Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jobs And The Oh-So-Cool iMac
The truly successful technologies and technology companies are utilitarian and dull -- decidedly non-hip. You will never seen a Microsoft or AOL exec talking about how cool the their companies or products are, only how useful and easy to use. They don't really care how much heavy breathing they generate in the media or among excitable teenagers and college students. Those two companies have, in fact, dominated their environments by pointedly focusing on the non-technologically adventurous middle-class and busy business executives and workers and by presenting themselves not as cool but as reliable and accessible. And for this sin they get jeered at -- all the way to the bank. Their motives may be money, greed and power, but they understand what really drives technology in America and much of the world. Steve Jobs does not.
The tech media have served as enablers and co-dependents in Steve Jobs' sometimes-brilliant marketing impulses. Last week, the volatile Jobs projected himself onto the cover of Time magazine by unveiling the oh-so-cool new iMac, a computer as entertainment/culture center, a "hub for music, pictures and movies." It's elegant and affordable, says Time, and takes up little desk space, "but will millions of PC users get it?"
Probably not.
Gates understands something Jobs and media don't. When it comes to technology, it's middle-class consumers and their tastes, needs and expectations that determine success or failure. This is a hard lesson for many hackers and programmers too, who remain bewildered that superior systems like Linux aren't on every desktop. But the middle class, for years abused and exploited by the arrogant tech industry (just think of what poor Comcast subscribers have been going through for weeks now), wants easy of use, safety, utility. Just consider at the telephone, the automobile, or for that matter, Wal-Mart. Apple has demonstrated for years, and so, to some degree, has Linux. Harry and Martha in Dubuque decide which products will enter the mainstream and last, not college kids editing movies or downloading music and DVDs, or using firewire ports to fiddle with video clips.
Apple, perenially aspiring to coolness, has always been the favorite computer of the non-hacker hip and the creative. And of many people (like me) whose entry onto the Net and Web has been made easier for the first programming language that really made sense to non-techies. Jobs' colorful, well-designed, fun and entertainment-centered iMacs and Powerbooks have been getting fabulous press for years. His idea to fuse the desktop with pop culture is, in fact, a powerful one. But it's too soon. The middle-class isn't ready for that. Most Americans don't need the 1,000 songs the iPod can store, and would rather go to the megaplex than edit movies on their computers.
So Apple accounts for only 4.5 per cent of new personal computer sales, according to Gartner Dataquest.
That's probably because Jobs hasn't addressed the central problem facing computer makers: the public doesn't trust them. Burned by years of outrageously poor tech support, increasingly expensive software, and hardware that's almost instantly outdated, middle-class consumers aren't the least bit interested in the coolest new new thing. They want computing that works like TV does -- that's easy to use, takes little space, costs relatively little money and works every time you turn it on, year after year. The public is increasingly wise to tech scams like hardware that's obsolete every 18 months and software that doesn't even last that long. Computers -- even the jazzy new iMac -- are a long way from reliability, and are profoundly mistrusted. In fact, it was only a couple of years ago that the candy-colored iMacs were the next cool thing. Now they're about as hip as Windows 98.
If you're a teenager, Web designer, film editor or visual arts major, or even a loving Grandma, it's great that the iMac allows you to create your own DVDs, organize and edit digital pictures, play CDs or convert MP3's, turn home videotapes into high-quality edited films. What's less clear is whether or not the public -- especially that critical middle-class chunk of it -- wants to do those things on a computer, or is confident about its ability to use machinery that's still more complicated and problematic than its makers seem able to admit.
For nearly a generation now, from Jobs to the makers of instant replay TV machines, some of the best minds in the tech world -- usually the younger ones -- have been crippled and misled by the confusion between what's cool and what's going to be successful, between what's neat and what's necessary. The survivors of the Net's first generation -- brilliant plodders like Gates and Steve Case -- understand quite well that they aren't the same thing, and have, as a result, increasingly come to dominate the Net.
I don't think its a stretch to for Jobs to concede that MS won the operating system war - thats why he is trying to fight the total user experience war - something MS can't do unless it wants to start making boxes.
I think Jobs is an egomaniac, but he's also driven by some very appealing ideas about consumer computing, and I'd take his strategy over Katz's punditry any day of the week.
I mean, really ... 'only 4.5%' is a lot of fucking computers. 'Only 4.5%' of the automobile (or whatever) industry can make a very successful company. Most developers would be successful beyond their wildest dreams if their software were on 4.5 of computers.
the middle class, for years abused and exploited by the arrogant tech industry (just think of what poor Comcast subscribers have been going through for weeks now), wants easy of use, safety, utility.
Personally, I tend to think that price tends to trump all of those concerns (which of course is something that perennially hurts Apple, I'm afraid)...
You can't deny that there is a place for form in the market as well. I'll grant you that function is tops, but you can't just throw out form as many would have you believe. Form (aesthetics) is equally as valuable as function and the state of mind of the person using the product has actual effect on the end result.
Make the user happy and make the machine functional and you'll never go wrong.
Given that the Macintosh and is OS have been the most easy to use and reliable system in the PC world I think that JonKatz is a little off in claiming that Apple doesn't understand this. Jobs is trying to make some devices that technophiles who read sites like this one and people who can't understand the difference between the WWW and the Internet can both enjoy.
Cool PC's and laptop draw additional users. But, it's not all about that at Apple. They're trying to put together the easiest to use and most powerful system that they can (at the same time). That's the hard part. The growth of Mac seems inevitable as it becomes as BSD box with the coolest hardware and the most capabilities.
It is not understanding PC users that brings Gates to the top. It is the fact that he uses monopolistic powers and bully tactics to force people and competitors to use his sytems. Maybe Steve Jobs just isn't that mean.
P.S. I'm not a Mac user... but, I may be one soon.
The original iMac sold many millions of units. It was the direct hit that Apple had been waiting for, and Jobs delivered. It's style has influenced countless PC designs. And, perhaps most significantly, it's success was all despite the overwhelming popularity of incompatible PC hardware and software.
It would be unrealistic for Apple to aim for domination in the desktop market. But they've found a hell of a niche that nobody else seems able to fill with such grace.
So, the reason that Windows won out is because it is reliable and easy to use. Thanks for the enlightenment.
Katz mentions several times "ease of use and reliability" as a selling point for Bill Gates, as opposet to the "just cool" model for Macs.
I wonder, how can anyone think that windows is "easy to use" compared to MacOS? Or "more reliable"???? At least for the 3.11/95/98 series, which is what we are talking about.
The only thing I can see is the power of a good marketing deparment...
>i cannot beleive people will be wowed by the imac, "hey, its a different shape, it must be really fast"
You are missing the point. My coworkers' reactions were "woah, takes up such little space, i need one." and "dvd burning and a g4 with monitor for $1800? I'm sold."
My reaction: "perhaps i don't need a second powerbook, when this imac would be portable enough for touring with."
It's a great piece of design. Those who value their living space (like those of us here in NYC) will eat it up. Those who want affordable dvd burning and video editing love it. Those in the market for a "nearly portable" are also gaga for it.
A computer can be a work of art too, you know.
.
Thank you very much for thinking f me my foriend! This new imac is very much impressive for immpressing peoplee. If myh friend jon wouuld send me one I think that I would position the screen flatly and use it to hold my commodore since my furniture has all been taken by lootingg foriegner troops.
making the most of the Commodore since 1982 http://www.ij.net/rmscomp/cbm.html
"...it was only a couple of years ago that the candy-colored iMacs were the next cool thing. Now they're about as hip as Windows 98."
wasn't win98 the next big thing a few years ago as well???
Surely there is a feedback loop between users' tastes and the paradigms presented by technology companies. I find it hard to believe that the "beige minitower" form factor somehow taps into the a priori sense of what's best. It's simply what's been successful from a market penetration standpoint. I'd hate to imagine a computer industry without Jobs and Apple pushing out the edge of the envelope.
Katz is right, Apple is a complete failure! If they had the right idea, they'd be profitable! Oh, wait, you mean they are profitable? And in fact just posted profits for a year in which the tech sector was in a serious slump? And the value of their stock has increased tremendously over the last five years. Yup, Apple is a complete failure, Katz is right on the money. I'm definitely turning to him for investment advice!
this is getting old and so are you
blog
Isn't Steve Case John Romero's other half???
Seems like the argument here starts as utility trumps "coolness", and then that "coolness" is no good when it is not what people want to do (a cool new way to poke yourself in the eye.)
But I do think PCs are reaching a commodity level for the thinks most people do, and if trust of computer makers is an issue, it cuts everyone, there is no uniqueness to Apple focusing on design.
So I think, as PCs are more of a commodity, the design is going to be a key differentiator, just as the Cola wars are not about nutrition (potable utility) but about taste and preference - so maybe Apple is a bit ahead of the commodifying of PCs, but better design is definitely going to be an increasing part of how consumers make decisions. (They all surf the web, and they all crash, so I'll take the pretty one.) This is a good way to try and fight off the fact that M$ is the conventional wisdom (They all surf the web, they all crash, so I'll get what everyone else did...)
...begins in wonder
According to Bob, "...that no matter how cool these new computers and their software are, they won't be enough for Apple to "win."
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach him to eat and he will fish forever.
Doesn't matter how 'cool' it looks or what it will do - bottom line is someone walks into a store and sees the iMac sitting there for $1400 next to a PC for $699.
Both run Office. Both access the 'net. Both play music. Both can probably edit video to a limited extent.
Which one are you going to buy?
