Recent news tells us Apple is still struggling to gain market share in the personal computer market. That's too bad. While I have some beefy grieves with Apple (being that I am an IT "expert" and all that), their systems nonetheless beat the proverbial tars out of the typical Windows PC crowd.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-07
Fans: 1
Member since:
2005-10-06
Fans: 0
>>If the Apple's Mac systems are so good, why in the world isn't Apple's market share going gang-go bang-go busters?
Jesus, is this one of Thom's friends? If you guys would like, I'd be happy to become an editor and correct the glaring grammatical/spelling/other issues the site seems to be so rife with.
I await your response and a paycheck.
Member since:2005-06-29
Fans: 20
Jesus, is this one of Thom's friends? If you guys would like, I'd be happy to become an editor and correct the glaring grammatical/spelling/other issues the site seems to be so rife with.
We are an international website with an international readership. Errors in grammar and spelling are to be expected. Next time, it would be more posh to simply send us an email about the error. Other than that, no, there's no paycheck. OSNews is voluntary work.
Thank you.
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 0
Member since:
2005-06-29
Fans: 2
In the first part of your article you state that the reason people don't switch to Apple is for the price and Linux for the learning curve. People want cheap and easy, you say. But towards the end of the article you contradict yourself:
Imagine this. An itty-bitty Mac with a 1GHz single core, 256MB, NO HARD DRIVE and NO DISC DRIVE --instead 4 front accessible USB slots via which the user can add flash memory. Add 2 USB ports to the back, a GB ethernet port, an eSATA port for external hard drives, maybe a firewire port, and an HDMI and you have a super slim, sexy and inexpensive system.
That sounds a bit complicated for anyone, let alone my parents and other non-techies I know. Do you really expect someone who returns a computer because the printer won't install and who fears a change from a standard Windows-based PC to really be able to decipher USB flash memory, eSATA, Firewire (which Apple no longer pushes BTW) and HDMI?
I've owned a Mac Mini (G4) and I loved the simplicity and elegance of both the hardware and the OS. It was a bit slow, even with 512MB RAM, but it worked very well for anything other than the latest 3D game titles. It was as close as any major manufacturer has come to making a PC as simple to set up and use as a video game console.
Instead, you propose a system with no internal storage, and no optical media reader. You even suggest that the consumer supply their own Flash RAM and OS. After all, with no hard drive to store the OS and no optical drive to install one if there was, the user is left to her own devices. How is it again that Mom and Dad are supposed to go about this alone? What you propose is utter nonsense, something that is much more complicated than even the horrible systems offered by Dell and HP.
Member since:
2005-10-12
Fans: 5
>>If the Apple's Mac systems are so good, why in the world isn't Apple's market share going gang-go bang-go busters?
Never mind his grammar. This is the question to ask. It has been the question to ask for around 20 years. Circumstances have come and gone, but this has remained the key question.
Part of the answer is, they are not so good. Just because I like something, does not mean its good, and the appearance and look and feel are a very limited part of the full product feature set. So I like it, is not a reply to this. Fitness for the market is the 'goodness' test, and Apple has failed it and still is failing it.
Part of the answer is something that is really a product feature, though its not to do with look, feel or what I take home: its the closed business model: the insistence on only selling the OS on your own brand of hardware.
But in the end why be surprised? Its to do with boutiques and mainstream stores. No-one is surprised that Vuitton or Prado has small market share. Why be surprised if Apple does too?
Member since:2006-05-04
Fans: 0
That's not an easy question to answer. However, the reality is that a truly good product is not necessarily a good selling product.
One of the reasons is that a lot of people do not wanna pay more for something if they don't see any immediate benefits. A (supposedly) higher quality is not necessarily immediately visible. In addition, some people don't care about the higher quality.
Another reason is what was mentioned in the article. People are afraid of change. They would probably worry about whether they will be able to use all their documents on the new system. They are afraid that the new system won't work very well for them. They took a long time getting used to the current system, and they finally know their way a bit in the system and they are not wanna go through the same thing again and start from scratch on a new system. This also goes for businesses for example. Running your business on another system will incur a high initial switching cost.
Another reason is applications. Think young people. Young people play games. If you're interested in games, clearly, Apple is simply not the best choice. Related are applications which have not been ported to OSX. This is also related to being used to certain Windows applications and not willing to start using another application for the same task.
