Slashdot Log In
Why Microsoft Should Fear Apple
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:43 AM
from the sneaky-fruit dept.
from the sneaky-fruit dept.
jcatcw writes "Computerworld's Scot Finnie says that Microsoft should be afraid because Apple has gotten smarter about how it competes. He says that it's the Parallels Desktop software that has been truly transformational for the Mac. Finnie did a simple three-month trial of the Mac last in the fall and realized four months later that he wasn't going back. Since then he's received hundreds of messages from readers who've also made the switch. 'In the end, this is about perception. It isn't about Apple's market share or even its quarterly sales numbers. (Apple's notebook computer sales for the fourth quarter were 4.1% of all portable computer sales, according to DisplaySearch.) What this is about is that Apple is reaching the right people with its product, winning new converts, Windows user by Windows user -- and creating buzz. How do you measure buzz? You don't. It's something that experienced people in this industry can just feel. And that's the condition Microsoft should fear. Because buzz can turn into something much harder to combat than sheer numbers.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Vista Taking a Nibble Out of Apple in OS Wars? 406 comments
PetManimal writes "Despite all of the positive buzz about the Mac operating system and the 'halo effect' of iPod sales, Mac OS X market share actually dropped last month, reports Computerworld: 'The share of PowerPC-based Macs fell ... from 4.29% in February to 3.94% in March. That dip was not fully offset by an increase in Intel-based Mac hardware, leading to a overall net decline in Mac share of 0.3%, to 6.08% in March.' Meanwhile, Vista is rising, the article says, with just over 2% of computers connected to the Internet using the new Windows OS. The figures are from a company called Net Applications, which collects its data from the browsers of visitors to its network of 40,000+ Web sites."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Apple - Great Image (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple certainly does have a great public image. They are in a great place right now - they get huge amounts of publicity for free. This just didn't happen by accident though, they've done a good job creating their image, and creating products that people want to get excited about. Actually, some Mac ads are so good, that I enjoy watching them. (I love those "I'm a PC" and "I'm a mac" ads!). Apple has the momentum.
rolls eyes (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like the "reasons" I'm given to believe in Jesus. I really wonder if people believe in this "exists but not quantifiable in any form" business?
Re:rolls eyes (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
control group (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, he hasn't received millions of emails from people who haven't made the switch. This is why "buzz" is misleading instead of using real data. Maybe the "buzz" leads to more people switching to Apple, but if you don't actually measure it, how would you know??
Re:Amen? (Score:4, Informative)
Yep, sounds like he really got screwed, by buying a seven year old computer design that had at least seven more years of life. I would be so pissed, too.
Parent
Apple is doomed! No, Microsoft is doomed! No, ... (Score:5, Interesting)
(Yes, I know he says Microsoft is not going to die... then at the end he says "Nothing lasts forever. The bloom is coming off the rose on Microsoft. I would never put it past the software giant to come up with a way to remake itself in a better light. But the current course doesn't appear to me to lead in that direction. As much as Apple is doing things right, Microsoft is doing things wrong." How is that anything but a weasel-worded version of "Microsoft is doomed?")
Speaking as a certified Macintosh fanboy, Microsoft copies the Apple OS a lot... and, you know what? Apple has, for a long time, been returning the favor. The two companies borrow ideas from each other promiscuously, and only the blinkered view of the fans of each camp prevents them from seeing it. Of course, one idea Mac OS 9 borrowed from Windows was making windows resizable by dragging at all four edges. I just wish Mac OS X had borrow that from Mac OS 9!
why? you still need an os install disk... (Score:5, Insightful)
DELL or other pc manufactureres should be scared of macs.
Our "Enterprise" Experience (Score:5, Interesting)
- Business users receive Macs, and use Parallels (and sometimes Boot Camp) for specific applications.
- Engineers have the choice between either Mac OS X or Ubuntu. They can also run Parallels or VMware for Windows applications, though they rarely do so.
- Artists run Windows, since their singular, primary application is 3d Studio Max -- Windows only 3d software.
Parallels has allowed us to make a long-term platform decision (Mac OS X and Linux) while continuing to support the short-term software requirements (Running Windows software). As more cross-platform software is made available, we will migrate away from the Windows-only solutions.
Parent
Re: why? you still need an os install disk... (Score:4, Funny)
Which, er, historically, hasn't always been their first choice...
Parent
Re:But You Don't Need An Install Disk (Score:4, Informative)
Parallels Transporter [parallels.com]
Parent
Baloney. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pure baloney, Scot Finnie.
