Apple's Leopard Strategy to Kill Microsoft and Dell? 661
RX8 writes "A Digital Trends article suggests that Apple's Leopard agenda is to get Windows users to use Apple hardware then convert them to the Apple camp and that Apple will also be directly targeting Dell by offering a better experience when it comes to media and related tasks. Lastly, they suggest that Steve Jobs held back on showing more Leopard features so people would not get too excited and stop buying in 2006. 'If you get too excited about what is supposed to be an incredibly amazing product you simply won't buy a new Apple this year.'"
Why Apple will never kill Dell (Score:3, Interesting)
People buy Dells because they are cheap, and they work.
They're not particularly good computers, but they do the job.
They're not even in the same market: Apple isn't competing with Dell's primary market to begin with.
Missed the Memo (Score:5, Interesting)
But, on the overall, I agree; Apple's not fighting for the bottom dollar, Apple's positioned themselves as just a tad bit more expensive than the baselines from the Big Three, but with an enormous amount of extra features that make it that "bang for the buck". That factor alone could be considered a part of the "pricing war"; for all you get with an Apple computer, it'd take you not only longer to find a way to configure a competitive machine, but it's unlikely you could do it for cheaper without a ton of rebates, mail in coupons, etc.
So really, it is the price. Apple won't beat Dell at the bottom, but in the middle and top, Apple's already got them beat.
Re:Missed the Memo (Score:2, Insightful)
The Windows PC is a more or less open plattform. We often blame Microsoft but have to keep in mind that real mess is created by ugly third party drivers. Apple does not aim to support the whole hardware universe. It is a interoperability hell from a competition perspective and a interoperability paradise from a plattform perspective. Happiness in proprietary slavery?
It is technically possible to port Mac OS X in order to be executable on general cheap Intel-Computers. But they do not wan
Re:Missed the Memo (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, bullshit. I am so tired of this lame argument. Microsoft has been dictating to the hardware vendors for years. They have a very tight relationship with Intel, telling them exactly what features they want in the next round of chips.
And what the hell do you think WinHEC [microsoft.com] is for? The DDKs are there for anyone who wants them.
i think the hardware guys are doing the best with what they've got. And what they'
Re:Missed the Memo (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure that's true to an extent. I remember downloading the the then current DirectX SDK 6 or 7 years ago and looking at the sample programs. I randomly picked a couple of them to try running and analyzing. Every one of them I tried failed to compile due to errors in the code. I ended up learning OpenGL instead because of that.
After all, it's up to the OS to decide if a bad drive
Re:Missed the Memo (Score:4, Interesting)
"The Windows PC is a more or less open plattform."
That's gotta be one of the largest trolls I've ever heard in my entire life. Remember the whole "Anti-Trust" thing we went through years ago? Remember Microsoft being convicted of abusing their monopoly powers because of the fact that crucial parts of their platforms are closed? Ever tried to use NTFS on any other platform? Windows is as open as Aqua, and that is to say: NOT AT ALL.
"We often blame Microsoft but have to keep in mind that real mess is created by ugly third party drivers. Apple does not aim to support the whole hardware universe."
We often blame Microsoft for the same reason we should blame Microsoft; they sat back and let this happen to them. Microsoft could have been much more proactive from drivers from the start, including vendor certification and testing, and making their kernel hell to support devices. Things have gotten much better with a much better standardized OS (simply because it hasn't changed in 6 years), but the point remains.
Apple doesn't need to support all of the hardware under the sun; they're Apple, they sell Computing Platforms, not Computers and Operating Systems alone. Furthermore, other companies write drivers for Apple's operating system, and it honestly couldn't be much easier, as the Operating System is extremely friendly to driver writers (and there's extensive documentation on it). And of course, at the end of things, supporting every piece of obscure hardware in the world isn't the end of the world. We've got Linux for that.
"It is a interoperability hell from a competition perspective and a interoperability paradise from a plattform perspective. Happiness in proprietary slavery?"
Hypocrite much? Microsoft pushes Trusted Computing on you, is threatening to lock users out of hardware space altogether, and you're going to talk to us about Open Standards and Proprietary Slavery?
It is technically possible to port Mac OS X in order to be executable on general cheap Intel-Computers. But they do not want it. You know that GNUstep aimed at creating a runtime platform for Linux, Windows and Mac. So it should not be a problem for Apple to provide software which makes OS X apps run on Windows but they just don't want it.
It's technically possible to make monkeys fly out of people's asses too. But most people don't want that either. Apple could port the rest of Carbon and all of Cocoa to Windows for supporting Mac OS X applications to run on Windows if they cared to, but they're not caring to because, even though there are plenty of applications being written, they want to re-enforce the behavior, not restrict it. Maybe in the future when we have applications on the Mac that we absolutely "cannot live without", would Apple consider it again. In fact, there's rumors going around that Apple's had the code for ages, and that they're just waiting for the right moment to spring it on us, and it makes perfect sense.
What are the advantages of Apple? - a strong, often specialised, user community, esp. in media and design - many commercial applications esp. Video, graphic and Microsoft Office. Earlier IE was an argument. - a fame of good usability - some well designed applications such as iTunes - marketing
You forgot "an extremely flexible API", a great set of Open Tools and Open Standards, and extremely reliable hardware/software integration. Then again you have the disadvantage of being limited to one segment of the market, but that really hasn't stopped any programmers nor purchasers. And now that you can run Windows on your Mac, there's a lot less reason not to buy it.