Katz, you need to realize that total-world-domination isn't the only measure of success. Apple is a successful company -- it has, what, $5 billion in cash. The old iMac is a successful computer -- it has sold more than $6 million units in its time. Steve Jobs is a successful man -- he runs two very cool companies (Apple and Pixar), and probably has a better quality-of-life/lifestyle than Billg (Jobs' jet is better).
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Jobs seems to be aware of this issue at some level. His comments about the market share of BMW's as compared to Apple computers is actually quite revealing. Jobs is not just content with that market share, but actually actively working towards innovation and therefore expects to have a smaller market share. That's the positioning that Apple has taken. And unfortunately right now, I am just not in the market segment that buys BMW's or for that matter Apple's computers. I would love to be, but so be it. Katz seems to spin this all as a criticism of Jobs and Apple, but in fact Apple is financially just as successful as Microsoft or AOL, just on a smaller scale. Their huge cash reserves are proof of that. Watch out when they find the project on which to spend those reserves!!!
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
See Cringely's piece on how Jobs defines 'winning'. It's not how Katz defines it.
Best Slashdot Co
I migrated from Linux & Windows to MacOS X. I am very satisfied. I dont understand all the talk about the User Interface of OSX, in my opinion its neat and easy to use. Its a modern System for these very good quality apple computers. Apple is really a bright sight in these times of fucking cheap and unreliable PC hardware with all its thermal problems and unaproved drivers and electrical designs. My Apple Computer is just doing what it should do: running. I can really say: most of the folks talking bullshit about apple never really used one. I used all Windows versions, Linux for more than 3 years, and I can say: Apple and MacOS(X) is the best. Wintel PC is only for people who has nothing else to do then keeping their machine running. Judas666
I'm sure a lot of people will go into detail, but I think Katz is wrong because:
... I think a lot of the reason that people don't buy Macs is not because they're harder to use (they aren't) or more expensive (a little) or alien (any more than the computer they use at work is). It's because they can't pirate Apple software from their friends. They can't just drop by Bob from accounting and get the latest version of MS-Office to take home and install (Of course, that's becoming harder too with Microsoft's current registration schemes).
* He focuses on marketshare, not profitability. Apple has been profitable for the past several years (with the exception of this one) and even when they were bleeding red ink they never has less than $2 billion in the bank. As long as Apple remains profitable, they remain successful. And they're on track to be profitable in 2002.
* Yes, mediocrity (good-enough) generally wins out in the marketplace, but there is always room for a deluxe, well-made product. Apple's analogy about BMW is relevant here. Furthermore, there are a lot of companies (Compaq, Gateway) that have followed roughly the same path as Microsoft and AOL and are fighting for survival. Business likes boring, but business is not the be-all and end-all of the market, and boring will not guarantee you life.
* Most importanly, Apple's emphasis is not on what is coolest, but on what is easiest for the consumer. That's the point of the Digital hub strategy. That's the point of the original iMac with no floppy drive and only USB connectors. That's the point of iPhoto, iTunes, i* etc.
* And, a little off-topic (but a general misconception)
I don't dislike Katz, but I do think he often has some very basic perception problems. Either that or he's just taking a positon to spark discussion.
--Jieves
How is that apple always seems to take 3 year old technology encase it in lucite and everyone in the media just creams over it? Perhaps just more evidence that the only people that really care about macs are the art fag crowd.
so predictable.
The middle class tends to buy a computer that will get the job done. Non-savvy users are most likely to go out to Costco or a department store and buy a computer, somewhat regardless to the specs. Bigger is better, they think. Yet Apple is doomed until they can establish a wide user among office users. The way to go about this is to either competitvely cut costs or perhaps even make the MacOS interface feel a lot more like Windows (minus those GPFs.)
As far as the middle-class is concerned, the Apple is like eye-candy to them - higher class computers that are fun, not productive. You can only have recess for so long before you have to come inside and do your work.
Function isn't everything. Swatches didn't dominate the wrist watch market in the 80's because they were so functional, it was the style.
My dodge Neon gets me to work just fine, but that doesn't mean I don't want a Porsche.
Jobs knows what he's doing, he's creating a brand not just a computer. Function is important, but don't think for a second that image doesn't count.
... is what I remember some columnist (John Dvorak, maybe?) calling the original iMac. He used basically the same arguments we've seen here: cool premium computers aren't what sells, cheap beige boxes with aggressive marketing is what sells, and Apple Just Doesn't Get It.
... take a look at Apple's financials vs. those of Dell, Compaq, HP, or IBM's PC division. Not only do they Get It regarding design and marketing, apparently they Get It regarding the bottom line too, because they're making money hand over fist at a time when almost all other personal computer makers are struggling.
But the fact is that the original iMac was the single most successful personal computer model in history, and it pretty much saved Apple. I'd say that this is proof that Apple Does Get It, in a way that most columnists apparently don't. Look, Apple will never take over the world, and we Macheads know that. That's okay. What matters is that Apple keeps making the world's best computers, and enough people (4.5% is a small slice of a really enormous pie, and that's okay too) keep buying them so they stay in business.
Oh yeah
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
You will never seen a Microsoft or AOL exec talking about how cool the their companies or products are, only how useful and easy to use.
But I will see a new commercial every time AOL puts out a new version saying how this is the easiest to use incarnation of AOL yet. Part of this premise is wrong--AOL very definitely sells itself on ease of use, true or not.
True. He understands that in business, it's okay to lie, cheat, and steal, if you get away with it. (Or even if you get away with it for long enough.)
It has been said that a dollar spent on marketing is worth five spent on engineering. I'm inclined to think this is an understatement, except that Apple is doing relatively well in absolute terms, if not in percentage-of-the-marketplace.
But then, my income is a very small percentage of the wages paid to software developers (the corresponding 'marketplace'). This is not a problem.
Pick One: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~stremler/sigs/sigs.html (Note - disable Javascript first!)
I think this argument is like saying design doesn't matter for automobiles because we have problems with pollution, safety, and gridlock. When cars can fly, then it's time to worry about design.
Clearly this is nonsense. Computers are commodities now, despite their many imperfections. So a manufacturer must compete on price, service, and/or design.
Apple, which doesn't have the advantage of the WinTel community's oversupply of component options can't really compete on price. Service is a reasonable area, but there's a real lag between when the market acknowledges service as a value so it's not very cost-effective, at least early on. Therefore, their best differentiator is design and they clearly understand that.
Now I agree that it would be nice if a computer were as uncomplicated and reliable as a toaster, but it's simply not going to happen in the near future and its unfair to take Apple to task for not solving the problem with Microsoft has far more resources.
Macs are not merely a case of style and form over function. Yes, Macs look ten times better than the other PCs out there. But they are also functional. I got an HP digital camera for my birthday. I took some pictures, and upon plugging the camera into my computer, my pictures instantly popped onto the screen for download. I plugged in my printer and again, instant recognition. Things DO just plain work reliably. (I'm not making claims about what Windows boxen can do.)
Maybe people are scared by how "cool" Macs are, and don't trust them because they are too extreme, or something. I can see people looking at a beige box because "most of the computers look that way". But Macs aren't just "cool", they work.
mark
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
Jobs understand what Katz doesn't, unless Katz is just trying to rile up some responses. Apple cannot compete with Dell, IBM, Gateway, Compaq, etc., in making beige boxes. It's a brutal market, and one that Apple isn't in - Apple does a mainstream OS and boxes. IBM couldn't do it with OS/2, but Apple is still chugging along.
What peeves me is that whenever one of the PC makers releases a new piece of hardware, it's all about the specs. When Apple releases something, it's held to a much higher standard. Apple brought the GUI, the floppy, easy networking, design, USB, etc., to the mass market, and now has brought Unix to the masses as well (and it's partially open sourced).
Katz, if you want to feed the monopoly that keeps you down, fine.
who cares about market share. The real question is, how do Apple's profit earnings compare to Microsoft and to Dell (need to compare both since Apple does OS and the box).
Also a good question to ask is, how does Apple's growth (in terms of profit percentage) compare to Dell and Microsoft?
If Apple has better growth/profit than Dell/Microsoft (D/M$), then 4.5% means good news - there's still 95.5% of the market that can potentially be consumed.
If Apple makes the same profit (in terms of bottom-line $$$) as Dell, but does it in only 4.5% market share as opposed to Dell's insanely huge 35% or whatever, then which is the stronger company?
Note, I havent looked up the numbers. I'm just suggesting that these are more interesting demographic/statistic metrics than merely repeating market share market share like a mantra. Market share isnt everything.
Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
I found a clear pattern of "soak the loyal" early on, then quickly drop the price to reasonable levels.
Now I know new tech costs more and then slowly drops, but most of these new products were just natural progressions of the line. I bailed from the scene before following the later paths to being soaked. Remember the Newton? The first iMac, while cool, had marginal hardware at the time and within a few months, they were upgrading it at the same cost.
There's a high cost to being a Mac loyalist.
However, with all that said and after being anti-Mac for the past 10 years (I gave up when system 7 had as many stupid bombs as earlier revs), I'm buying a new iMac for the living room for casual use. (It only does 1024x768 so I can't do anything too serious with it...)
I played with OS X a bit in the store and was blown away. Slick, nice user interface, on top of Unix of all things. Being able to open up a terminal window and run emacs was just too much for me.
So, I'm going to get the high end iMac next week and I bet you, within 3 months, they'll come out with a new model with a flock()ing 18.1" LCD display and I'll be really ticked off again.
