Recent news tells us Apple is still struggling to gain market share in the personal computer market. That’s too bad. While I have some beefy grieves with Apple (being that I am an IT “expert” and all that), their systems nonetheless beat the proverbial tars out of the typical Windows PC crowd.
You may beg to differ, but how about a case proof: Just a few months ago my parents’ old PC went up and they were in the market for a new one. Knowing they were not especially techno-savvy, I refrained from a strong Linux push and recommended a shiny new Mac-mini instead. Not that they listened, of course. Rather they cited the usual “don’t want to learn something different” line and went out and bought a “super deal” on a big darkly-colored brand name PC. Well, within a week they were fed up. Among other things, they couldn’t get their printer to work and after a long battle they had had enough. They returned the PC to the store and finally took my advice. (After all, at this point they figured they could always just take the Mac back too). Guess what? You might be surprised to learn that they couldn’t get the printer to work with the Mac either! Turns out the problem was the printer, not the computer. Yet, *waving finger*, they fell in love with the Mac so quickly that they kept it and have had almost nothing but high praise for it ever since. They now regularly recommend Macs to others, and ironically find it frustrating that no one listens. A fairly telling and not a wholly uncommon story, I imagine. But it certainly leads one to ponder. If the Apple’s Mac systems are so good, why in the world isn’t Apple’s market share going gang-go bang-go busters?
Well, let’s consider an interesting comparison. Let’s ask why a completely free operating system like Linux, which is just about as good in every way, and in some ways better, than Windows XP, doesn’t itself go gang-go bang-go busters? It’s an interesting question. Normally anything FREE will be snatched up so fast you have to be cautious of the whiplash. Now, many of course will cite the greater difficulty of installing Linux — though most people don’t ever install Windows in the first place. It’s simply there when they turn on their computer. Yet, that creates an adoption barrier. But I have found that even when an expert like myself offers to set the whole she-bang up at no cost, they still won’t go for it. Why? The answer is simple really. It’s the same old “citing the usual” I mentioned above. People fear significant change. It’s very uncomfortable to feel “lost” and have to learn something new. And FREE doesn’t lower that fear. In fact it heightens it, because people are naturally suspect of anything free –the old “it’s to good to be true” adage. Unfortunately consoling them with, “it’s not that different”, just convinces them further that either it really is, or then, it’s not worth the bother.
Well, there’s not a whole lot Mac lovers can do about that situation. I mean, people are people, silliness and all. And even Apple doesn’t have a whole lot of influence in that regard despite the Dollars to throw at the problem. They can advertise, and it helps, but advertising still faces the same barriers of perception. Fortunately, there is one thing that can almost always change a person’s mind, as any sales person knows: perceived value. Otherwise known as a “steal”. People love to think they got a really great buy for their money. Where free doesn’t cut it, to actually “snooker the system” and get VALUE for your money, saves the day. Software has an impossible time with this because it is so ephemeral, but hardware… Hardware’s got substance. Unfortunately, one look at Apple’s prices and one knows there isn’t much in the way of perceived value. Yet, despite their focus on high quality and slick design, I do not think this potential is out of the Apple’s reach. In fact, there’s this “great deal” on a “Mac-double-mini” that I would just love to buy…
If only Apple made it. What am I talking about? Let me explain… Essentially I’m suggesting that Apple take a page out of Nintendo’s recent Wii book and stop trying to always hit the market at the top-of-the-line. Most people will be perfectly happy with non-cutting edge specs as long as the system works well for them. This is exactly how Nintendo plans to clobber Sony in the new console wars. Another good comparison is the C64, the most successful single computer model of all time. What did it have going for it? 64K Bytes of Ram, a 1MHz processor, a TV for a monitor, 16 colors and 8 bit sound. It didn’t even come with a disk drive! Such lackluster specs and yet I watched so many people run productive applications on their C64s including a windowing system called GEOS with a capable word processor and spreadsheet. Not to mention the endless games. People ate those C64s up like apple pie. Let me rephrase that, “like it was Apple’s pie”, because it was. While Apple was doing a good bit better with market share back in those days with its Apple IIe, the company still suffered in much the same way it does today. The C64 had it all over Apple for market share because it had the value –the proverbial greater bang for the buck. Of course, back then Apple had no significant recourse. Apple could only continue to push forward because there really wasn’t any “back” to speak-of. It worked out for Apple in the end, but just barely. Apple hung in after IBM swept the field, while Commodore sunk ship because they went beyond value and undersold themselves. But today value doesn’t have to come just from selling things below what their worth; no, today we have a that valuable “back”.
Imagine this. An itty-bitty Mac with a 1GHz single core, 256MB, NO HARD DRIVE and NO DISC DRIVE –instead 4 front accessible USB slots via which the user can add flash memory. Add 2 USB ports to the back, a GB ethernet port, an eSATA port for external hard drives, maybe a firewire port, and an HDMI and you have a super slim, sexy and inexpensive system. Now you have an Apple computer in the $300 price range. Almost inexpensive enough to give away, but substantial enough for people to know they’re getting a good deal for that Dollar. Just the kind of thing that can move open wallets, move machines into customers’ hands and hence move Apple’s share of pie back into the sky.
Some might scoff at such a computer. But stop and think a moment. What kind of computer is more fitting in the Internet age? Speaking of which, try sticking a Google endorsement on the front of that box too and see what happens. Can you imagine? I get whiplash just thinking about it. Even so, I hope Apple’s not behaving like the customers they’re failing to reach — I hope they’re listening.
If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
Numbers numbers numbers. Many of us are waiting for the Intel desktops as well as Dual Binary versions of our production apps.
The future looks bright.
IMHO
Jb
>>If the Apple’s Mac systems are so good, why in the world isn’t Apple’s market share going gang-go bang-go busters?