On the long run I do not think Apple's Operating Systems will survive. If the Open source community chose GNUstep instead of GNOME Apple would be history or liberated today.
On the long run, I don't think Microsoft's OS will survive, and I'm basing my point on the same crazy speculation as you are. That is, of course, if Apple got an injunction on Microsoft from selling Windows.
Re:Missed the Memo (Score:2)
Before anyone jumps on me, I do want the Mac Pro, I might even consider getting it. But I'm just saying that the Stevenote comparison to the Dell Precision 690 is bunk, or at best greatly overstates the difference because the machines aren't comparable.
One thing to keep in mind is that Apple is offing a consumer vi
Re:Missed the Memo (Score:3, Insightful)
Que ?
Interesting. When I go to the 'customise' page on Dell's website, the default card is a 128 MB Quadro, without even a DVI socket on it (it's
Hmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Mac Pro
dual 3.0Ghz Xeon woodcrests
16 Gigs RAM
nVidia Quadro FX 4500
23" cinema display
Mac OSX
$11,648
Dell Precision Workstation 690
dual 3.0Ghz Xeon woodcrests
16 Gigs RAM
nVidia Quadro FX 4500
24" widescreen flat panel
Windows XP x64 edition
$9,908
Guess it depends on how you configure them, doesn't it?
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Informative)
dual 3.0Ghz Xeon woodcrests
1 Gig RAM
4x 500GB SATA
nVidia Quadro FX 4500
23" cinema display
Mac OSX
3-Year AppleCare
$7676
Dell Precision Workstation 690
dual 3.0Ghz Xeon woodcrests
1 Gig RAM
4x 500GB SATA
nVidia Quadro FX 4500
24" widescreen flat panel
Windows XP x64 edition
3-Year Basic onsite
$8546
Dude, just don't buy RAM from Apple.
Re:Missed the Memo (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Missed the Memo (Score:4, Insightful)
Be so kind as to explain this to me. Apple offers a very, very competitively configured and priced machine in the Mac Pro. The only thing that literally isn't the best on the Mac Pro is the hard disk (configurable, self manageable to save some bucks), and the video card (again, configurable, and self manageable if you want to save a few dollars and install yourself).
The software is top notch (and runs Windows if you just don't care for Mac OS X), the platform is incredibly feature rich using the newest processors, RAM, not a sign of old PCI (unlike most boards), Firewire 400 and 800, hell, Apple put so much attention into the design they spaced the video card port out on the motherboard as to not block a PCI-Express port if you need a dual-lane video card.
Another detractor could be said to be 16x PCI-Express SLI/Crossfire, but arguably the cards can't make use of that much bandwidth, and arguably it's not worth the price to who Apple configured the machines for: Professionals. Then again, either Intel will have to put out a 32x capable chipset, or Apple will have to go fishing for a new one (and there will be plenty to choose from).
So the fact is, as a professional workstation, there is nothing that is competitive with the Mac Pro. They've delivered more than anyone for the lowest price possible, and actually made it configurable enough to make it fit anyone's budget, even on the high end. Call me back when Dell stops slapping Intel design recommendation boards with Dell logos in their machines.
Re:Missed the Memo (Score:5, Informative)
I take it you've not looked at the specs. Four graphics cards, each with dual-head, is a built-to-order option.
you want the best processor you need go out and buy it because apple does not offer core duo 2 extreme edition like alienware and dell
The Core 2 EE is the top of the consumer line. I don't know how it compares with Woodcrest, but I would be very surprised if it beats it.
the best sound cards are for PCs
The really high-end kit tends to work with OS X. The middle of the range stuff, like Creative Labs' offerings, is often Windows-only though.
things like watercooling or high end psu are only supported by PCs
I take it you missed the PowerMac G5 shipping with watercooling as standard. In fact, I'd be very surprised if you found a PC case with better thermal engineering than a Mac Pro. I've taken a PowerMac G5 apart, and it's quite amazing on the inside. As for PSUs, the one shipped with the Mac Pro can handle 4 hard drives, 4 graphics cards, 4 cores, and still have enough power left over for external FireWire devices. How much more high end do you want?
Re:Missed the Memo (Score:4, Informative)
So Really, it's the price. (Score:5, Interesting)
"So really, it is the price. Apple won't beat Dell at the bottom, but in the middle and top, Apple's already got them beat."
And of course, there's the fallacious point of "Apple's computers starting at $1000". Apparently you haven't heard of the Mac Mini, coming in at $599, just $199 more than Dell's "Bottom Line" and offering a ton more features.
Price is only the deciding factor right now because Dell set that one up a couple years back. Now Dell's cut so many corners on their machines their profits are beginning to fall, they're on the other side of the price slashing curve where quality isn't beating out quantity anymore. Apple's only cut margins slightly, and completely rebuilt their platform to make their machines entirely more marketable. All they have to do is show you the differences and let you play with the machines a bit.
With 50% of new purchasers being new to the Mac, we can assert their plan is working.