So you have a computer for: having 2 GHz Athlon with 1 gig of ram and 400 gig of hd and a geforce 4 graphic card... Cool for you, I have a computer for work :-)
And this is where my Apple is fucking reliable - every day
Judas666
mac's aren't really faster than PC's. Most of the parts are identical. So why would I pay more for a mac than a PC?
Umm. WTF? Did someone completely forget about this whole monopoly thing?
Yes, Mac's a cool. YES! Mac's are easy to use. The article should mention (I fell asleep towards the end), that having this cool, sexy easy to use "Shell" doesn't mean a damn thing when you can't put anything in the shell.
"Yeah, I have this 10000 square foot mansion, but I have to buy specialty furniture, and Appliances, because everyone else has 3ft wide doors, and AC.. While I only have rotating doors (What are those circular things?), and DC power. It's not easy having what I think is 'cool'."
I knew I never should have started reading that article. What a waste of time.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Most Americans don't need the 1,000 songs the iPod can store, and would rather go to the megaplex than edit movies on their computers.
What, you want me to pay for what's on TV?! I'd rather listen to my radio and eight tracks than flip through hundreds of channles.
Damn, choices.
Oliver's army is here to stay Oliver's army are on their way And I would rather be anywhere else But here today
They would chuck up MacOS and start shipping with Intel-based systems running Windows. And what would be the sense of that? Is Mac struggling? I get the sense that they are just where they want to be with their business model - they want to appeal to the very people that are buying their products. They know they can't get the kind of market share that MS does, but they continue manufacturing superior products. And I think that we should look upon Apple as an ally in the fight to maintain our rights to listen to, view, and manipulate information. Who else puts ads on TV that actually show someone using MP3s? I think Mac has a niche market, and they play to it, and they succeed.
They want computing that works like TV does -- that's easy to use, takes little space, costs relatively little money and works every time you turn it on, year after year.
Isnt that what a iMac is? this article seems confusing Apples computers are far more than the add campaign. They are in my estimation the best computer experience one can buy.
Thats because only one person can win the election. The Mac is a product in a diverse market - Apple makes money, has a load of cash in the bank, and has loyal users. What are they missing?
They have in fact succeeded by not going after the middle of the market, where they would have been creamed.
Sorry Jon, I typically don't jump on the Katz-bashing, but today, I'm dumbfounded by this article.
1. How much market share does BMW have? Do you think that they have 4.5% of the world's market? I doubt it. Does it matter? Would I buy a BMW instead of a Ford? Definitely.
2. Steve Jobs knows exactly what he's doing. Do you think trying to trump Microsoft on making a commodity OS is the way to go? No, that job is already taken.
3. Take this example. I decide to open a store in a mall. There is a Walmart there already. Do I:
a) Build a gigantic department store and try to compete with Walmart?
b) Do I build a speciality store wherein I can attract a strong, loyal niche market, and make my money rather than getting crushed
I think Steve gets it fine. So do I, so do a good chunk of the posters thus far. But apparently, you don't get it.
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
the better idea is to target the younger audience. Maybe now older adults are having trouble with computers and how to use them. But that will change, and those who know that will succeed. Jon you also seem to believe that success is measured in popularity and how much money you make. By being the biggest and most abusive you become the best *. But that is not true of companies goverments or any other social structure. Being big only causes problems to those who are small.
but Apple is sooo close to doing this right.
The new iMac is pretty, and it's pretty cool too. The same can be said for OsX, plus it's stable.
The problem is that they're TOO pretty. They're too pretty to blend into the background the way a useful tool should.
Take the new iMac, add wireless KB and mouse, tone down the colors, push the virtual PC bit and get normal people to do the commercials.
Let us stiffs forget that Steve Jobs ever existed. Let me forget the whole mystical daisy like aesthetic. Let me forget about how easy it will be to edit video I don't have time to shoot and move music to the iPod I'm not going to buy.
Just make the whole machine transparent, let it blend into its surroundings and take its place among the other appliances of the world.
Then I'll buy one.
(sound of crickets)
Thank you.
The fact is, even with huge players in market (or a monopoloy), smaller niche competitors can thrive. It's ok to tout your coolness factor. Who cares if stuffy business suits don't trust your coolness! To hell with 'em, I say.
Granted, Jobs may in fact be the anti-christ everyone says he is, but he's doing quite fine for himself, don't you think?
And one thing Katz forgets: those conservative baby boomers have... kids who want "cool" technology. This is not a market to brush off so easily!
Method of processing duck feet
The big uses for computers for the average folk these days would be email, web browsing, word processing. For that, you can live on less than a gigahertz of speed. Things aren't going to improve that much with a top-of-the-line Athlon as compared to a discontinued PII. So if you don't need the extra speed, what differentiates the computers? RAM, HD, video card... style maybe.
What differentiates cars? Why don't car manufacturers spend gobs of cash throwing the newest "maximum speed notched up by 10 mph!" engines for their vehicles? Why do they, instead, focus on styling, CD players, automatic this-and-thats? Probably because you could make a car that can go 500 mph in the shape of a Civic, but honestly no one would need the extra speed (mainly because of traffic laws, but you know...)
So maybe the iMac's push for style (and very good specs, given its intended audience) is just Apple moving into the next arena of computers as stuff-of-life: the basic concept stays the same, but it's what you add in details that matters.
In that way, Apple is definitely ahead of the game.
The world's only surviving livewriter.
I've been debating doing this for a long time, but this article has finally set me over the edge. I am now officially filtering all Jon Katz posts. I never want to see anything this moron writes ever again. And no, I'm not posting this anonymously because I'm proud of the fact I will no longer have to read drivel like this.
But the middle class ... wants easy of use, safety, utility.
shouldn't that be 'But, the middle class wants ease of use, safety, and utility.'? even office 2000 catches the 'and utility' fix. maybe this is proof that jonkatz doesn't use microsoft office?
-rp
Did somebody leave Katz's "think out loud" switch set to "ON" again? The guy posts absolute drivel, again and again, with little or no regard to his own integrity. Why doesn't he just pack it in? What's he waiting for - a big zinger of a post that everyone will like and agree with? News flash, katz - it ain't gonna happen. Nobody respects you anymore. We know that you're a trailing remnant of the dotcom bust, and that you're just trying to ride whatever's left of your popularity into oblivion. Everyone knows that you have very little (if any) knowledge of the techie world, and that you're a complete and total poseur with no remaining media outlets.
CmdrTaco, RobLimo, whoever - if you're reading, pleast - consider what you're doing to the public by allowing this man to continue his charade. We've long since grown tired of his garbage. Now try and salvage what's left of this site's integrity. Just get rid of the guy! That's all it takes. I mean come on...is he some kind of vicious stalker or something? Is he going to feed your dog some poison or kidnap your children if you just turn him away? He doesn't even respond to comments about his own stories!!! He can barely be called an active participant if his only contribution to the editorial staff is one "freshman in high school" analysis of some outdated topic every week.
DO WHAT IS RIGHT, PEOPLE!!! GET RID OF KATZ FOR GOOD!!!
Apple, like any large corporation, has a culture of its own. The culture at Apple favors certain things. It places a value on aesthetics and on how people interact with their computers. It places a value on taking risks in order to push new technologies (some of which Apple invented, like Firewire and others, like USB that it didn't). It places a higher value on originality and elegance than on following established norms.
A company with such a culture will never rule the world. It will never defeat Microsoft in the marketplace. It will never unseat Dell. But it doesn't have to. In order to grow and prosper, Apple just has to keep its customer base happy. Its customer base is not Ma and Pa Gateway.
For better or for worse, the people who like Apple products tend to actually enjoy using their computers. They don't usually care about whether they can play any one of 10,000 available PC games. They simply want a computer that allows them to accomplish things and to have fun while doing those things.
As long as Apple can keep providing products that innovate in favor of the user, they'll do just fine, and the rest of the industry will continue to use them as an R & D lab.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I see you've been listening to Steve Jobs a lot lately. Don't get me wrong, I am an OSX user, but the computer industry - automobile industry comparison is somewhat besides the point.
Contrary to cars, computers become more and more useful if they are compatible. Most people i know like the Mac, but would never buy one because everybody else has Windows and they wouldn't be able to share documents and software with these people (they think).
Cars are independent, they get you from A to B, and that's it.
At least that's the way I see it.
Martin May
This whole article is based around the uninformed and ridiculous concept that Microsoft got where they are by creating the most 'easy to use' OS.
It also makes a ludicrous comparison between classic MacOS (extremely easy to use, technically inferior) and Linux (technically sound, extremely difficult to use).
This is struggling to get beyond the CNET level of tech journalism.
After the new iMac was lauched, I proceeded into the Multimedia Office to chat to our local Mac fan about his opinions.
:)
He felt that the product could be a winner because of its design to be a small home applicance which people can use, and stick discreetly in the living room.
But then, like me he read the specifications and the awful price, and he agrees that it is over priced and under specced.
Sorry Apple - I used to think you guys were cool. But apart from the new design being oh so ugly, how could people want to buy one of these with regards to performance?
Blah blah... I'll shut up now
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
I have to seriously say that this is the lowest form of inflammatory journalism - except it's not journalism. Really. Journalism (as experienced in laboratory conditions) includes such things as facts and even, in extreme circumstances, arguments that will support a statement. THis article contains none of these traits.
Jon Katz needs to find a new job, 'cause this writing bullshit just isn't working for him.
Did you choose your woman according to the same principles as your computer? If yes, I'm scared... /. in the first place?