Jesus, is this one of Thom’s friends? If you guys would like, I’d be happy to become an editor and correct the glaring grammatical/spelling/other issues the site seems to be so rife with.
I await your response and a paycheck.
Jesus, is this one of Thom’s friends? If you guys would like, I’d be happy to become an editor and correct the glaring grammatical/spelling/other issues the site seems to be so rife with.
We are an international website with an international readership. Errors in grammar and spelling are to be expected. Next time, it would be more posh to simply send us an email about the error. Other than that, no, there’s no paycheck. OSNews is voluntary work.
Thank you.
Well, why don’t you submit an article to OSNews so we can all see just how great your command of the English language is? Maybe a little constructive criticism of your writing style might give you a better appreciation of the process.
In the first part of your article you state that the reason people don’t switch to Apple is for the price and Linux for the learning curve. People want cheap and easy, you say. But towards the end of the article you contradict yourself:
Imagine this. An itty-bitty Mac with a 1GHz single core, 256MB, NO HARD DRIVE and NO DISC DRIVE –instead 4 front accessible USB slots via which the user can add flash memory. Add 2 USB ports to the back, a GB ethernet port, an eSATA port for external hard drives, maybe a firewire port, and an HDMI and you have a super slim, sexy and inexpensive system.
That sounds a bit complicated for anyone, let alone my parents and other non-techies I know. Do you really expect someone who returns a computer because the printer won’t install and who fears a change from a standard Windows-based PC to really be able to decipher USB flash memory, eSATA, Firewire (which Apple no longer pushes BTW) and HDMI?
I’ve owned a Mac Mini (G4) and I loved the simplicity and elegance of both the hardware and the OS. It was a bit slow, even with 512MB RAM, but it worked very well for anything other than the latest 3D game titles. It was as close as any major manufacturer has come to making a PC as simple to set up and use as a video game console.
Instead, you propose a system with no internal storage, and no optical media reader. You even suggest that the consumer supply their own Flash RAM and OS. After all, with no hard drive to store the OS and no optical drive to install one if there was, the user is left to her own devices. How is it again that Mom and Dad are supposed to go about this alone? What you propose is utter nonsense, something that is much more complicated than even the horrible systems offered by Dell and HP.
>>If the Apple’s Mac systems are so good, why in the world isn’t Apple’s market share going gang-go bang-go busters?
Never mind his grammar. This is the question to ask. It has been the question to ask for around 20 years. Circumstances have come and gone, but this has remained the key question.
Part of the answer is, they are not so good. Just because I like something, does not mean its good, and the appearance and look and feel are a very limited part of the full product feature set. So I like it, is not a reply to this. Fitness for the market is the ‘goodness’ test, and Apple has failed it and still is failing it.
Part of the answer is something that is really a product feature, though its not to do with look, feel or what I take home: its the closed business model: the insistence on only selling the OS on your own brand of hardware.
But in the end why be surprised? Its to do with boutiques and mainstream stores. No-one is surprised that Vuitton or Prado has small market share. Why be surprised if Apple does too?
That’s not an easy question to answer. However, the reality is that a truly good product is not necessarily a good selling product.
One of the reasons is that a lot of people do not wanna pay more for something if they don’t see any immediate benefits. A (supposedly) higher quality is not necessarily immediately visible. In addition, some people don’t care about the higher quality.
Another reason is what was mentioned in the article. People are afraid of change. They would probably worry about whether they will be able to use all their documents on the new system. They are afraid that the new system won’t work very well for them. They took a long time getting used to the current system, and they finally know their way a bit in the system and they are not wanna go through the same thing again and start from scratch on a new system. This also goes for businesses for example. Running your business on another system will incur a high initial switching cost.
Another reason is applications. Think young people. Young people play games. If you’re interested in games, clearly, Apple is simply not the best choice. Related are applications which have not been ported to OSX. This is also related to being used to certain Windows applications and not willing to start using another application for the same task.
Another reason is a practical reason. Most of the people someone knows are Windows users. I think that many people just think it’s better and more hassle-free to use the same system as the one that the people they know, use. It’s better for sharing files. First there’s the issue of being able to read documents made on another computer system. I imagine some people worry about this. Second, there’s the issue of sharing applications (illegally or not). It’s easier to find a friend who has a certain Windows application than to find a friend who has a certain OSX application.
These are all things, which are not immediately saying anything about the quality of a product, about how good the Apple package of hardware+software is. I’m also not saying that every of those arguments is “real”. For example, I think there’s not really much of a problem sharing common file formats between OSX and Windows. However, I do think that many people think that this can cause problems. All these things make it much harder to gain marketshare on a giant like Microsoft. Going the Microsoft way, is following mainstream. Most people are familiar with Windows. In a way, it feels like you can’t go wrong with Windows. Even if you think that Windows sucks in certain areas, the thing is you know where Windows sucks and you know how to deal with it. Going the Apple way is taking a bit of a risk. I think that switching to Apple feels to a lot of people like jumping in the unknown. If they don’t have friends who introduce them to OSX, then they don’t really know what to expect.
In my opinion, all these things together help clarify why Apple’s market share isn’t going gang-go bang-go busters.
I suspect that another key reason is business sales. Apple hasn’t really gone after the enterprise market (I won’t go into why that’s a good or a bad choice) and my sense is that far more heavily Windows-dominated. So people go to work, they use Windows, they maybe even have Windows-specific instructions for dialing into work. When it comes time to buy a home machine they naturally go with what they’ve gotten used to and/or what their IT departments will support for remote access.
Excellent points. Thanks.
