Apple's Steve Jobs has announced several new products today during his keynote at MacWorld (photos). After the usual chit-chat about the success of the retail stores and iTunes, Jobs got to the meat of the matter. He announced an FM-tuner with remote-control for the Nano/Video iPod. Read more for the really interesting stuff!
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-03
Disagree.
They are differentiated by enhanced function: 1) much higher security 2) Much higher reliability 2) Much lower support costs 4) Better applications (eg Final Cut Pro, etc. I also think Firefox is better on the Mac ( I use FF for XP and OSX daily 5) People tell me the programming tools are much better on teh Mac (Cocoa/OPENSTEP).
Member since:2005-07-06
1) much higher security
Is not a functionality of OS X, but just a consequence of low market share. In terms of OS-level security functions, OS X and Windows are pretty much equal (support for encryption, file premissions, protected memory).
2) Much higher reliability
In how far?
Member since:2005-07-06
And that is the fundamental stupid part of your hypothesis - the whole IDEA of charging a premium is for the design AND for the integration between the operating system and hardware - THAT and THAT ALONE gives MacOS X the edge over Windows.
Whilst Microsoft is trying to juggle supporting every reinteration of an x86 PC, Apple on the other hand know EXACTLY what is in a Mac, they know that it won't change, therefore, they can extensively test knowing that there will be a consistant outcome.
If anything, the benefit to Apple, in the end will be the benefit of economies of scale which Intel has, in regards to processor supply - the ability to supply IN VOLUME and ON TIME, the latest and greatest chips, and it also gives Apple more resources to now spend on their operating system and hardware design rather than worrying about mundane things like chipset design, which quite frankly, is not a customer attention grabbing product differentiator anyway.
Member since:2005-10-12
"the whole IDEA of charging a premium is for the design AND for the integration between the operating system and hardware - THAT and THAT ALONE gives MacOS X the edge over Windows"
Maybe. People keep saying this. Though its not at all clear that "integration" means anything here. Yes, there are drivers in both OS X and XP and Linux. But it is not clear that an nVidia card is "more integrated" with a Mac than with a Dell, or with Mandriva, or even what that would mean. They work or they don't. I am for instance now working at a Dell running Debian, with a Radeon graphics card, a Seagate drive, some Crucial memory, and an Intel processor. I think the optical is by Toshiba. Right next to me is an iMac running the usual stuff, very similar in fact. I'm not aware of any special relationship either has to its hardware that is different from what the other has.
However, that is not the argument. The argument was not about running OS X on different hardware.
The argument was that the real opportunity they now have is to sell the hardware with a different OS, and the prediction was, that within a year, they will end up doing it.
Member since:
2005-10-12
Their fundamental problem has not changed - they are a high cost producer, differentiated (in Porter's sense) solely by branding and packaging. But they have gained one great advantage from the Intel move: they can now run Windows on their hardware in native mode.
Everyone worries about whether they will unbundle the OS, but the opportunity is to unbundle the hardware.
Here is a prediction. Within one year we will see Macs shipping with Windows pre-installed, into the designer label PC maarket segment.
They will sell, and sell well.