I spend several hours a day working with my computer. Having a beautiful machine in front of me improves my daily life a lot. Like having nice furniture, a nice car, a nice cat... Utility is not the only thing in life. Otherwise, why are you posting on
The article is pushing the limits of journalistic credibility to points I'd not ever expected to encounter on a website I respect.
I'm growing increasingly weary of Jon Katz. It used to be that I just had difficulty following his trains of thought, and I attributed it to a lack of focus on my part. But when I actually sit down and try to concentrate on what he's written, I realize that it's both lazy and contradictory.
This article is like so many of his others: it makes broad, sweeping statements phrased in such a way as to imply that there is no room for argument; that the ideas Katz presents are not to be questioned, that they are merely given. It feels like the article is merely an outline of what could be a decent paper. But it would have to be filled in with real research and facts, rather than, you know, kind of a feeling, sorta.
It bugs me that he states that the iMac has not reached the mainstream, without acknowledging that Time Magazine is about as mainstream as it gets. He even points out that Grandma likes playing with the iMac-- how can a computer reach a broader audience than that segment of the population who have the least experience with and the most apprehension about computers?*
(*Look. I just made a statement based on nothing more than an idea that maybe sounds about right-ish, because it fits the point I want to make. It's JUST THAT EASY.)
It sounds like Katz is coming up with his conclusion, then trying to bend the facts to support it, rather than more appropriate opposite.
I'm not trolling, damnit. I'm just grouchy.
A little bizzare to see flamebait as an article (well...) but what the hell, maybe just a little response:
:)
Microsoft hasn't been successfull because of their reliable, easy to use software that focuses on the big middleclass segment. They are successfull because of their fiendish devotion to SCREWING anyone who looks at them funny. It's amazing how well you do when you don't have any compitition - so I think they will probably try to keep it that way, suprise suprise.
Basic tenent from various disiplines: that nice guys will always get the shaft when put in compatition with people who are willing to screw you. I don't really want to get into how mircosoft achieves this screwing of other companies at the consumers expense, because I really don't have the time to write it, and unless you have no life, you probably don't have the time to read it.
one boob writing about another...
I frankly am tired of the middleware that I work with being so complicated and on life support while in production. There is something to be said about software that just plain works, and is well designed. That is what makes it cool.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
I don't usually get into the discussion on katz articles, but I had to mention my distaste for anyone who can't get the goddamn company's name right. It's Apple Computer. Not Apple Computers, not "mac", Apple Computer. The mac is a product Apple makes; refering to the company as "mac" is also very incorrect (I don't think katz did that, but a lot of people on /. do). Do people go around talking about IBM and calling the company "ThinkPad"? Why is it so damn hard to get the name right?
-kt
Time's journalistic quality issues (Buy at ThinkGeek Now! oops, sorry) notwithstanding, the thing actually does seem like a nice machine. The "lamp" design is a very nice touch. If my iPod is any indication, it will be fairly solid if easily scratched, and if I weren't a hard-core laptop user, I might just buy one.
Will this save the PC industry and civilization as we know it? Probably not, but who cares? Nice designs are a Good Thing on their own. One hopes that they will be emulated by others, in the way that what is invented in a BMW might make its way into a Volkswagen - but even if they don't, their users are happy, which is what counts.
sulli
RTFJ.
Fuck you, arsecandle
You will never seen a Microsoft or AOL exec talking about how cool the their companies or products are, only how useful and easy to use. They don't really care how much heavy breathing they generate in the media or among excitable teenagers and college students.
When's the last time Mr. Katz watched TV and saw an AOL commercial? The blinking lights, teenagers shouting, "Wow, Cool, Instant Messenging!" and other things like that.
Sorry, Katz, the shift is definately towards the younger, hip audience, especially for AOL. Microsoft? Maybe not, but there's still focus on the gaming industry there as well. Not sure what the point of this rant was.
You get an os that can run all of your favorite unix applications. bash, perl, vim, mysql, they all run. All the glory is thine, daddy-o.
Top it all off with a computer that works out of the box. No driver setup, no fooling around with PCI cards and IDE cables. Give it power, it works.
there's more than one way to do me.
I'm trying really hard not to fall into that group of /. readers that either ignore or dislike Katz's every single post. But this article...oh my.
First of all, what is the point? What are we, the readers, supposed to take away from this article? For most of my life, I've felt like I have above average reading comprehension skills, but I'm having trouble figuring out the point here. Let's see...I've read it twice now...nope, no point. Lots of words with no meaning. Not a single enlightening bit of information discerned. Why? Because the article contradicts itself.
Apple (and Jobs, by proxy I suppose) brought the consumers the gift of accessible computers, but Jobs doesn't understand what keeps the technology industry moving.
Katz, what are you saying? Jobs in an idiot or he's a genius? Are you saying anything at all? Is there an opinion here, or just someone's retelling of things that could possibly be construed as something resembling facts? "His idea to fuse the desktop with pop culture is, in fact, a powerful one. But it's too soon." "If you're a teenager, Web designer, film editor or visual arts major, or even a loving Grandma, it's great that the iMac allows you to create your own DVDs, organize and edit digital pictures, play CDs or convert MP3's, turn home videotapes into high-quality edited films."
But for all the wasted verbage, the article finally wraps it up at the end: What's cool isn't necessarily what sells. God damn, Katz. You're a genius.
My sigs always suck.
- Stating that common computer consumers don't care that much about cutting-edge design: 1 sentence.
- A Jon Katz essay saying the same thing: 1,000 words.
- Skipping yet another windbag editorial: priceless.
To make your point clearly there's concise writing, for everything else there's John Katz.People like Bill Gates and Steve Case and thier respective companies have succeded for primarily the same reason. They are good at buisness and know the power of a monopoly. Coolness and neatness amount to jack poo-poo if they don't make people money. Apple understands that there is a market for computers that are not middle-of-the-road and have done quite well despite being up against some of the biggest monopolies in the world. People should not stop admiring someone because, despite thier megalomania, they have some ideas about where technology is headed and it is not in the status quo. Some people will always buy safe and boring, does that mean that those on the vangaurd should be criticized for not playing to tastes of the masses? Should people not be encouraged to appreciate those things that are appreciably better simply on the merit that they are in fact better? Or maybe we should think simmilarly.
~raum
to write something like this. Any criticisms of Apple open the flood gates of Apple fan's ire. Why cant Apple fans intelligently discuss the pros and cons of Apple's direction and decisions? The world isn't black and white and Apple isn't alwasy "brilliant" and Microsoft isn't always "evil". Apple's focus on case design (lets not give it any more credit than it's due) is troubling. What happens when that $1000 computer isn't so cool anymore? You've got a frustrated customer who feels like they've got less than they paid for despite the fact that it is still a very usuable machine. Thats the danger of marketing form over function. If this cycle continues long enough, Apple's market share could erode even further. It's a computer, not a lifestyle.
>bottom line is someone walks into a store and sees the
>iMac sitting there for $1400 next to a PC for $699.
If you're comparing low-end to low-end, you might as well actually choose the low end Apple product for a valid comparison: The low end iMac is $799.
So yes, while the average Joe sees a hundred dollar difference, they're probably also going to notice the extra hardware features as well as better design of the Apple system.
There IS a small price premium for Apple's systems -- but my goodness, don't exagerate it to the point of hyperbole!
- Peter
INsigNIFICANT
The middle-class isn't ready for that. Most Americans don't need the 1,000 songs the iPod can store, and would rather go to the megaplex than edit movies on their computers
Heck, I can d/l every movie I like from morpheus, but I simply don'T do it.
I mean who prefers watching movies on a PC to going to the megaplex?
The same with mp3 here, yeah, download 'em all, put them on the iPod, have your mp3s everywhere you go.
Do you really want that?
I don't need a portable mp3 player, I have an FM/AM radio at the size of a lighter and the 15 min a day when I'm alone, not at home AND bored i switch it on to hear some news or even good music (yes, they play good music on the radio, just find the right channel).
So, what do I want to tell here?
Everything is oh-so-cool, oh-so-portable and oh-so-oh-so. But do we need this stuff?
Why don'T they concentrate on making a stable, fast uncrashable system based on open standards and good compatibility?
A computer should be a computer, not a thing that is defined by it'S oh-so-coolness...
I formally volunteer to proof-read all of Katz' articles from this point on. No pay required. Please. Let me do this. My brain hurts after reading this article.
Yes, my girlfriend is a BitchX
Most Americans don't need the 1,000 songs the iPod can store
Huh? Virtually everyone I know has over 100 CDs, which would fill the iPod nicely. Everyone I show the iPod to, without exception, thinks it's brilliant. When I tell them the price, of course it's a different story - but this is 1.0, and there will be more, from Apple, Archos, Creative, and others.
sulli
RTFJ.
Why else would they try and get R.E.M. to let them use "It's The End Of The World As We Know It" (and get turned down), Rolling Stones "Start Me Up", and Madonna (whatever song that is)?
"Dude you're getting a Dell."
The PC is advertised as cool, but Mac at least makes an attempt to make them that way.
Oliver's army is here to stay Oliver's army are on their way And I would rather be anywhere else But here today
I dont think you have to dominate the middle class in order to be successful (unless you measure success by money, power and greed).
Jobs and apple are very successful and improving head on. Lets take a brief tour of their success (what I am aware of): iMac, G4, Cube, OS X, New iMac.
I think Apple is an innovator (as is Jobs) and in that field they are one of the most successful!