How do you measure buzz? You don't. It's something that experienced people in this industry can just feel.
Would you buy stock in a company based on "buzz"? Doubt it. At least these days, in the post dot-bomb world anyways.
What Apple does currently have is momentum. They keep making good decisions and carving out markets. And that's why MS should fear them. MS is already losing in the junior leagues (Zune vs. iPod). Enough of that, and maybe MS will start losing in the big leagues (OS and Office).
Re:Baloney. (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, I would like this chance to point out what I like about Macs. It is nice and simple:
I can't stand touchpads. Everytime I use a laptop, I have trouble with the damn touchpad. They are POS's compared to a mouse. However, the Macbook touchpads are slightly better. They have multiple touch response, which allows you to scroll down a page by sliding two fingers across the touchpad (functioning like the mouse wheel).
Mac's have lots of tiny little additions that by themselves, don't mean much, but all together, add a lot of functionality and increased productivity.
Parent
Why Microsoft doesn't really give a shit. (Score:5, Interesting)
You bought something MacOS. Yay for you! YOU REBEL!
Now you use Parallels and buy a copy of Windows to put in there.
GAME OVER.
*MICROSOFT* doesn't care what HARDWARE you run their OS on. Running Parallels on a Mac doesn't hurt MICROSOFT in the slightest.
Both Apple AND Microsoft pull a profit off this. Microsoft even moreso, since Mac heads are likely to buy a RETAIL copy of the OS, meaning higher margins for Redmond than they'd get from a traditional OEM copy.
Who it's a mark against? The other PC vendors.
Seriously. Why does everyone turn stupid non-issues like this into a zip-gun fight between Redmond and Cupertino?
Re:Why Microsoft doesn't really give a shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, you may run XP in Parallels now, but will you buy new Windows software? Will you buy anything that says 'Vista only' on the box? Or will you just slowly replace your old XP apps with Mac apps, and then forget about your VM? I would guess that the latter is more likely for most switchers.
Parent
Microsoft should fear....Parallels? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Anti-Buzz (Score:5, Interesting)
Like one who looked into the Palantir, the emotional illness will sink in. And they will be trapped. Every mouse click will make them sicker, sink them deeper. Their happy, released Mac User associates will shine like a white wizard among the Orcs.
And every trick that Microsoft will try to rejuvenate their relationship will be transparent to them. Zune the iTune killer will make them laugh sadly. Every promise of liberation and innovation will fall flat before it is delivered. Every
The numbers will lie, like the percentage of marriages that last longer than 7 years... it belies the number of dead marriages still lingering. Microsoft will retain 90%+ of the market, but those will be wretched zombies, entombed in their own fear and loathing.
Microsoft's "WOW" will become "woe", from which they are unable to escape. And like Gandalf, betrayed by a friend and mentor, they are marooned atop a tower which promised great vision, but a broad horizon of darkness, gloom and malevolence is their only vista.
What about the Switch-back? (Score:4, Interesting)
I am writing this in Firefox in Vista on my MacBook Pro. One year ago (almost to this day) I made the switch because I had bought into the hype. I told myself I'd give it three months to make my decision. When the time came I was struggling to be as productive as when I was in Windows. However, I realized that I had not yet learned everything I needed in the Mac to give it a fair shake. So I extended the test. Finally after 10 months I made the Switch-back.
What about all of us that gave it a try and end up switching back? We just get modded down because of the anti-M$ sentiment. I'm no M$ lover -- I run all Linux servers and refuse to deploy Active Directory in my organization because I believe it is a gateway to "everything M$". However, many people like me may find that they are actually more productive in Windows.
No problem! (Score:5, Insightful)
That, and the amount of time you don't spend on stuff you shouldn't have to spend time on.
If it adds up, then PC is for you. No biggie.
But for most people I know (that are below average technically able), they convert to Macs and rave about them afterwards
Parent
Re:What about the Switch-back? (Score:5, Interesting)
I haven't met many switch-backers that say WHY they weren't as productive. Could you not find programs you liked? Did OS X do something different that you didn't like?
I don't have a problem with you switching back, it's just the lack of a reason WHY weren't you as productive.
Parent
I'll give you a real world non techie perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
1) They don't care about the internals at all. Makes zero difference
2) They see Macs as an integrated whole without having to dick around with things
3) They see the hardware itself as being more solid
4) They see the integrated whole as being more compatible with their iPods, cameras and whatnot
5) When or if something breaks they walk it in to the Apple store, where that is the ONLY thing they fix and drop it off for repair or upgrade
6) Most college courses are online not installed so it makes little if any difference what the machine runs on its own
7) They look cooler
Don't argue with me about this. This is what people who look at a PC as an appliance like a microwave or a TV see when they see a Mac.