Re:Missed the Memo (Score:4, Insightful)
I have an Alienware laptop P4 3GH, around a year and a half old. It is still a nice machine and it runs most games ok. I then went out and purchase some new WWII game to play at a local lan party... Well 50% of the people there spent over an hour installing the freaking game and all the patches. Then the ATI people had to dork with their video drivers... another 30 min.... then after all that the game freaking killed my machine... I was able to uninstall it but for me this was a waist of 4 hours. Now the machine does one purpose and that is play EQII. My Windows/PC friends suggested getting a new machines and or reloading my OS from scratch. At this point I looked at a new video card for a PC and found that they still range around $300-$600. So to "play games" on a PC is going to set me back more than the cost of a PS3.
This is when the wheels started turning... I could get a PS3 (my PS2 has never caused me 4 hours of frustration just to game) and I could get a Macintosh for my work. So for me, a small gamer, I can say that I am very happy to be dumping the whole PC "gaming" experience and I will actually be saving money. I figure that the Macintosh will last me for around 4 years and the PS3 will be a viable gaming console for 5. "If" I was to do a new Alienware/Dell, I would need to buy one every two years to keep up OR I could get use to waisting time reloading my OS and downloading new crappy drivers every so often.
Please understand I am not knocking you PC gamers out there. I was someone who dropped $350-$500 for a new video card every year or so and upgraded my system every year or so, but I am tired of doing that now and I see a viable escape and lastly, please please please don't tell me "All my games load" If that is the case then good for you, it wasn't the case and NEVER has been with any LAN party I have been to.
Re:Missed the Memo (Score:3, Insightful)
We somewhat agree. I will use a PS3 and not EVER have to dork with any ATI driver crap issue again. Yes I will be limited to 1900X1080 resolution but that will be good enough for me. Where we will di
Re:Why Apple will never kill Dell (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not even in the same market: Apple isn't competing with Dell's primary market to begin with.
Exactly. Every time new Apple hardware comes out, there's always someone griping about how they can get a Dell for much cheaper. That's like comparing a Toyota Corolla and an Acura TL on price alone. When you compare actual specifications, the two cars are not in the same league. A more fair assessment woule be a Lexus ES vs an Acura TL or a Honda Civic vs a Toyota Coroll"
Imagine how silly this sounds:
"Bah, XP Pro is $199? I can get XP Home for $99. XP Pro is way too pricey compared to XP Home."
Re:Why Apple will never kill Dell (Score:5, Insightful)
Silly to you, but it happens EVERY day, among the group of people who don't really use their computers for everything a computer can do.
Most people just want to download their AIM smileys and play the Sims. Why spend an extra hundred bucks for that? And why spend over $1000 for a machine that's cute, when it's just going to sit on the shitboard-n-glue Wal*Mart computadesk, get clogged with cat hair and peanut butter, when there are perfectly good smiley-downloading-Sims-playing computers with labels like Dell, Acer, or Daewoo for much less?
Re:Why Apple will never kill Dell (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why Apple will never kill Dell (Score:5, Interesting)
What constitutes 'good enough'? Did their previous computer completely break, or are thy looking for something better? Wasn't there previous computer 'good enough' for 90% of possible tasks?
My 486 was 'good enough' to run netscape in 1995. It was 'good enough' to connect to the internet and run any programming language, windows 2000 or linux. However, I upgraded, not because my computer wasn't 'good enough' but because for X dollars I could get an (X+?) better experience, and since used the computer many hours a day, this improved my life. I wasn't looking for the least possible computer which would fit my set of requirements, I was looking for the computer that was the best computer I could get for the money I thought was reasonable to spend.
People like to buy things which they will enjoy using, whether it's a Dell or an Apple. That is why people buy leather couches (who could possibly say that cloth isn't 'good enough') and wide screen plasma TV's. That's why my wife picked out the Ethan Allen furniture instead of the stuff at Walmart. Nobody can say that a walmart bookshelf isn't 'good enough' to hold books. It does the job exactly as well as any other bookshelf. I'm probably a little stupid for spending orders of magnitude more. But I'm not dirt poor (anymore) and when I look at the furniture I got I am much happier sitting next to it day after day than I would be watching walmart pressboard slowly melt and chip away.
That is why I do much of my work on a powerbook. Sure, I could still be using my $1000 dollar Toshiba Satilite I bought in 2003. In every way it is 'good enough' to do everything I wanted to do. But it was hot, the screen resolution was low, and unlike my powerbook, it wasn't a joy to use. I find myself using the powerbook differently than I would have used the Toshiba (I gave it to a friend). I pull it out and am not as resistant to stopping work for short intervals. I can put it away without a lengthy shutdown procedure (close the lid and it is instantly in standby). I can pull it out and actually work from battery if I want to show someone something. It doesn't weight nearly as much, and it is far more durable.
That doesn't even take OS-X into account. It is fantastic. I now have the power of Bash and a unix environment, with python built in as well, with the ease of use and multimedia integration of Windows (although it is really several times better than Windows). And everyone in my family can use it without being taught to do every little thing.