How about we stop trying to make Apple and Linux take over the market and just wait. MS is doing a great job of slowly killing their market share. in fact, were it not for the OEM deals, they’d be a lot of trouble right now market share wise. People can’t afford Macs, not becuase they lack the money, but mostly becuase, when they see a Mac next to a PC with the same specs, it looks like it cost more. People don’t use Linux, because you can’t go into a store and buy a computer that comes with Linux. Let’s conqueror that barier before we even get to the configuration argument. Time conquerors all and every market leader comes back to the pack, and windows will do the same. Dell isn’t selling the same number of PCs, so how long will it be before they say, were can meet our forcasted numbers if we install linux on some of our boxs and reduce our software cost. How long will it be before they say, we can meet our forcasted numbers if we sell some high end Limited edition (1000 availible only) PC’s with OS X installed on them at the belessing of Steve Jobs as part of a promotional stunt shortly after the release of Leopard. It may not happen tomorrow, but the day is comming. Think of it as the day after Vista is finally released.
How long will it be before they say, we can meet our forcasted numbers if we sell some high end Limited edition (1000 availible only) PC’s with OS X installed on them at the belessing of Steve Jobs as part of a promotional stunt shortly after the release of Leopard.
Hell yes 🙂
oops
Edited 2006-06-26 16:29
But a Mac with the same specs doesn’t cost more.
You can buy a PC with the specs that are most important to you while Apple requires that you buy a present list of specs with fewer options fopr customization. However, when compared side by side… the Mac is typically the same… however freequently less.
Very sensible. It’s unrealistic for people to expect immediate results. Apple is making positive, concrete changes to react to market conditions. Let’s give them time to work.
you want Apple to sell a computer which isn’t working out-of-the-box (lack of harddrive, fore example) and slap an ugly Google-sticker on it? Yeah, sure, that’ll change some minds. But in the wrong direction.
This piece of drivel would probably have been locked on any halfway decent tech forum within seconds as the senseless ramblings of some 15 year old geek.
And here on osnews it gets posted as an article?
Seriously, you have to be kidding me.
I know it’s a voluntary website and the editors are probably glad about ever article they get send, but voluntary shouldn’t mean idiotic, now should it?
Imagine this. An itty-bitty Mac with a 1GHz single core, 256MB, NO HARD DRIVE and NO DISC DRIVE –instead 4 front accessible USB slots via which the user can add flash memory. Add 2 USB ports to the back, a GB ethernet port, an eSATA port for external hard drives, maybe a firewire port, and an HDMI and you have a super slim, sexy and inexpensive system. Now you have an Apple computer in the $300 price range. Almost inexpensive enough to give away, but substantial enough for people to know they’re getting a good deal for that Dollar. Just the kind of thing that can move open wallets, move machines into customers’ hands and hence move Apple’s share of pie back into the sky.
Yeah, right. No one in their right minds runs OS X on anything less than a gig. Mac OS X is a memory piglet and it (Tiger) runs like a dog even on my 1ghz TiBook with only 512mb of ram. 256 would be unbearably bad.
I also disagree with your view that Apple is always hitting the “top of the line”. They just aren’t hitting the top of the line in any of their products. To me, they’re just middle-end Dells that look pretty and get really hot when in use.
Ralph: how you got voted up I don’t know. This “piece of drivel” as you so unaptly put it just isn’t. It’s a valid opinion, for any moderator to lock that in almost any forum would be completely stupid. Good mods don’t lock something they disagree with, they have a rational discourse about the subject. But rather than going through point by point on the article you just toss personal insults in the guy’s general direction and then call the article to be deleted–simply because you disagree with it. If you don’t like the way OSNews is run, go away I don’t want to see your whiney posts here.
I hope you never become a moderator because you obviously wouldn’t know how to do your job.
That’s a good point (about the speed of OS X). If you want to sell a bottom end box like that it’s going to have to be Windows or Linux with carefully selected applications to use.
OS X is a nice system, on good hardware.
This “piece of drivel” as you so unaptly put it just isn’t. It’s a valid opinion
I never doubted it’s an opinion, however, the problem is, it’s not only a terribly argued oppinion, it doesn’t provide any argument at all. Instead, it’s simply based on OMG Apple is so great!
But rather than going through point by point on the article you just toss personal insults in the guy’s general direction and then call the article to be deleted–simply because you disagree with it.
The problem is, as I already mentioned, that the whole article doesn’t have a point. There’s nothing even remotely resembling an argument.
And I didn’t call for the article to be deleted, I simply pointed out that it’s a shame that something like this gets posted on a site like osnews as an article.
No point? Hmmm… I can’t really see how it would be missed. But I’ll block it out if it’ll help:
1) Apple’s desktop market share is still weak.
2) Yet Macs are great systems, esp. for Mom and Pop.
3) So why aren’t more people Buying?
4) Offers answer: The learning curve and value for $.
5) Possible solution: create greater percieved value with “internet-age” flash Mac.
Also like to point out the “silly” compuer idea WOULD be usable out of the box for the basic things most Moms and Pops do: browse the internet, word proc., etc.
No, no point at all.
Let’s see: The premise of the whole article is that Apple is great. This in itself of course doesn’t mean a lot (what’s great supposed to mean in this context?) and it’s only based on, let’s put it friendly, a very personal oppinion, backed up only by apparently happy parents.
Now based on this wholy uncritical and meaningless assumption, the author asks the question why Apple doesn’t gain market share.
The problem with this is of course obvious. As Apple is per default considered great, a whole bunch of possible reasons go out of the windows from the beginning. They can’t even be considered, as the basic premise is totally flawed.
As the author has now chosen to ignore any objective reason that might exist, he has to rely on hobby psychology.
We learn with amazement that people are afraid of change. Whether that’s the case and whether that’s really relevant for the question at hand isn’t even discussed. Instead, once again the author simply assumes that’s the case and only offers some anecdotal evidence (after all, his parents were also afraid of change in the beginning, or that’s how he explains their initial refusal to see the light).
