Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 1st Jun 2006 21:33 UTC
Apple The popularity of Apple Computer's iPod digital music players is helping it sell more Macs, but so far it hasn't been enough to spark a rise in the company's share of the personal computer market. According to research firm Gartner, worldwide PC shipments totaled 57 million units in the first quarter of 2006, representing a 13.1 percent increase over the same period last year. But in that time, Apple's share of the worldwide market slipped from 2.2 percent to a mere 2.0 percent.
Order by: Score:
x86
by frank on Thu 1st Jun 2006 21:42 UTC
frank
Member since:
2005-07-08

I'd say to wait a bit longer for more data to come out. The switch to x86 architecture may have kept people from jumping in last quarter.

Reply Score: 5

RE: x86
by buffzilla on Thu 1st Jun 2006 22:17 UTC in reply to "x86"
buffzilla Member since:
2006-06-01

'cos this quater everyones going to buy macs, yeah right! Perhaps if macs weren't overpriced budget computers, with a fancy fashion label stamped on them, people might buy them.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: x86
by maxmg on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 16:02 UTC in reply to "RE: x86"
maxmg Member since:
2006-02-26

buffzilla:

'cos this quater everyones going to buy macs, yeah right! Perhaps if macs weren't overpriced budget computers, with a fancy fashion label stamped on them, people might buy them.


How did this get +'ed up to 5?

The post it was replying to did not say that everyone is about to buy macs, and such misrepresentation was seemingly made solely to get the second cheap shot in. A comment that, in that tone, is merely going to start yet another pointless flame war. I can't believe people wanted to mod that up.

It is perfectly reasonable to point out that Apple did make a major shift in policy that could put people off buying machines that were about to be discontinued.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: x86
by Anonymous Penguin on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 16:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: x86"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"I can't believe people wanted to mod that up."

Because many people share the same feelings, I am afraid, including many who love OS X.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: x86
by DittoBox on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: x86"
DittoBox Member since:
2005-07-08

'nuff said.

I'd have purchased either an x86 Mac Mini or a new MacBook if they didn't have a toilet video card or if the MacBook wasn't built like trash, didn't have a chiclet keyboard (Jonathan Ives is no industrial designer, he can draw pretty pictures, but he can't design anything, design implies you can build something made for *people*) or the heat sink assembly actually had some paste on it to...you know...acually disipate heat and do it's job.

I love OS X, I think it's one of the best OSs ever. In fact, it excites me almost as much as BeOS did/does. That says a lot, because of all the other UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems, of all the Linux distros and of all the versions of Windows I've tried Mac OS X and BeOS are the only ones I actually liked as an end user. (no offense to anyone, it's just my opinion)

But I refuse to buy crappy hardware. I can build a *far* better PC, or get a better quality laptop for the same money from a different vendor. With the same hardware.

My 1ghz TiBook is just going to have to last me I suppose. :/

Here's to hoping Apple doesn't screw it up and build a really crappy PowerMac replacement. That's the only thing I'm holding out for.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: x86
by rayiner on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 19:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: x86"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Have you actually tried out one of the new Macbooks? It's built quite sturdily (far more sturdily than most PC notebooks), and for a laptop keyboard, it's pretty decent. I'm a keyboard snob too, and while the keyboard looks weird, it's hardly chiclet as has been alledged.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: x86
by Anonymous Penguin on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: x86"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"I love OS X, I think it's one of the best OSs ever."

"But I refuse to buy crappy hardware. I can build a *far* better PC, or get a better quality laptop for the same money from a different vendor. With the same hardware."

"Here's to hoping Apple doesn't screw it up and build a really crappy PowerMac replacement. That's the only thing I'm holding out for."

All very true, I couldn't agree more.

And here in Europe the situation is even worse.
Please have a look at these prices:

http://www.apple.com/italystore

Reply Score: 2

RE: x86
by somebody on Thu 1st Jun 2006 23:29 UTC in reply to "x86"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

I'd say to wait a bit longer for more data to come out. The switch to x86 architecture may have kept people from jumping in last quarter

Actualy, what you've said is only part of equation which hides the ugly truth. And the more the long term Apple users people were, the more they will have to agree with other side that you forgot.

Last years at Apple were nothing else but: Wait, we've just moved on [insert your technology here].

First it was OSX from OS9, where people couldn't work decently with their apps, just the fact that zealots were not ready to acknowledge that fact. For example working with Adobe suite (or any other) in OS9 environment under OSX was complete pain in the ass. And what it was said: Wait until apps for OSX come out

Then there were incompatibilities between releases, wherre you had to upgrade app to start working under 10.x again. But this fact was nothing new for Apple users. It was from times of old OS. Upgrade from 8.5 to 8.6 and few apps stopped working. So, no surprise here.

Apps didn't even come out when Apple already introduced moving from PPC to x86. And you say, what? Wait until x86 stabilizes?

Yeah, right... Apple is losing track with the way they want to go. I think, "Think different" is been taken to obscurity at Apple.

Second fact you've forgot to mention is that Apple is moving from quality to quantity, where being flashy is the driving force, not works perfectly. I for one can actualy say that G3 tower was the last great Apple machine, up from there it was nothing but downhill. I'm (or was) Apple customer for 11 years and bought over 35 Macs so far, and quite unhappy for the facts I mentioned

Question one should ask him self is, what move shall be needed to wait in future? When apps finally pop up, why will they stop working as they did now? But as history showed, they will stop because Apple has no constant and will again "Think different"

Edited 2006-06-01 23:34

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: x86
by frank on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 17:26 UTC in reply to "x86"
frank Member since:
2005-07-08

What I know is that for the first time in 15 years, the Macs have started to appeal to me. Switching to x86 is a long term strategy, (in practice) a more open one, and the philosophy of it has everything to do with legacy support. If Apple decides to switch away again, I'll load Windows on my system and keep moving forward.

So, I'm sorry that Apple's switches have taken you by such surprise, but... you should've seen it coming. That's what happens when you think "different"... you keep changing directions.

Reply Score: 1

More choice
by slate on Thu 1st Jun 2006 22:16 UTC
slate
Member since:
2006-04-04

Apple has to offer more choice and probably lower prices if they're really interested in gaining market share. The problem with being content with being boutique is that it wouldn't take much more of a marketshare drop and the ISVs start dropping OSX as a target.

The next 6 months seem to be the critical period before Vista comes out. Lower the prices and offer more choice even if it comes at a loss of profits for the PC division. The IPod/Itunes division can subsidize for a while.

Of course the wildcard is if Apple will allow 3rd parties to offer OSX on a selected lineup. Depending on how scared Dell is of Microsoft retaliation, Apple could allow Dell to offer OSX under some special deal.

On the other hand, Apple (jobs) seems to be riding the IPod/ITunes success for all its worth. The question is if Apple really cares about gaining more market share and if they're willing to risk an even further drop in market share with the ramifications that brings.

Time will tell, but I know that I'm not interested in the OSX lineup with the current offerings.

Reply Score: 5

RE: More choice
by chlordane on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 00:53 UTC in reply to "More choice"
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

"Time will tell, but I know that I'm not interested in the OSX lineup with the current offerings."

Yeah, if you dont like it dont buy it.....

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: More choice
by dylansmrjones on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 09:17 UTC in reply to "RE: More choice"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

And 98% don't.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: More choice
by chlordane on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 22:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: More choice"
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

Cool, enjoy!

Edited 2006-06-02 22:37

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: More choice
by chlordane on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 22:46 UTC in reply to "RE: More choice"
RE: More choice
by Johann Chua on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 06:47 UTC in reply to "More choice"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Apple has the best deal for Core Duo laptops. At least in the Philippines. All the Core Duo PC laptops I've seen in stores or ads top out at 1.66Ghz. Even with that speed cap some of them are more expensive than the Mac Book Pro.

Reply Score: 1

RE: More choice
by gustl on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 12:50 UTC in reply to "More choice"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

Well, Apple previously was more lock-in than Microsoft. Nobody really cares about that, because with 2-5% Marketshare you don't have the power to really lock someone in without locking him out at the same time (which would result in even less marketshare).

And the second thing is applications. For some niche markets apple platform has THE professional software to do things right, but for lots of other areas they even lack behind Linux (CAD/CAE software for example).

Getting OSX into the Dell Stores will only be possible if Apple gives away OSX for free.

Reply Score: 2

RE: More choice
by Clinton on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 14:32 UTC in reply to "More choice"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

I don't think the reality of price or choice has anything to do with it, but you may be right. Perhaps the percieved price and choice is the problem.

If you go look at a top of the line MacBook Pro, you're looking at forking out around $2,500.00 to $3,000.00. That is little than the top of the line Dell laptop (at least last time I checked) plus you get a nice metal case instead of a nice plastic one.

Reply Score: 1

Apple's doing just fine.
by Quoth_the_Raven on Thu 1st Jun 2006 22:32 UTC
Quoth_the_Raven
Member since:
2005-11-15

The fact that Apple's market share is allegedly only 2.0 percent of the worldwide market, just means that there are a helluva lot of people out there that have no clue that a superior alternative exists. Which goes to prove my second point:

People are generally stupid.

"Perhaps if macs weren't overpriced budget computers, with a fancy fashion label stamped on them, people might buy them."

See what I mean?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Apple's doing just fine.
by buffzilla on Thu 1st Jun 2006 22:37 UTC in reply to "Apple's doing just fine."
buffzilla Member since:
2006-06-01

Stupid? I have a PhD, I just know if it has slower hardware than a PC and if the OS is slower than both Linux and Windows and on top of that comes with a third rate graphics card then it probably belongs in the bargin bucket. Sorry to offend your religion btw.