I just 'sold' my mac mini to my father at a big loss (family discount?), but now he will actually be able to use his computer. He is the person you describe in your posting. His beige box duron I built for him before I knew better is 'good enough' to check email. He runs outlook express, and occasionally gets massive virus infections that i have to clean off (even though he has up to date virus scan). Despite this necessary expert help every few months, and the maintenance tasks it requires he considers it 'good enough'. He can't buy a digital camera because he wouldn't know how to set it up (he could easily do this with a mac) but that is 'good enough'. He can't accomplish anything on the computer besides pga.com and outlook express. That isn't good enough.
When people say that a dell is 'good enough' what they are really saying is a dell is 'good enough for what I know how to do on a computer'. Since the vast majority of people have only used windows, they only know how to do things they can already do on windows. My father is going to be very happy with his Mac Mini, because now he can use a digital camera, now he can avoid massive virus infections, now he can manage his computer without constant outside assistance. So although the old computer wasn't very good for him at all, he thought it was ok, because it allowed him to act within the bounds of computer use as he understood him.
Those bounds are about to be pushed way out.
Re:Why Apple will never kill Dell (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, for a very lax definition of "work".
Re:Why Apple will never kill Dell (Score:2)
Apple builds to last. (Score:5, Interesting)
And the thing about Apple is that the inside of these machines are just as good as the outside. The Apple Minitower design that was only phased out in favor of the aluminum "cheese grater" minitower was amazing. You unlatch one of the sides and pull it down, and you are inside the machine. No stupid sheet metal slidy doors or inverse-u shaped cowlings that are a bitch to tear down and even more of a bitch to replace right. And the parts used are good, sane parts. Not "hacked by Chinese" crap. You don't hear about explodey caps or random shorts with regard to these old machines. Yeah, you hear about explodey batteries on laptops, but let's face it, everyone except IBM has had problems with LiIon batteries, and I'm waiting for the reports of burning Thinkpads that I know will eventually come.
Apple builds to last with good solid parts and also by patronizing good facilities. Foxconn, ASUS, they don't deal with the Elitegroups of the world. If a top-tier Asian facility is unavailable, Apple has its own factories run to their standards.
Hell, people still use Mac SE30s after all these years. Why? They are BUILT.
Doh! (Score:2, Funny)
Too bad the warranty doesn't cover that!
Re:Doh! (Score:2)
Re:Doh! (Score:2)
Re:Doh! (Score:2)
Re:Doh! (Score:3, Insightful)
You can upgrade your mac to the next version of OSX, and the one beyond that, etc etc...
Granted it's definitely not free (Jaguar, Panther and Tiger were $129 each, 10.1 "Puma" was a free upgrade over 10.0 because the latter sucked ass so badly you could definitely not make people pay to finally have a working system), but you'll be able to upgrade without any problem (in fact, John Siracusa from Ars Technica tested OSX 10.0 to 10.3 on the same G3/400 machines that was originally running MacOS9, the system
This is a pretty stupid article... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has made forrays into the cheaper market (the mini) and Dell takes a poke at the top end (thier quad graphics solutions/purchase of Alienware), but they both have primarily differnt markets.
People shouldn't assume that Apple want's to be the dominant controller, just because other companies think that way, there is much profit to be made by being select too (I would imagine Apples profit per unit sold is much greater then Dells, much like Nintendos standard "make a profit not control the market" stance grants them)
Re:This is a pretty stupid article... (Score:2)
Re:This is a pretty stupid article... (Score:2)
Dell still gets a pretty big profit margin though. From information in a recent financial report, something like 17%. Apple was around 25%.
I can see the perfect Ad... :) (Score:2, Funny)
'If you get too excited about what is supposed to be an incredibly amazing product you simply won't buy a new Apple this year.'
It really is very delicious Eve, I promise you, after you take a byte, well, just a nybble perhaps, you'll know everything about We . Then you'll know everything about good and evil and never be allowed into the garden again. We will make sure the angels put up some fiery walls so you cannot enter again.
There are Apples and oranges and pears and pl
Re:I can see the perfect Ad... :) (Score:2)
Enderle, briliant as ever (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks a lot for this insightful article Mr. Enderle....
The author... (Score:5, Informative)
Remember - This is Not Apple Speaking! (Score:5, Insightful)
Like a lot of these types of articles, it's all supposition and theorising. Nothing concrete, just ideas. These are the same people who confidently predict the iPhone is coming soon, or for years predicted the imminent demise of Apple (any day now!) so they've got little to no credibility in my eyes.
More nonsense from Enderle (Score:5, Informative)
"However, Steve Jobs is the master of being your best buddy while planning to stab you in the back. His biographies are filled with stories that do more than suggest that if he wants what you have, you'd better grab it and run for the hills."
Please. History is littered with the corpses of companies with which Microsoft formed a "strategic partnership"-- The MS people stick around and play nice for a while, then one day the other company gets notified that Microsoft wants to go in another direction so the partnership is over. Then a couple months later Microsoft unveils a competing product and kills the company with which they partnered.
The best historical example I can think of is Go Corp in the late 80s/early 90s-- Microsoft partnered with them, stole their stuff and created Pen Windows to crush them. You can get accounts of it from both sides if you read these two [amazon.com] books. [amazon.com] However, Microsoft is doing the exact same thing right now: They are desperate to take marketshare from iPod/iTunes. To that end, their partnerships to make portable players and sell music under the "PlaysForSure" moniker have been miserable failures-- so now, they are screwing their partners and rolling their own solution in-house, Zune, which is stated incompatible with all the PlaysForSure stuff.