I am a laggard. When my XP Home machines eventually become worthless I will replace them either with miniMacs or whatever is what those are at the time, and/or Ubuntu or equivalent machines at that time. I expect this to happen in the next 3-4 years if not sooner. I have no intention of moving to Vista. Not for ideological reasons but because there will be cheaper better alternatives by then.
It Also Does Windows (Score:4)
With the ability to boot into Windows, or run Windows in Parallels, Apple has eliminated the biggest barrier for people to try a Mac. If someone doesn't like it, or a vital app won't run, they aren't stuck with an expensive brick - they can switch to running Windows. Less risk means a lower barrier to entry which means more people buying a Mac.
This gives Apple a chance to compete on the merits of its OS instead of being hampered by the number of applications that don't support it. Users can easily switch to Windows, run their apps, and switch back; and switching isn't even needed if you use Parallels. I claim that after a few weeks on a Mac, users will get annoyed when they have to deal with a Windows machine, and somewhere in Cupertino a bell will ring as another Mac user is born.
It's because Apple makes damn good products! (Score:4, Interesting)
I recently was in need of a notebook computer, so I did some investigation as to what my options were. I put notebooks from various manufacturers side by side and compared based on processor speed, FSB speed, memory (size, speed), graphics (GPU power, shared memory, etc.), display resolution, and numerous other factors. While things appear to have changed slightly in the recent past, at the time, the MacBook Pro was less expensive than any PC notebook with comparable capabilities. How's that for risk management? I was nervous about getting a Mac... what if I didn't like it? No problem. The hardware is great, and I can install Linux or Windows on it if I feel like it. Turns out that I really like MacOS too and run Windows and Linux using Parallels.
As a Free Software enthusiast, I am bothered by the fact that so much Apple software isn't Free. But I'm an activist in many ways. I'm an activist for Free Software. I'm also an activist for GOOD software. And my computer is my computer, and I'll run whatever apps make my life easiest. As such, I'm going to use commercial software when it's clearly superior in design and quality to the Free Software. (Notice how I'm implicitly dismissing Microsoft as anything worth talking about.) Then I tell people which apps are the best and why. This way, the Free Software enthusiasts can take notice and improve their designs
I think I won't be much interested in using Linux as a desktop OS until some Ubuntu comes with Beryl by default. And I'll NEVER like the fact that Linux applications have their files spread out across different sections of the file system (/bin,
Not MS, OEM (Score:4, Informative)
Now, the concern is for the OEMs. I have been saying for a long time that by concentrating on price, they are playing the MS game, which is to maximize profit at MS and minimize profit on the hardware. For example, the Apple switch to Intel is not so interesting for Apple, but does indicate that Intel learned that MS has no interest in hardware profits, and that if Intel continued to focus on MS, it would continue to be has been chip maker.
So, MS is stemming the flow that will hurt it's business in the near term, namely there are no fully compatible OS products, and only allowing virtualization of premium priced products. In the long term, who knows. At some point there has to be a competitive compatible OS. Apple would do well to create the OS and run it as layer in the next Apple OS. But the only danger to MS is that the hardware vendors will wise up and stop cutting their own throats so that MS can make a profit.
Indeed, we have seen many OEMs go away as they can no longer make cheap enough boxen. We are really going to be down to Dell, HP, Lenova and Sony. The later two are more or less premium manufacturers. HP has the experience with HP/UX to rebrand it's PC as *nix workstations, but Dell will continue to be at the mercy of MS, and I feel sorry for them as Apple continues to earn 20% per machine, while squeezing Dell's margin to zero, especially now that the Intel kickbacks seem to be a thing of the past.
Mini-Microsoft May Be Revealing (Score:5, Insightful)
In isolation, individual blogs may be just some people blowing off a bit of steam, or may be representative of a few dissatisfied staffers.
Taken together, they paint a picture of a company that's in danger of losing its way.
It's hard to know just how representative the sum of these blogs is. They're all pretty self-selecting, after all. If they paint a relatively accurate picture, then Microsoft is missing some key things Apple's recently gotten right:
* Management who understand their products at every level and pitch them well. Anyone who's presented to a large crowd knows how hard this is, but Steve Jobs is a complete master at it.
* Getting the product's look and feel right first time. Pick up a new Apple product. Touch it. Look at the surfaces. They always look great. People react to this, equating professional finish with professional products.