Edited 2006-06-01 22:38

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Apple's doing just fine.
by D3M0N on Thu 1st Jun 2006 23:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple's doing just fine."
D3M0N Member since:
2005-07-09

Slower hardware? Are you kidding me? The new Core Duos are anything BUT slow and in fact, are in "Dells"! Get your facts straight. You are correct though about OS X being rather slow, although in real world use you usually won't notice it very much.
Apple's computers have never been gaming machines either. That is not the target. For the limited gaming I have done, however, even my slow, old GeForce FX 5200 has been plenty.

Edited 2006-06-01 23:45

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Apple's doing just fine.
by chlordane on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 01:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple's doing just fine."
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

WTF? Since when has OS X been a slow OS..?

2.5 Million lines of code means a SLIMMER OS....

vs.

50 Million lines of code in Windows....Very Bulky...

I dont know about slow....

Have seen the OLD hardware that Mac OS X can run on?

http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.html

You can run that "slow" OS on a PowerMac G3...
I would like to see Windows XP run on a 300mhz processor....and run well at that...

Not happening.....

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Apple's doing just fine.
by re_re on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 02:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Apple's doing just fine."
re_re Member since:
2005-07-06

i hate to rain on your parade but i have run windows on a 300 mhz celeron with 512 ram and while i wasn't going to break any land speed records, it ran ok.

Don't get me wrong, i really dislike windows and i don't use it, i have osx on my mbp and run linux on all my non mac pc's. But to prove a point, windows runs fine with enough ram.

Reply Score: 5

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Of course, with 512 MB RAM.

But very few 300 MHz computers have more than 64 or perhaps 128 MB RAM.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Apple's doing just fine.
by Dark Leth on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 12:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Apple's doing just fine."
Dark Leth Member since:
2005-07-06

And very few MAC OS X running boxen have 64 or 128 MB RAM. ;)

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, you can almost have a fotorealistic icon within 64 MB of RAM ;)

Reply Score: 1

Quoth_the_Raven Member since:
2005-11-15

So. The fact is 32 MB will handle it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Apple's doing just fine.
by chlordane on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 22:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Apple's doing just fine."
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

Well, it runs great with enough ram....
but dang, they still need some work and maturity, like Unix....^_^

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Apple's doing just fine.
by nzjrs on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 05:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Apple's doing just fine."
nzjrs Member since:
2006-01-02

I must have missed the lecture where they said

number of lines of code == OS speed

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Apple's doing just fine.
by Tyr. on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 08:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Apple's doing just fine."
Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

I must have missed the lecture where they said

number of lines of code == OS speed


Not necessarily, but it is likely for some cases.
By MS' own admission a lot of those extra lines are backwards compatibility. Backwards compatibility means testing for conditions where you need to go into compatibility mode. Testing for conditions and modifying things for compatibility means more instructions. More instructions means slower on the same hardware.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Apple's doing just fine.
by chlordane on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Apple's doing just fine."
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

"More instructions means slower on the same hardware."

I think that sums it up....nzjrs

^_^

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Apple's doing just fine.
by Lu-Tze on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 04:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Apple's doing just fine."
Lu-Tze Member since:
2006-01-10

This is an obvious oversimplification. The additional lines could also support a wider variety of hardware and simply add more functions, all without altering the speed for a given function on a given hardware.

But that aside, I would hate to see a day when companies stopped making things backward compatible for the sake of speed. If this is true for Macs, that would be reason #1 for people especially companies to stay away from Macs...unless you like to change hardware/software frequently to stay at the cutting edge. For large parts of the world, a computer is meant to last for more than 5 years. Simply because people can't afford to upgrade more frequently. I understand these people are not the target for Apple and these people will be perfectly happy with an arguably less functional computer because it will last them longer at an arguably lesser price.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Apple's doing just fine.
by eggs on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 20:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Apple's doing just fine."
eggs Member since:
2006-01-23

If that were the case Assembly would be the slowest language ever... For HelloWorld assembly takes like 25 lines of code whereas C takes 4.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Apple's doing just fine.
by chlordane on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 22:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Apple's doing just fine."
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

Well, there was no lecture, just a thought, opinion maybe......

I shoud consider other factors, like hardware specifications, but, I do believe that if Microsoft would write a smaller, less bug prone operating system, then the problems they currently have, would come to a quick end...

Question: what determines a "faster" operating system..
Sales and popularity of the product..?

Hey, I am no expert, I just wonder what the 40-50 million lines of code will do for an operating system...

Thats all....

I appologize if any one in this forum feels insulted...
buy what you like....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_lines_of_code

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Apple's doing just fine.
by re_re on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 02:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple's doing just fine."
re_re Member since:
2005-07-06

i am a proud owner of a MBP and i have to say, while it is definitly not slow, the same hardware on an hp or dell is substantially faster then this, i know because i benched this after i installed XP on a small 5gb partition and especially on the graphics card end, this thing is way scaled down, the clocks were like 313 core and 297 memory..... i think a stock x1600 mobile runs at like 470/470 or right around there anyway.

I might also add that i did some overclocking just to see what it could do and i ended up scoring over 30% better on 3dmark05 with no artifacts... this thing is way way way toned down (most likely to control heat).

all that having been said i really don't care because i don't game or anything, and i really got the comp for the software. I was just curious to see what this thing had under the hood.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Apple's doing just fine.
by evangs on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 06:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Apple's doing just fine."
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

I might also add that i did some overclocking just to see what it could do and i ended up scoring over 30% better on 3dmark05 with no artifacts... this thing is way way way toned down (most likely to control heat).

Why do you need a video card running at top speed when just using normal apps? When graphics intensive applications are run, the video core and the video memory of the MBP are clocked up and when nothing video intensive is done, it's clocked back down. Have a look at http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd2.html and read the analysis bit.

Sounds like good design to me. I doubt that this automatic clocking up was occuring on Windows, hence you had to manually over clock it (and didn't see any visual artifacts).

Reply Score: 1

JustAnotherMacUser Member since:
2006-01-08

You are correct though about OS X being rather slow, although in real world use you usually won't notice it very much.

Wait till you see Vista, the battery life killer.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Apple's doing just fine.
by atsureki on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 00:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple's doing just fine."
atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

Stupid? I have a PhD, I just know if it has slower hardware than a PC and if the OS is slower than both Linux and Windows and on top of that comes with a third rate graphics card then it probably belongs in the bargin bucket. Sorry to offend your religion btw.

Well, I hope you didn't write like this on your doctorate thesis. Not that it's proof of anything, but degrees don't measure intelligence or stupidity. They reflect a certain quantity of work. Congratulations on completing such a difficult goal, but don't wave it around like it's your release papers from regular society.

The hardware isn't slower, unless you're comparing the iMac to a tricked out game machine. Core Duos are powerful chips and they're seated on a powerful bus in all the current models. If you want to talk crunching numbers, that'd be the G5, not anything in the Intel lineup. And as for the video cards, that's purely a matter of 3D gaming, which Apple has yet to make a grab for, but the x1600 in the iMac is a very good start.

The OS benchmarks only seem to reflect memory allocation and database calls. That won't tell you anything about the actual experience of using the system. No benchmark will tell you about how Explorer temporarily stops responding when you copy a file or whether priorities are set and handled correctly for an uninterrupted workflow. I think Apple had all the right design ideas in mind when they put together OS X.

But let's not forget that there could someday be a virus, so clearly it was all for naught.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Apple's doing just fine.
by chlordane on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 01:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple's doing just fine."
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

Yeah, what you said ^_^

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Apple's doing just fine.
by chlordane on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 01:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple's doing just fine."
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

No, my man, your not stupid....

Can give me some links to current systems that have as you said:

"I just know if it has slower hardware than a PC and if the OS is slower than both Linux and Windows and on top of that comes with a third rate graphics card then it probably belongs in the bargin bucket."

Windows based computer and Apple computers are PCs'!
They just run different Operating Systems....

If you dont like Apple products, dont even botheer, no one is forcing you to buy a d*amn thing, people make purchasing decisions on the information they receive...

I will continue to buy Apple Computers, because I like the way they work for me.....

and thats just one opinion form a VERY informed, and VERY serious computer user...

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Apple's doing just fine.
by haugland on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 09:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple's doing just fine."
haugland Member since:
2005-07-07

PhD in what? Maybe speed isn't everything to everyone. Most users will have all the speed they need in Apple's low end computers (discounting the PhD's that need their computers for heavy workloads).

I have never used a Mac, but I could see myself buying one for the OS alone.

If you are looking for hassle free computing, I think that Apple is the best choice.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Apple's doing just fine.
by wakeupneo on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 08:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple's doing just fine."
wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

"I have never used a Mac, but I could see myself buying one for the OS alone.

If you are looking for hassle free computing, I think that Apple is the best choice."


Err...you might want to actually try using the MacOS before you decide it's the "best choice". Basing your opinion on that of others or flashy marketing is a little short sighted.

No offence meant, just an observation...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Apple's doing just fine.
by vimh on Thu 1st Jun 2006 23:41 UTC in reply to "Apple's doing just fine."
vimh Member since:
2006-02-04

The fact that Apple's market share is allegedly only 2.0 percent of the worldwide market, just means that there are a helluva lot of people out there that have no clue that a superior alternative exists.

The poster has a point. Your statement on the other hand is subjective and contradictory. If a something is fact, then it is not "allegedly" anything. It would in fact be "fact."