Another reason is a practical reason. Most of the people someone knows are Windows users. I think that many people just think it's better and more hassle-free to use the same system as the one that the people they know, use. It's better for sharing files. First there's the issue of being able to read documents made on another computer system. I imagine some people worry about this. Second, there's the issue of sharing applications (illegally or not). It's easier to find a friend who has a certain Windows application than to find a friend who has a certain OSX application.
These are all things, which are not immediately saying anything about the quality of a product, about how good the Apple package of hardware+software is. I'm also not saying that every of those arguments is "real". For example, I think there's not really much of a problem sharing common file formats between OSX and Windows. However, I do think that many people think that this can cause problems. All these things make it much harder to gain marketshare on a giant like Microsoft. Going the Microsoft way, is following mainstream. Most people are familiar with Windows. In a way, it feels like you can't go wrong with Windows. Even if you think that Windows sucks in certain areas, the thing is you know where Windows sucks and you know how to deal with it. Going the Apple way is taking a bit of a risk. I think that switching to Apple feels to a lot of people like jumping in the unknown. If they don't have friends who introduce them to OSX, then they don't really know what to expect.
In my opinion, all these things together help clarify why Apple's market share isn't going gang-go bang-go busters.
Member since:2005-07-13
Fans: 0
I suspect that another key reason is business sales. Apple hasn't really gone after the enterprise market (I won't go into why that's a good or a bad choice) and my sense is that far more heavily Windows-dominated. So people go to work, they use Windows, they maybe even have Windows-specific instructions for dialing into work. When it comes time to buy a home machine they naturally go with what they've gotten used to and/or what their IT departments will support for remote access.
Member since:2006-02-28
Fans: 0
Member since:
2005-07-06
Fans: 1
How about we stop trying to make Apple and Linux take over the market and just wait. MS is doing a great job of slowly killing their market share. in fact, were it not for the OEM deals, they'd be a lot of trouble right now market share wise. People can't afford Macs, not becuase they lack the money, but mostly becuase, when they see a Mac next to a PC with the same specs, it looks like it cost more. People don't use Linux, because you can't go into a store and buy a computer that comes with Linux. Let's conqueror that barier before we even get to the configuration argument. Time conquerors all and every market leader comes back to the pack, and windows will do the same. Dell isn't selling the same number of PCs, so how long will it be before they say, were can meet our forcasted numbers if we install linux on some of our boxs and reduce our software cost. How long will it be before they say, we can meet our forcasted numbers if we sell some high end Limited edition (1000 availible only) PC's with OS X installed on them at the belessing of Steve Jobs as part of a promotional stunt shortly after the release of Leopard. It may not happen tomorrow, but the day is comming. Think of it as the day after Vista is finally released.
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 6
How long will it be before they say, we can meet our forcasted numbers if we sell some high end Limited edition (1000 availible only) PC's with OS X installed on them at the belessing of Steve Jobs as part of a promotional stunt shortly after the release of Leopard.
Hell yes :-)
oops
Edited 2006-06-26 16:29
Member since:2006-06-06
Fans: 1
But a Mac with the same specs doesn't cost more.
You can buy a PC with the specs that are most important to you while Apple requires that you buy a present list of specs with fewer options fopr customization. However, when compared side by side... the Mac is typically the same... however freequently less.
Member since:2006-01-06
Fans: 7
Member since:
2005-07-06
Fans: 1
Member since:
2005-07-10
Fans: 1
This piece of drivel would probably have been locked on any halfway decent tech forum within seconds as the senseless ramblings of some 15 year old geek.
And here on osnews it gets posted as an article?
Seriously, you have to be kidding me.
I know it's a voluntary website and the editors are probably glad about ever article they get send, but voluntary shouldn't mean idiotic, now should it?
Member since:
2005-07-08
Fans: 0
Imagine this. An itty-bitty Mac with a 1GHz single core, 256MB, NO HARD DRIVE and NO DISC DRIVE --instead 4 front accessible USB slots via which the user can add flash memory. Add 2 USB ports to the back, a GB ethernet port, an eSATA port for external hard drives, maybe a firewire port, and an HDMI and you have a super slim, sexy and inexpensive system. Now you have an Apple computer in the $300 price range. Almost inexpensive enough to give away, but substantial enough for people to know they're getting a good deal for that Dollar. Just the kind of thing that can move open wallets, move machines into customers' hands and hence move Apple's share of pie back into the sky.
Yeah, right. No one in their right minds runs OS X on anything less than a gig. Mac OS X is a memory piglet and it (Tiger) runs like a dog even on my 1ghz TiBook with only 512mb of ram. 256 would be unbearably bad.