In a nutshell there's nothing wrong with innovating, being creative and leading the way. MS has never innovated (they are copycats), they are not reliable (think of how unstable their products are, and how unsecure) and the ease of use of their products is relative if you associate this with their unreliability. They were just lucky as they were amongst the first in their market.
To me apple makes great products, and I think all people would buy them if they weren't afraid of compatability.
I think that design gives apple a competitive advantage and offers the 'middle class' consumer something that Microsoft and the PC manufacturers can't or at least haven't. In people's home, where are most computers? Children's bedroom? Den? Rec room? Right, not in the 'main' part of the house. They aren't in the kitchen or living room and most aren't even in the family room. The computer has yet to find acceptance in most people core living spaces like TV's or stereo's have. Why? Because they are big, bulky and ugly. How many people have a radio in the kitchen? How many people have a TV in the kitchen? With the new iMac being small and generally a asthetically pleasing it is something that could sit in the kitchen.
The original iMac was a success because it was 'cool' among young families. This new iMac will be successful because it won't be an eye-sore sitting in your living room or kitchen.
BTW, take away the large corporate market which Apple doesn't really go after and Apple's market share is substantially larger than 4.5%.
I'm a Mac user, and I don't buy 'em because they're cool - my G4 tower, my iMac and my iBook are all the best computers, the most functional things I could possibly use for what I want to do. No other machines could do my work faster.
I'm tired of hearing all the press - "will this save Apple", "is this Apple's comeback", "what Apple needs to do is" -- if you don't want a Mac don't buy one. 4.5 % of us will continue to buy 'em and continue to exist with our "cool" products.
i cannot beleive people will be wowed by the imac, "hey, its a different shape, it must be really fast"
With that comment, you reveal your position: a PC person, bent on MHz, MHz, MHz.
Apple is positioning it's machines-at least it's iMac line- as "information appliances" now. Tools for certain jobs. Who cares how fast an information appliance is, as long as it's fast enough to do it's job?
I doubt anyone is going to use one of these machines for any intense number crunching, or as a hardcore gaming rig. It's for using iPhoto, or IMovie, or iTunes, etc. For those purposes - the "digital entertainment hub" - it will work fine, look nice in your den and not take up too much space. And that's all Apple intended it to do.
Whether or not it will be a mainstream success, that remains to be seen.
When Jobs helped shape the design of the original Macintosh 128K way back in 1983, he wanted an all-in-one fanless design that would be as easy to use as a kitchen appliance. No user-serviceable parts. What we have now in the latest iMac is the same idea (OK, two user-serviceable parts- memory and airport, yay). and a fan. but Jobs has been shooting for this idea for a long time... They've even used the same Torx screws all these years to help prevent user tampering!!
Trying to be a cutting-edge contrarian without really understanding the issues, and so looks foolish: a look he's apparently comfortable with.
Steve Jobs is actually cutting edge and, when appropriate, contrarian, and so has been having an effect on the computer world for twenty years, just not the effect Katz seems to value. How much of what he has done has filtered down into the computing mainstream. Ignoring the most obvious older examples, the popularization of the desktop metaphor, the introduction of the mouse, how many other design advances has Jobs made. At NeXT he put a GUI on Unix that worked, an idea that the Linux crowd is still working on. He listened to what people had been saying for years about boring beige boxes, and now consumers have other options from most manufacturers, even if not as far off the beige box path as the iMac was. Apple didn't have the resounding success with the cube that they had hoped, but computer case manufacturers are now starting to come out with smaller footprint machines that look awfully familiar (if opaque). Leonardo never got one of his machines to fly. Tesla didn't have the commercial success that Edison did, even though he was right where Edison was wrong. (How many of you have a DC outlet on your walls? Anyone?) Steve Jobs does more good with his often naively idealistic ventures than Bill Gates has, despite all those votes in Bill's bank accounts. Jobs is an extraordinarily successful designer who has shaped the way the computer world looks and works. Like many other designers, having that kind of life's work behind him drives him the way little green slips of paper drive lesser men.
the whole one button mouse whine is getting really old. do you understand that if a Mac user (which i recently became) wanted a mouse with more buttons, they can pick one up at best buy for $5? I use a MS explorer mouse on mine... 5 buttons... same as the one on my windows boxes... and my linux box, for that matter. "Macs are bad because they have one button" heh. grow up, k?
...I always stopped myself from deactiving Katz stories from the main page, because I liked seeing the news on Slashdot. It made me all happy to see a new article, and I would start reading it...
:)
...then I noticed I could always tell when it was Katz. *sigh* Has anyone here read "The Art of the Freshman Essay"? It basically says that someone who doesn't know anything about the subject matter will use inflammatory speech, the largest possible words, the airiest possible analogies, and the most breathless superlatives to mask that he doesn't really know what he's talking about.
Wow...I didn't realise it was supposed to be biographical.
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
Err, cool design is useful. Sure nobody needs "gee-whizz" features but that's not good design.
The new iMac is basically a story about useful design. Easy to upgrade, highly adjustable display, easy to do "stuff" with. Now why do people buy all those digital cams and camcorders? This makes them useful for 'non-geeks': brilliant.
What are we objecting to here? It's not a funky colour (it's white). Do you REALLY think that a computer has to look like a bit of test equipment?
Most "older" folks hate the cable tangle behind a PC, they hate the complex connecters (most of which you don't need anymore). They hate the system box. This is a computer as easy to live with as a lamp! Lets be honest, good design is more than "neeto" stuff, it makes the product BETTER. Who honestly enjoys the sharp edges when they upgrade their PC's RAM? Or the mess inside? Or all those cables?
Sure iMac isn't for everyone - that's why Apple make other Macs, but for many people it is a much better beast than a PC.
Why even hackers have been seen using Mac OS X! Gates's idea of design is XP - think about that for a moment.
Sorry but iMac is cool for Moms and Pops everywhere not just kid sisters! Who doesn't want to be able to find their photos, make the film they've shot watchable? Even iTunes, who's too old to enjoy music?
Tell it to the people who pirate Photoshop and Pagemaker all day!
'Coolness' is not and was not the perennial Apple motto. Not even under Steve Jobs. Witness the Apple I through the III. All were utilitarian machines. The first were geek hardware without the geek price. And having a wooden case was not 'cool'; it was being cheap.
1984, enter the Mac. What was the motto? Anyone? Yes, it was "The Computer for the Rest of Us". The machine for everyman. Its aim was usability and simplicity. And it was. For a long time, the 128k Mac typified computing for the average slob. Not until 11 years later did M$ come close to this.
Steve Jobs did not find the mantra of coolness until returned from the wasteland of NeXT. The idea that a Mac was cool did not develop until the iMac. And it is what has succeeded.
I think that Jobs has matured, rather than devolved. He realizes that people won't buy insanely great things. Not en masse. But as long as 4-8% of people do, the company will be okay.
In 1993, people didn't buy usability. They don't in 2002. What people buy is familiarity and cheapness. And at that, M$ wins.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
So.. umm.. what exactly have all us poor Comcast customers been going through the last few weeks again?
please, katz, dont quote facts without context. is the industry growing? is 4.5% this year going to be $9 billion, then 4.5% next year $10 billion?
at any rate, none of this silly punditry matters, as the people who use these systems find them elegant, stable, and most of all, useful.
First off, I'm not entirely sure what the point of the article was, so maybe I'm way off base. In any case:
I've been using Apple computers since 1981, and I've been priveledged to know several employees in the past few years. Apple has never been about world domination or shareholder profits. Apple has been about doing things in a better way. As trite as it may sound, "Think Different" is an excellent description of the company. "Good enough" isn't good enough at Apple, especially under someone like Jobs. The average consumer only cares about "good enough"; that's why they purchase less-expensive Fords instead of BMWs. Apples aren't for everyone, in the same way that luxury cars aren't for everyone.
There have been many, many missteps along the path, but Apple has managed to stumble along for almost 25 years now. Why? They get things right. The iMac wasn't an accident; neither were the original powerbook, the mouse, the black-on-white display, USB, Firewire, the WIMP paradigm, the laser printer, or any number of other innovations. Apple didn't come up with many of these advancements, but they improved on them and pushed them into the mainstream. Even some of Apple's failed endeavours are brilliant - look at the later models of the Newton, or OpenDoc. While it wasn't an Apple product, everything to do with NeXT should be considered as well, for that company was brought about by many of the same people. NeXTStep is *still* one of the most advanced operating systems in the world, and it's what, 10 years old? Had the rest of the world been as advanced as NeXTStep, the WWW would be a much more exciting place - read up on some of the stuff that our buddy Tim was forced to leave out because it couldn't be implemented on other platforms.
That is what Apple is about. Steve Case can have his AOL (I was using AOL before it was AOL - it used to be called "Applelink", and it was a blast to use on my Apple IIGS). Apple doesn't care about being the only player in the market, it cares about being the best. If Apple and the digital hub are ahead of the consumers, so be it. The consumers will catch up. They're starting to already. As today's teenagers enter the workforce, the catching-up process will accelerate. Today's teens aren't afraid of technology, they embrace it. Even those in the middle class have already started to "get it". Look how long the adoption of the DVD player took. Now compare it to the VCR, the television, and the telephone. Apple might be a bit ahead of the curve, but it won't take long for the consumers to catch up.
I don't dare suggest that the Mac will replace Windoze systems anytime soon, but it sure won't go away. Apple's products aren't necessarily for everyone, but there's a damn good reason why the company has such a rabid following.
