Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Oct 2006 12:39 UTC, submitted by wackymacs
Apple Apple was at an all-time low in 1996, in a severe financial crisis that worried Mac users around the world. Apple's shareholders and customers were losing faith, and competitors were closing in fast. The worldwide press badmouthed Apple in 1995 and 1996. Ten years on, Apple is a different company.
Thread beginning with comment 168328
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
No, they aren't
by Simba on Wed 4th Oct 2006 17:43 UTC
Simba
Member since:
2005-10-08

No, Apple is not a different company. They are still the same "everything must be proprietary, we are going to go out of our way to make sure our OS only works on our hardware, hip design is more important than function, and the fewer choices our customers have the better off they are" company they have always been. And their overall marketshare is lower today than it has been at any point in their history, despite what their marketing people try to claim. Even Linux has more desktop marketshare than Mac does these days.

The only thing that is keeping Apple alive now is iPod and iTunes. The Mac will eventually simply die thanks to Apple's stubbornness and refusal to allow their customers more freedom to choose. I only hope that OS X doesn't die with it, and that Apple will eventually wise up and support hardware other than their own with OS X.

Edited 2006-10-04 17:44

Reply Score: 1

RE: No, they aren't
by alcibiades on Wed 4th Oct 2006 18:05 in reply to "No, they aren't"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Its a legitimate point of view, and there is nothing in it which deserves modding down.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: No, they aren't
by tpaws on Wed 4th Oct 2006 19:27 in reply to "No, they aren't"
tpaws Member since:
2006-06-02

I see and hear comments like your all the time, andI am amazed at how incredibly wrong you and so many others are. Apple must be in one the longest death throes of all time. Fact is market share and installed base are climbing.

I have never seen a problem with Apple and choice. I suppose choice is a problem with so many folks who are fed up with Windows and want OS X on a $300.00 eMachine. It wasn't that long ago that the big PC makers were just as proprietary as Apple.

Choice of software? We never lack choices to do the job, but I guess if there are only 4 or 5 Mac apps compared to 10 or 12 Windows titles, this must mean a lack of choice(?) Of course Mac selection is really lacking in the Anti-Malware arena. Makes me feel left out.

I switched form "PC's" many years ago. I have always been able to upgrade compononts and processors, often getting more performance than contemporary PC's.

Everytime I have bought new computers I have seriously looked at PC's for alternatives, and I have never been able to find that properly equipped PC's were any cheaper. Often they are more expensive, and the current crop shows me that Mac Pro and MacBook Pros are incredible bargains.

Why do I even entertain the possibility of swithching to "PC's"? I am surrounded by them. I am constantly fixing, rebuilding, and building them for clients. I am frequently tutoring "PC" users. In many ways it might be easier to join the masses, but when it comes right down to it, I can't afford it. In almost all cases I have concurrent Mac and Windows versions of the software I need, so that is not a cost factor. Time is a major cost factor, and when that is applied to the equation, my Mac's are far more inexpensive.

I must admit, that the more I work with Ubuntu I find as an OS is is getting close to suiting many of my needs.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: No, they aren't
by Simba on Wed 4th Oct 2006 20:53 in reply to "RE: No, they aren't"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"Fact is market share and installed base are climbing."

Please find me even one report that shows Mac is gaining marketshare that has not been throughly debunked and refuted.

I've seen all kinds of voodoo statistics used here to try to show that Apple was gaining marketshare. Like taking one month of the whole year where Apple did gain some marketshare. Only problem is, the rest of the year they lost marketshare, and so overall they had a net loss in marketshare. So the bottom line is that they are losing marketshare. Thre is no amount of fuzzy math and voodoo statistics that can cover up that simple fact that when the numbers are put together, Apple's marketshare is constantly declining.

Is installed base growing? Sure. But the installed base of Linux and Windows is growing much faster. So a growing installed base does not translate into gaining marketshare. Your installed base can grow, and you can still lose marketshare. And that is exactly what is happening to Apple.

"Choice of software? We never lack choices to do the job, but I guess if there are only 4 or 5 Mac apps compared to 10 or 12 Windows titles,"

Unless you are talking about games of course. The Mac game market is virtually dead.

And also, keep in mind that both Microsoft and Adobe have threatened to drop Mac support because the marketshare has dwindled so much. If Adobe ever drops Mac support, The Mac is dead. It's that simple really. The amount of choices you have today will not continue into the future of Apple continues to lose more and more marketshare. It simply won't be profitable for software vendors to support the platform anymore.

Edited 2006-10-04 20:55

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: No, they aren't
by someone on Thu 5th Oct 2006 07:53 in reply to "RE: No, they aren't"
someone Member since:
2006-01-12

Unless you are talking about games of course. The Mac game market is virtually dead.

The mac game market has always been dead. At this point, I highly doubt any general purpose computer can compete with the today and tomorrow's gaming consoles.

And also, keep in mind that both Microsoft and Adobe have threatened to drop Mac support because the marketshare has dwindled so much. If Adobe ever drops Mac support, The Mac is dead.

Sources? Did you just make it up?