I also disagree with your view that Apple is always hitting the "top of the line". They just aren't hitting the top of the line in any of their products. To me, they're just middle-end Dells that look pretty and get really hot when in use.
Ralph: how you got voted up I don't know. This "piece of drivel" as you so unaptly put it just isn't. It's a valid opinion, for any moderator to lock that in almost any forum would be completely stupid. Good mods don't lock something they disagree with, they have a rational discourse about the subject. But rather than going through point by point on the article you just toss personal insults in the guy's general direction and then call the article to be deleted--simply because you disagree with it. If you don't like the way OSNews is run, go away I don't want to see your whiney posts here.
I hope you never become a moderator because you obviously wouldn't know how to do your job.
Member since:2005-06-29
Fans: 5
Member since:2005-07-10
Fans: 1
This "piece of drivel" as you so unaptly put it just isn't. It's a valid opinion
I never doubted it's an opinion, however, the problem is, it's not only a terribly argued oppinion, it doesn't provide any argument at all. Instead, it's simply based on OMG Apple is so great!
But rather than going through point by point on the article you just toss personal insults in the guy's general direction and then call the article to be deleted--simply because you disagree with it.
The problem is, as I already mentioned, that the whole article doesn't have a point. There's nothing even remotely resembling an argument.
And I didn't call for the article to be deleted, I simply pointed out that it's a shame that something like this gets posted on a site like osnews as an article.
Member since:2006-02-28
Fans: 0
No point? Hmmm... I can't really see how it would be missed. But I'll block it out if it'll help:
1) Apple's desktop market share is still weak.
2) Yet Macs are great systems, esp. for Mom and Pop.
3) So why aren't more people Buying?
4) Offers answer: The learning curve and value for $.
5) Possible solution: create greater percieved value with "internet-age" flash Mac.
Also like to point out the "silly" compuer idea WOULD be usable out of the box for the basic things most Moms and Pops do: browse the internet, word proc., etc.
Member since:2005-07-10
Fans: 1
No, no point at all.
Let's see: The premise of the whole article is that Apple is great. This in itself of course doesn't mean a lot (what's great supposed to mean in this context?) and it's only based on, let's put it friendly, a very personal oppinion, backed up only by apparently happy parents.
Now based on this wholy uncritical and meaningless assumption, the author asks the question why Apple doesn't gain market share.
The problem with this is of course obvious. As Apple is per default considered great, a whole bunch of possible reasons go out of the windows from the beginning. They can't even be considered, as the basic premise is totally flawed.
As the author has now chosen to ignore any objective reason that might exist, he has to rely on hobby psychology.
We learn with amazement that people are afraid of change. Whether that's the case and whether that's really relevant for the question at hand isn't even discussed. Instead, once again the author simply assumes that's the case and only offers some anecdotal evidence (after all, his parents were also afraid of change in the beginning, or that's how he explains their initial refusal to see the light).
The solution in the mind of the author for this seems to be that Apple put out a product that's so affordable that people will overcome their fear of change, the author so skilfully analyzed before.
So, to sum it up, no, it doesn't provide anything resembling a worthwhile argument. It's just a badly written post by some Apple and Linux fan that really can't be considered an article.
Member since:2006-05-11
Fans: 0
"I also disagree with your view that Apple is always hitting the "top of the line". They just aren't hitting the top of the line in any of their products. To me, they're just middle-end Dells that look pretty and get really hot when in use. "
I dont think so Tim...
You think the G5 is middle end?
I hope your not comparing a Dell to Dual PowerMac G5...
Do yourself a favor and take a look at the resale value of the PowerMac on Ebay....go ahead....then compare the same models to the Dell line the year it was released....
I think the Mac-Mini was a mistake.....
but saying MOST of what Apple produces is middle-end Dell quality is just plain wrong man......
Edited 2006-06-26 23:29
Member since:
2005-09-16
Fans: 0
I question your credibility and credentials as an "IT expert" if you're suggesting that an entry level personal computer (I refrain from using the term "PC" intentionally) be sold without a hard drive.
I am in full agreement that getting the price down is essential, but removing the hard drive simply confuses the consumer who takes it home and finds that it does nothing until they spend more.
IMHO, Apple needs to bundle a 17" LCD display, keyboard and mouse with the current Core Solo Mini and make the total package around $500 US. It'll still be more expensive than an entry-level Dell, but at least it'd be a turn-key Mac package in the same ballpark.