</ramble>
So, what is Jon trying to say here? These Mac and Linux users have just been too pleased with themselves lately? "Yeah, you guys have great technology, but you still don't have market share". So what.
Lately (the last couple of years), I've noticed a huge trend toward a focus on market share, owning the desktop, and taking over the world. I think Mr. Katz and a whole lot of people in the Linux and Windows communities are the ones who have missed the point; I don't use Linux because I want to take over the world. I don't use it because I want to 'stick it' to Bill Gates, and I don't use it because I think it's cool. All of those things are nice ideas, but they are totally secondary. I think they are for most Mac users, too.
I use Linux because it allows me to do the things I want to do better than any other operating system. I'm a hacker, so I choose the OS that makes it easiest for me to hack. Linux provides me with more power and scalability than any other comparable system, and it easily supports almost every programming language in the world, all for a low cost.
I frankly don't care how neat and nifty the OS is, and I don't care who else uses it. In fact, I don't think everyone in the world should use Linux- "widest possible appeal" was one of Windows' design goals, and look at what it produced. Linux's specialization is what makes it valuable to me. So, Jon, before you get down on me for "not getting it", you get it; Linux is not winning the market share game because most of the Linux community has better things to do with its time.
--WH--
What is wrong with elitism? It is not like the enterance bar has ever been very high to gain entry into the computer world, all you have ever really /had/ to have is a DESIRE to learn!
/and/ our software or else you cannot use our platform!)
/ugly/ beige box of yours! bleeeeh!!!!"
/like/ beige Thank You So Very Much. I also happen to like steel. I just do not like a society of computer 'users' that choose their computers not based upon their speed or functionality but rather on the color of the plastic case that surrounds it.
:) ) and actions commited in the present.
/never/ let it interfere with true technical advancment. Yes fancy see through GUIs look nice, and even if the OS has some nifty enhancments, the fact is that every moment that was spent programming in fancy graphical effects could have been used to actualy make /more/ progress over that which was already made. Let us not forget how slowly the artistic community has a habit of moving along on things, and how they obsessivly work towards perfecting one area of art before they move on to the next.
/do/ like pretty colors don't you???"
Seriously, is that too much to ask of a person now days? Ok mabye now days it is, but hell, that is all the more reason to RAISE the enterance standard back to what it used to be.
Sure I love the fact that computers are getting cheaper and more affordable all the time, but, if price is equivilent to elitism, then Apple is right up there promoting elitism. (Though their old policy of equipment donations to schools wa rather nice.)
If having a monopoly is elitism (be it UNIX, ITS, or Windows), then Apple is right up their promoting elitism. (use our hardware
If pointing out and laughing at or ridiculing people because they 'just don't get it' it elitism, then apple is sure as heck promoting elitism.
"If you don't like pretty color computers then your st00pid and obviously like that
Sheesh, yes I like my beige box, I happen to
Granted not all Mac users do this, but Apple specificaly went ahead and interrelated the color and the speed of the iMacs, thus making what color imac a person had a sort of quasi social order type of a thing.
Now one of the things that I love _BEST_ about the computer community (ah, or at least I used to, it is quickly disappearing these days) is that your social order was dictated by two things;
Great Deeds commited in the past (and by Great Deeds I mean that you had to make World Changing types of events to get any sort of notice, we all know who the Gods are.
Sure on some kiddie BBSs people would be judged by what type of computer they had (all caps on certian models of AppleIIs for instance VS those with a lowercase option put in), but shoo the computer community in a whole doesn't give a rats flying fig if you are helping people out from your Commodore 64 living in a shanty in one of the worst parts of your town.
It is the fact that YOU ARE HELPING PEOPLE that made the difference. Always. Period. That you where a positive member of the community, that you cared for others, that you had a good heart and a workethic that got things done. Nobody cared how you got access to the net, just so long as you did.
It wasn't your gender or your age or your racial background that mattered, it was who you were. Nobody knew your gender or your age or your racial background, all they knew was YOU.
Now days a person is far more likely to be judged on the basis of moral or social stances then anything else. Hell I've gotten I don't know how many death threats thanks to my strong anti-drug stance ("excuse me, but how the heck does you threatening to kill me make the situation any better for any of the parties involved?" Bleh).
If not that then a persons viewpoint of issues such as the progression of the artists into the computer community.
Yes computers have great possibilities for artistic achievement, but we should
Heck even in these modern fast paced times one notices that rarly is a compleatly new form of art created even once in a decade, but rather art tends to be a slow progression of movements. While it can be said that all achievments work this way, well. . . . ah. Take a look at the plurality of vector standards and 3d over the web standards out there for an example of exactly how long it is going to take the artistic community to actualy accomplish anything.
Do we really want to limit our selves like this? To petty social-economical classes and a surrender of the desire, of the movement, of the fast paced. . . newness, interduction of technology, into the computer community?
Do you think that the C language would ever have been created if instead all efforts were going into making the prompts blink in pretty ways and making the computer 'polite' and more 'user friendly'?
Where do you think networking would be today if intead of working towards just better technology in general, more 'interactive' or more 'user transparent" networking was worked on instead?
What would it have been like if artists had run things all the way?
1990, introduction of the IEEE 802.3i 10BaseT standard;
"Sure our new ethernet standard is just at 5kbps but you just plug it in and go, it sets itself up! Why the network overhead isn't a problem, here, just see the pretty colors that the cords come in! You
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Re: the usability issue, as whiny and bitchy as they are, the graphic arts types that I've known wouldn't use the Mac exclusively if it didn't work well for them. So I'm sure the Macs have their functional niche to fill.
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
Nobody would ever label them cool, just stunningly successful.
...
The truly successful technologies and technology companies are utilitarian and dull -- decidedly non-hip.
Consider the following classes of people:
- artist
- craftsman
- engineer
- businessman
I believe they all have different "success" criteria when it comes to their "products/services/career". Don't assume the financial or market-share bottom line is the universal criteria. It probably is for the last category, but even then, that's a stereotype that not all businessmen care to follow.
And don't laugh now... even corporate entities don't need profitability or market share as their success criteria. Consider non-profits.
Thank god the world has people who consider hip and well-designed products to be successful even when they don't take over the world.
What are the college geeks of the last 10 years going to be shortly... The middle class? Hmmmm...
In many ways, users today do want computers that work the way TVs work today, but TVs have come a long way, too!
Today's TV users get all kinds of great features, including color images, CRTs that warm up in seconds instead of minutes, "big" screens, cable-delivered signals with great "reception" on hundreds of channels, stereo sound (or better), the ability to rent and watch movies (*ahem*), the ability to instantly watch whatever's on pay-per-view. Even just from a UI point of view, we now get (and expect!) wireless remote controls for everything, on-screen displays, and finally no more need to twist the channel selector knob violently to get past that annoying block of UHF stations that your antenna can't pull in!
I'm not going to make a list of all the "innovations" that have come from Apple, but I'll mention my favorite. Before the PowerBooks came out, portable PCs all had their keyboard at the front edge of the 'bottom' part of the case. The PowerBooks moved the keyboard to the back, creating a wrist rest area, much better in-flight ergonomics, and a better place to locate the pointing device (trackball in this case).
Was it revolutionary? No. Did Steve Jobs stand up and call it the coolest thing ever? No. But innovation comes in all kinds of sizes and shapes. Someone will always be innovating, and it's a good thing. Besides, if no one innovates, we'll be stuck forever with what we have now - eewww.
-Mark
Jobs does get it, and he's going about it the best way he can with his marketshare. Preface, I've been a Apple user since the Apple II+ through the Mac SE and now to a Power Mac G4 and a PowerBookG4. I also use Linux and Solaris and windows when I have to.
What I see as Apples problem is not with Apple it's self, it's Microsoft. Rather obvious yes, but here's what I see.
My Dad is a executive my step-mom is a school principle. My dad never has had much computer expirence, he always had secretaries that did it for him. Now though you need a personal computer to get any work done in the workplace. Your secretary and read your e-mail and reply to it for you unless you're a CEO or otherwise.
As a result my dad has had a computer forced on him. Thanks to the Microsoft monopoly Windows was thrust upon him and he learned the bare minimum he needed to know to use the damn thing. It was painful for him (and me) to learn it.
At his age he has an ingraned way of thinking about things and how they work. It's hard to retrain him.
He sees a lot of the things I do with my Macs when I'm over there. And he asks me can his computer do that. I say yeah but you have to add this to the computer and buy this software or you could buy a Mac, you need to get rid of that Intel 133 machine anyways, why not get a Mac?
His response is always macs are different I don't want to have to relearn how to use a computer. So, he's stuck in Microsoft.
My step-mother is another story. She was used to windows and knew how to use Office well enough. When she came out of retirement to become a principle again she was in a Mac school.
She initially resisted like my dad and made the school get her a Windows box. Here though the Microsoft monopoly backfired. She had so many compatilibity issues with the Windows to mac office translation she sent back the Windows box and get a Mac.
It took her all of a week to learn it. Everytime she called me for help I'd say "You're making it too hard, you're thinking windows, with the Mac just do this like you would in any other mac program." I'd also tell her "Don't be scared to play aorund with it, there's nothing you can do to the Mac that can't be undone."
After a month she stopped calling and has never looked back. Hopefully she can convince my dad that there are other alternatives. If this continues Apple can grow beyond it's 4.5 marketshare.