The solution in the mind of the author for this seems to be that Apple put out a product that’s so affordable that people will overcome their fear of change, the author so skilfully analyzed before.
So, to sum it up, no, it doesn’t provide anything resembling a worthwhile argument. It’s just a badly written post by some Apple and Linux fan that really can’t be considered an article.
“I also disagree with your view that Apple is always hitting the “top of the line”. They just aren’t hitting the top of the line in any of their products. To me, they’re just middle-end Dells that look pretty and get really hot when in use. ”
I dont think so Tim…
You think the G5 is middle end?
I hope your not comparing a Dell to Dual PowerMac G5…
Do yourself a favor and take a look at the resale value of the PowerMac on Ebay….go ahead….then compare the same models to the Dell line the year it was released….
I think the Mac-Mini was a mistake…..
but saying MOST of what Apple produces is middle-end Dell quality is just plain wrong man……
Edited 2006-06-26 23:29
I question your credibility and credentials as an “IT expert” if you’re suggesting that an entry level personal computer (I refrain from using the term “PC” intentionally) be sold without a hard drive.
I am in full agreement that getting the price down is essential, but removing the hard drive simply confuses the consumer who takes it home and finds that it does nothing until they spend more.
IMHO, Apple needs to bundle a 17″ LCD display, keyboard and mouse with the current Core Solo Mini and make the total package around $500 US. It’ll still be more expensive than an entry-level Dell, but at least it’d be a turn-key Mac package in the same ballpark.
If we assume that an average 17″ display costs $200, how can Apple afford to sell their current low end system for $300 less than an equally spec’d PC would cost (in hardware software and OS)?
The Mac mini is already priced equal to or less than PCs of the same spec. Why would you suggest that Apple lose money on the sale?
If we assume that an average 17″ display costs $200, how can Apple afford to sell their current low end system for $300 less than an equally spec’d PC would cost (in hardware software and OS)?
The retail cost is $200, wholesale is probably less than $100 for the volume that Apple would be purchasing.
$800 ($300 more than the $500 Mini system I proposed) buys a LOT of PC these days. Keep in mind the expandibility of the Mini compared to the run-of-the-mill Dell PC as well. There has to be some price differential to account for the expansion compromise. Quite simply, the Mini overpriced compared to a Dell at the same price level.
Agreed. $800 does buy a lot of PC these days… but the mac mini is a LOT of PC.
Perhaps you’re neglecting the $300 worth of software that Apple bundles with their computers or maybe you’re neglecting that to give OS parity to Tiger, one would have to get XP Pro… or maybe you’re just doing what so many other PC afficinados do and make comparisons based on hard drive size, ram and processor speed to the exclusion of anything else.
The end result is, when you match a PC with the same specs, the PC is about the same… actually a little bit more if you don’t build it yourself.
A PC allows you to get more in the areas that are most important to you which makes it more versatile… That is the PCs strength. Its not price as is most often perceived to be.
Edited 2006-06-26 19:58
Perhaps you’re neglecting the $300 worth of software that Apple bundles with their computers or maybe you’re neglecting that to give OS parity to Tiger, one would have to get XP Pro… or maybe you’re just doing what so many other PC afficinados do and make comparisons based on hard drive size, ram and processor speed to the exclusion of anything else.
When people are shopping for a home PC, the price is usually the deciding factor, not the bundled software, and not the OS. I personally have friends and family who’ve bought PCs cause the local Best Buy had them on sale. They didn’t care about the configuration, only that the price seemed decent.
And please, how many average home users can actually justify the expense of XP Pro? XP Home is more than capable for virtually every non-technical home user out there. Regardless if OS X offers more capability, the average home user isn’t going to use it.
Why isn’t comparing hard drive space fair? And since we’re now on the same MHz plane (Intel vs. Intel), why isn’t that a fair comparison either? Whether you agree or not, it’s what consumers look at.
You’re missing the point. I know that consumers make their decisions based on price, but (again) Apple is not more expensive. Rather, they are just less versatile to buy the things you want. If you want to buy different things or fewer things a PC can be less expensive, but to suggest that Macs are not priced correctly or that PCs offer more for the money is a false/misleading statement.
Regarding this comment, “Regardless if OS X offers more capability, the average home user isn’t going to use it.”
I beg to differ. Every individual that I recomended a Mac to said, “but I just don’t use that stuff”, I always respond with, “yes, I know… you didn’t have it so how could you?” Anyways, of those that end up buying the Mac, every single one of them started using the features that they said they did not (would not) use.
Regarding this comment, “Why isn’t comparing hard drive space fair? And since we’re now on the same MHz plane (Intel vs. Intel), why isn’t that a fair comparison either?”
It’s not that its unfair to make comparisons on those features… Rather, its unfair to make comparisons on ONLY those features to gauge whether or not is giving you more or less for your money. For example, if your PC offers a better “A” “B” and “C” to the exclusion of “D” “E” and “F” then what you’re doing is prooving my original point which is that PCs are more versatile. Macs on the other hand are typically better priced.
Regarding your comment, “Whether you agree or not, it’s what consumers look at.”
Perhaps, but that’s not what I was contesting now is it.
Edited 2006-06-26 21:44
I am still wondering why apple has that “nice company reputation”. Having recently been in an iPod service situation with them (and based on reports on the net), i can tell you that they are one of the most cynical companies out there. They are breaking/bending the Norwegian consumer law with their “limited hardware service time”, as you as the customer has to prove to them in advance (if more than one year has gone by) that the product has manufacture errors. This is opposite of the 5 (five!) years of return rights you are supposed to have. (sorry for my bad english).
OS X may be good, but with their attitude in towards curstomers, in iTunes (which is also breaking the norwegian law) and iPod situations (battery problems and so on), its really amazing that they get away with it.
Im sure that if it had been Microsoft everyone would be yelling like there was no tomorrow.