Mac sales is still a significant source of revenue for Adobe. You don't want to lose 22% of your *total* revenue. For more info, see this interview: http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/04/22.12.shtml

As for MS, they are still committed. Office 2007 Mac will arrive 6-8 months after Office 2007 Win, as usual.

Edited 2006-10-05 08:05

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: No, they aren't
by tryphcycle on Wed 4th Oct 2006 23:06 in reply to "No, they aren't"
tryphcycle Member since:
2006-02-16

i'll tell you what... you prove me wrong! 2 years ago, the mac had approx 2% market share... and now... the mac has OVER 4%... (and is approching the magic 5% mark) please... debunk what i just said!!!!!

Itunes and the iPod are great products and are getting people to notice that there is an alternative platform out there! but the fact of the matter is.... apple will not be going out of business any time soon! so all you apple hatters.. can continue trowing your tantrums! please contunie whineing about how windows and linux are better, or how you "want choice" and that "powerusers dont use mac" or mac are to expensive.........what ever!

OSX kiks ass... the new mac hardward kiks ass.... and if the mac does not have something i need, like autoCAD.... then i will just run it on in windows! and if i want to play video games... then i play them on my playstation..... and if i need a cheap fast server, i will build a linux box.... hows that for choice!

you guys can talk about lock in all you want... but lock in is a state of mind! (yours... not mine!)

are yoiu whinners done yet!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: No, they aren't
by bornagainenguin on Thu 5th Oct 2006 04:31 in reply to "No, they aren't"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

My Hackintosh begs to differ.

Check the wiki and see for yourself: http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

That said, I firmly intend to pick up one of those nice MacBook Pros as soon as I can grab enough cash together. Using OSX86 has been the best advertisement there could be for me to really begin trying to switch, and the best part of it all in my book is that I can give all my future apps a test drive and learn them before making the final leap. By the time I actually switch over I'll be familiar with the system and able to jump right into doing whatever it is I want to do.

--bornagainpenguin

Edited 2006-10-05 04:37

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: No, they aren't
by someone on Thu 5th Oct 2006 07:33 in reply to "No, they aren't"
someone Member since:
2006-01-12

While I agree that Apple places more focus on the design, I wouldn't say they are all about design. I don't think it's fair to place features like Magsafe, magnetic latch, ambient sleeping light, quietness etc. into the design category.

Even the designs themselves have a functional component to them. Both the mini and the iMac's designs occupies less desk space. Having the computer on your desk make it easier to plug in external peripherals (no need for front ports).

As for choices, Apple is offering unique choices to consumers. It's probably one of the only computer manufacturers that's offering fully integrated solutions. The smooth user experience offered by OS X has a lot to do with its deep hardware integration and to make this possible, Apple must write most of the drivers on its own. Considering Apple's manpower, I highly doubt this kind of user experience will be maintained should Apple decide to support Mac clones.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: No, they aren't
by alcibiades on Thu 5th Oct 2006 10:18 in reply to "RE: No, they aren't"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

"The smooth user experience offered by OS X has a lot to do with its deep hardware integration and to make this possible, Apple must write most of the drivers on its own."

I keep wishing someone would explain what exactly is meant by expressions like 'deep hardware integration'. From the rest of the post, what seems to be meant is that you get it by having the OS developer write the drivers.

Does it make any difference if its the OS developer or the hardware developer that writes them, as long as they work. Take some concrete example and show us. For instance, the Radeon 9200 or 9250 graphics that were used on the PPC Mac Minis. Tell us exactly how these worked in a more integrated way on OSX than they do on Linux or Windows. Or the drivers for the hard drives that are in Macs: how are these more integrated?

Its a nonsense.

Did Apple even write the drivers, by the way?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: No, they aren't
by Kancept on Thu 5th Oct 2006 14:28 in reply to "RE: No, they aren't"
Kancept Member since:
2006-01-09

Even the designs themselves have a functional component to them. Both the mini and the iMac's designs occupies less desk space. Having the computer on your desk make it easier to plug in external peripherals (no need for front ports).

Both my main PCs are "all-in-ones". I have an Acer Veriton FP2 (BeOS/XP) and an IBM NetVista X41 (Fedora/eComStation). They have expansions slots as well.

The FP2 has an AGP slot and a half-height PCI, and I really like that it has an extra 2 USB in the front along with a headphones and line in. Great for headset. I realise a lot of things are moving to bluetooth for things, but these are still nice, and for it's time, were a welcome addition. It's currently loaded with an Nvidia GF440MX and a Firewire card.

The X41 has 2 half-height PCI slots, and the thing is tool-less for accessing gear. It also uses full size (desktop sized, not laptop) HD and CD drives. I currently have a Firewire card and a Hauupaugh PVR150 in it. Nice that it's all contained.

I do wish the iMac had more internal expandability options. Sure, I can always get external addons and plug em in, but that detracts from the clean look IMHO. Cards will be attached and almost defeats the purpose. Could get a tower and be just as messy. One option I do plan on getting is an ElGato USB TV thingy. It has a very short cord and will be dangling off the desk.

Before I got into Macs, I was really considering the Gateway Profile series for my next all in ones. They now have an AGP slot along with some other niceties. And they have big screens. Since the Macs now run Windows, it's kind of a moot point for me.

Reply Parent Score: 1