Apple has a great story, they have a solution that caters to geeks (the cool factor, OS X being a BSD derivative) and they're doing well there. What's needed is for the masses to break out of the Microsoft mentality and realize learning to Mac isn't that hard of an ordeal. I'd like to see Linux get more penetration too, but not on my Dads desk, it's not there yet for him. OS X is, and when he learns OS X he'll be more apt to give Linux a try as well.
OS X can be a stepping stone for the masses to Linux. Apple is not a foe.
This is going to have be fought with advocacy. The more people who stand up and say "Macs are easy to learn.", the better Apple will do.
-- This space intentionally left blank.
No, just more successful.
Ford or chevy vs Jaguar, etc.
The flaw in the argument is the unspoken idea that you can have success or you can have integrity (artistic, moral, philosophic, programic, whatever) That has merely been a debate for the past few hundred years at least.
This is merely the rebirth of the argument in terms of comuter technology.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Kurdt
I'm not anti-social. Just pro-technology.
accessible to everyone, not just coders and programmers
even reasonable people like me turn their brains off. how can someone write articles for and about coders and programmers when that someone doesn't even know the difference: there isn't one!
It seems to me that Katz' main point is that focusing too much on design is the kiss of death in the tech industry. Sure, Bob in accounting probably feels that if he buys beige Windows boxes, his company's dollars are getting pure product. If he buys a computer with exciting lines, he's paying some artsy designer's salary somewhere. Perhaps the key is to get functionality down and then advertise the hell out of it first. A marketing blitz (and Apple probably knows how to do this...) showing great looking computers but trumpeting superior support and reliablility might kill two birds with one stone. If you manage to get a reputation for stable, functional systems (for Bob, Grandma, and Martha), then off-beat and Aesthetically Pleasing Designs(tm) would merely be money in the bank. Make it cool, and they will come. Make it stable and easy, and they will stay. Make it successful and you will be copied. Either way, computer users win. I'm not a Mac head by any means but I'd like to see some of their innovations copied. -
--My purpose set, my will defined. Caress the air, embrace the skies.
Steve Jobs is a one of very few top level execs with the power to turn his company in any direction he wishes. His risk is their risk. Many people take issue with his style, but it's what has made him such a powerful catalyst in the industry. Apple isn't the be all - end all in computing, and their overzealousness over the years in keeping their OS/hardware closed makes it a good thing that they haven't become the predominant platform, but without them, where would we be? Would Windows/KDE/Gnome look anything like they do or be as far along? I don't think so. I seriously have to credit the quality of my user experience to Apple, even if I run none of their hardware. Like Jobs says, think outside the box!
Now, unlike a lot of people, I'm not saying that the console or set-top is going to replace the PC soon, but i do think that it's inevitable that they'll fuse into one product, and we'll replace them for stylistic reasons or for totally new funcinality, and not just for speed increases.
Apple understands that I at least might be right. After all, what's the difference between an iMac and the new consoles? Both are fixed function, with a very limited upgrade path (official addons for consoles, Approved and drivered cards for macs). Both are programmed almost entirely at the API level, and in theory both can have very, very fast API calls due to standard hardware.
So what's the difference between an iMac and a swatch? I used to work with a yuppie. One of those guys that had to have only the hippest new stuff, only ate Godiva and only drank Starbucks, all that. We were poor at the time (he more then me, guess why?), but he wanted an iMac. The only thing stopping him was that he couldn't afford a new computer at all.
If the stuff on TV is any clue, massive consumerism will continue to be the lifeblood of teenage and bachlor culture. Trendism seems to be more prevaliant every season, and I think we'll be back at 80's levels and stay there soon. No one will care (except geeks) what a machine does, they'll only be interested in what's in the mags and on the screens, and all that. And if things stay how they are, that will mean they'll want Apple.
Will apple take over? No. Why not? Cuz Mircosoft gets it too. Homestation, X-Box, and 25 different versitons of XP: What do you think they're looking to go tomorrow? in the consumer market, they're heading strait for Apple's territory.
It wasn't the average consumer that made Microsoft king, it was the business community. The business community chose IBM clones because they were cheap and didn't come with a bunch of fancy doodads that would distract their workers. When PCs first went on the desktop, the managers wanted them to boot up and then go directly to the word processor or spreadsheet program that the worker was supposed to use, and that's it! They didn't want an easy to use interface that their workers could figure out. DOS was hard enough so that only a few specialist in the office could really set up the machines properly, and management liked it that way. As long as the documents were printed and databases maintained, the business community was happy with IBM clones
When people started buying computers for themselves, many of the purchasers were the more savy users in the office who were familiar with IBM clones. These were the people with jobs and money and who could afford to spend $3000 for a 286 (remember those days). The hip college students who had learned to program on a Mac could not afford to buy the Macs they preferred. When they went into the business community they learned to use the IBM clones, and ended up buying them so they could bring their work home. That's why Microsoft is king.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
Apple was a welcome antidote to the elitism...
Apple INVENTED elitism in the tech industry!
How soon we forget. Sheesh!
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
been on a college campus lately? Mac app pirating is RAMPANT.
I wonder what percentage of Photoshop users actually have legal copies.
yeah, that's what i hate about my osxMac, too...it runs whatever software i want...needs no prodding for drivers or DLLs...runs reliably for months on end...lacks most of the gaping security orifices...my cats can use it...OSX really does suck.
I don't know why people keep focusing on market share. Market share doesn't matter. It's market size that matters, as it's the size (and not share) which dictates economies of scale and ultimately how much cash your receive as a result of your business activities. If the entire world wide community of computer purchasers quadrupled tommorrow, but Apple's market size did not increase, their share would drop to 1/4 of its current value. Plenty of companies, however, are perfectly viable with very small market shares, particularly when they satisfy niche markets -- as does Apple.
C//
Okay, I'm a Mac user - have been from the start. I'm also well known at work as a militant MS-hater. Alas, of the 400-some people who work in this building, I'm the only one (that I know of) who is a major Mac fan.
Right after Christmas I started carrying my new iPod around and was surprised at how many people already knew what it was, who made it, and thought it was way cool.
In the last week, several people have solicited my advice about the new iMac. More than a couple are seriously considering one for home.
In my experience, this is big. Apple is making some waves recently and the PC users are paying attention. Not the uber-geeks who work here but the ordinary folks who don't live and breathe computers.
I say, way to go Apple - keep it up.
Doesn't that describe the iMac perfectly?
Computers -- even the jazzy new iMac -- are a long way from reliability...
It's not reliable? It hasn't even shipped yet! Sheesh, can it be released before you write your review?
The truly successful technologies and technology companies are utilitarian and dull -- decidedly non-hip
I think it depends on the price range of a product and the cost of making it cool. Wireless phones, for example, can be cool at interesting prices. That's why nokia is number one : people prefer nokia phones because of the design at the same cost than dull phones.
On the other hand, a cool car or a cool house can be much more expensive than standard ones.
Computers are just a little too expensive for people to buy cool ones. But that can change, if IBM and Dell can make design computers at cheap prices, people will buy them. It's only an industrial challenge like in the car industry. Twenty years ago, the cars were utilitarian and dull. Now, even the cheapests cars are somehow cool.
We'll see in two or three years how computers will be.
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
If market share were the final arbiter of success, then all you music lovers should be listening to Brittany Spears and n-Sync. Why? They have the most market share so they must have the best music, right? And GM must make the best cars, right?
Market share isn't relavant anymore. Probably never was. The market is growing up as consumer taste gets more sophisticated. Let's see who can survive the next ten years. Can half the PC vendors out there? I don't think so unless they can find some way to become more than just box-makers....Apple knows this and that's why I'll count them in the race ten years from now.
Has Jon Katz been living in America, much less middle class America, for any amount of time? Americans don't buy things for reliability or even cost if there is sufficent hype, design, or sex associated with it. When is the last time that you saw a car commercial touting mileage? When is the last time a soda comercial advertised based on nutritional content? If reliability, practicality and cost were driving factors, we would all be drinking weatgrass and driving Honda Impacts. As a practical matter, much of the ascendancy of shite like M$ and AOL is a function of heavy advertisement, and early adoption by major sectors of the population, forcing one to maintain substandard systems for compatibility.
M$ and AOL most certainly do not provide Reliability or even consistency (I just spent 30 mins rebooting my win98 system 4 times after an install, so I could do my daily quicken update) and the price/performance ration of linux is infinitely greater than that of M$. Most of Middle America simply does not know better, or needs a critical bit of software (Word or Quicken for example). Better solutions arise in sectors that do not have monopoly control (Palm)or in sudden paradigm shifts when the alternative design is sufficently superior (Internet, GUI's) as to render the previous solution irrelavant.
Apple's problem isn't poor reliability, and isn't even lower price performance ratio, it's mainly the betamax factor. Betamax was technically superior, but was a propreitary technology under the control of a single corporation, Sony. VHS won out because multiple corporations could licence and produce the standard and Sony couldn't out-market the competition.
Apple missed the boat on clones and licencing, and is now stuck in a position where licencing would simply cannibalize their limited market share.
one button mice are still the devil. luckily they can be escaped from for the previously mentioned $5.(although i'd suggest a little more money for a nicer escape vehicle)
For the life of me, I will never understand the community here at Slashdot. We bash and bash and bash Apple for not being open enough, too expensive, or whatever. Then JonKatz writes that "Apple doesn't get it" and suddenly everyone's rushing to defend Apple's honor. Bizarre.
As for you, Jon, I'm going to have to disagree with you myself. In today's world, trying to compete with the PC manufacturers for Ma and Pa Kettle's business is a low-margin sucker's game. Jobs knows that some of us are willing to pay for a premium computer. Those customers will keep Apple in the black long after PCs have become commodity hardware and they're all being assembled in Taiwan.