Member since:2006-06-06
Fans: 1
If we assume that an average 17" display costs $200, how can Apple afford to sell their current low end system for $300 less than an equally spec'd PC would cost (in hardware software and OS)?
The Mac mini is already priced equal to or less than PCs of the same spec. Why would you suggest that Apple lose money on the sale?
Member since:2005-09-16
Fans: 0
If we assume that an average 17" display costs $200, how can Apple afford to sell their current low end system for $300 less than an equally spec'd PC would cost (in hardware software and OS)?
The retail cost is $200, wholesale is probably less than $100 for the volume that Apple would be purchasing.
$800 ($300 more than the $500 Mini system I proposed) buys a LOT of PC these days. Keep in mind the expandibility of the Mini compared to the run-of-the-mill Dell PC as well. There has to be some price differential to account for the expansion compromise. Quite simply, the Mini overpriced compared to a Dell at the same price level.
Member since:2006-06-06
Fans: 1
Agreed. $800 does buy a lot of PC these days... but the mac mini is a LOT of PC.
Perhaps you're neglecting the $300 worth of software that Apple bundles with their computers or maybe you're neglecting that to give OS parity to Tiger, one would have to get XP Pro... or maybe you're just doing what so many other PC afficinados do and make comparisons based on hard drive size, ram and processor speed to the exclusion of anything else.
The end result is, when you match a PC with the same specs, the PC is about the same... actually a little bit more if you don't build it yourself.
A PC allows you to get more in the areas that are most important to you which makes it more versatile... That is the PCs strength. Its not price as is most often perceived to be.
Edited 2006-06-26 19:58
Member since:2005-09-16
Fans: 0
Perhaps you're neglecting the $300 worth of software that Apple bundles with their computers or maybe you're neglecting that to give OS parity to Tiger, one would have to get XP Pro... or maybe you're just doing what so many other PC afficinados do and make comparisons based on hard drive size, ram and processor speed to the exclusion of anything else.
When people are shopping for a home PC, the price is usually the deciding factor, not the bundled software, and not the OS. I personally have friends and family who've bought PCs cause the local Best Buy had them on sale. They didn't care about the configuration, only that the price seemed decent.
And please, how many average home users can actually justify the expense of XP Pro? XP Home is more than capable for virtually every non-technical home user out there. Regardless if OS X offers more capability, the average home user isn't going to use it.
Why isn't comparing hard drive space fair? And since we're now on the same MHz plane (Intel vs. Intel), why isn't that a fair comparison either? Whether you agree or not, it's what consumers look at.
Member since:2006-06-06
Fans: 1
You're missing the point. I know that consumers make their decisions based on price, but (again) Apple is not more expensive. Rather, they are just less versatile to buy the things you want. If you want to buy different things or fewer things a PC can be less expensive, but to suggest that Macs are not priced correctly or that PCs offer more for the money is a false/misleading statement.
Regarding this comment, "Regardless if OS X offers more capability, the average home user isn't going to use it."
I beg to differ. Every individual that I recomended a Mac to said, "but I just don't use that stuff", I always respond with, "yes, I know... you didn't have it so how could you?" Anyways, of those that end up buying the Mac, every single one of them started using the features that they said they did not (would not) use.
Regarding this comment, "Why isn't comparing hard drive space fair? And since we're now on the same MHz plane (Intel vs. Intel), why isn't that a fair comparison either?"
It's not that its unfair to make comparisons on those features... Rather, its unfair to make comparisons on ONLY those features to gauge whether or not is giving you more or less for your money. For example, if your PC offers a better "A" "B" and "C" to the exclusion of "D" "E" and "F" then what you're doing is prooving my original point which is that PCs are more versatile. Macs on the other hand are typically better priced.
Regarding your comment, "Whether you agree or not, it's what consumers look at."
Perhaps, but that's not what I was contesting now is it.
Edited 2006-06-26 21:44
Member since:
2005-11-13
Fans: 0
I am still wondering why apple has that "nice company reputation". Having recently been in an iPod service situation with them (and based on reports on the net), i can tell you that they are one of the most cynical companies out there. They are breaking/bending the Norwegian consumer law with their "limited hardware service time", as you as the customer has to prove to them in advance (if more than one year has gone by) that the product has manufacture errors. This is opposite of the 5 (five!) years of return rights you are supposed to have. (sorry for my bad english).
