OSNews

Jesus, is this one of Thom's friends? If you guys would like, I'd be happy to become an editor and correct the glaring grammatical/spelling/other issues the site seems to be so rife with.

We are an international website with an international readership. Errors in grammar and spelling are to be expected. Next time, it would be more posh to simply send us an email about the error. Other than that, no, there's no paycheck. OSNews is voluntary work.

Thank you.

Well, why don't you submit an article to OSNews so we can all see just how great your command of the English language is? Maybe a little constructive criticism of your writing style might give you a better appreciation of the process.

That's not an easy question to answer. However, the reality is that a truly good product is not necessarily a good selling product.

One of the reasons is that a lot of people do not wanna pay more for something if they don't see any immediate benefits. A (supposedly) higher quality is not necessarily immediately visible. In addition, some people don't care about the higher quality.

Another reason is what was mentioned in the article. People are afraid of change. They would probably worry about whether they will be able to use all their documents on the new system. They are afraid that the new system won't work very well for them. They took a long time getting used to the current system, and they finally know their way a bit in the system and they are not wanna go through the same thing again and start from scratch on a new system. This also goes for businesses for example. Running your business on another system will incur a high initial switching cost.

Another reason is applications. Think young people. Young people play games. If you're interested in games, clearly, Apple is simply not the best choice. Related are applications which have not been ported to OSX. This is also related to being used to certain Windows applications and not willing to start using another application for the same task.

Another reason is a practical reason. Most of the people someone knows are Windows users. I think that many people just think it's better and more hassle-free to use the same system as the one that the people they know, use. It's better for sharing files. First there's the issue of being able to read documents made on another computer system. I imagine some people worry about this. Second, there's the issue of sharing applications (illegally or not). It's easier to find a friend who has a certain Windows application than to find a friend who has a certain OSX application.

These are all things, which are not immediately saying anything about the quality of a product, about how good the Apple package of hardware+software is. I'm also not saying that every of those arguments is "real". For example, I think there's not really much of a problem sharing common file formats between OSX and Windows. However, I do think that many people think that this can cause problems. All these things make it much harder to gain marketshare on a giant like Microsoft. Going the Microsoft way, is following mainstream. Most people are familiar with Windows. In a way, it feels like you can't go wrong with Windows. Even if you think that Windows sucks in certain areas, the thing is you know where Windows sucks and you know how to deal with it. Going the Apple way is taking a bit of a risk. I think that switching to Apple feels to a lot of people like jumping in the unknown. If they don't have friends who introduce them to OSX, then they don't really know what to expect.

In my opinion, all these things together help clarify why Apple's market share isn't going gang-go bang-go busters.

I suspect that another key reason is business sales. Apple hasn't really gone after the enterprise market (I won't go into why that's a good or a bad choice) and my sense is that far more heavily Windows-dominated. So people go to work, they use Windows, they maybe even have Windows-specific instructions for dialing into work. When it comes time to buy a home machine they naturally go with what they've gotten used to and/or what their IT departments will support for remote access.

Excellent points. Thanks.

How long will it be before they say, we can meet our forcasted numbers if we sell some high end Limited edition (1000 availible only) PC's with OS X installed on them at the belessing of Steve Jobs as part of a promotional stunt shortly after the release of Leopard.

Hell yes :-)

oops

Edited 2006-06-26 16:29

But a Mac with the same specs doesn't cost more.

You can buy a PC with the specs that are most important to you while Apple requires that you buy a present list of specs with fewer options fopr customization. However, when compared side by side... the Mac is typically the same... however freequently less.

Very sensible. It's unrealistic for people to expect immediate results. Apple is making positive, concrete changes to react to market conditions. Let's give them time to work.

That's a good point (about the speed of OS X). If you want to sell a bottom end box like that it's going to have to be Windows or Linux with carefully selected applications to use.

OS X is a nice system, on good hardware.

This "piece of drivel" as you so unaptly put it just isn't. It's a valid opinion

I never doubted it's an opinion, however, the problem is, it's not only a terribly argued oppinion, it doesn't provide any argument at all. Instead, it's simply based on OMG Apple is so great!