The quarter in question was likely held back by the ONGOING intel transition. They even say this in the Appleinsider article. Apple’s share HAD been edging up, albeit slowly. Let’s see what happens later this year.
The barrier-to-entry for potential switchers is lower than it has ever been (considering CPU price and Windows parallelization), and Apple is running decent ads (IMHO) now. Many years, they haven’t bothered to advertise; I think they wanted ALL their ducks in a row. If people STILL don’t switch (in the consumer market) tehy have only themselves to blame.
and Apple is running decent ads (IMHO) now
I think they’re awful. They’re condescending and misleading. There is one where they poke fun at Windows crashes, which aren’t that common anymore, back with win9x/ME it would have been a good point. Another where the Windows guy is confused that the Mac can communicate with a digital camera and he can’t?! Show me a digital camera that is supported on the Mac, but not the PC.
I think with their codescending tone in the adds they may drive people away, I know I have. I use Windows, linux, and I’ve started dabbling in Solaris on an old Sparc station I got… Anyway, I’ve been considering picking up a Mini just to experiment with OSX, but after watching those ads I just don’t want to give Apple any money.
Edited 2006-06-26 18:12
“I think they’re awful. They’re condescending and misleading.”
I have the distinct feeling that the new ad campaign is aimed as much (or more) toward keeping the customers that Apple already has as it is at gaining new converts. Making fun of the very people you want to purchase your products is not, as a general rule, a very good idea.
// Making fun of the very people you want to purchase your products is not, as a general rule, a very good idea.//
So … you’re saying that Apple would rather *NOT* sell a Mac to everybody who uses Windows … but would rather just keep selling Macs to folks who already use Macs.
Um, I doubt it.
More along the lines of catering to the niche they already possess. Most people aren’t going to switch and Apple knows this. Of course they would be more than happy to have everyone switch; I didn’t mean to insinuate otherwise. The quasi-negative tone of their newest ad campaign toward Windows users is pretty obvious, however…I was merely stating that making fun of someone isn’t generally a good way to get them to buy your products.
<blockquote>I think [the new Apple TV ads are] awful. They’re condescending and misleading. There is one where they poke fun at Windows crashes, which aren’t that common anymore, back with win9x/ME it would have been a good point.</blockquote>That’s quite true. I use Windows, OS X, and Linux regularly, and Windows XP Pro is no less stable for me than the other platforms. However, I do know that a significant number of people (for example, my mother) are still using Windows 98 and Windows ME, and they experience crashes regularly.
<blockquote>Another where the Windows guy is confused that the Mac can communicate with a digital camera and he can’t?! Show me a digital camera that is supported on the Mac, but not the PC.</blockquote>I got a digital camera 6 months ago. I plugged it into my Mac and it just worked. I plugged it into a Windows XP computer and I had to install drivers and software. And don’t even get me started on the hoops I had to jump through to get it working in Windows 98.
Still, I must admit that Apple’s television ads appeal more to stereotypes and myths than to reality. No matter though. I still find them funny, if only because they are so unapolagetically Windows-bashing. It’s fun to watch. Whether they are effective is something only Apple’s statisticians can say, I suppose.
” I use Windows, OS X, and Linux regularly, and Windows XP Pro is no less stable for me than the other platforms”
Can’t speak to official uptimes, but I somewhat concur. XP can go about a week before a system crash; Win2000 rarely made it through a day for me. OSX goes pretty much until you choose to shut down, but I suppose the week or so of uptime you get from XP is good enough for most people.
The bigger problem with Windows stability, though is the apps. Common apps, like browsers and Office software are CLEARLY much less stable on Windows. Perhaps MSFT has muddled up their API’s so much even THEY can’t follow them reliably.
I totally agree with everything this dude said…except his silly $300 Mac concept.
lots of companies are very successfull without actually having a large market share. It might not even be a goal.
that gizmo reminds me of something i have been mentaly playing around with. only it runs linux, not osx
the idea would still be to store the users programs and files on external media (be it flash thumbdrives or external hardrives) and have the basic os live on a internal flash area.
this way, a user could bring his computing enviroment with him so to speak…
“64K Bytes of Ram, a 1KHz processor, a TV for a monitor, 16 colors and 8 bit sound. … yet I watched so many people run productive applications on their C64s including a windowing system called GEOS with a capable word processor and spreadsheet.”
The C64 had a 1 _Mega_ Hertz processor and not 1 KHz.
Also, I’m writing a very full article on GEOS, the Commodore 64 and the little computer that could for the OSNews Alternative OS contest. I’ve even managed to contact one of the team who made GEOS.
The C64 had a 1 _Mega_ Hertz processor and not 1 KHz.
Thanks for the correction. Yes, it was 1Mhz –it’s been so long I started mythologizing it
“The C64 had a 1 _Mega_ Hertz processor and not 1 KHz.
Also, I’m writing a very full article on GEOS, the Commodore 64 and the little computer that could for the OSNews Alternative OS contest. I’ve even managed to contact one of the team who made GEOS.”
I still have my GeoWorks Ensemble T-Shirt. 🙂 It was much better than Windows 3.1 but history has shown many times that better often loses out to mediocre.
“they fell in love with the Mac so quickly that they kept it and have had almost nothing but high praise for it ever since”
I bought a MacMini for my mother, and she loves it too. People often do, if they get the chance to try it.
I think it’s hard for people to understand that a coputer can be different from a Windows PC. The majority of computer users have only used computers since Win95, and they just lack the abillity to grasp “OS diversity”.
“A computer is a computer”. It’s mandatory for the kids to learn MS-Office and Windows at school. If they go on to study programming at college, it will be using .NET.
There is never a choice to be made.