OS X may be good, but with their attitude in towards curstomers, in iTunes (which is also breaking the norwegian law) and iPod situations (battery problems and so on), its really amazing that they get away with it.
Im sure that if it had been Microsoft everyone would be yelling like there was no tomorrow.
Member since:
2006-01-03
Fans: 0
The quarter in question was likely held back by the ONGOING intel transition. They even say this in the Appleinsider article. Apple's share HAD been edging up, albeit slowly. Let's see what happens later this year.
The barrier-to-entry for potential switchers is lower than it has ever been (considering CPU price and Windows parallelization), and Apple is running decent ads (IMHO) now. Many years, they haven't bothered to advertise; I think they wanted ALL their ducks in a row. If people STILL don't switch (in the consumer market) tehy have only themselves to blame.
Member since:2006-01-23
Fans: 0
and Apple is running decent ads (IMHO) now
I think they're awful. They're condescending and misleading. There is one where they poke fun at Windows crashes, which aren't that common anymore, back with win9x/ME it would have been a good point. Another where the Windows guy is confused that the Mac can communicate with a digital camera and he can't?! Show me a digital camera that is supported on the Mac, but not the PC.
I think with their codescending tone in the adds they may drive people away, I know I have. I use Windows, linux, and I've started dabbling in Solaris on an old Sparc station I got... Anyway, I've been considering picking up a Mini just to experiment with OSX, but after watching those ads I just don't want to give Apple any money.
Edited 2006-06-26 18:12
Member since:2006-03-06
Fans: 0
"I think they're awful. They're condescending and misleading."
I have the distinct feeling that the new ad campaign is aimed as much (or more) toward keeping the customers that Apple already has as it is at gaining new converts. Making fun of the very people you want to purchase your products is not, as a general rule, a very good idea.
Member since:2005-09-13
Fans: 2
// Making fun of the very people you want to purchase your products is not, as a general rule, a very good idea.//
So ... you're saying that Apple would rather *NOT* sell a Mac to everybody who uses Windows ... but would rather just keep selling Macs to folks who already use Macs.
Um, I doubt it.
Member since:2006-03-06
Fans: 0
More along the lines of catering to the niche they already possess. Most people aren't going to switch and Apple knows this. Of course they would be more than happy to have everyone switch; I didn't mean to insinuate otherwise. The quasi-negative tone of their newest ad campaign toward Windows users is pretty obvious, however...I was merely stating that making fun of someone isn't generally a good way to get them to buy your products.
Member since:2006-06-27
Fans: 0
<blockquote>I think [the new Apple TV ads are] awful. They're condescending and misleading. There is one where they poke fun at Windows crashes, which aren't that common anymore, back with win9x/ME it would have been a good point.</blockquote>That's quite true. I use Windows, OS X, and Linux regularly, and Windows XP Pro is no less stable for me than the other platforms. However, I do know that a significant number of people (for example, my mother) are still using Windows 98 and Windows ME, and they experience crashes regularly.
<blockquote>Another where the Windows guy is confused that the Mac can communicate with a digital camera and he can't?! Show me a digital camera that is supported on the Mac, but not the PC.</blockquote>I got a digital camera 6 months ago. I plugged it into my Mac and it just worked. I plugged it into a Windows XP computer and I had to install drivers and software. And don't even get me started on the hoops I had to jump through to get it working in Windows 98.
Still, I must admit that Apple's television ads appeal more to stereotypes and myths than to reality. No matter though. I still find them funny, if only because they are so unapolagetically Windows-bashing. It's fun to watch. Whether they are effective is something only Apple's statisticians can say, I suppose.
Member since:2006-01-03
Fans: 0
" I use Windows, OS X, and Linux regularly, and Windows XP Pro is no less stable for me than the other platforms"
Can't speak to official uptimes, but I somewhat concur. XP can go about a week before a system crash; Win2000 rarely made it through a day for me. OSX goes pretty much until you choose to shut down, but I suppose the week or so of uptime you get from XP is good enough for most people.
The bigger problem with Windows stability, though is the apps. Common apps, like browsers and Office software are CLEARLY much less stable on Windows. Perhaps MSFT has muddled up their API's so much even THEY can't follow them reliably.
Member since:
2005-09-30
Fans: 0
Member since:
2005-08-18
Fans: 15
Member since:
2005-07-06
Fans: 0
that gizmo reminds me of something i have been mentaly playing around with. only it runs linux, not osx 
the idea would still be to store the users programs and files on external media (be it flash thumbdrives or external hardrives) and have the basic os live on a internal flash area.
this way, a user could bring his computing enviroment with him so to speak...