But rather than going through point by point on the article you just toss personal insults in the guy's general direction and then call the article to be deleted--simply because you disagree with it.

The problem is, as I already mentioned, that the whole article doesn't have a point. There's nothing even remotely resembling an argument.
And I didn't call for the article to be deleted, I simply pointed out that it's a shame that something like this gets posted on a site like osnews as an article.

No point? Hmmm... I can't really see how it would be missed. But I'll block it out if it'll help:

1) Apple's desktop market share is still weak.
2) Yet Macs are great systems, esp. for Mom and Pop.
3) So why aren't more people Buying?
4) Offers answer: The learning curve and value for $.
5) Possible solution: create greater percieved value with "internet-age" flash Mac.

Also like to point out the "silly" compuer idea WOULD be usable out of the box for the basic things most Moms and Pops do: browse the internet, word proc., etc.

No, no point at all.

Let's see: The premise of the whole article is that Apple is great. This in itself of course doesn't mean a lot (what's great supposed to mean in this context?) and it's only based on, let's put it friendly, a very personal oppinion, backed up only by apparently happy parents.

Now based on this wholy uncritical and meaningless assumption, the author asks the question why Apple doesn't gain market share.

The problem with this is of course obvious. As Apple is per default considered great, a whole bunch of possible reasons go out of the windows from the beginning. They can't even be considered, as the basic premise is totally flawed.

As the author has now chosen to ignore any objective reason that might exist, he has to rely on hobby psychology.

We learn with amazement that people are afraid of change. Whether that's the case and whether that's really relevant for the question at hand isn't even discussed. Instead, once again the author simply assumes that's the case and only offers some anecdotal evidence (after all, his parents were also afraid of change in the beginning, or that's how he explains their initial refusal to see the light).

The solution in the mind of the author for this seems to be that Apple put out a product that's so affordable that people will overcome their fear of change, the author so skilfully analyzed before.

So, to sum it up, no, it doesn't provide anything resembling a worthwhile argument. It's just a badly written post by some Apple and Linux fan that really can't be considered an article.

"I also disagree with your view that Apple is always hitting the "top of the line". They just aren't hitting the top of the line in any of their products. To me, they're just middle-end Dells that look pretty and get really hot when in use. "

I dont think so Tim...

You think the G5 is middle end?
I hope your not comparing a Dell to Dual PowerMac G5...

Do yourself a favor and take a look at the resale value of the PowerMac on Ebay....go ahead....then compare the same models to the Dell line the year it was released....

I think the Mac-Mini was a mistake.....
but saying MOST of what Apple produces is middle-end Dell quality is just plain wrong man......

Edited 2006-06-26 23:29

If we assume that an average 17" display costs $200, how can Apple afford to sell their current low end system for $300 less than an equally spec'd PC would cost (in hardware software and OS)?

The Mac mini is already priced equal to or less than PCs of the same spec. Why would you suggest that Apple lose money on the sale?

If we assume that an average 17" display costs $200, how can Apple afford to sell their current low end system for $300 less than an equally spec'd PC would cost (in hardware software and OS)?

The retail cost is $200, wholesale is probably less than $100 for the volume that Apple would be purchasing.

$800 ($300 more than the $500 Mini system I proposed) buys a LOT of PC these days. Keep in mind the expandibility of the Mini compared to the run-of-the-mill Dell PC as well. There has to be some price differential to account for the expansion compromise. Quite simply, the Mini overpriced compared to a Dell at the same price level.

Agreed. $800 does buy a lot of PC these days... but the mac mini is a LOT of PC.

Perhaps you're neglecting the $300 worth of software that Apple bundles with their computers or maybe you're neglecting that to give OS parity to Tiger, one would have to get XP Pro... or maybe you're just doing what so many other PC afficinados do and make comparisons based on hard drive size, ram and processor speed to the exclusion of anything else.

The end result is, when you match a PC with the same specs, the PC is about the same... actually a little bit more if you don't build it yourself.