~Philly
Re:More nonsense from Enderle (Score:2)
No, no....not quite yet (Score:5, Funny)
That's the job of Puma.
Then Ocelot will take out HP.
Marmoset, once released, will end IBM.
Finally, Mr. Whiskers Boddington (the name of Jobs' childhood cat) will make Google irrelevant.
Then we'll get those full-screen iPods everyone's been wanting. wheeee
Re:No, no....not quite yet (Score:4, Informative)
Don't bother reading article - it's by Enderle (Score:5, Informative)
Consider the source... (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole idea that Apple could 'kill' Microsoft or Dell is too far-fetched to even consider. The only way either company could die is by suicide.
The usual blabla ... (Score:2)
A dual boot option would confuse most users and create unnecessary work / something new to understand. Tech people don't seem to understand that Mr. or Ms. Office just wants her work done - and they don't give a damn about fancy designs, Mac OS or any new geekery.
What's holding me back from buying a Mac... (Score:2, Interesting)
(1) I don't want to buy a 32-bit processor. Yes, I know that 32-bit is good enough for a long time now. But 64-bit is just what I want. It'll make me feel better.
(2) First-release Mac products are often rife with problems. The first-release aren't out yet. So I'm going to end up waiting at least 6 months for Apple to get most of the bugs worked out of the hardware.
Once that's all taken care of, I'll be getting a light Mac notebook.
Don't think it will work (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure... (Score:2)
Yeah, that's their strategy. I was talking about it with Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa over breakfast from the alien spaceship this morning. The next thing I knew, the cow had jumped over the moon and Mao Zedong was trumping up capitalism.
Then I woke up and swore never to eat pizza before bed again.
Wow, he really is clueless (Score:5, Insightful)
Another of the primary reasons Apple isn't being forthcoming about Leopard is the fear that if people get too excited about a product coming early in 2007 they will stop buying in 2006"
Uh, yeah, that might apply when you're talking about an expensive product. Mac OS X costs $129, and Leopard will run on any Mac sold in 2006 (and probably several years previous). Anyone who is paying attention to what's coming out of WWDC knows that and can likely afford $129 to upgrade. Everyone else who's interested in a Mac now will happily buy a Tiger system and probably not even notice when Leopard ships.
Furthermore, Microsoft has been talking up Vista for five years. You didn't see Dell or HP go out of business for lack of sales because people are waiting for Vista, did you?
~Philly
Re:Wow, he really is clueless (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead they were talking up their new OS, which will work perfectly with everything they are currently shipping and sells for a very reasonable cost.
Apple experienced the Osbourne effect already: In years past, when people would hold off Mac purchases if Apple trade shows were near, in case Apple would announce something new. They also went through it in the last 13 months since they announced the Intel switch, as many people waited in anticipation of the PowerPC-based machine they originally wanted being replaced in the product lineup with an Intel-based Mac. And each product introduction was followed by a flood of sales. The difference between Apple and Osbourne is that Apple had alternate income sources to sustain it through the sales dropoffs.
Now that the Intel transition is complete, the Osbourne effect is the last thing Apple needs to worry about-- they will probably be updating their machines much more frequently than in the past, to keep pace with what the other Intel-base computer makers offer-- not just announcing new stuff at their trade shows and developer conferences.
~Philly
Waiting for a midrange headless mac, not Leopard (Score:2)
I want something between a Mac Mini and Mac Pro. There is an extemely large gulf between these that really needs a mainstream model that will at minimum accept a video card and regular size HD.
I am not interested in a built in monitor mac. I am picky about screen types and run dual screens, so this doesn't fly for me. Fine for my Mom when I get her a new computer, but not for me.
I suspect Leopard will be here before Apple build me a mid range mac. Someone at Apple must see
Apple doesn't get it...it's not about the HW or OS (Score:3, Insightful)
You see, it has nothing to do with the 10-30% price difference in an Apple, or the fact that Apple (C)Won't compete in the entry level systems (my small office runs on a $200 dell server that's three years old an hasn't so much as sneezed in all that time). I can't use Apple (or Linux) because I can't afford to (a) relearn how to manage the OS, (b) relearn all new applications for my technical work, (c) force all my clients to figure out how to interact with my non-industry-standard applications. Most of that stuff is MS only. Oh, sure, I suppose I could spend a few months figuring out if every single one of my dedicated engineering apps works with Wine, or (um, shoot, can't remember the Apple one...
I'm stuck with MS at work because most of the vendors only write for MS. I use MS at home because I use MS at work. I can't afford to re-buy my apps for home. I use the same apps both places (mostly in conformance with the EULAs, by god damned fair use if not). When that changes, we'll re-evaluate.
Tell Steve he has more work to do.