“There can be only one” As usual…
I agree with you.To amplify some of your points:
Ever hear: “I live in my applications”
I have– many times! What they don’t tell you as that, on average, in my experience, anyway, Mac applications WORK BETTER. A combination of greater sensitivity to UI consistancy and better API’s, I suspect.
” If they go on to study programming at college, it will be using .NET. ”
Yea, right! And what about “C”? Java? Are they chopped liver? In fact you CAN’T use .net for web development, since it is MS-specific.
“It’s mandatory for the kids to learn MS-Office ”
Tell that to Brazil, Germany, Massachusetts.
This is the way it is in Sweden. Maybe it’s different in other parts of the world, but here C# for .NET is the new ANSI C. MS-Office has been the standard for ages.
Microsoft has made hundreds of thousands of millionares through partnerships. These partners range in size from Dell and HP to small mom-and-pop outfits that assemble computers or sell Windows dependent software. Each of these Windows dependent outfits is a natural shill for Microsoft even with all their warts.
Apple’s biggest strength is their biggest weakness. They insist on controlling every aspect of the hardware and software that runs on the Mac. They make superb computers but virtually no other business profits from Apples prosperity.
Imagine how many prosperous computer companies would be out there if a single company made all the hardware, software and accessories for the PC. The answer is very few so Apple has very few natural allies.
Microsoft became wealthy because it provided a service many people needed and at the same time it made many other folks (like Dell) wealthy through supporting it’s vision.
Apple has a lot to learn from Microsoft.
Your arguement is flawed. The only people who matter are the CUSTOMERS. They have NOT been served by c**pware from Dell and others. Nor have they been served by IT-dept Windows=bigots, on the take from Dell and MSFT IT-pushers.
The holistic approach is MUCH better for the actual WORKER, as long as costs are comparable, which they are.
Great post, thanks. I’ve always kind of felt that Apple micro-manages every aspect of its business when it could expand much more rapidly by partnering with other integrators. Still, Apple is able to keep a tight handle on quality control, and that’s worth something.
While Apple might have a better Microsoft OS than Microsoft, when it comes down to it, MacOS really is just a Microsoft OS. It might perform slightly better, it might be a little more secure, the eye candy might be better, it might be a little easier to use, but it is just another proprietary operating system that is trying to lock in their users and take away their rights. Why should people go through the trouble to switch when Microsoft is good enough at doing what Apple wants to do? OTOH, Linux is a completely different paradigm, one of freedom and empowerment, one that will entice governments, public agencies, private enterprises, concerned individuals to go through the trouble and switch. Linux will give people something that Microsoft will never be able to give and maintain their power.
If most people don’t care about which OS they use, then how can we expect them to suddenly use political views to guide them? And worse yet, socialism…
If Linux was as user friendly and likable as OSX, then MS would be in trouble. But sadly, Linux is not.
“If most people don’t care about which OS they use, then how can we expect them to suddenly use political views to guide them? And worse yet, socialism…”
Because China cares, India cares, Europe cares, Iran cares, Korea cares, Mexico cares, Canada cares… IBM cares, Sun cares, Kaiser cares… I could easily have filled this whole page with people who care about the freedom Linux gives them, but I will spare you the trouble. And as Microsoft and Apple start pushing their proprietary-technology encumbered solutions, and as people start wondering why they have to buy five different versions of the same movie/song/software, they will start caring too. Already, a lot of people do care. I certainly do.
Linux gives people freedom. Microsoft and Apple give people an easy to use trap for people to get themselves stuck in.
I don’t get this “Linux hippie freedom thing”.
If I could afford to write programs for free, I probably would.
But I need to pay my bills, and that’s why I sell my time to a company. I get money, and in return the company can do whatever they like with my code.
I don’t understand why every piece of software has to be free and open? If a company can earn money producing electronics, cars etc, they don’t give away their designs for free. So why can’t companies like Apple and Microsoft make money, and protect their source of income?
Software is different from electronics, cars, etc. If you hate your car manufacturer, its trivial to switch to another one. That’s why behemoths like GM and Ford are being beaten by relative newcomers like Honda and Toyota in the market. If you hate your OS, you’re often tied down. You’ve got years of important data and programs tied to that product, and it isn’t easy for you to switch. That’s why Microsoft is still here today. Under other circumstances, they never would’ve survived the 1990s, a time when everyone hated Windows, and even late-night comedians made fun of how unstable it was. They would’ve become like Ford, losing money every quarter to better competitors.
That is not to say that its somehow immoral to make money off your software. Sure, as a programmer you have a right to try to sell your software. However, as a user, its important to realize that open code offers important benefits with regards to flexibility and freedom.
So you mean, if I use an open source OS there is no way to choose a product that can disappear? Products like MS-Office and Photoshop?
Well, you could choose to use, and even contribute to open source projects like Gimp, Firefox etc on XP and OSX too.
Do you really need to be able to look at the iTunes, or Media Player code not to feel tied down?
Data? I have used many different OSes since the 80’s, and I’ve never had any problems using, and sometimes converting, files.
I have iff and mod files from the Amiga days. I have old MSWord and Excel files from my old monochrome Mac. Documents from the IBM PS/2, (often just plain text , like CSV). No problems, since data often uses the same formats on all platforms.
This is a very excellent point.
Furtheremore, no where did I say anywhere that software must be made by hippies working for world peace. I was just making a point that a) it takes time for people to adjust to new software and b) that Apple is too much like Microsoft for people to bother to migrate to (both in its cost and proprietary nature.) OTOH, because Linux is completely open, there is a very valid reason for people to spend time learning this new software. For 95% of the world, who gain national security by switching from Microsoft, Solaris, AIX, etc., that is enough reason to switch. For the remaining 5% (the US of A), freedom from DRM and proprietary formats, cost savings, interoperability with the world, is plenty reason to switch. I’m quite sure many companies would love to see the cost savings by repealing the Microsoft tax.