A PC allows you to get more in the areas that are most important to you which makes it more versatile... That is the PCs strength. Its not price as is most often perceived to be.

Edited 2006-06-26 19:58

Perhaps you're neglecting the $300 worth of software that Apple bundles with their computers or maybe you're neglecting that to give OS parity to Tiger, one would have to get XP Pro... or maybe you're just doing what so many other PC afficinados do and make comparisons based on hard drive size, ram and processor speed to the exclusion of anything else.

When people are shopping for a home PC, the price is usually the deciding factor, not the bundled software, and not the OS. I personally have friends and family who've bought PCs cause the local Best Buy had them on sale. They didn't care about the configuration, only that the price seemed decent.

And please, how many average home users can actually justify the expense of XP Pro? XP Home is more than capable for virtually every non-technical home user out there. Regardless if OS X offers more capability, the average home user isn't going to use it.

Why isn't comparing hard drive space fair? And since we're now on the same MHz plane (Intel vs. Intel), why isn't that a fair comparison either? Whether you agree or not, it's what consumers look at.

You're missing the point. I know that consumers make their decisions based on price, but (again) Apple is not more expensive. Rather, they are just less versatile to buy the things you want. If you want to buy different things or fewer things a PC can be less expensive, but to suggest that Macs are not priced correctly or that PCs offer more for the money is a false/misleading statement.

Regarding this comment, "Regardless if OS X offers more capability, the average home user isn't going to use it."

I beg to differ. Every individual that I recomended a Mac to said, "but I just don't use that stuff", I always respond with, "yes, I know... you didn't have it so how could you?" Anyways, of those that end up buying the Mac, every single one of them started using the features that they said they did not (would not) use.


Regarding this comment, "Why isn't comparing hard drive space fair? And since we're now on the same MHz plane (Intel vs. Intel), why isn't that a fair comparison either?"

It's not that its unfair to make comparisons on those features... Rather, its unfair to make comparisons on ONLY those features to gauge whether or not is giving you more or less for your money. For example, if your PC offers a better "A" "B" and "C" to the exclusion of "D" "E" and "F" then what you're doing is prooving my original point which is that PCs are more versatile. Macs on the other hand are typically better priced.


Regarding your comment, "Whether you agree or not, it's what consumers look at."

Perhaps, but that's not what I was contesting now is it.

Edited 2006-06-26 21:44

and Apple is running decent ads (IMHO) now

I think they're awful. They're condescending and misleading. There is one where they poke fun at Windows crashes, which aren't that common anymore, back with win9x/ME it would have been a good point. Another where the Windows guy is confused that the Mac can communicate with a digital camera and he can't?! Show me a digital camera that is supported on the Mac, but not the PC.

I think with their codescending tone in the adds they may drive people away, I know I have. I use Windows, linux, and I've started dabbling in Solaris on an old Sparc station I got... Anyway, I've been considering picking up a Mini just to experiment with OSX, but after watching those ads I just don't want to give Apple any money.

Edited 2006-06-26 18:12

"I think they're awful. They're condescending and misleading."

I have the distinct feeling that the new ad campaign is aimed as much (or more) toward keeping the customers that Apple already has as it is at gaining new converts. Making fun of the very people you want to purchase your products is not, as a general rule, a very good idea.

// Making fun of the very people you want to purchase your products is not, as a general rule, a very good idea.//

So ... you're saying that Apple would rather *NOT* sell a Mac to everybody who uses Windows ... but would rather just keep selling Macs to folks who already use Macs.

Um, I doubt it.

More along the lines of catering to the niche they already possess. Most people aren't going to switch and Apple knows this. Of course they would be more than happy to have everyone switch; I didn't mean to insinuate otherwise. The quasi-negative tone of their newest ad campaign toward Windows users is pretty obvious, however...I was merely stating that making fun of someone isn't generally a good way to get them to buy your products.

