Hacker News Reader

Comment by dijit | Hacker News Reader

I want to answer, but people will come out of the woodwork to bash me.

The answer boils down to not only personal preference but for some cases it's easier and more orthogonal to use. Even if that _wasn't true_ and many people are going to shit on me for saying it _is_ true, but even if it wasn't: the perception is that it's easier to use, more orthogonal and made with premium materials.

Aside from the pro-sumer market, (which is still hit and miss) the build quality of laptops and battery life is sub-par in Windows-land. Add to the fact that unless you have a Dell support contract you're going to be fighting your laptop vendor over random things potentially and suddenly you're not looking at an appealing platform.

This is _especially_ true if money is literally no object as is the case for screen writers who are probably the most well compensated people on the planet (as roughly 30% of a movie budget goes to the screen writer(s)).

View on HN

I think there's a far simpler explanation. It's fashionable and writers are not technical people who are aware of the differences.

I'm curious if you'd use the same word "fashionable" to explain the popularity of Google Chrome or Visual Studio Code. If not, why not? What's the difference?

Google chrome and visual studio are not status symbols. They are not optimized for outward appearance. And they are purpose built tools, which either work or not.

With a laptop, any old laptop will do 99% of what the typical user needs and do it well enough most of the time, regardless of whether you spend $3k on a pretty MacBook or $1k on something else.

I suspect there's a good deal of overlap between the kind of person who buys a Macbook and the kind of person who buys Beats earphones even though for the price they are subpar (at least earlier iterations were). It's the same concept - status signalling with expensive and outwardly pretty tech.

Got it, so the difference is that Apple makes physical hardware that other people can see, and your case is that you think people will spend significantly more money for something that looks nicer.

It doesn't just "look nicer," it is a cultural symbol - no doubt thanks to successful marketing on behalf of apple.

>your case is that you think people will spend significantly more money for something that looks nicer.

Is this not a fact? Why do you think people buy diamonds? Are you aware that their role as a symbol was also purely manufactured by commercial interests? Look up the dealings of the diamond cartel in the early 1900s.

Fair. I should have been more specific "your case is that you think people will spend significantly more money for Macs because they look nicer".

That's a patronising generalisation, case in point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22292533

Screenwriters do not get 30% of a movie's budget. This claim, which is ridiculous on its face, really calls into question everything in this comment and anything else you post on this website.

>orthogonal

ergonomic?

I think you must mean 3%, not 30%.

I work for a games publisher that has some (heavy) ties to Hollywood and i have it on good authority that it’s definitely more like 30%.

You need to cite your good authority because I know WGA screenwriters and it is definitely not anything like 30%. On a $10m film (tiny) that would be $3m. On a $100m film (pretty blockbuster-y) it would be $30m. Stop a minute and think about it: that's Tom Cruise's sort of per-film salary.

Screenwriters are great and all that, but they're eminently fungible, whereas folk like Cruise are not.

I'd suggest it's more like 5%-10% upfront. What they get on residuals may be a lot higher, but that assumes the film covers its costs, which in Hollywood can mean anything.

> […] but that assumes the film covers its costs, which in Hollywood can mean anything.

Not any more. Case law has basically ripped the old “Hollywood accounting” to shreds. I’m not saying profits and losses can’t be manipulated, but you can’t get away with the dirty tricks used 20 years ago, and firms are held to somewhat higher standards.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com