* Focus on product lines, with no products bleeding more money with every unit sold. There's no Apple product I've heard of where each unit sold is a loss to the company. The units both R&D and then start to generate profit. Even iTunes with its razor thin profit pays for itself. This shows solid business planning, solid budgeting and is very well respected by the investors.
* Staff who keep pretty damn quiet about the internal stuff. Apple have a policy on communication, and very few staff feel they need to start some kind of Mini-Apple in response. Few companies allow staff to communicate, as it's just too easy for staff to send the wrong message. The company I work for is vast beyond the dreams of Apple or Microsoft, and we train all staff about external communications (in normal policy & procedure training). The impression Apple gives is that of a tightly run company.
Apple present as a company focused on a few core lines - home computing, professional media/art computing and entertainment. It's easy to see how just about everything they do fits those lines.
Microsoft are all over the place. Their core is clearly Windows and Office, but they've dipped metaphorical toes into media, gaming, tablet computing, robotics, handhelds, peripherals, mobile phones, web searching and more. Some non-core lines are very successful (XBox-360) but they all seem to be in the red, only able to be pursued due to the huge cash reserves brought in by the core lines. Few businesses would do this, even very rich businesses (such as GE) demand each product or division runs a profit and improves year on year. That's sustainable business practice, but Microsoft seems to believe deep pockets last forever.
Microsoft are looking tired, but they can pull things together. Cut some of the non-core lines loose - sell them off. Get out and understand how people want to use stuff before building a product (Zune wireless sharing is a notable failure here). Savage the management layers to shake out dead wood at *all* levels, review all current projects with a view to killing most of them and refocus the (smaller) company on the smaller range of product lines.
Microsoft can waste energy competing with Apple and Google, but they needn't bother. Neither is a threat and the market's easily big enough for everyone. The biggest enemy they seem to have is themselves and their existing products.
To recap a film metaphor - remember when Luke Skywalker went into that cave near Yoda's house on Dagobar? He met Darth Vader, then fought and killed him. The mask covering the head exploded, revealing Luke's own face. His greatest enemy at that point was his own nature.
Making The Switch (Score:4, Informative)
- Microsoft Word was not fast enough on the Mac
- Microsoft Word was not 100% completely compatible with Microsoft Word on the PC
Let me tackle each of these in turn (put down your flamethrowers right now).The current version of Word on the Mac is compiled for the PPC and runs through Rosetta. While most people report that Word runs "just fine" through Rosetta, the fact is, it doesn't for people who work like my wife does. Fast. Demanding. Has a lot of work and isn't going to wait around patiently for her last action to complete. Yes, I did all of the tweaks to speed up her Mac (the best MacBook Pro money could buy (2.33GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 160GB disk)). Yes, I even allocated more RAM for Rosetta.
And before you ask, yes, I ran Word 2003 in Parallels. Yes, I ran it under VMware Fusion. And yes, I ran in under Crossover for Mac. The sad, but obvious fact is that Word runs fastest natively under Windows on a PC (in this case a brand new Vaio which I had to buy to replace the MacBook Pro). Both of these computers had exactly the same specs.
As for the second problem, it cannot be over-emphasized. You cannot submit a report back to a client which looks like trash in *their* version of Word. Word 2003 is *not* Word 2004. And the upcoming Word 2008 will *not* be Word 2007. Any alteration in a document which is advising investors to spend billions on a particular equity is not acceptable. No, she couldn't use Open Office. Or anything else. And yes, she also tried to save the document using compatibility mode.
RANT: ON
We both hated to go back. She loved the Mac. Anybody who thinks that Microsoft should be really worried about Apple is a little delusional. Microsoft doesn't make software, they make money (which explains why their software sucks - ask me about this sometime). They've also invested heavily in Apple (when Apple makes money, Microsoft makes money). And they are releasing and continuing to develop Office for the Mac, because it is profitable for them. And will continue to be. Sure, Microsoft would like to own every single aspect of the computing market, because that would make them the most money. But when they can't, they hedge their bets (Corel, Apple, most recently Novel).
RANT: OFF
By the way, moving from Microsoft Entourage to Microsoft Outlook is a total pain. You would think this would be straightforward, but no. And if you're one of those who think Micosoft tries to make it hard to move from the PC to Mac on purpose, just try moving back. It's even worse. Ultimately I just set her up with IMAP and had her re-create all her folders (she had hundreds) and copy her mail up to one of my mail servers. Mail is better that way anyway...