I personally do not beleive that Apple has the superior desktop, laptop or server solution. For my money, I have made what I consider superior choices.

So while a hell of a lot of people don't know that a superior choice may exist, that choice may not be Apple.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Apple's doing just fine.
by chlordane on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 00:57 UTC in reply to "Apple's doing just fine."
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

"Perhaps if macs weren't overpriced budget computers, with a fancy fashion label stamped on them, people might buy them."

I see and know what you mean...

People who say this usually havent used or done the research on PC Hardware, Dell and Apple are PCs', they just run different OSs', take a look at this...

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&...

Now, that computer is a piece of crap, but dont take that from me, go to ebay, and see the resale value of any Dell, and any Apple PowerMac.....

This message is for those who dont have a clue....

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Apple's doing just fine.
by slate on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 01:35 UTC in reply to "Apple's doing just fine."
RE: Apple's doing just fine.
by ivefallen on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 17:25 UTC in reply to "Apple's doing just fine."
ivefallen Member since:
2006-05-19

Just because someone else's opinion (regardless of the wording) does not reflect your own, does not necessarily make them stupid. You say "Superior", someone else may say "Inferior". There is no quantitative fact to support either opinion, only user experience. That experience, as we all well know, varies from person to person.

Reply Score: 1

Quoth_the_Raven Member since:
2005-11-15

"Just because someone else's opinion (regardless of the wording) does not reflect your own, does not necessarily make them stupid."

In my humble opinion, yes it does.

Edited 2006-06-02 21:14

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Apple's doing just fine.
by vitae on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 21:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple's doing just fine."
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

See, that's called arrogance. That has nothing to do with humble opinions.

Reply Score: 2

ivefallen Member since:
2006-05-19

r'JHR

Reply Score: 1

On other hand
by Earl Colby pottinger on Thu 1st Jun 2006 22:33 UTC
Earl Colby pottinger
Member since:
2005-07-06

For years, decades even? People have been stating that Apple's lack of market share means it is doomed, doomed, ddooommmmeeeeedddddd!!!!

And Apple keeps on making money, and is still in business while 80% of the companies that were it's competation no longer exist, and many (most?) of the ones remaining have far lower profits than Apple.

I have never owned an Apple computer, and I have no plans to buy one in the future. But I have real doubts that Apple is going away anytime soon.

Reply Score: 5

PhD != Smart
by Macrat on Thu 1st Jun 2006 22:44 UTC
Macrat
Member since:
2006-03-27

Getting a PhD doesn't mean you're smart. It just means you played the university politics and sucked up to a professor.

Reply Score: 0

RE: PhD != Smart
by buffzilla on Thu 1st Jun 2006 22:46 UTC in reply to "PhD != Smart"
buffzilla Member since:
2006-06-01

I never said it made me smart, I was just refuting the fact I was stupid which is slightly different.

Reply Score: 1

Apple is three things
by porcel on Thu 1st Jun 2006 23:00 UTC
porcel
Member since:
2006-01-28

Apple is proprietary to the very core, innovative AND irrelevant in the larger IT picture.

While the usual Apple clique will rush to its defense, Apple business model is doomed. Their reliance on being unique could only take them so. In hardware terms, the switch to Intel itself signals the fact that the volume and the quality assurance provided by standard mainstream hardware cannot be matched. Yes, I said quality assurance. When you plan to sell millions of units of a processor or motherboard, it had better not be defective. Large companies such as Intel do a lot of the necessary research that Apple was simply to small to match.

On the software front, most of the software that 95% of users will need is already commoditized. The latest incantations of KDE and Gnome as presented by Suse and Ubuntu provide what most people need. In fact, in many areas, open source is already leading such as security, reliability and, sometimes, even usability.

So, Apple is left with an arguably elegant interface, nice hardware, and a few proprietary apps that can usually also be run on cheaper hardware on Windows or on Linux (for some of the high-end mathematical and graphical apps).

In summary, I do not see what Apple's competitive advantage is going forward. My hardware on Suse 10 just works, both on my laptops and desktop. The applications are elegant and the OS reliable and all of it is very cheap. Considering that we are supposed to be at the very early embryonic stage of adoption of desktop linux by mainstream users, Apple is looking more and more like another SGI in five years.

Of course, Apple could turn things around by switching to a better kernel, giving up on its obsession of contro, control, controk, opening the OS up, using standard file formats in its iWork suite and a host of other initiatives that would make them far more acceptable to IT managers such as myself (stopping all the pointless suits that it has filed recently as well as not filing shallow and meaningless software patents would also help).

For the record, I do like some of Apple's software and I do believe that they are innovative. But innovation is not everything as those that have read the Innovator's dilemma know.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Apple is three things
by vitae on Thu 1st Jun 2006 23:11 UTC in reply to "Apple is three things"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

They just need to keep expanding in the multimedia market as they have with the iPod and iTunes. They need to expand into other markets with a similiar strategy. Probably make some deals with Hollywood before MS edges them out of the movie market.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Apple is three things
by korpenkraxar on Thu 1st Jun 2006 23:25 UTC in reply to "Apple is three things"
korpenkraxar Member since:
2005-09-10

And while we dwell on these matters, people are accomplishing wonderful tasks on all computer platforms.

Apart from stock owners, who cares if Apple survives in the long run or not? If they don't, that means that they have lost a lot of their present customers, who, if they stop buying from Apple, don't care about Apple and their products anymore and go for products that better suits their needs. Technology and availability matters, brands dont.

Sorry, I seem to be a bit grumpy today.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Apple is three things
by alcibiades on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 08:35 UTC in reply to "Apple is three things"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

"Apple is looking more and more like another SGI in five years."

This is very true, the whole argument convinces. What Apple does have, which maybe you underestimate, is the fierce devotion of its followers. SGI never had that same emotional bond with its customers. But the argument is right: you cannot expect to maintain the same business model for 20+ years in this business, and you're right, SGI is the ultimate destination when the niche will not support the overhead any more.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Apple is three things
by tryphcycle on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 17:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple is three things"
tryphcycle Member since:
2006-02-16

apple is not the niche that most of you arm chair analysts claime!

apple has a very stable customer base! weather or not its growning is a matter of perception and sort of irrelevant. THEY ARE VERY PROFITABLE! and dont give me that "its only because of iPod" ...the last time i checked... the iPod was an apple product!

if apple maintains its so called "2%" marketshare... and maintains their level of profitability... they are not going anywhere! so the SGI compairison is totaly void!

BUT.... weather or not any of you "apple is doomed fanboys" will admite it... these are apple second round of golden years, and they are just begining!

if you hate apple now.... just wait to and see what else they do to defy your arm chair business logic!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Apple is three things
by tryphcycle on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 16:09 UTC in reply to "Apple is three things"
tryphcycle Member since:
2006-02-16

>>>>>>"While the usual Apple clique will rush to its defense, Apple business model is doomed."<<<<<<

ok brainiack! so tell us when they will actually die? cus to My knowledge, companies that make a profit, gerneraly dont go out of business! We have all been hearing about how apple is Doomed for decades.... do you realize then? so hyper anyalizing their business model and then coming to your own crazy conclusion the Apple is doomed is just plan lunacy!

that are MAKING MONEY!!!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Apple is three things
by someone on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 21:04 UTC in reply to "Apple is three things"
someone Member since:
2006-01-12

First of all, Apple has been the exception in the business world for decades. In fact, it's probably one of the case studies in the HBS. I don't think Apple and SGI are even remotely comparable (especially in terms of price: Apple server products are often the cheapest in the industry!) All in all, I don't think you need to worry about its business model.

As for the control, the complete package concept (which means limited range of hardware) is what allowed Apple to have such great software-hardware integration, instead of plug-n-pray on Windows/Linux (the latter at least comes with more up to date drivers). You rarely need to install any driver on OS X.

Finally, Apple users aren't loyal to the platform because of the pretty Aqua interface (Persoanlly, I find the interface to be a little dated and less pleasant to look at compared to ClearLooks). It is the little details such as spellchecking everywhere, dictionary service, Applescript, fast PDF viewer, two-finger scrolling, expose etc. that makes OS X such a joy to use. Also, 3rd party software on OS X tend to be of better quality than their counterparts in other platforms. One example is MS Office 2004 (for Mac), which has the notetaking mode and a few other unique features not present in MS Office 2003 (Windows counterpart)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Apple is three things
by MikeekiM on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 21:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple is three things"
MikeekiM Member since:
2005-11-16

Finally, Apple users aren't loyal to the platform because of the pretty Aqua interface (Persoanlly, I find the interface to be a little dated and less pleasant to look at compared to ClearLooks). It is the little details such as spellchecking everywhere, dictionary service, Applescript, fast PDF viewer, two-finger scrolling, expose etc. that makes OS X such a joy to use. Also, 3rd party software on OS X tend to be of better quality than their counterparts in other platforms. One example is MS Office 2004 (for Mac), which has the notetaking mode and a few other unique features not present in MS Office 2003 (Windows counterpart)


Shhhhh...
You're spelling out Apples Productivity secrets, and these people DON'T Care about Productivity! They don't care about spyware, virii, and lost time. They want cheap junk, free software, and to be able to build their own machines and burn up 100's of hours of their time.