Erm, I would say they DO get it... (Score:3, Interesting)
As for your argument that you have Windows-only stuff, part of the reason Apple is playing up virtualization is because it lets yo
Wild attribution of genius (Score:3, Insightful)
The writer of that statement, in explaining why Apple must have dumbed-down their product announcements of late, attributes strategic genius to Steve beyond the pale. The suppositions behind such a statement is that
Attributing a master strategy as the reviewer in question has done is akin to Coca Cola aficionados who attribute New Coke as a masterful ploy to boost "Classic Coke" sales and loyalty over Pepsi Cola. Yeah, it turned out that CC pulled their butts out of a tight spot with the re-introduction of Coke Classic to appease the revolt, but calling it master strategy is revisionist history at best.
Let's just leave it at this: Apple has broken its string of amazing announcements (amazing in the marketing buzz generation sense) with a slight dud; expect more goodness in the future as Apple redoubles its efforts to overwhelm us with goodness.
Why not buy a Mac npw, then upgrade the OS? (Score:3, Insightful)
What a strange comment. Are there features of Leopard that need special hardware support, features that prevent Leopard from showing it's true potential on all Macs except 2007 models? I seriously doubt it. So buy a Mac whenever you want, then upgrade the OS when the next version is available. Sure, it will cost you $129, but that's little compared to the cost of a new Mac notebook (plus AppleCare, which is a requirement these days).
It's the Software Stupid-New Frameworks in Leopard (Score:3, Interesting)
There has been talk of the elusive "killer app" for years on the internet but I believe that these new frameworks (Core Animation), existing frameworks (Core Image/Video, Data and Audio) will usher in a true "killer app" that developers will struggle in vain to reproduce on windows and other linux. Some may manage to create a pale copy of it but it will not be so tightly integrated into the OS and you will not be able to easily share data with other apps. I would also venture that it would take 10X as much time, money and manpower to develop.
We can all "oooh and ahhh" all we we want about the flashy features in OS X or Vista how easy it is to implement innovative applications in a particular OS will determine which one has the attention of the public and media IMO.
I think the keynote only scratched the surface of the power the collaboration features in Leopard will have on the development landscape.
To the "Dell sells a sub $500 computer" crowd (Score:3, Interesting)
Bottom line is, a > $500 desktop from Dell isn't going to run Vista for crap where as today you can buy and old Apple iMac on eBay for the same money and you can run Tiger.
People on Slashdot are sorely mislead. (Score:3, Interesting)
Often, you see trollish headlines that state "will Apple kill Microsoft?", "Will Apple kill Dell?", "is this the iPod killer?", etc. People here seem to be a little on the artsy/emotional side rather than on the purely logical side. They can't seem to grasp the gravity of a situation; instead they get lost in the details and forget the scale of things. For a forum that loves Star Trek, they sure don't think like Spock.
First of all, people underestimate the massive advantage of being the much larger company. Dell has a huge marketshare advantage over Apple. They have $55 billion a year in revenue vs. $14 billion a year. If worst came to worst, Dell could simply buy Apple. Microsoft could also easily buy Apple, but the US Gov wouldn't allow that. Still, if it were a fight to the death, they could afford to take losses to sap away Apple's marketshare.
I think people should stop to think for a moment before they post these unrealistic headlines, because if it came down to it, the larger company would simply gobble up the smaller company. It's business 101.
I'm not trying to troll here, I'm trying to inject a dose of reality into another one of these irrational threads.
Re:People on Slashdot are sorely mislead. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sounds good until... (Score:2)
Oh, and for the record, not a lot of people are using WMV these days. XVID/DIVX do much better in encoding quality, iPod Video doesn't support WMV (and trust me, there are already a shitton not of only iPod video encoders, but people encoding people for it), and all of the big online sites are using
Re:Sounds good until... (Score:2)
Re:Sounds good until... (Score:5, Informative)
When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.
Re:Sounds good until... (Score:5, Informative)
Jaguar?? I presume you meant to say "Leopard"
"I do know watching a 640x480 WMV on OSX is like upsampling a 160x120 video into 1080 high-def- UGLY"
Not at all. A 640x480 wmv file on windows has the same resolution as on OS X. They play fine with the flip4mac [flip4mac.com] plug-in for quicktime. VLC can handle a lot of them too.
Re:Sounds good until... (Score:2)
At least it's a UB now. How long did that take?
Yes, both products can expand what the mac can play, but currently the mac can't play everything that windows can. MS intends for it to be that way.
Re:Sounds good until... (Score:3, Informative)
Ok, there really is no such thing as a WMV10 file. The codecs used in even the latest Media Player 11 are still based on the Version 9 Codecs, or VC-1.
As for DRM with WMV, it probably doesn't handle it too well, considering most WMV DRM methods used by companies include Windows Based executables.
Apple will eventually 'have' to support WMV natively, or they will not be able to do the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray content, which both require any HD players to suppor
Re:Sounds good until... (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that is Microsoft's fault. After all they use a close format and even partially dropped support for WMV on a Mac. Personally, Quicktime and VLC work just fine for Divx and various other torrent media.
Besides, WMV and Mov wars on the web are loosing to Flash (Youtube and Google videos) so that is a moot point. If you want to watch video on webpages it will be all flash soon and everything else will run under VLC.
Parent Post Is Pure FUD (Score:5, Informative)
WMV and Real are just as good on the Mac as they are in Windows.
For proof that this post is rubbish, look at the fact that the poster refers to "Jaguar" That was the code name for 10.2. That was many years ago.