As for the MacBook Pro, I'm downloading FC6 right now :-)
Re:Making The Switch (Score:4, Insightful)
I know the deed is done. But why did you spend the money on ANOTHER laptop? You could have just formatted OS X off of the drive and run XP. (Un) Surprisingly Apple writes some awesome drivers for XP (from what I've seen in the few times I've had to dual boot). Everything I've tried works great: camera, two finger scrolling, etc.
Parent
Now that Vista is out... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who claims Vista is faster is either lying or barely using their computer's power. As a developer, I beat the hell out of machines, and Vista is terribly slow compared to XP. On a laptop, it is unbearable (much slower, lower battery life, crashes on suspend or hibernate).
If Microsoft tries to force users to upgrade to Vista, I will switch to anything else. I like XP, but I don't think I'll be switching to Vista (even after a few service packs).
Not part of the business strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Informative)
Others have detailed the practical and financial reasons why Apple will not do that. Namely, they make money on hardware not software. One of Microsoft's problems is to attract developers, Windows supports a wide range of hardware with a minimum of requirements. Unfortunately that has meant that the quality of third party drivers has been less than desirable. That combined with MS 40,0000 (not including undocumented) APIs have made turning solving this issue difficult.
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft shouldn't be too worried until Apple begins to sell OS X for installation on hardware besides theirs
If their smart, they'll worry much before that. First, unless you're some sort of a Mac-ophobe, there isn't a real reason why you can't buy a Mac if you want to run OSX. You can buy one machine and gain the ability to run OSX, Windows, Linux, and whatever else runs on x86 hardware (EFI aside). Contrary to what you hear, Macs aren't really expensive for what you get, so if Apple gets some more market segmentation, most of the reasons to buy a Dell with fall away. The only market they'll be missing are the homebrew people, which is a market I'm sure Apple can live without.
And, of course, Apple doesn't need to get a majority market-share in order to be a danger to Microsoft. It's sufficient that people will start saying, "So why doesn't Windows let me do [such-and-such]?" Microsoft has relied on vendor lock-in for years, and any competitor gaining even a significant market share means that there will be market forces for them to open up a little more. To explain it a different way, if you see Macs creep into everyday life a bit more, you'll find a lot more heterogeneous environments. If Microsoft doesn't use open standards in order to interoperate with Macs, it will be clear that they are blocking productivity and the people maintaining those environments will be more likely to choose something more open.
So, in this sense, a single Unix-y alternative OS getting through the doors will probably open the door for others to come in, too. By gaining 10-15% market share, Apple might actually increase Linux adoption as well.
Right now, Microsoft is feeling pressure on many fronts to use open standards and open formats, and that can only be a good thing.
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Informative)
I've done various price comparisons at various times in the past few years, and I would say that generally the price of Apple hardware is comparable to similar hardware from other companies.
What I mean is this: if you pick an Apple laptop model, and then you go to Dell and price out a similar model to have all the same features, the price will usually be pretty close. Sometimes Apple was even a little cheaper, usually slightly more expensive, but close.
I'm sure there are loads of people who will claim I'm full of it, but those people usually aren't doing what I described in the last paragraph. For example, they'll point out that you can get a Dell laptop for $600 while the cheapest Apple laptop is $1100. However, the Dell laptop they're citing will be much thicker and heavier. The Dell won't have a CD-R drive or a built-in camera. The Dell won't be as fast or have a good-quality screen.
When you price out a machine with the same quality of parts, the same features, and the same form-factor, you generally find that Apple is competitive with all the major players (Sony, Dell, HP, IBM, Toshiba). However, Apple doesn't offer el-cheapo machines. They just don't have a $300 machine where they've cut every corner to bring it to market at cheaply as possible. They don't offer a $600 laptop. They also don't offer a general mid-grade mini-tower or micro-tower. The only machine that you can really expect to be upgrading is a Mac Pro, and as the name suggests, it's an high-end workstation more than a general desktop PC.
So that's why I was talking about market segmentation. Apple might be able to expand their market into these areas, but it seems like they don't want to. I'm not sure why not, but I have some theories.
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I really don't forget that. The point is that it's an issue of market segmentation. Let me break it down a little more simply: It's not generally valid to complain that Apple charges a huge premium for their hardware. It is valid, however, to complain that Apple isn't trying to service all markets.
If you don't understand the distinction that I'm making, I don't know what to tell you.
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Insightful)
But, thanks to the insane operating requirements for Vista, that $500 laptop will run like a dog... in fact, I would imagine that it would practically be unusable with only 512 meg of RAM that it probably comes with.
Microsoft helped out Apple significantly by essentially killing the cheap laptop market with memory-hogging Vista.