They are different users. And that's why they won't buy an Apple computer. They Just Don't Get It.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: I have a PhD
by Matt24 on Thu 1st Jun 2006 23:03 UTC
RE[2]: I have a PhD
by Mitarai on Thu 1st Jun 2006 23:12 UTC in reply to "RE: I have a PhD"
Mitarai Member since:
2005-07-28

Stupid is insult another human being and take the side of an artificial OS.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I have a PhD
by korpenkraxar on Thu 1st Jun 2006 23:14 UTC in reply to "RE: I have a PhD"
korpenkraxar Member since:
2005-09-10

I'm so stupid I haven't even gotten my PhD yet!
*Thread closed*

Reply Score: 0

Also...
by JustAnotherMacUser on Thu 1st Jun 2006 23:17 UTC
JustAnotherMacUser
Member since:
2006-01-08

U.S. Mac Market Share
1Q 2005: 3.8%
4Q 2005 (AI): 3.5%
1Q 2006 (ZDNet): 3.5%
1Q 2006 (AI): 3.6%

Worldwide Mac Market Share
1Q 2005: 2.2%
1Q 2006 (ZDNet): 2.3%
1Q 2006 (AI): 2.0%

Seems the increase in worldwide PC market share came from overseas, perhaps not as wealthy areas wheres Apple likes to target itself. After all Apple really doesn't "play" in the low margin computing market.

I don't think Apple or even most Mac users want to see their beloved platform become as common as Dell and Windows anyway.

We are unique, different, unusual and fun. We are our own niche in the flood of Microsoft conformity. Much like Linux is for computer geeks. ;)

Diversity is good.

Dell is beginning to lose some ground to rival HP. HP's worldwide market share increased 1.1%, while Dell lost 0.4% according to the report. Similar trends were also present for the companies' respective U.S. market shares.

HP supposedly has excellent customer support, the best in the world or so I've read. Perhaps this is what is causing Dell's decline.

Reply Score: 1

vasko_dinkov
Member since:
2005-09-13

IMHO it's the price of the Macs.

Reply Score: 2

Is it that time of year again?
by Anim8me2 on Thu 1st Jun 2006 23:28 UTC
Anim8me2
Member since:
2006-02-10

Mac market share stories, blah blah blah.

Get over it people. Apple makes a really nice set of hardware (a statement supported by practically every PC publication out there) that now uses the same proc as most PCs (so stop with the slower hardware nonsense).

Apple can survive quite nicely with their current market share (of shipped computers), but what this report completely fails in recognizing is that the quarter they are hilighting is the quarter in which Apple was constrained on shipments of procs from Intel. Let's just wait and see what the next 2 quarters bring.

Oh, as much as you love you Linux distros the mainstream is just not going to use it. Sorry.

Reply Score: 1

wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

No need to apologise. I use it and that's all I care about. The 'community' could care less if you do or not.

I tried the Mac and didn't like it so I'm just not going to use it. Sorry.

Reply Score: 2

I sense a lot of negativity
by 47ronin on Thu 1st Jun 2006 23:34 UTC
47ronin
Member since:
2006-04-03

Apple, which has been doomed to fail over and over again, constantly since the late 1990s, continues to surprise tech and financial analysts. A lot of the spin right now regarding "shrinking market share" is really just a one-sided look at the figures. All it shows is that people are buying PCs and Macs; People just happen to buy a lot more PCs. This doesn't mean that anyone is abandoning the Mac at all. The real statistic you need to follow is "How many Macs have shipped per quarter" and watch the trend over the years. If that figure is showing a noticeable dip, then yes Apple is on a negative slope.

April 2005 (CNET):
The company said it sold 5.3 million iPods and 1.07 million Macintosh PCs. During the prior quarter, which included the holiday selling season, Apple sold 4.5 million iPods and just more than a million Macintoshes. Compared with a year ago, Mac sales are up nearly 40 percent and iPod sales are up five-fold.

July 2005 (CNET):
Mac sales were up 10 percent from the prior quarter and 35 percent from a year earlier. Unit sales of the iPod were up sixfold from a year earlier and 16 percent from the prior quarter. Revenue growth from the iPod was more modest as prices fell and Apple added the Shuffle to its mix, with sales up 343 percent from a year ago and 9 percent from the prior quarter. Apple also saw a boost as Tiger went on sale during the quarter, sending software sales up 44 percent from the prior quarter and 64 percent from a year earlier.

January 2006 (Reuters):
Apple shipped 1,254,000 Macintosh® computers and 14,043,000 iPods during the quarter, representing 20 percent growth in Macs and 207 percent growth in iPods over the year-ago quarter.

April 2006 (Yahoo):
Apple shipped 1,112,000 Macintosh® computers and 8,526,000 iPods during the quarter, representing 4 percent growth in Macs and 61 percent growth in iPods over the year-ago quarter.

We see a leveling-off during the Intel transition. However, does it seem like noone is buying Macs? Add those numbers up. Realize that six years ago there was an existing base of over 29 million Mac users. The numbers continue to increase each day. Just go to an Apple Store. See all those people in front of the cashier? Are they imaginary?

Reply Score: 5

RE: I sense a lot of negativity
by MikeekiM on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 21:20 UTC in reply to "I sense a lot of negativity"
MikeekiM Member since:
2005-11-16

January 2006 (Reuters):
Apple shipped 1,254,000 Macintosh® computers and 14,043,000 iPods during the quarter, representing 20 percent growth in Macs and 207 percent growth in iPods over the year-ago quarter.

April 2006 (Yahoo):
Apple shipped 1,112,000 Macintosh® computers and 8,526,000 iPods during the quarter, representing 4 percent growth in Macs and 61 percent growth in iPods over the year-ago quarter.

We see a leveling-off during the Intel transition. However, does it seem like noone is buying Macs? Add those numbers up. Realize that six years ago there was an existing base of over 29 million Mac users. The numbers continue to increase each day. Just go to an Apple Store. See all those people in front of the cashier? Are they imaginary?


You must be new here.
We don't want no STINKING FACTs to get in the way of our un-informed bashing of Apple. We want to protect the DELL franchise.

Reply Score: 1

MikeekiM Member since:
2005-11-16

Or maybe that's the AMD franchise.
How Dare Apple use Intel's Duo Core instead of going to AMD! Isn't that what all this noise is about?

Reply Score: 1

Overpriced?
by mungas on Thu 1st Jun 2006 23:35 UTC
mungas
Member since:
2006-05-08

I'm getting tired of these comments about Apple computers being overpriced. Yes, they were expensive, IN THE 80's! Show me a computer that can compete in price/performance with the Mini, iMac or MacBook.

And porcel compares Apple to SGI, but thinks Suse has a bright future!? I like Linux too, but only on my servers.

This summers best selling PC, will probably be the MacBook. Great for XP, Linux and OS X.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Overpriced?
by nzjrs on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 05:07 UTC in reply to "Overpriced?"
nzjrs Member since:
2006-01-02

oops

Edited 2006-06-02 05:08

Reply Score: 1

RE: Overpriced?
by alcibiades on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 08:25 UTC in reply to "Overpriced?"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

I encountered exactly this situation not too long ago. I had to buy a new machine for someone, and for security and support we had decided not to buy a Windows machine. Money was an issue, and performance was an issue. So I looked at the Mini. This was in the UK. This is what I found from Macwarehouse for £500 ex vat:

MA206B/A
RAM: 512 MB
Cache Memory: 2 MB L2 Cache
Manufacturer Warranty: 1 year warranty
Networking: Network adapter - Ethernet, Fast Ethernet, Gigabit Ethernet, IEEE 802.11b, IEEE 802.11g,
Hard Drive: 1 x 80 GB - standard - Serial ATA-150
Form Factor: Desktop slimline
Apple Mac mini Core Duo 1.66 GHz
Optical Storage: DVD±RW (+R double layer)
Intel GMA 950
Processor: 1 x Intel Core Duo 1.66 GHz ( Dual-Core )

My customer had a screen and keyboard already, and does quite a bit of documentary photography and her existing 80G drive on the old machine was filling up.

I explained that the Mini had a laptop hard drive, and onboard graphics which have been universally panned as being worse than the previous Mini's Radeon 9000 graphics, which were themselves minimal, and that it came with no software, so it was kind of hard to recommend.

OK, what did I suggest?

We got the Asus T2, and put an Athlon 64 3000 Venice and 1G memory in it. We got a 300G SATA drive, and an optical that supports all formats. The price ex VAT was about £300. It took about 20 mins to put together. I put Mandriva on it, which took another 15.

Its very very fast, its quiet, its filled with excellent software, it has all the disk space you want. The onboard graphics work just fine, but you can always upgrade. Spend an extra £100 on an external backup drive and do mirror image backups. Go out for dinner.

If we had wanted Windows, there would have been lots of stuff around the same price point off the shelf.

The problem with the Apple range is, at the low end they have traded performance for form factor. If you want low end performance you are out of luck. Its great if you want or need a coat pocket machine: who does? In the mid range you have nothing but all-in-ones. Why should you buy a new screen if you already have a perfectly good one that you like? At the high end you have noise, heat and overpricing.

And then you have OSX, which has all the disadvantages of being a minority niche OS, but none of the advantages of the huge amount of good free software that you get with one of the major distros. I like Mandriva, but Suse or Fedora would be equally appropriate.

You just cannot in good conscience recommend this stuff to anyone.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Overpriced?
by evangs on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 11:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Overpriced?"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

And then you have OSX, which has all the disadvantages of being a minority niche OS, but none of the advantages of the huge amount of good free software that you get with one of the major distros. I like Mandriva, but Suse or Fedora would be equally appropriate.