Debunked.
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is competitive on price-- the low-end just doesn't go as low. So Dell sells a $300 desktop, and Apple doesn't compete in that market. But you can't compete with Dell in that market, either, because they sell high-quality cheap crap in massive quantities, and they get as good prices as anyone. The only way to get a computer out the door for less than Dell is to sell low-quality cheap crap, and you'll probably still need to take some losses. The profit margins on those $250 Dells are just miniscule, and you can't under-cut that very much. So if you're waiting for a $100 Mac mini, you'll be waiting for a while.
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:5, Interesting)
So yeah, you get better specs for the money with Dell, and if you plan on only keeping the system for short-term use, that's dandy. But in my experience the Apple price premium isn't *entirely* due to the brand-name factor; there does seems to be an overall better system quality.
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:5, Informative)
I thought this was a neat trick, since I wasn't aware that Intel were shipping 2.8GHz Core Duos. The Dell site is a horrible mess, so I wasn't able to find the machine you were looking at. I did find the Dimension 9200. This was $1,574 with a 1.86GHz Core Duo. I also found the Dimension 5150c, starting at $779 with a 2.8GHz Pentium D as an option for $50 more.
The Pentium D is based on the old NetBurst microarchitecture which (in case you missed the last five years) is slower than pretty much anything else clock-for-clock. It's also very high power and hence heat, so needs more cooling, meaning it's likely to be louder.
If you are going to compare like with like, then please do so. Please post links, and please at least try to have slightly more clue than '2.8 is a bigger number than 1.8 so it must be better.'
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:5, Insightful)
You facts aren't made up, just misleading. The $1200 Mac is a Core Duo with Mac OS X, the $1200 Intel is a Pentium D with Windows MCE.
So you get a faster clock, but less performance -- and the Mac can be upgraded to new chips whereas the PC is using an end-of-life architecture and a retarded version of Windows.
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:5, Insightful)
I call FUD on badasscat (Score:3, Informative)
Configure a Mac Pro and Dell with the same specs including an upgrade to a more expensive Quadro which Apple does provide as an option. Notice the price? The Mac Pro is still cheaper and it includes more media software. Now add three year Apple care or Call Apple up and inquire about Procare. Is the the Dell cheaper? By how muc
Re:Software or hardware (Score:4, Insightful)
It's funny, because the Mac fanbois at least hate Windows because it sucks and they can give reasons. Apple haters just seem to hate Apple and the logic is missing.
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:3)
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is slightly cheaper or equivalent to Dell on same spec machines. the only difference is that Dell also sells cheap shit that Apple wouldn't dignify with their logo.
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:5, Interesting)
How about you try the other way round? Go have a look at Dell's cheapest laptop, then go & find an 'equivilant' Apple notebook.
Dell's market range is huge, Apple only competes with them in a few areas - pretending otherwise is.... deluded.
Dell competes on price, Apple competes on quality (that's one of the reasons why you hear about Apple defects so much).
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:5, Informative)
This is just something that's never going to change with Apple. They have a standard of quality that makes their brand quite valuable, and that's due to not stooping too low and slapping the Apple logo on a piece of crap. If you get their cheapest Mac, you can still rest assured it will be an awesome machine in its own right. You get the cheapest Dell, and you're just in for a poor experience.
Besides, remember the $100 laptop project? Steve Jobs offered OS X for free to run on those things. The project rejected the offer because they wanted it to be open source, then went with Red Hat (who just so happened to have donated to the project). So because of them, the world missed out on having a $100 Mac. Ugh.
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:3, Informative)
Apple competes on price but doesn't go below a certain level of quality. I don't know why this point is difficult to grasp.
Translation: You have no counterargument, so you're going to accuse me of "trolling."
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple positions itself as a high-end vendor, as do many other companies. Why does that concept confuse so many people only when it applies to computers?
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:3, Interesting)
[sigh] It's about quality, not quantity (Score:5, Interesting)
Pricing as similar a machine as I can (replacing the ATI card with a quadra FX 3450, match RAM, lose monitor, add DVD-RW, add ethernet) I get $6282 before tax.
So, are Dell gouging an extra $2033 (or 47%) profit from their customers ? Or is it what the market will sustain for them ? Or is it that this time Apple managed to get a better deal on parts ? Who knows... It's pretty certain that if it were the other way around it would be Apple's "high prices".
Now my pricing includes a small discount, but since it seems Apple have to compete on price against Dell's discounts normally, I'm sure no-one will object to me using Apple's discounted prices against Dell, yes ? Even with the discount removed, it's still almost $1400 difference in Apple's favour.
My point is that you have to compare like with like. Sure there's no low-cost tower. Deal. If they don't sell it, you can't buy it - though in fact I'd be surprised if the gap wasn't filled soon enough... I'd expect Apple to launch the high-end towers first so there's a good population of high-end machines out there, and to exploit the pent-up demand. As soon as that demand starts to wane, I (if I were Apple
Simon (who can't wait for his new machine to arrive
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple isn't competing in price. In order to compete in price you have to be cheaper than the competitors lower end products. To use a car analogy, Kia competes with Honda on price. Mercedes doesn't compete with Honda on price, even though you could certainly say their lower end models featurewise are equilivent to some of Toyota's high end models at a similar cost.