So, now you quite literally HAVE TO pay $1100 for a laptop to get something that runs... that makes MacBook a very viable option.
Thanks,
Mike
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Informative)
There is, it's called the iMac. They've been shipping them since about '97. I'm using one right now and it's very nice. I game on it regularly and I have never pushed the hardware to where I felt it being sluggish.
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I'm not sure if I'd be that excited about standalone sales of OS X. Yeah, it looks pretty... Apple's got some nice applications available... But I'm not sure that I want just another OS available to me. I can get fairly close to the OS X experience with Vista or various flavors of Linux. What really makes Apple shine is the same thing you are lamenting - lack of hardware choices.
In the PC world you've got hundreds of PC manufacturers, thousands of hardware vendors, billions of combinations of components that are all supposed to work together...
Sure, I'm a hobbyist and I like to tinker. I've built my last dozen machines myself, by hand, from individual components. I like that level of control. I like to sift through benchmarks and reviews to find the motherboards that work best for me. I like the feeling of pride in having a quality PC that I built.
But my sister doesn't care. She wants to go in, buy something off the shelf, and just have it work. She isn't even completely clear on the fact that HP, Dell, IBM, Gateway, etc. all make computers that are called PCs. She sees stickers that say "Mac Compatible" and wonders why there isn't a "Dell Compatible" sticker. And to her, buying a Mac is simpler and more straightforward than buying a PC. She can understand that OS X 10.3 is newer/better/faster than 10.1 She knows that if it says "Mac Compatible" it will likely work. She doesn't need to wonder about whether the printer has a Parallel interface or USB. It just says "Mac", so she's safe.
And I really think that's part of the appeal of Apple products. They're simplified to the point where they just basically work most of the time.
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:4, Insightful)
But let's put aside the consumer market for the moment. There's something much more important afoot. Remember Ballmer's little prancing mantra? "Developers. Developers! DEVELOPERS!!!"? Guess what? There's a ton of Java developers out there. Their code does not run on MS OSes in general in production. Their tools are generally OS agnostic as well. In fact, in general, their tools run better on non-MS OSes. (Something about case-sensitive file systems)
Enter a nice, lightweight, reliable laptop (MBP) which about half the Java programmers I know have moved to over the last 6 months. Everyone that has loves them. There's the additional advantage that it's a *nix subsystem, which happens to mesh nicely with our targeted deploy environments. Add to that the hugely user friendly user features, and a bunch of us have come to realize that with Macs we get work done, we're not working on our systems. We don't have to do maintenance, configure them just so, or wait for them them to boot forever when they've failed to recover from a sleep/hibernate situation.
Now let's tie this back to Ballmer's rant, even though I'm discussing Java developers here. The developers I'm talking about are your top end developers, the ones who have to design and document architectures and give presentations. They start using user friendly non-MS applications that do what they want. They don't suffer embarassing BSODs on waking from sleep, or during their presentations. Lastly, they're also generally multiple language programmers, including C/C++ (and now add Objective C to their arsenal) and all of a sudden, there's more developers for Apple than MS.
Another draw is multi-media editing software. The software on OSX just works better and easier than anything I've seen on an MS system. Even software that covers both systems, Photoshop and Capture One, the Mac version either runs better or there is an equivalent Mac version that's just plain better.
As for making your own system with your own hardware, Apple sells their software already and if you're willing to hack it, you can run it on other hardware. It's just unsupported, which reduces Apple's liability. They're very successful at what they do, and it should be interesting to see where they go. I personally hope to see them use the best hardware and improve their threading issues in the OS in the future. I'd love to see a 16 or 32 core Mac Pro in the near future - imagine the processing ability of such a system.
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never understood this assumption, it's wrong on so many levels. Counting Apple's share of computers sold through certain channels and assuming that that is the market for your software.
For example, some percentage of Windows machines are servers, my random desktop application shouldn't count those as potential purchasers. If I make consumer software, then the 50% of Windows machines in corporate networks with controlled installations shouldn't count either. If I am writing software with limited requirements, then Apple Computer's generally longer deployment lifetime means that I'm looking at a different installed base.
Or to put it in another way:
If I write software for Java developers to buy, I DO NOT CARE about Windows, Linux, or Mac computers in the hands of non-Java developers. If Apple grabs 25% of the Java developer market, I'm in business. If I write software for musicians, Apple's approx 40%-50% marketshare in this niche makes them viable.