You do realize that most of the free software that you run on Linux can be installed on OS X via fink?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Overpriced?
by alcibiades on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Overpriced?"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

I've never used fink. But it seems like Bootcamp, if that's where you're going, why not just go there directly? Or is this unfair - is fink a bit like apt-get, a sort of automated package manager for OSX?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Overpriced?
by iarann on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 15:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Overpriced?"
iarann Member since:
2006-05-14


I've never used fink. But it seems like Bootcamp, if that's where you're going, why not just go there directly? Or is this unfair - is fink a bit like apt-get, a sort of automated package manager for OSX?


Fink is apt-get, ported to OS X, with a decent amount of the packages ported over. It doesn't quite have the same packages (many of which require porting before they will compile correctly, so they may be a bit behind or a few less choices) but it is doing well enough with I would say all of the popular packages supported and most of the others that I am aware of.

Better then fink in my opinion is DarwinPorts. It's basically a port of FreeBSD's port tree for OS X/Darwin. It works great, and compiles well. There is also a third option with pkgsrc ported from NetBSD, but this is a little more difficult to setup because you have to run the pkgsrc environment from a case-sensitive drive (either a UFS partition, easy to make in OS X with disk utility, or a UFS disk image, which you would have to mount every time you start OS X).

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Overpriced?
by netpython on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 12:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Overpriced?"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

I will get flamed but personally i wonder if the stylish cases are in fact the distortion field?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Overpriced?
by netpython on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 12:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Overpriced?"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

We got the Asus T2, and put an Athlon 64 3000 Venice and 1G memory in it. We got a 300G SATA drive, and an optical that supports all formats. The price ex VAT was about £300. It took about 20 mins to put together. I put Mandriva on it, which took another 15.

Same here,only the venice runs at 2200GHz on FC5:)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Overpriced?
by mungas on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 12:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Overpriced?"
mungas Member since:
2006-05-08

I use a Venice 3000 running 2.5GHz. Far from the performance of a Core Duo, but ok for a budget box.
And I agree that Apple lacks a product in this low cost segment.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Overpriced?
by MikeekiM on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 21:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Overpriced?"
MikeekiM Member since:
2005-11-16

My customer had a screen and keyboard already, and does quite a bit of documentary photography and her existing 80G drive on the old machine was filling up.

You put a Nuby on LINUX?
She must LOVE you.
Hope she NEVER has to buy any software that isn't open source. I hope you at least partitioned her drive and loaded Windows.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Overpriced?
by alcibiades on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 04:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Overpriced?"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

I have several customers on Linux, liberal arts background, writers, secretarial work in small offices, all basically using the machine as an appliance. Not needing any particular windows application - though apparently photoshop on crossover office is good enough for major studios.

Its not a problem. Of course, you would not do it for someone who absolutely has to run a certain kind of cad cam or financial software, or heavy gaming. But finding files, using OO, backing up, doing sub-pro image manipulation, web authoring, email, web browsing, shopping, a bit of DTP, it just quetly sits there and works. Occasional OO problems with file compatibility with Office, but you have that with different versions of Office too.

There are surprisingly many people out there who really have no need whatever for Windows. Of course, you have to teach how to use it, most of which is setting it up right in the first place. But my experience has been that it is trouble free and that people like it.

Reply Score: 1

Who cares?
by dr_gonzo on Thu 1st Jun 2006 23:40 UTC
dr_gonzo
Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple are doing great business. They're making loads of dosh and they make nice computers, mp3 players and a very nice OS.

Celine Dion might be more popular than the Super Furry Animals but I doubt SFA are that worried ;) (i.e. if music has taught us anything, it's that being popular doesn't always mean being the best)

Reply Score: 5

Ironic
by JaredWhite on Thu 1st Jun 2006 23:48 UTC
JaredWhite
Member since:
2005-07-06

I remember when Apple announced the upcoming Intel switch last year, everyone got freaked out about the "Osborne" effect coming to kill Apple (i. e., everyone would stop buying PPC machines and wait for the Intel machines). Didn't happen: people kept buying PPC machines. Then everyone jumped on the "x86 sales will be slow since there are few Universal apps available" bandwagon. Didn't happen: people started buying Intel machines.

So Apple's sales slowed a little bit in Q1 2006. So what? That's one quarter. Come back to me in two years, show me steady averaged marketshare decline, and then I'll agree Apple has a real problem. Until then, there's only one logical conclusion: Apple is doing very well and is unlikely to deviate from that path.

Reply Score: 5

The Switch
by kkamrani on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 00:04 UTC
kkamrani
Member since:
2005-07-08

Once upon a time I made the switch and threw down over $2k of my well earned money for a Powerbook. I thoroughly enjoyed using it and Mac OS X for 2 years and then it broke. Since then, I've switched back to non-Apple computer such as Dells and have been very content.

I keep wanting to buy a new MacBook but a Dell e1505 is very similar in size and specs but the Dell costs so much less, actually almost half as much! I don't want to hear any of the nonsense that Dells put crappy parts in their laptops, because a comparable MacBook comes with a slower HD and less RAM (even on the high end model). Whereas they both have the same processors, video cards, comparable wifi cards... etc.

What it comes down to is how much you value your computing experience which is a personal issue. Some feel that paying twice as much to actually enjoy a device they use very frequently is justifiable and some, as we can see the majority, chose to justify a more economic option. ... Even though they both get the job done, for me and most professionals I know. For example both Windows XP and Mac OS X edit my images with Photoshop and files with Microsoft Office. I can play my tunes both with iTunes and edit with Dreamweaver.

To hear that Apple's market share ain't climbing is such obvious news, and that's because most people think with their pockets first then for their experience. Apple will never increase market share unless it offers more for what people are paying for OR lowers the price in relation to the specs of the machines they sell.

Reply Score: 5

RE: The Switch
by tryphcycle on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 16:58 UTC in reply to "The Switch"
tryphcycle Member since:
2006-02-16

>>>>>To hear that Apple's market share ain't climbing is such obvious news, and that's because most people think with their pockets first then for their experience. Apple will never increase market share unless it offers more for what people are paying for OR lowers the price in relation to the specs of the machines they sell.<<<<<<<


gosh... i love arm chair analysts!!!!

Reply Score: 0

No Big Deal
by nobody on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 00:22 UTC
nobody
Member since:
2006-06-02

They are still the sole provider of Apple computers and must compete with many PC-manufacturers for the consumer’s attention. They’re never going to have more than a small share of the computer market, but they have an effective business model and are a profitable company -- that suits the shareholders just fine.

I don’t think there’s much danger of Apple dwindling away into nothing. There will always be a market for premium products, and computers are no exception.

Reply Score: 1

Apple Computer Corporation
by Cloudy on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 00:33 UTC
Cloudy
Member since:
2006-02-15

Going Out of Business since 1984

Apple's a niche company. When the niche changes, they move to the new one. As long as they keep that up, they'll stay small and stay in business.

What the pundits seem to be missing is that Apple's getting out of the PC business and moving into a CE niche. No one should be surprised in their declining PC market share.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Apple Computer Corporation
by JaredWhite on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 00:50 UTC in reply to "Apple Computer Corporation"
JaredWhite Member since:
2005-07-06

"What the pundits seem to be missing is that Apple's getting out of the PC business and moving into a CE niche. No one should be surprised in their declining PC market share."

Wrong. Apple's strengthening its position in the usual market segments (creative, education, small business, Web dev) while expanding into new segments (Unix geeks, consumer/digital media, Hollywood, scientific R&D, and some others). If Apple was "getting out of the PC business" they wouldn't have bothered making the huge switch to Intel.

Think people, think. :rolleyes:

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Apple Computer Corporation
by Cloudy on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 05:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple Computer Corporation"
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

If Apple was "getting out of the PC business" they wouldn't have bothered making the huge switch to Intel.

Only if you thought they meant to move out immediately, rather than withdraw gradually so as to reduce the backlash from the fanbois.

On the other hand, if you wanted to withdraw slowly, the first move would be to cut your r&d overhead by reducing your dependence on custom hardware design.

I suggest you spend less time rolling your eyes and more time looking beyond the superficial.

Reply Score: 1

godawful Member since:
2005-06-29

and would that backlash from the "fanbois" (please stop using this word) cause? for the "fanbois" to refuse to purchase any more macs? well who cares, in this circumstace they wouldn't be selling macs anymore anyway..

and i think apple has show on numerous occasions that it is more than willing to do what it thinks is best over the emotional response of its uers, or "fanbois"

Reply Score: 1

Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

and would that backlash from the "fanbois" (please stop using this word) cause? for the "fanbois" to refuse to purchase any more macs? well who cares, in this circumstace they wouldn't be selling macs anymore anyway..

To be successful, as a CE company, Apple needed to convert the Mac fanatics into iPod fanatics, and keep them loyal until the CE business was self sustaining.

As the percentage of Apple's customer base that sees Apple as a CE company first increases, Apple will be increasingly able to abandon the percentage that only (or primarily) sees them as a PC company.

The move away from PPC, with the very real justification that they were being let down by PPC performance, was the first step, but they didn't need to go to comodity hardware to accomplish that, they could have designed custom hardware around the intel processor, going as far as doing their own northbridge/southbridge set to continue the lock in.

Expect Apple to continue to reduce their PC related R&D spending slowly over the next five years, and then to let the PC business taper off, provided they manage the transition to CE completly.