<blockquote>I think [the new Apple TV ads are] awful. They're condescending and misleading. There is one where they poke fun at Windows crashes, which aren't that common anymore, back with win9x/ME it would have been a good point.</blockquote>That's quite true. I use Windows, OS X, and Linux regularly, and Windows XP Pro is no less stable for me than the other platforms. However, I do know that a significant number of people (for example, my mother) are still using Windows 98 and Windows ME, and they experience crashes regularly.

<blockquote>Another where the Windows guy is confused that the Mac can communicate with a digital camera and he can't?! Show me a digital camera that is supported on the Mac, but not the PC.</blockquote>I got a digital camera 6 months ago. I plugged it into my Mac and it just worked. I plugged it into a Windows XP computer and I had to install drivers and software. And don't even get me started on the hoops I had to jump through to get it working in Windows 98.

Still, I must admit that Apple's television ads appeal more to stereotypes and myths than to reality. No matter though. I still find them funny, if only because they are so unapolagetically Windows-bashing. It's fun to watch. Whether they are effective is something only Apple's statisticians can say, I suppose.

" I use Windows, OS X, and Linux regularly, and Windows XP Pro is no less stable for me than the other platforms"

Can't speak to official uptimes, but I somewhat concur. XP can go about a week before a system crash; Win2000 rarely made it through a day for me. OSX goes pretty much until you choose to shut down, but I suppose the week or so of uptime you get from XP is good enough for most people.

The bigger problem with Windows stability, though is the apps. Common apps, like browsers and Office software are CLEARLY much less stable on Windows. Perhaps MSFT has muddled up their API's so much even THEY can't follow them reliably.

The C64 had a 1 _Mega_ Hertz processor and not 1 KHz.

Thanks for the correction. Yes, it was 1Mhz --it's been so long I started mythologizing it

"The C64 had a 1 _Mega_ Hertz processor and not 1 KHz.
Also, I'm writing a very full article on GEOS, the Commodore 64 and the little computer that could for the OSNews Alternative OS contest. I've even managed to contact one of the team who made GEOS."

I still have my GeoWorks Ensemble T-Shirt. :-) It was much better than Windows 3.1 but history has shown many times that better often loses out to mediocre.

I agree with you.To amplify some of your points:


Ever hear: "I live in my applications"

I have-- many times! What they don't tell you as that, on average, in my experience, anyway, Mac applications WORK BETTER. A combination of greater sensitivity to UI consistancy and better API's, I suspect.

" If they go on to study programming at college, it will be using .NET. "

Yea, right! And what about "C"? Java? Are they chopped liver? In fact you CAN'T use .net for web development, since it is MS-specific.


"It's mandatory for the kids to learn MS-Office "

Tell that to Brazil, Germany, Massachusetts.

This is the way it is in Sweden. Maybe it's different in other parts of the world, but here C# for .NET is the new ANSI C. MS-Office has been the standard for ages.

Your arguement is flawed. The only people who matter are the CUSTOMERS. They have NOT been served by c**pware from Dell and others. Nor have they been served by IT-dept Windows=bigots, on the take from Dell and MSFT IT-pushers.

The holistic approach is MUCH better for the actual WORKER, as long as costs are comparable, which they are.

Great post, thanks. I've always kind of felt that Apple micro-manages every aspect of its business when it could expand much more rapidly by partnering with other integrators. Still, Apple is able to keep a tight handle on quality control, and that's worth something.

If most people don't care about which OS they use, then how can we expect them to suddenly use political views to guide them? And worse yet, socialism...

If Linux was as user friendly and likable as OSX, then MS would be in trouble. But sadly, Linux is not.

"If most people don't care about which OS they use, then how can we expect them to suddenly use political views to guide them? And worse yet, socialism..."

Because China cares, India cares, Europe cares, Iran cares, Korea cares, Mexico cares, Canada cares... IBM cares, Sun cares, Kaiser cares... I could easily have filled this whole page with people who care about the freedom Linux gives them, but I will spare you the trouble. And as Microsoft and Apple start pushing their proprietary-technology encumbered solutions, and as people start wondering why they have to buy five different versions of the same movie/song/software, they will start caring too. Already, a lot of people do care. I certainly do.
Linux gives people freedom. Microsoft and Apple give people an easy to use trap for people to get themselves stuck in.