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now just deliver them for a price I want.
There's a paradox at work here
History has shown that the best product doesn't always capture the greatest marketshare. BetaMax was far better quality then VHS, but look which survived. The original Mac beat Windows 3.1 hands down, but again look who has 95% of the desktop market? I think you really can get what you pay for, the paradox is people too often expect awesome for cheap, then buy cheap and expect awesome. If you want it, buy it.
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:5, Informative)
They already do, Apple's machines are competitive with Dell's offering of the same price (depends of the rebates you grab though, but Apple's price are lower than equivalent Dell machines without rebates), and you get OSX + slick cases (versus ugly dell cases).
They just don't compete on the very low end stuff (dell goes much lower in price/configurations quality)
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does that mean it's sensible for them to do?
Apple, like any business, sets their price point for maximum proffit. If they drop the price 10%, they will get maybe an 8% increase in sales, which will not quite make up for the drop in price, and their net proffit drops. If they raise the price 10%, they will get maybe a 12% drop in sales, which again cuts into proffit sufficiently to drop their bottom line below where it is now. I'm sure Apple spends a lot on market research to make sure they have selected the optimal price points for their products. Your decision as to whether or not to buy based on the current price affects the optimal price point, so a Macintosh's price is not actually set by Apple, it's set by me and you, the consumers.
You just want good hardware on the cheap. There's nothing really wrong with that until you start saying it would be to anyone's benefit besides your own.
In an ideal world, if you paid more for a product it would be better, higher quality. If you paid less for it, it would be a poorer quality. It doesn't always work this way, but that is still the general idea. Keep that in mind when you want to "have your cake and eat it too". Reminds me of the production manager's motto: "fast, good, cheap, pick two."
Re:Haven't we heard this before? (Score:3, Informative)
Umm... No. A Dell with the same hardware as a Mac pro is more expensive.
They run the same applications. They run more games.
Um... They can rame the same applications and technically the Mac can run more games because not only can it play Mac OS X only games but it can also boot into WinXp and play any windows game there.
Re:Haven't we heard this before? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, but does a out-of-the-box PC have the same quality of applications (iLife, iTunes, iCal, Mail.app, etc) with the same level of seamless integration? Sure PCs come with Music Match, some basic calendar app, Outlook Express, and other bundled software, but it is nowhere near the quality of the Mac's bundled software; in fact, some of that bundled software may be spyware. Does an out-of-the-box Windows PC have the same security as OS X's out-of-the-box security? Once again, if I bought a Windows PC, I have to worry about installing anti-malware tools (which is basically a high memory tax), installing Firefox, and keeping up to date with every little Windows update. And don't get me started on Windows default admin mode, lack of full multiuser support, lack of user permissions (that work the same way as Unix permissions), and other stuff.
Apple doesn't compete on the low-end scale, so that is the reason why PCs are much more common; you can buy a nice Athlon 64 box for $600 or more (depending on the specs), or a decent Celeron M laptop for the same price. They are quite capable machines, and they run Windows/*nix very well. Apple would make a big sweep if they competed on the low end (imagine a $300 Mac Mini to counter those Dell $299 specials, or a $699 MacBook with a Core Solo processor). Not everybody needs a dual core laptop, for example. However, when configured at the same price, the Mac is usually a better deal, unless you must need Windows for your job, or you are a serious gamer (I admit, I'd rather game on Windows than OS X; my favorite game, Sim City 4, costs $60 on the Mac but $20 for the exact same version for Windows. Eh?).
PCs may be more popular, but there is a reason why Mac users buy Macs. It comes with a well thought out package of software that complements each other quite nicely with no hiccups.
Re:Increase in Market Share! (Score:2)
"Twice nothing is still nothing." Apple's share of the world market is 2%, of the U.S. market, 3.6%. Apple's struggles to gain PC market share continue [appleinsider.com] June 1, 2006.
Re:Hasn't that been the goal the entire time? (Score:2)
Huh? Good thing Apple is going for the small part of the pie then. All the most sucessful company strive to earn the fewer customers than their competitors.
Yes, it's true that Apple will be a software company, hardware company or both. Thanks for the insight.
No, it shouldn't (Score:3, Insightful)
Read more about it. [slashdot.org]
~Philly
Re:Mac OS X should be sold for PCs (Score:3, Insightful)
It is far from that simple. Getting the average person to install a new OS on his or her existing machine, wiping out e
Re:Why would I want to... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm a proud SJ fanboy and eMac owner (Score:4, Insightful)
Either way though, I do not think you'll be buying a Mac anytime soon then, since every one of your demands is something that just isn't going to be happening any time soon (i.e. OS X for generic Intel hardware, 3-5 year warranty standard on all devices and hardware and 1 major free OS upgrade). When you set up an impossible standard (that is, a standard that no PC companies could live up to), you have set yourself up for something where you could never be satisfied.
Re:Windows vs. Apple: Price (Score:3, Insightful)
In case this didn't occur to you, you are not exactly a good customer. Apple doesn't give a crap if you stick with Windows.
Oh, and be careful. That place called the grocery store? They want you to pay too. I know, f*** them!
Pity you're not using a Mac (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes the small things are what make the difference.
Simon.