Member since:
2005-11-10
Fans: 14
"64K Bytes of Ram, a 1KHz processor, a TV for a monitor, 16 colors and 8 bit sound. ... yet I watched so many people run productive applications on their C64s including a windowing system called GEOS with a capable word processor and spreadsheet."
The C64 had a 1 _Mega_ Hertz processor and not 1 KHz.
Also, I'm writing a very full article on GEOS, the Commodore 64 and the little computer that could for the OSNews Alternative OS contest. I've even managed to contact one of the team who made GEOS.
Member since:2006-02-28
Fans: 0
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 0
"The C64 had a 1 _Mega_ Hertz processor and not 1 KHz.
Also, I'm writing a very full article on GEOS, the Commodore 64 and the little computer that could for the OSNews Alternative OS contest. I've even managed to contact one of the team who made GEOS."
I still have my GeoWorks Ensemble T-Shirt. :-) It was much better than Windows 3.1 but history has shown many times that better often loses out to mediocre.
Member since:
2006-05-08
Fans: 0
"they fell in love with the Mac so quickly that they kept it and have had almost nothing but high praise for it ever since"
I bought a MacMini for my mother, and she loves it too. People often do, if they get the chance to try it.
I think it's hard for people to understand that a coputer can be different from a Windows PC. The majority of computer users have only used computers since Win95, and they just lack the abillity to grasp "OS diversity".
"A computer is a computer". It's mandatory for the kids to learn MS-Office and Windows at school. If they go on to study programming at college, it will be using .NET.
There is never a choice to be made.
"There can be only one" As usual...
Member since:2006-01-03
Fans: 0
I agree with you.To amplify some of your points:
Ever hear: "I live in my applications"
I have-- many times! What they don't tell you as that, on average, in my experience, anyway, Mac applications WORK BETTER. A combination of greater sensitivity to UI consistancy and better API's, I suspect.
" If they go on to study programming at college, it will be using .NET. "
Yea, right! And what about "C"? Java? Are they chopped liver? In fact you CAN'T use .net for web development, since it is MS-specific.
"It's mandatory for the kids to learn MS-Office "
Tell that to Brazil, Germany, Massachusetts.
Member since:2006-05-08
Fans: 0
Member since:
2005-11-12
Fans: 0
Microsoft has made hundreds of thousands of millionares through partnerships. These partners range in size from Dell and HP to small mom-and-pop outfits that assemble computers or sell Windows dependent software. Each of these Windows dependent outfits is a natural shill for Microsoft even with all their warts.
Apple's biggest strength is their biggest weakness. They insist on controlling every aspect of the hardware and software that runs on the Mac. They make superb computers but virtually no other business profits from Apples prosperity.
Imagine how many prosperous computer companies would be out there if a single company made all the hardware, software and accessories for the PC. The answer is very few so Apple has very few natural allies.
Microsoft became wealthy because it provided a service many people needed and at the same time it made many other folks (like Dell) wealthy through supporting it's vision.
Apple has a lot to learn from Microsoft.
Member since:2006-01-03
Fans: 0
Your arguement is flawed. The only people who matter are the CUSTOMERS. They have NOT been served by c**pware from Dell and others. Nor have they been served by IT-dept Windows=bigots, on the take from Dell and MSFT IT-pushers.
The holistic approach is MUCH better for the actual WORKER, as long as costs are comparable, which they are.
Member since:2006-01-06
Fans: 7
Great post, thanks. I've always kind of felt that Apple micro-manages every aspect of its business when it could expand much more rapidly by partnering with other integrators. Still, Apple is able to keep a tight handle on quality control, and that's worth something.
Member since:
2006-03-15
Fans: 1
While Apple might have a better Microsoft OS than Microsoft, when it comes down to it, MacOS really is just a Microsoft OS. It might perform slightly better, it might be a little more secure, the eye candy might be better, it might be a little easier to use, but it is just another proprietary operating system that is trying to lock in their users and take away their rights. Why should people go through the trouble to switch when Microsoft is good enough at doing what Apple wants to do? OTOH, Linux is a completely different paradigm, one of freedom and empowerment, one that will entice governments, public agencies, private enterprises, concerned individuals to go through the trouble and switch. Linux will give people something that Microsoft will never be able to give and maintain their power.
Member since:2006-05-08
Fans: 0