a lot of work put into it, installing a larger engine, beefing up the suspension and brakes. He used it in weekend amateur races, and even drove it to and from work at times.

He claimed that his 510 could do anything that a brand-new BMW sedan could do, for significantly less money. In fact, he would go farther than that, sometimes, and claim that anyone could get an old Datsun and get it to the point where his was, and have a car that was better than a BMW, because it cost less to build and to maintain. Parts were far cheaper for his 510 than some fancy-schmancy German car.

He would focus on numbers; cost of the car and parts, or 0-60 times, or stopping distance, or even fuel mileage. And, sure, in those categories, his 510 would "beat" the mythical BMW.

But he would ignore the fact that he spent every other weekend tearing down the engine, or going over the brakes, or just otherwise tending to the car. He didn't notice that; he didn't care, because he loved that car. He just assumed that anyone who loved their car (and isn't that most Americans?) would spend an equal amount of time maintaining it.

Dad would also ignore things like how noisy the car was to ride in. Or the unfinished look of the dashboard. Or the fact that there was very little adjustment to the racing seats he put in there (in an effort to reduce the weight and get a better power-to-weight ratio)... and numerous other, smaller things. He didn't factor in the benefits of having a team of engineers and a mass-production line vs. having something basically hand-crafted and unique.

It's silly to argue with someone who is arguing out of passion. The passionate person can never see things the same way as someone who doesn't share that passion.

But just because one thing is "functionally equivalent" to another does not mean it's the same experience in using it.
 

I like your analogy. I understand your point-of-view, but OpenOffice.org is hardly a labor of love for me. Now, you could make the same argument about my "Blogtastic" versus "Blogger". There *are* things that Blogtastic can do better than Blogger, but by and large, Blogger is a more mature more full featured, more easy to use program. I use Blogtastic because I wrote it, and I understand the intricacies of it's functions (this feeling is probably comparable to how understanding evolution contributes to your enjoyment of the world. But maybe even better, as if you were personally responsible for evolution).

The reason the BMW is more traditionally aesthetic and pleasing to use is a difference in project budget (both workforce and monetary). The thing about software is that it isn't material, so budget matters much less. To make it staggeringly simple, Microsoft has a really big budget, but they still manage to implement tired and inefficient algorithms, break basic fundamentals of software engineering, and then be iconically obtuse about the whole thing. So, with monetary budget aside, the difference is left to manpower (and possibly quality of manpower). In the case of Blogger versus Blogtastic, the difference is huge. On the other hand, if I had 40 people working full time on Blogtastic, it may very well out-perform Blogger. But heres the thing: OpenOffice.org does have a big budget, _and_ a big workforce. It is probably comparable in both to your Apple Suite. OpenOffice.org is funded (and developed) by Sun Microsystems, and is opensource in the same way Java is: it is Sun's business model to be aggressively OpenSource. As a result, OpenOffice also has contributing coders from dozens of countries (it also has support for just about every language (more than you can say for most office suites)).

The point is, I agree with you; but on the case of OpenOffice, I don't think you can give examples of what candy is missing (like a full dashboard or comfortable seats) without it being something for which Apple has an unfair advantage (b/c they distribute your operating system).

Now, here would be an argument that I could agree with: Buy the BMW and keep the Datsun. This way you can have the benefits of *both*, for no more cost than junking the Datsun for the BMW. That said, there are lots of things I would rather spend my money on, when I already have a perfectly good Datsun :P.