Reply Score: 1

Apple is so doomed!
by godsolete on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 00:35 UTC
godsolete
Member since:
2006-05-10

Oh yeah, doomed, doomed, doomed! Even though Apple is shipping more Macs and making metric assloads of money, it's doomed! The marketshare reports say so. Why can't Apple have it's niche market, make decent money, and stay in business? Nevermind, screw it all. Apple should drop it's pricess and start selling Windows PCs.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Apple is so doomed!
by slate on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 01:39 UTC in reply to "Apple is so doomed!"
slate Member since:
2006-04-04

Guess what. Apple doesn't exist in isolation. It needs third parties to make software for the platform. I noticed that Never Winter Nights 2 won't be ported to the Mac. Let's see if WoW 2 gets ported. Then for the big enchilada, when Adobe stops porting their software. At that point it's all over for the Macs.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Apple is so doomed!
by godawful on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 21:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple is so doomed!"
godawful Member since:
2005-06-29

yes, adobe is going to say "you know that 40% of our sales? fo'get about it!"

Reply Score: 1

Who cares?
by Governa on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 00:51 UTC
Governa
Member since:
2006-04-09

I'm a Mac user since 1991. I have 4 Macs at home, one since 1991 (Macintosh LC), another since 1998 (iMac Bondi Blue) and another one since 2005 (iBook G4).

They are all working today, never had a single problem and I'm not selling them. I love being a Mac user.

As someone already said, Apple has an effective business model and are a profitable company that suits the shareholders just fine.

Apple is here since 1976. I'm here since 1979. Apple is older than me and I always heard people saying Apple was doomed like Commodore and Atari... bah!

So how does this article influences me? Well, it doesn't! I don't care about what "research firm Gartner" (never heard of them before) has to say about Apple or Apple's market share. I AM A HAPPY MAC USER. Period.

Apple is alive and well.

Edited 2006-06-02 00:52

Reply Score: 2

RE: Who cares?
by chlordane on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 01:22 UTC in reply to "Who cares?"
chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

I would say "Amen Brother" but Mac user are already in a cult, so I will resist....

Reply Score: 2

RE: Who cares?
by happycamper on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 01:49 UTC in reply to "Who cares?"
happycamper Member since:
2006-01-01

Apple is indeed doing very well as a company the ipod is bringing in the revenue. but the macs
have been having trouble since day one in the market. why? i don't know, maybe it is because people are simply buying more windows based systems.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Who cares?
by someone on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 21:12 UTC in reply to "Who cares?"
someone Member since:
2006-01-12

First of all, Gartner is a very famous advisory firm and its research are frequently cited.

Also, I am sure they are very familiar with Apple's unique history and I don't believe they made the statement "Apple is finally going out of business".

Reply Score: 1

In a Windows dominated world....
by chlordane on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 00:52 UTC
chlordane
Member since:
2006-05-11

How can Apple snag more market share when companies like Dell sell systems for $349?

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&...

and that is just one example..

Apple would have to take the quality of its products down a notch, some may argue that Apple has low-quality products now, this is simply not true...

I dont think Apple customers are ready for cheap quality, over high priced quality....

Another tid-bit:

You cannot buy a Dell, for example, without Windows pre-installed, you dont have choice, as with Apple...

Why the Heck is that?

Reply Score: 1

Lu-Tze Member since:
2006-01-10

(a) You can get "some" Dell's with no OS or even with Linux installed.
(b) Did not know that Apple gave you such an option. Could you please post a link? And let's not get in Yellow Dog Linux.

Reply Score: 1

chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

Oh, dang, forgot about Yellow Dog, and FreeBSD....

http://www.freebsd.org/platforms/ppc.html

If you can buy a brand new Dell (direct from Dell)without Windows, I would like to see that link...

http://lists.essential.org/random-bits/msg00009.html

The link above will take you to an example, Greg Lehey - BSD Kernel Hacker, tried to buy a Dell without Windows, and couldnt get it.....

"> The vast majority of Dell's customers have told us they expect a
> Microsoft OS when they purchase a Dell system, so this is the type
> of OS we use as part of our build-to-order process. Currently,
> customer demand for alternative operating systems is not sufficient
> to make offering them for small-volume orders cost-effective for
> customers or for Dell."


When you buy any Apple Computer from Apple, you get Mac OS X, which is in now in the BSD family...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X

So, why the NEED for Yellow Dog or FreeBSD, which I use..


To quote Greg Lehey:
"I am not interested in the vast majority of your customers, I am interested in the vast majority of *my* customers, all of whom reject Microsoft as bloated, inefficient and unreliable."

Just in case you dont know who Gre Lehey is...

http://www.lemis.com/grog/

I am just sayin', something is wrong when you dont have a choice...

Reply Score: 1

Lu-Tze Member since:
2006-01-10

First, it is really lame to say that OS X is from the BSD family therefore it means choice. And yes, XP is from the WIndows NT family, so I guess that means choice too.

Second, your links are from 1999. Most of us have reached 2006. I assume you are aware of this since you mention OS X which came out a little in your future.

As far as links for Dell are concerned. Two clicks on the current Dell website gives you this
http://www.dell.com/content/products/compare.aspx/precn_n?c=us&cs=0...
Even a search for linux on the dell website gives you the links to the workstations.
I am sure you can find more if you were interested.

In the meantime, remembering the BSD license, Apple can always alter the hardware (which they have done in the past) and close Darwin tomorrow if that meant better business. There's nothing wrong in that. It is just laughable to say Apple computers give you more OS choice than Dell or any other non-Mac vendor. I don't remember being able to get an iMac without OS X. And going by your example, let me know if you have any success in getting a refund from Apple for the price of the OS (though I realize this is from the MS EULA but neglects to mention that in most OEM builds there is a very negligible increase in cost of the machine because of having Windows pre-installed. I won't go into the details of that, I assume you know.)

Reply Score: 1

market shares
by Umbra on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 01:33 UTC
Umbra
Member since:
2006-03-06

Why can Apple sell millions of iPods at USD 400 each ? Why ?

Answer: Because an iPod has what customers wants. They really want the iPod. The iPod gives the customer what they want. And iPods are not cheap stuff.

What about the Mac's ? Do customers want Mac's ? Nob, not enough. The Mac does not appeal enough to potential customers. Just not enough. Why ? (forget the prices)

Because: first you have to kill Microsoft Office off the Mac. Get the MS Office OFF the Mac. The MS Office is the "ultimate boring factor" that can hit any exiting computer in this world. Its like water. Boring boring boring.

Then your have to give them what they really want. You have to give them something different - a software that sing. An all magic all_exiting publishing-system that makes your jaws drop, and your friends to look like hopeless jerks. Make and Publish is the magic word - publish everywhere - web, paper, ears, eyes - and collaboration across everywhere, yes. Not the coding stuff. No. The real singing stuff.

Its the software - not the hardware !!!!!!!

Grab it ! IT's THE SOFTWARE - and what it can do for you !!!! The hardware is already there and nearly no one is noticing it. Make it work Apple. Make the hardware sing like an iPod. Make us smile. Make our IT lives E.A.S.Y !!! Software !!

There really is nothing as boring as boring software


There really already exists millions and millions of computers that can do all the boring stuff. They are like water. Every one has them.

Reply Score: 2

RE: market shares
by Johann Chua on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 06:54 UTC in reply to "market shares"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

You do know that MS Office was made for Macs before Windows, right?

Anyway, iLife is supposed to be the carrot that lures PC users to the Mac side. Maybe Apple'd be better off trying to attract people who've never owned a PC before rather than getting people to switch.

Reply Score: 1

over :Þ
by Umbra on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 02:02 UTC
Umbra
Member since:
2006-03-06

quote: Then for the big enchilada, when Adobe stops porting their software. At that point it's all over for the Macs./quote

Oh ! - No, it would not really matter that much. There are endless of alternatives that would flourish up. Some closed source and some open source. It would take some time yes, but that does not matter. Some of the major publishers are still on OS 9 anyway. The "official publishing industry" are not that hungry for new apps that they could not use their existing apps for 1-2 years more, and then arrive at new alternatives should Adobe stop to bore us to death with more boring software - for the common Joe, among others.

Reply Score: 1

RE: over :Þ
by Ultimatebadass on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 13:08 UTC in reply to "over :Þ"
Ultimatebadass Member since:
2006-01-08

"(...)should Adobe stop to bore us to death with more boring software - for the common Joe, among others."

What's with the "boring software" thing? How can you call professional software boring? It's a tool. It's not something you show to your friends to impress them - you work with it to create. And about "endless alternatives" (both closed and open source) - I've yet to see an app that would come close to Photoshop in terms of functionality.

PS. Or maybe I missed the joke here :|

Reply Score: 2

Linux
by gfacer on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 02:16 UTC
gfacer
Member since:
2005-11-10

Just to make a point again that I have made in the past.

Apple will survive as long as it makes products people want to buy. The software that others make for it will sort itself out.

It would take very little effort to make Apple Machines run Linux software as good as native Linux, when and if developers stop writing for Mac (and assuming Linux continues to build steam and polish versus MS, which is the only real comparision). It doesn't matter if it is open source apps or commercial apps for linux that replace MAC offerings, Apple can ride that wave when they like.

And of course, they can also move into licencing clones whenever they like too. There is nothing wrong with focusing on the Ipod and music if it a) doing well and b) you keep your options open.

.....having said that, the open source experience on my MacIntel mini was not so hot (OOo in particular). But, I know that if Apple wants to change that, it's as good as changed.

Reply Score: 1

re: market shares
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 03:28 UTC
StephenBeDoper
Member since:
2005-07-06

An all magic all_exiting publishing-system that makes your jaws drop

Indeed. I've dropped at least 4 jaws just reading your post (I have a large jaw collection).

I can't wait for the all exiting publishing system, though.

Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; PalmSource/hspr-H102; Blazer/4.0) 16;320x320

Reply Score: 3

video card upgrade
by bonjour on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 03:50 UTC
bonjour
Member since:
2005-07-12

here's what i want to know and i wonder why it hasn't been discussed by anyone thus far: are the video cards upgradeable for the new x86 based macs?

and the reason why that can't be answered at the moment is because none of the x86 macs have had upgradeable options: imac, mac mini, mac book, mac book pro.

when the new mac pro comes out, it'll be interesting to see if i could buy a powercolor ati 1900 XT from newegg and swap that sucker in for whatever crap apple's putting in it (probably an ati x800 still lmfao). and it would be interesting to see if mac goes to the SLI architecture where you bundle in two super video cards to drive a 40+ cinema display.

i'm just not sure what the mac x86 bios or firmware will do, we already know it doesn't boot windows unless you use bootcamp. i still think it's in apple's best interests to keep the number of hardware upgrades down, therefore being able to fully test a smaller percentage of devices and keeping the quality relatively high.

that's the difference between apple and microsoft, hardware support. and that's apple's strength and weakness at the same time.

i've been thinking of buying my 8th mac, but i'm still waiting for the hardware to solidify and the prices are driving me nuts, this is what i want but can't buy at the moment for a decent price:

- dual, dual-core 2 conroe with 64 bit EMT
- dual PCI-Express 16x slots
- 4 GB of dual channel ddr2 memory
- SATA 3.0 GBps raid capable channels
- water cooled tower

under $1500



and then again i think the answer is simple, macs cost too much and enterprises are still more comfortable supporting windows for their end users, how many fortune 500 companies standardize on mac computers? I know that both the ones i worked for standardized on windows and intel. it would be interesting to see the home market/consumer share, that's what everyone really cares about anyway i would imagine.

Reply Score: 2

RE: video card upgrade
by godawful on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 21:14 UTC in reply to "video card upgrade"
godawful Member since:
2005-06-29

if wishes were horses, youd have a herd

considering 4GB of ddr2 ram is $600, and the processors individually for the cheapest core 2 is around $180 (thats each, $500 for the 2.93ghz).. well, i think you have better chance of getting a pony for xmas


edit: typo

Edited 2006-06-02 21:14

Reply Score: 1

Windows Compatibility
by Dano on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 08:58 UTC
Dano
Member since:
2006-01-22

>>By MS' own admission a lot of those extra lines are backwards compatibility. Backwards compatibility means testing for conditions where you need to go into compatibility mode. Testing for conditions and modifying things for compatibility means more instructions.

Compatibility in Windows up to XP has been superb, and much more linear than in any Apple OS. This is a major strenth of Windows, and something that is basically taken for granted at this point by most IT guys. It seems to me that Apple fans are greatly underestimating the background/skills/experience/familiarity that most IT managers have. With the majority of IT guys that manage a typical organization their experience comes in knowing Windows based platform services or even Unix services vrs. services available in OS X. Apple will not become mainstream until either (1) OS X becomes more understood by IT depts. or (2) OS X provides something like "Windows Services for OS X", and I am not talking about compatibility layers for a network. I am thinking more COM and .NET, and programs like Microsoft Access used by many IT guys...

The argument that software like Office is better for the MAC is just not true in my eyes. It makes no sense that Office for Windows would be weaker than Office for MAC, considering the difference in the number of users using each program. The Office suite for Windows is quite solid, integrated and robust. The development environments for Windows are pretty unmatched also, I am thinking of Visual Studio.NET, which are all helpful to the average IT guy. How is an IT guy going to justify putting OS X in the server room when there are so many stronger options available to him with features that he is familiar with and better performance overall (Windows Server and Linux/Unix)?

>>The problem with the Apple range is, at the low end they have traded performance for form factor. If you want low end performance you are out of luck. Its great if you want or need a coat pocket machine: who does? In the mid range you have nothing but all-in-ones. Why should you buy a new screen if you already have a perfectly good one that you like? At the high end you have noise, heat and overpricing.

I totally agree, the line is quite "designer". Apple needs a low end Mac pro in the line (that is upgradeable) positioned around the Mac Mini space. Something down and dirty for the masses...but this is not Apple's speed.

>>You just cannot in good conscience recommend this stuff to anyone.

Not sure about ANYONE, but I would not recommend Apple for the down and dirty user either.

Lastly, I am not really sure why the argument that OS X is much better than XP. Windows is still much more familiar and usuable to the average person in my opinion. I mean moving the mouse to the top of the screen everytime you want to pull a menu down takes a lot more mouse movement (and phyical effort) then just accessing the menu from a particular Window. Who the hell wants to use the keyboard as a "shortcut"? It's not like Windows does not have keyboard shortcuts also, even if you do like this lame feature.

I seriously looked at buying a MAC recently just to check out all of the OS X hype, but just using it in the store showed that this is not the platform for me. Limited in native application support and you have to run the large base of PPC programs on X86 with a pokey emulation layer...limited hardware upgradability...Not for me. Even the Amiga fans did not have all of these problems!

What is with these Apple TV commercials telling people that a new digital camera is going to be more compatible on MAC than on Windows? What a joke!

Using iPOD to sell more MACs? It's not like iTunes does not run well on a PC...and the mighty iPOD will not be on top forever.

I'll stick with the tried and true PC.

Dano

Edited 2006-06-02 09:16

Reply Score: 2

I'll stick with the tried and true PC
by Umbra on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 09:53 UTC
Umbra
Member since:
2006-03-06

"I'll stick with the tried and true PC. "

And Dos ? (the true PC) ctl+alt+del ?


You are probably running on more apples than you realise

Reply Score: 1

I'll stick with the tried and true PC
by Dano on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 10:08 UTC
Dano
Member since:
2006-01-22

>>"I'll stick with the tried and true PC. "
And Dos ? (the true PC) ctl+alt+del ?
You are probably running on more apples than you realise

Uh, WHAT?

Reply Score: 1

Emotion, not analysis
by elsewhere on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 14:03 UTC
elsewhere
Member since:
2005-07-13

Bah. Macs are targeted for the most part at consumers and a certain niche of professional users. These markets often value subjective factors in making purchasing decisions (OS X is cool, Mac minis are cool, Powerbooks are cool). Apple knows this and markets accordingly. The number of people in forums like this that pipe up and say "but Mac includes OS X so it's worth it!" are concrete evidence of this.

Apple is not kidding themselves into thinking they can be a serious dominant PC contender, they simply can't be without enterprise traction. Enterprises use objective factors when making purchasing decisions (OS X requires re-training, Mac minis are more expensive than volume discounted corporate boxes, Apple requires a whole seperate vendor support contract process). Any Apple presence in enterprise is a statistical anomaly and probably indicative of a loyal Mac owner sitting somewhere high up in the IT department combined with an unwitting CFO. The TCO and ROI measurements standard companies use would not favor Apple, or at least would likely place it behind even linux as an alternative to Windows.

But you cannot apply objective reasoning to disparge Apple gear, not in the market they're playing in. You cannot compare Dell or HP business models to Apple's business model. You cannot truly measure intrisic assets like brand value or the impact of customer loyalty.

Surf around to a home entertainment forum, and you'll often find people criticizing Sony gear for being overpriced, offering less value or a lower feature count than competitive offerings, using lockin techniques on their customers, offering poor service etc. etc. And yet they are still one of the leading brands in consumer electronics. Emotional, subjective reasoning will win out over rational, objective reasoning every time in the consumer area. Many people perceive Sony to be a high-end offering, and will insist on purchasing it come hell or high water no matter what you say to counter it.

So it is with Apple.

Apple's not going to disappear any time soon. I doubt their marketshare will grow more than incrementally, but there's nothing wrong with that as long as they remain innovative and profitable. The threat Apple faces is from Microsoft and not competitive manufacturers, and it has nothing to do with desktop platforms per se. It's about ownership of the consumer digital experience, PC's are simply one piece of that equation.

And once and for all, Apple will not license OS X for whiteboxes. It would defy logic, it would undermine the brand value they have spent years building, and it would torpedo their existing business model for questionable gain at best. The switch to Intel may have shocked, but it was based on solid business reasons once you cut to the core of it.

Third-party companies will continue to support OS X even with a dismal marketshare, because Apple customers by their nature are willing to part with hard-earned dollars in the presence of competitive offerings to support their platform of choice, they simply represent a viable and desireable demographic. The same cannot be said of alternatives like desktop linux, which has yet to prove itself viable in the market.

There would be absolutely no business logic in opening OS X. None at all.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Emotion, not analysis
by netpython on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 15:19 UTC in reply to "Emotion, not analysis"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple is not kidding themselves into thinking they can be a serious dominant PC contender, they simply can't be without enterprise traction.

Well you can't say Linux (server,desktop,embedded,..) doesn't have enterprise traction ;)

which has yet to prove itself viable in the market.

You mean in the server rooms?:P

There would be absolutely no business logic in opening OS X. None at all.

Agreed,absolute no logic.The OS is trimmed on a limited set of hardware.I wonder how well "Everything just works" still holds on white boxen though.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Emotion, not analysis
by mungas on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 15:41 UTC in reply to "Emotion, not analysis"
mungas Member since:
2006-05-08

I think that the reason "nerds" have so strong emotions against Apple, is that it shatters their world view. A product aiming to be beautiful can't possibly have any other good qualities.
I believe the problem has to do with the typical nerds self image, rather than the Mac hardware. Good looking popular people are stupid. Different looking misfits are smart.
These people react stronger every time Apple moves closer to the mainstream computer market.
I think the geek feel threatened by Apples success, and therefor get into defensive position. This is the reason for the subjective comments about Apple hardware.