Linux will give people something that Microsoft will never be able to give and maintain their power.
A headache installing or configuring software? What about understanding what xin is for, or understanding version numbers like 0.1.5.5.1-2… or maybe it’s the ’empowerment’to know exacly what man page to look at if they wanted to release/renew their ip, or simply figure out what version of linux kernel they are using?
Oh please…
A headache installing or configuring software?
Really, this argument is really getting silly. While there are certainly things that can improve when it comes to installing software on a linux system, in general it’s incredibly easy and in the case of distributions like ubuntu nearly idiot proofed.
Selecting the apps you want to install from a nice list, that is broken into relevant categories and offers descriptions for every piece of software and then hitting install certainly isn’t hard, is it?
What about understanding what xin is for, or understanding version numbers like 0.1.5.5.1-2
What’s xin supposed to be and why should any normal user care about version numbers?
or maybe it’s the ’empowerment’to know exacly what man page to look at if they wanted to release/renew their ip
or maybe they should simply use the graphical tools provided for this kind of thing.
or simply figure out what version of linux kernel they are using?
Wow, now that’s a really valid example. After all, people who need to find out esoteric stuff like this sure can’t be bothered to type uname –help into a terminal.
Seriously, I’m getting so tired with these senseless linux bashing posts like yours. It’s not that there aren’t enough things that need improvement in any linux distribution, it’s that you aren’t even aware of them and instead choose to beat dead horses to support your bias.
Here let me give you an example, the so called easy to use Ubuntu, 5 with all the updates… Just unplug the ethernet cable and restart back into this wonderfully thoughtout gui… you will notice that it wont startup to the desktop, it will hang just after you login to the user. But, plug that ethernet cable back in and let it have a valid ip – and it will start everytime. and just so you dont think there is an issue with just my installation, It can be replicated on the live cd also.
Here let me give you an example
I’m sorry, but this isn’t an example for any of the things you mentioned in your first post.
This is simply a bug and one I can’t reproduce on any of my Ubuntu installs btw.
A headache installing or configuring software? What about understanding what xin is for, or understanding version numbers like 0.1.5.5.1-2… or maybe it’s the ’empowerment’to know exacly what man page to look at if they wanted to release/renew their ip, or simply figure out what version of linux kernel they are using?
Linux will give freedom from DRM, vendor lock in, proprietory protocols and document formats, strong arm sales tactics and control by a single company.
You paint too dismal a picture. Linux has been getting easier to use by the day and it fairly easy to maintain and update. Also what is wrong with man pages? I would think proper documentation would be appreciated.
… because, when Apple gets it right (at the right time), people buy stuff from them by the truckload, for instance: iPods.
Personally, i just think PCs provide for a spectrum of users that Apple can’t match, at better value in the long term.
The gist being Apple missed their chance in the Personal Computer market, like a whole FIFTEEN YEARS AGO …
I remember having an old Apple Macintosh, it was a good word processor and had a neat drawing program, probably more, but i didnt care at that point.
So i trotted along with that for a while, and an Amstrad, then Apple more or less dropped of the face of the earth along with the likes of Amstrad. So i got a Pentium PC in 1995 for a few thousand (it’s still going sweet btw, with 80 odd megs of ram win98 goes sweet), i could play cool games and have a richer expierience on the inter-net … i havn’t looked back.
“So i got a Pentium PC in 1995 for a few thousand (it’s still going sweet btw, with 80 odd megs of ram win98 goes sweet), i could play cool games and have a richer expierience on the inter-net … i havn’t looked back.”
This is classic!
Many people who have used Mac in the 80’s, think the evolution ended when they left the platform. I have heard about black and white graphics, small screens etc, so many times.
Maybe it’s time to have a new look.
Apple’s a niche consumer electronics company. Has been a niche company for as long as I can remember. Appears to be continuing to be a niche company.
In the CE business there’s a threshold size. Sink below it, and you can’t afford the R&D to keep up, so you start to circle the drain. Apple is very good at staying just above the threshold.
They managed to milk tweny years out of the mac. Now they’re starting out in media players. It wouldn’t surprise me if they last another twenty years based on the head start they got out of iTunes.
Why doesn’t Apple’s overall PC market share grow? Because the niche they’re in doesn’t grow. It’s that simple.
That’s simply not true.
As of the last two quarters… Apple was the ONLY computer manufacturer who’s computer division was profitable. Yes, that includes Dell and HP.
Apple’s computer division has been profitable for many years now. Its only been recently that it is the ONLY one whos PC division was profitable. Before then, it was only Dell and Apple.
The other companies stay profitable on sales of other products. Apple increases its profitability by selling other products too… but that’s in addition to their profitable PC sales.
Which company’s PC divisions are or close to “circling the drain” now?
“Apple was the ONLY computer manufacturer who’s computer division was profitable. Yes, that includes Dell and HP.”
I checked, few will, on CBS. This is Dell.
http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/financials.asp?symb=dell&si…
Looks fairly profitable.
Lets see some evidence for the assertion?
Again, I didn’t say Dell wasn’t profitable. I said their computer division wasn’t profitable… e.g. JUST computer sales. I don’t know how I could have made that point more clear in my origional post.
That’s simply not true.
Read it again. ‘profitable’ and ‘profitable enough to support enough R&D to stay afloat’ are two different things. and I said Apple was above the level of circling the drain.
The problem was that you were taking issue with the Mac computer as a business model… not Apple’s ability to sell printers and monitors. Anyone can sell printers and monitors.
The HP and Dells of the world are only profitable by selling these other products. If you look at their annual report you will see that their computers by themselves were not profitable. Apple’s computers on the other hand ARE profitable.
If you’re going to include the profitability of selling these monitors and printers etc to the metric that suggests that these companies aren’t circling the drain then you must also include Apple’s iPods into their profitability equation.