And your assumption ignores competition. Sure, lots of Windows computers need file compression, but how many of them had bought Winzip? After Microsoft embedded unzipping in the OS, how many of them bought Winzip? Apple has a thriving shareware market, Windows may, Linux does not.
As a developer, I care is there a potential market for my software. I really don't have any skin in the OS X vs. Microsoft Windows battle, do you?
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Insightful)
Two. I'm not sure the the GPP missed a "not" in that sentence. As it is written most (all) of the Java developers I know don't run their production code on MS OS's. They are not developing desktop applications. They are developing enterprise back ends to run on Tomcat, JBoss, WebSphere, and WebLogic and those are often (almost all, in my experience) running on Solaris or Linux. I can set up a Tomcat instance on my MacBook and push that
Anyway, this is just more anecdotal evidence of a single Java Developer (and a few of his friends) who bought a MacBook because of the types of jobs I do and loves it. And, if I'm an indicator, a lot of Java developers are moving to Macs for the reasons mentioned above.
Parent
Still The Better Choice (Score:5, Insightful)
And regarding multimedia software and editing - you would not believe the difference! For professionals and amateurs alike working with video, photos and sound the Mac beats everything out there. Do you know anyone in the industry at all?Absolutely not! Even with comparable Intel C2D + 2GB of RAM my MBP boots way faster than any of my Windows PCs! And I keep them mean and lean.
On the other hand the Linux distributions I have tried have been much slow(er) to boot. But then again I never bothered to configure them properly.You mean like installing Linux on a Compaq? Or changing the hardware configuration on a Windows Vista PC? Besides most people on Macs don't need to hack anything - they just work. The hardcore gamers are all on their PCs anyway, let's just agree to disagree.
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Insightful)
First, it depends on the markets you wish to serve and what they are using. Marketshare in different markets that you are selling your software into matters. For example, graphic artists tend to use Macintoshes. Apple's marketshare in this market is well above 3% and, sure enough, if you look at software aimed towards graphics artists, you'll find lots of Mac software out there.
Second, the 3% number you quote is the worldwide marketshare. Consider Macintosh use in the markets you are trying to penetrate. For example, the fact that Macintosh use in, say, mainland China is negligible means that I probably won't sell much of my software over there. Of course, I probably won't sell much of my Windows software over there, either (because of piracy, marketing limitations, localization costs, etc.). So it's not necessarily a market that I'm all that interested in.
Finally, the old Macintosh standby when marketshare is brought up--suitability. For example, we have a PC in the office that we use with our shipper's software (UPS). Is this PC a target for our software? Nope. But it counts as one of the sales. Nobody is interested in color management for cash register displays.
By the way, I've been a Macintosh developer for almost 20 years. And the only reason I'm starving is that my co-worker hasn't brought back lunch yet...
Parent
Re:Java isn't going to lead the way... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you might be attributing too much to the gaming market as well. Don't get me wrong, it's a big market and people who buy gaming rigs tend to push the bleeding edge of hardware. For some of us old folks, gaming on a PC has absolutely no interest whatsoever. A lot of people don't need the bleeding edge of hardware -- they need decent software that's easy to use.
In my opinion, Apples are coming bundled with a lot more software which is relevant to what people want to do. Handling your digital photos, movies, e-mail, and some light productivity software is probably what a lot of people want. I've been waiting got the right time to add a Mac Mini to my network -- it doesn't need to be huge, it can share disk space with the other critters on my network. But, I want the OS and the apps that come with it. I'm willing to pay a premium for that 'underpowered' machine.
I can't even fathom what you're doing with your machine. And, it is certainly not representative of what I and loads of other people do with out home machines.
I think Mac is currently in the midst of breaking into the market in serious quantity. The fact that this thread exists tells me it is.
I think you might also be missing what older people are willing to pay for a machine which doesn't give them troubles. Old ladies routinely seem to buy Cadillacs, because that's what their husband always bought and they like them. If I had an old grandma who wanted a computer and could afford to put up the cash, I'd absolutely steer her towards a Mac -- because it won't contribute to er early demise with all of the frustration.
You are a developer, and probably a gamer. But, you're also not representative of the rest of the consumer market for computers. I'm a developer at work -- but at home, I'm a light casual user who doesn't really tax his machines all that much: my XP box running at equivelant to around 2.8 GHz (AMD CPU) with 1GB of RAM is more than I've ever needed at home. My even slower FreeBSD box with 768 MB of RAM is just as zippy. I would personally never spend $2k on a machine (my last few have been less than $500 CDN), but I might be willing to go up a couple of price points for a Mac.