A few examples:

- Apple uses PPC chips which are expensive, slow and hot. (We now know they weren't)

- Apple said the Pentium was slow, but now when they use Intel, it's suddenly fast. (Yes it is true, the Netburst chips were/are crap.)

- Apple computers are overpriced. (Compare the hardware. Take a look at the MacBook. And yes, Core Duo is more expensive than a Sempron or Celeron)

- Apple computers use integrated graphics, that sucks. (There is a reason for Intel being the worlds largest supplier of GPUs. No it's not Apples market share)

- Everything is great with Macs, except they miss the right mouse button. (This is a classic, but as everybody knows, pure bs.)

So all this is "objective reasoning"?

I have never heard of people getting upset over "expensive" Lenovo, Toshiba, Dell or Acer hardware. Do you read the reports about Gateway market shares? What is it with your fascination with Apple?
And for all these Linux comments. Please, the majority of the computer buying population haven't even heard the term distro.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Emotion, not analysis
by MysterMask on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 17:33 UTC in reply to "Emotion, not analysis"
MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

The TCO and ROI measurements standard companies use would not favor Apple, or at least would likely place it behind even linux as an alternative to Windows.

Any sources for that? AFAIR I saw studies stating quite the opposit. From personal experience in a small company with about 200 Macs and 220 PCs: the 200 Macs were supported by one person, the PCs needed 3+ ..

Any Apple presence in enterprise is a statistical anomaly

ACK

and probably indicative of a loyal Mac owner sitting somewhere high up in the IT department combined with an unwitting CFO.

.. or probably indicative of an IT management afraid of doing something wrong when not choosing the same solution as anybody else (the "Nobody got fired for choosing Windows" effect) or an IT staff which is helpless when it is confronted with anything else then Windows

(Hell - I once had to install XWindows on OpenServer because the Windows admin was to scared to use a shell and the poor lad from the IT support - when confronted with a Mac problem for the first time - used Windows tactics to tackle a simple problem: uninstall - install - reboot *urgh*)

Reply Score: 1

Compatibility
by brecht on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 15:43 UTC
brecht
Member since:
2006-06-02

So, much of the discussion is about price, quality, peformance, emotions, ... Those are all factors of course, but the main reason why I'm not recommending my non-techie family and friends to use mac is compatibility. It's not exactly a hot topic anymore, because if you know what you're doing it's a non-issue for the most part.

First there's apps that only work on windows: web banking, educational software, administrative software from work, games, .. . It's not that many apps, but some you just have to run (e.g. for work, school). A solution is dual-boot or virtual pc, but that's just too complicated for most, handling one OS is more than enough effort.

Another problem is, if something goes wrong, or if they can't get something configured, who's going to fix it? Their friends aren't using a mac. The person responsible for it IT in their company, doesn't know how to use it or refuses to. And if I recommended them to use a mac, I would be sort of obligated to go and fix it.

The simplest way for most is just to run windows, not because it's better, but because if they need to run a certain app, or need to get something fixed or configured, they know it's possible, and if they can't get it to work themselfs, they can get support for it from their friends, work, etc.

Edited 2006-06-02 15:48

Reply Score: 2

Almost everyone misses the point....
by ricks1950 on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 16:13 UTC
ricks1950
Member since:
2006-03-21

Apple could be a case study for a marketing course.

The concept is differentiation. If everyone in the marketplace is selling blue ones, and you are the only one capable of selling red ones, you can charge what you want, and a small but meaningful percentage of the market will buy from you just to get the red ones! You will never dominate the market, but you will make money.

If you want to make more money selling blue ones, find a way to make and distribute them cheaper than the competition while maintaining quality, and undercut their prices. They either match your price with poor quality, or match your quality at a higher price, or go out of business trying.

Apple had based their reputation, and made their money, on having a product that is demonstrably different from mainstream PC's. Some believe they are better; objectively, this is hard to prove one way or the other, and they do tend to get more margin than other computer manufacturers. Yes, you pay more to get a Mac with the same power as a PC.

Dell has made their reputation and money by streamlining the design, assembly, sales, distribution and support, and delivering consistant product at good price points, and selling many, many units.

Q: What's the best computer or OS? A: The one that is right for you, that you are content to spend your money on.

Reply Score: 5

Right on!
by shadow_x99 on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 18:10 UTC in reply to "Almost everyone misses the point...."
shadow_x99 Member since:
2006-05-12

Exactly. The best machine/os/software combination is the one that is right for you. I for one will probably buy an iMac because it's silent and reasonably powerful enough to play World of Warcraft!

Reply Score: 1

Tough Competition
by the__dude on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 16:17 UTC
the__dude
Member since:
2006-02-27

Its pretty hard for an Apple to complete with a $350 Dell that includes everything you need.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Tough Competition
by JaredWhite on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 16:44 UTC in reply to "Tough Competition"
JaredWhite Member since:
2005-07-06

"Its pretty hard for an Apple to complete with a $350 Dell that includes everything you need."

And thus the fundimental difference between Mac users and PC users is revealed. A PC user thinks a $350 Dell includes everything you need. A Mac user thinks a $3500 Dell doesn't include half of what you need because it's not a Mac. No design, no innovation, no beauty, no art.

And that, my friends, is why Apple will continue to prosper even while its overall marketshare remains small. Because the computer world is divided into two classes of people: those who see computers as artistic expressions and those who see computers as bland tools.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Tough Competition
by vitae on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 18:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Tough Competition"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

Because the computer world is divided into two classes of people: those who see computers as artistic expressions and those who see computers as bland tools.

That's a bit of an exaggeration since you're only applying the former to Apple users. Fact is there are plenty of PC cases even snazzier than anything Apple has come up with, notably stuff by Alienware. Granted if a person doesn't like their style that's one thing, but for Mac users to always be bragging about how they have the best looking cases is a bit silly. Which is better looking, a classic Mustang or a classic Corvette? Blondes or brunettes? It's all a matter of taste, is it not?

And unfortunately for Apple and Alienware, computers are just another form of appliance to most people. If they want artistic expression, they can go out and buy some artwork.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Tough Competition
by r_a_trip on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 20:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Tough Competition"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

And that, my friends, is why Apple will continue to prosper even while its overall marketshare remains small. Because the computer world is divided into two classes of people: those who see computers as artistic expressions and those who see computers as bland tools.

Guess which kind of user is the dominant one. Which kind of user generates the advantage of scale so great that it became to much of a temptation for Apple, plonking "beigebox innards" into a designer casing.

It also explains the general animosity towards Apple users. Nobody normal likes classes of people who claim to be better than the rest, just because they bought an overpriced piece of niche hardware.

The only thing different about Apple is that its customers seem to think they really buy more than is actually in the box.

Material possessions cannot make up for a lack of genuine personality.

Now mod me down.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Tough Competition
by JaredWhite on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 02:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Tough Competition"
JaredWhite Member since:
2005-07-06

"The only thing different about Apple is that its customers seem to think they really buy more than is actually in the box."

That's funny, I always buy a Mac and guess what's in the box? A Mac. So what exactly is it missing? Windows? 'Nuff said. ;) (And now, with the Mactels, you can even get that if you really have to!)

See, I used to be a PC user. I used to build my own boxes. I used to do the Windows thing. Then I tried out BeOS and found out about a world outside of Microsoft -- faster, better designed, more elegant. When that went nowhere, Mac OS X was just over the horizon. I bought my first PowerBook G4 500MHz in 2001. Since then I've purchsed seven additional computers for myself or family members. Every single time, I've gotten exactly what I paid for: a better designed and more elegant machine. (As for faster, it took a while for OS X to get Teh Snappy(tm) but Tiger just flies.)

From the case to the firmware to the peripherals to the OS to Apple's software line to the third-party apps, the Mac platform just simply outclasses the PC platform in my opinion. Apparently tens of millions of other people agree, and as long as that's the case, Apple will thrive.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Tough Competition
by Quoth_the_Raven on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 21:10 UTC in reply to "Tough Competition"
Quoth_the_Raven Member since:
2005-11-15

It doesn't have OS X, and I need that. It doesn't have Final Cut Pro. I need that, too.

Reply Score: 1

Build in MS windows emulator
by linux_yogi on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 17:35 UTC
linux_yogi
Member since:
2006-03-21

i think apple should have a build in windows emulator to emulate all windos application. they have a pretty good chance to get some market share

Reply Score: 1

Static Statistics
by xPy-2 on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 23:39 UTC
xPy-2
Member since:
2006-03-23

Geez...hasn't anyone realized that none of this is really news?! Stats can be misconstrued and taken out of context to infer whatever people want; people can choose to be misled or find out the rest of the story. Nevermind that Apple is working to increase North American market share and gaining some traction in a sluggish market. Meanwhile, the world is opening up developing nations where budget computers are preferred. Remember all those $100 PCs that manufactures are buzzing about? While everyone beams over theire $350 Dell, consider why Dell missed it's profit mark...but in the end who cares?! It's a damn computer!! And a Damn computer company just wanting to make more money!! Why does the computer industry have one ring to rule them all!! Why obsess over what I use at home and work...most of the world doesn't use my computer so why care? Maybe it's something more insidious about trying to make others feal inferior...have fun...I'm not playing that.

Get a life!!

x-2
Angry Indian

Reply Score: 1

does apple care?
by siraf72 on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 08:01 UTC
siraf72
Member since:
2006-02-22

Probably not. They have a good product pipleline, healthy margins, and thier sales increase year on year. Apple is perfectly safe in the niche zone.

Reply Score: 1