I don't get this "Linux hippie freedom thing".
If I could afford to write programs for free, I probably would.

But I need to pay my bills, and that's why I sell my time to a company. I get money, and in return the company can do whatever they like with my code.

I don't understand why every piece of software has to be free and open? If a company can earn money producing electronics, cars etc, they don't give away their designs for free. So why can't companies like Apple and Microsoft make money, and protect their source of income?

Software is different from electronics, cars, etc. If you hate your car manufacturer, its trivial to switch to another one. That's why behemoths like GM and Ford are being beaten by relative newcomers like Honda and Toyota in the market. If you hate your OS, you're often tied down. You've got years of important data and programs tied to that product, and it isn't easy for you to switch. That's why Microsoft is still here today. Under other circumstances, they never would've survived the 1990s, a time when everyone hated Windows, and even late-night comedians made fun of how unstable it was. They would've become like Ford, losing money every quarter to better competitors.

That is not to say that its somehow immoral to make money off your software. Sure, as a programmer you have a right to try to sell your software. However, as a user, its important to realize that open code offers important benefits with regards to flexibility and freedom.

Linux will give people something that Microsoft will never be able to give and maintain their power.

A headache installing or configuring software? What about understanding what xin is for, or understanding version numbers like 0.1.5.5.1-2... or maybe it's the 'empowerment'to know exacly what man page to look at if they wanted to release/renew their ip, or simply figure out what version of linux kernel they are using?

Oh please...

A headache installing or configuring software?
Really, this argument is really getting silly. While there are certainly things that can improve when it comes to installing software on a linux system, in general it's incredibly easy and in the case of distributions like ubuntu nearly idiot proofed.

Selecting the apps you want to install from a nice list, that is broken into relevant categories and offers descriptions for every piece of software and then hitting install certainly isn't hard, is it?

What about understanding what xin is for, or understanding version numbers like 0.1.5.5.1-2
What's xin supposed to be and why should any normal user care about version numbers?

or maybe it's the 'empowerment'to know exacly what man page to look at if they wanted to release/renew their ip
or maybe they should simply use the graphical tools provided for this kind of thing.

or simply figure out what version of linux kernel they are using?
Wow, now that's a really valid example. After all, people who need to find out esoteric stuff like this sure can't be bothered to type uname --help into a terminal.


Seriously, I'm getting so tired with these senseless linux bashing posts like yours. It's not that there aren't enough things that need improvement in any linux distribution, it's that you aren't even aware of them and instead choose to beat dead horses to support your bias.

Here let me give you an example, the so called easy to use Ubuntu, 5 with all the updates... Just unplug the ethernet cable and restart back into this wonderfully thoughtout gui... you will notice that it wont startup to the desktop, it will hang just after you login to the user. But, plug that ethernet cable back in and let it have a valid ip - and it will start everytime. and just so you dont think there is an issue with just my installation, It can be replicated on the live cd also.

Here let me give you an example
I'm sorry, but this isn't an example for any of the things you mentioned in your first post.

This is simply a bug and one I can't reproduce on any of my Ubuntu installs btw.

A headache installing or configuring software? What about understanding what xin is for, or understanding version numbers like 0.1.5.5.1-2... or maybe it's the 'empowerment'to know exacly what man page to look at if they wanted to release/renew their ip, or simply figure out what version of linux kernel they are using?

Linux will give freedom from DRM, vendor lock in, proprietory protocols and document formats, strong arm sales tactics and control by a single company.

You paint too dismal a picture. Linux has been getting easier to use by the day and it fairly easy to maintain and update. Also what is wrong with man pages? I would think proper documentation would be appreciated.

"So i got a Pentium PC in 1995 for a few thousand (it's still going sweet btw, with 80 odd megs of ram win98 goes sweet), i could play cool games and have a richer expierience on the inter-net ... i havn't looked back."

This is classic!

Many people who have used Mac in the 80's, think the evolution ended when they left the platform. I have heard about black and white graphics, small screens etc, so many times.

Maybe it's time to have a new look.<