The whole point of this thread is that for a lot of people, the Mac offers a very attractive alternative to a Windows machine. For the people who really will do some web surfing, mail, a little light word processing, and handling all of this new-fangled digital media they still don't quite understand, the Mac is an exceptionally good choice.
Well, considering the revenues Apple has been pulling down (even if you discount the revenue from iTMS), and considering entire Universities are announcing they're going all Mac, I think you might find yourself wrong on that statement. Apple has been in 'real' businesses for a few decades now.
Apple aren't trying to supplant Microsoft as the dominant operating system. They're trying to make a niche for themselves of people who want something a little different out of their machines. Personally, that hipster marketing campaign makes me really wish I had one. There will always be a market for the big, honking PC rigs. But, there will always be a market for what Apple is selling as well.
You are entitled to your own opinion. Cancel or allow.
Cheers
Parent
Re:Java isn't going to lead the way... (Score:5, Insightful)
"No one will use a product at home that is not used in business without good reason. "
That statement is just dumb. I'm not going to even bother to respond to it.
"People forget that one of the biggest buyers of systems in the government, and we are always swapping hardware and shuffling systems around. At home I run a dual core 64 bit laptop, and it's barely up to par, but it's better then my friends MACBook Pro."
That's funny you feel that way. Not sure where you work, but where i am developers are jumping over each other to get Mac laptops or pro stations and a few have even paid for them out of their pocket.
It's funny you bag on Mac hardware (which is fine) but at the end by this statement I can see why you say that: "I run Linux at home and it's a headache going between XP and Ubuntu, but it's worth it because it's free and stable." I don't think you know elegance and design if it walked up to you and gave you a donkey-punch.
"It's just not feasible to use Java to do something when I know it will be slower and require more overhead then C++, Pearl, or
As far as Java and slow, nobody in their right mind would say that Java on Desktop is great, but there is nothing wrong with running it on the server. Web pages will run just as fast w/Java as they do with C# and if your writing web apps in C++ I question the credibility of your opinion. You made comment of your development starting to move web based, our development has been web based since 98 and we have worked with Perl/PHP then moved onto Java about 6 years ago.
Now we're making the same transition again from Java to Ruby on Rails. We've launched our second large scale RoR based project, the productivity of our programmers has more than doubled moving from Java to RoR with the only expense being slightly slower runtime (which for our application and requirements isn't a big deal, we're not Yahoo or Google). Anyone who's actually making decisions based on $ will see really quickly that the real expense is the dumb-ass programmer that's being paid $100k to write web applications in C++ when they can be done in 1/20th the amount of time with the right tools.
As a matter of fact, as a business the level of rapid deployment we can do now having improved our framework has given us new oppurtunity for growth into services we in the past had to leave alone due to lack of developer resources.
I can buy 4 dell 850 rack (XEON's with 2 gigs ram) servers for the LESS than the cost of 4 weeks of one of our engineers, a productive software stack for development so far outweighs the cost of hardware I can't imagine that anyone even brings it up anymore for run of the mill business-solution web-based applications.
Enjoy your C++ web development
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, the integration between the software and the hardware is an integral part of the Mac experience, and Apple wants to protect that. While I doubt you'll ever see Apple license OS X for generic hardware, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point they licensed it to a couple of other manufacturers of premier hardware, such as HP or Lenovo. That way they could ensure the hardware/software integration while at the same time offering Mac users more hardware options.
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since almost all PCs (including Macs) these days are x86 based (including x86-64), I'm surprised that game publishers haven't taken to releasing games on bootable discs with their own OS. Would game players really care if they have to boot their PC from the disc to play? Plenty of bootable live-OS examples out there to choose from.
Parent
Re:Same story, different decade (Score:5, Insightful)
Were we to have an honest, reasonable discussion, I'd ask you to provide evidence that the majority of those who use Apple products are obsessed with image. I'd present dozens of product reviews in mainstream publications which praised the usability and practicality of various Apple products. But this is Slashdot, so as long as you state something as if it were an objective fact, somebody will mod you up.
Parent
Re:Games, Games, Games, Games! (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:No way. (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite being profitable BMW should try a different tactic.
Parent
Re:Marketing vs Business Model (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand why everyone is always obsessed with Apple's (or anyone's) market share. Apple isn't in the market share business, they are in the making money business. Sure your market share needs to be bigger than zero to make money, but Apple has been doing just fine with the few percent they have. Better than fine, actually - 700% gain in 5 years (3 years, really - the first 2 were net flat) is nothing to shake a stick at. Seems like Apple currently has both better marketing and a better business model for their shareholders.
Parent