When you do that, Apple as a whole is a larger company then Dell AND Apple’s computer division is more profitable than Dell.
So stop with this whole Apple being only just above circling the drain crap.
Edited 2006-06-27 01:00
I wasn’t taking issue with it. I was describing it.
They live in a niche. It’s a small niche. It’s a different one than they lived in when I started paying attention to them back in the 70s, because they’ve moved into consumer electronics, but it’s still a niche.
They are not now, nor have they ever been, profitable enough to do more than minimal R&D.
But no, Apple’s not a larger company than Dell, by any measure, nor is it more profitable. You may want to look at the two company’s 10Ks for 2005, which are both on line:
http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/corporate/sec/10k-fy05.pdf
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/10/107357/reports/10…
As usual, most arguments miss the point. There is only one test for goodness as a product: success in the market. Betamax may have been a better standard, but VHS was a better product. OSX, or OS9 for that matter, may have been a better OS, but it was a worse product.
The Mac, it may be a better system, but its a worse product.
This is evolution as it works in the market. You may be the greater hunter, but if you are not fitter all around, you will lose your ecological niche and go extinct.
There is only one test, and Apple is failing it. And its not about being a better OS.
You have a point in that if all your interested in is commercial success, the only way to measure it is marketshare. However, that is something of a tautology, and doesn’t apply if your goals don’t fit that assumption.
What if your goal is to make a technically better product while still making a buttload of money? By that critereon, Apple seems to be doing an excellent job…
And how is it a worse product?
Your post doesn’t make sense.
Using your reasoning, you could say that the mofia was the best hunter of them all as they had the lowest overhead expense… because they stole and cheated.
Hmmm… Microsoft stole and cheated their way to sucess too.
I think the biggest reason is that people don’t like different things. It upsets them. Although the Mac UI might look nicer and feel easier and more straight forward to use (it does to me anyway) than the Windows UI, most people look at Mac OS X and freak out. “That’s not Windows!! Where’s the start menu?!?!”.
I know some people that won’t even use Firefox because tabbed browsing looks too complicated. These are like most people I think. They usually only have one IE window open. They’re not ‘power users’. Hell, they barely use their computers at all. Unfortunately this is the majority of the home user market. They’ll stay with what they’re used to.
Some people seem to fear Windows at least as much as change …
A friend of mine had been using Windows PCs for several years. Whenever his current system got mucked-up bad enough I’d do the sysadmin rituals to stabilize it. He finally got tired of that routine and became more curious about Macs. Soon after that I upgraded my iMac and sold him my old one. I took off for a holiday, feeling a bit guilty for not being around in case he needed any “newbie” help. When I called him a couple weeks later I couldn’t believe what he told me. He was thrilled with his Mac initiation, having figured out *on his own* how to import photos into iPhoto, burn CDs, and other fun stuff that had been intimidating or impossible for him to accomplish during all the *years* he’d used Windows. And in the year since then he’s only called with how-to-do-it questions, not help-me-fix-it problems.
Most of us probably know at least a few Windows users who’d probably be candidates for an experience like my friend’s if they gave themselves the opportunity. Eventually something can make their fear of change less than an unconscious fear they have for Windows. That it’s *not* Windows becomes a relief rather than something else to fear.
This is something that keeps making me wonder.
Just about every personal website I visit; people have switched. I’ve switched, which in turn has led to at least half a dozen of other people getting Macs as well.
Everywhere you go there are comments about people falling in love with OsX and making the jump from either windows or linux over to the glossy side.
And the market share is still the same? I don’t get it.
Apple is a hardware company, but when it comes to personal computers their real advantage (and the only reason they have their remaining market share) is their OS. That puts them in a tough place. You can’t have it both ways – if they whore Mac OS X out to Dell they might lose their hardware sales in the face of extremely cheap alternatives running the same OS.
On the other hand, if they start concentrating on middle and lower end hardware, they lose anyway. They will never regain serious market share if they’re trying to compete directly with extremely cheap alternatives from gigantic manufacturers like Dell. They cannot compete because they don’t have the volume.
It’s cool to have things like the Mac Mini or even your idea, but I don’t see how they ever can be the flagship.
Apple needs to grab onto the ability to run Mac OS X and Windows on the same computer and run with it. They need commercials specifically stating that now you can use a Mac and run your favorite Windows applications too. I’m talking extremely aggressive advertising – kids playing extremely popular MS-only software and games. Footage of Steve Jobbs using as many Microsoft software products as he possibly can on the highest end Mactel with a white background, if that’s feasible legally speaking. Cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!
As for the TV ads, they’re great. People who don’t know anything about Macs don’t like thme because they mock their ignorance and advanced users don’t like them because they imply simple explanations for complex problems, but it’s those people in the middle who Apple is targeting and it’s those people they’re going to get a laugh out of and convince to check out a Mac.
I use Windows XP Pro and Mac OS X, and Windows is still less stable for me than OS X despite improvements from previous versions. You should also keep in mind that mid-range users have far more problems than most of the people on this site probably do because they use their system extensively but don’t understand it very well. Apple is somewhat more idiot resistant, though certainly not proof.
If I was Steve Jobbs and the Apple Board of Directors I would seriously think about transforming into the next Micrsoft – not in terms of their horrid business practices or poorly written software but in terms of their OS sales and numerous software franchises. The question is simple: can Apple do better selling its OS than it can selling its computers? With QA in the form of tough minimum hardware requirements I think they can. My hope is that their current strategy will work to regain them market share, but I honestly don’t think it can never even dream of getting above 15% again if they insist on Apple hardware. The old days of OS/hardware pairs are almost spent, and if Apple hadn’t admitted their mistake and paid Steve & company to take over they would have been.
Edited 2006-06-27 17:46