All Apple has to do is provide interoperability with open standards and continue to make innovative products, and they'll be around for a long long time. Regardless of market share.
This
Katz is clearly out of ideas. He should stop writing for Slashdot anytime now! He's been wrong before, but I've never seen an article so full of nothing from him before!
.... my calculations indicate a 85% probably that he'll decide to start rehashing his old essays. Damn. Well, that only ought to provide enough grist for another half-essay, so maybe we're still out of the woods!
..... oh no
Here's hoping!
You couldn't run bash, perl, vim or mysql on MacOS? Interesting.
I think the iMac was successful because the web has created the need for a home computer. Not just something to play games on for the kids or a place to keep recipes...but a home appliance that many of us just can't (or won't) live without. I have a 14 and 17 year old and I have to say that if they were forced to choose between the computer (running Redhat btw) and the tv, they would choose the computer because of the web. For most of the people in my family, it's the first (or possibly second) thing they do when they get home.
People who work in offices running MS Ofice and Windows originally thought that they would buy a Windows PC for home because the knew how to run it from work.
Now, people do not see their home vs. work use of their computer as the same thing. Most families use their home computers to access the web. Macs are pretty much the easiest and most reliable home computers. And besides, they're cool..
I want to be alone with the sandwich
The apparent "cool vs. functional" theme of this article is absurd, and obviously written by somebody who thinks it's still cool to aimlessly bash Apple.
Let's talk about functional for a moment, shall we? Here are some of Apple's thoughtful little extras which have appeared in the last little while:
- First consumer PC with onboard 10/100 ethernet
- Apple's laptops have auto-sensing ethernet ports so it never matters if you use a "straight thru" or "crossover" cable
- First computers with integrated ieee 802.11 antennas
- First computers with on-board 1394 (FireWire, an Apple innovation)
- Laptop batteries with a gauge to tell you how much juice remains without turning on the laptop
- Tower case with a door that opens downward to reveal all of the RAM and PCI slots and allow easy access to drive bays
- First mass-marketed "legacy free" PC (the iMac), which is arguably responsible for saving USB from certain death
- Consumer PC with standard, articulated flat panel display (turns monitor - "look at this, bob")
- Cinema display, which for quite some time was the largest desktop LCD display available
- Support since the Mac II series (198x) for as many monitors as you can connect, arrangeable in any way to form a large "virtual desktop"
- Networking support built into EVERY Mac - not just as an option - since 1984
- First consumer PC to ship with a mouse
- First consumer PC to ship with 3.5" disks (and no option for 5.25" low-capacity behemoths)
- First consumer OS to support CD ROM
- First consumer OS to natively support proprtionally spaced fonts
These are off the top of my head. These are not gimmicks. These are not wowie-zowie cool add-ons from the special effects department. These are useful innovations, which Apple continues to deliver with every new product. These are genuinely useful technologies. This is function!And hey - if these innovations happen to come in really nice plastics, that's cool... because I also don't want my computer to be an eyesore. You can poo-poo innovation and call it trendy all you want. I have no interest in paying less money for less of a computer, from a lesser company whose "me-too" attitude does nothing to advance the computer industry.
... that /. could randomly pick a reader to write a story, and I bet 6 out of 10 time it would be better, or at least more interesting.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'm sorry, but I don't think this article was very thoughtful or enlightening. I think it misses the whole point of apple's existence.
Apple lost the mass market race long before they rehired jobs. For the unwashed masses who just want it cheap, there's nothing apple can do. The world doesn't need another clone maker. Apple couldn't possibly compete in that space. Why should they anyhow? It's a shitty business where very few companies (Dell) manage to actually profit.
Nature abhors a vacumm. Markets abhor a monopoly. Without any regulatory intervention at all, markets naturally need choise-- at least more than one choice. It's human nature. Some people just wanna be different. Nota Bene; DIFFERENT NOT NECESSARILY BETTER. At least 5% of the population would like to think of themselves as iconoclasts and will make decisions based on that inclination.
Steve understands the above phenomenon; apparently the author does not. Note the slogan: think different. Not think better, not think cool, just different. All apple has to do is to produce a technically competent system (which the current systems are) and the 5% of the people who wanna be different will flock.
IMHO Steve is a brilliant market strategist. After his initial screw ups to MS, he has since made the correct choices. People said allow clones, people said port OS to Intel. Steve made all the right choices since. IF you wanna be different, you have to closely manage to difference so it is noticeable enough. Otherwise you start to look like the other guys (undifferent).
is what's ripped off and assimilated into aol and windows tomorrow.
think ICQ/IM/Messenger for a recent example, or built-in tcp/ip, or a gui for older examples.
all of those were considered cool when new, and now it's pretty much standard fare.
keep up the good work jobs.
without the macs, the common man would still be using dos 3.3, qemm, packet drivers and ckermit.
i sure don't miss those days.
You're still not comparing apples to apples. I will guarantee you that if you find a $2000 Hassy, it will be next to a $2000 Rollei, or a $2000 Pentex, or Bronica, or Mamiya. And that'll be for the body alone.
...
... if you are going to use analogies, at least use the right ones.
Also, they both take film, but the hassy will use medium format and the nikon will take a 35mm.
Next, they are in different fields, one is generally a studio camera, the other is not
Geez
I crashed it about 10 times a day, and one out of a thousand crashes required installation. So you re-installed every 100 days? That's 3 times a year too many for me. In all my years of windows experience, I've only had it crash twice requiring a re-install (not counting the people's PC's that I work on at work.)
I remember college, I think. It was fun always re-imaging the PC's because of things students had loaded. (Can you see the sarcasm in my text?)
It's easy to stand out when the general level of competence is so low.
The main problem is that people on both sides of the line, PC (x86) and Mac (68k/PPC) users have biases towards the other. PC users go "The Macs had crappy tech support for years, people are afraid because of that" and the Mac users go "You have to mess around with a ton of cables, cracking open the case, playing with cards, just to make it run."
Now, I own 3 computers. An iMac (333), an AMD 1.2GHz Athlon, and an AMD 700 Duron, respectively running OS 9.1, Win2000, and OpenBSD. I try not to be too biased, however, every operating system has it's bugs, that's a part of life.
To get my computers working, no, I didn't have to crack the cases, play around with PCI/AGP cards, until I decided that I wanted to completely overhaul my system, replacing motherboard/processor/video card. I've upgraded every one of my systems, and even from the hardware standpoint, they each have their drawbacks.
The iMac's case is a pain in the ass to work in. I've upgraded it to 192MB of RAM and a 30GB HD. It's nearly impossible to do so, and I've probably voided the warranty in the process, although it's too old to still have a valid one. It works great. As my router.
The 1.2GHz machine's case is a nice, new Enlight case. It's a breeze to work in, and about the only drawback is that it's so big and open, I often wonder where I want to put things, and how many more fans I can put in there. It's great, as my gaming PC.
The 700MHz machine is part of an old barebones system I got from a seedy vender at a computer show. It's got a crappy case, although you have some room, there isn't too much. I use it for running all sorts of random n*x experiments on it.
Now, as far as your average home user, what would I recommend? Well, it depends. If you want a cheap, relatively easy to use, vaguely stable system, sure, buy a cheap PC. You can get a PC, and everything you need to go online, check your e-mail, surf the web a bit, write the occasional document and print it. If you want some more stability, but don't mind jacking the price up, then sure, get a mac.
However, most of us here on slashdot are also part of a "niche market." We're the overclockers, power-users, computer geeks who love tweaking the systems in any way possible. What I would buy for myself, I'll most likely never recommend for my mother to use.
As far as ease-of-use, well, it's a learned habit. If you start out on Windows, sure, it'll take some work to get to use Macs. The reverse is also true. Personally, I don't like the look of the new iMac. Just by seeing it on the computer, I can tell that if I had one, and I wanted to pop the case, upgrade the harddrive or ram, it'd be a pain in the ass. You're always fighting a trade off. Ease/ability to upgrade vs. size. I don't care about size. I like being able to tweak things.
What's right for you? Whichever one you're happiest with. Platform wars are just a waste of time, regardless of public opinion, market share, or anything else under the sun.
Gawyn
Freedom of Speech?
First class troll. I almost answered seriously. Great to see /.-ers still have a sense of humor. /.'s first page to create my own little flame war with aberrant affirmations?
Can I also have
I don't have much to add.
My mother and her husband are heading towards 70 they started with the PC about 10 years, they are going to buy themselfs a new iMac. They surf, email do multimedia and use the computer for writting. Are'nt they mainstream ? Definitely, they are not at all interested in hacking .... they what something for their convenience and which they can have in their living room......
The point were, i think, the article is completely wrong, is the reason why the whole world using Windows. This is not because of the all so brilliant, but boring Gates and Case versus oh! so cool Jobs. The reason, I think - it's at least for one part public now - mostly for a combination of two reasons: .... and accept what is beeing dedicated too us.
a. Because of illegal business practices of MS
b. Maybe not that well acknowledged, we - the users - are completly imature in the use of the technology, we are not capable of being able to choose, or even wanting to choose... we go for the simple road
This will hopefully not be case for always, we are growing up, things are changeing even with the 70 year olds!
Why, that sounds like a game console, doesn't it? And the unhip, uncool Microsoft just got into WHAT consumer related business? I turned my Xbox around the other day and noted that, along with the ethernet and power jacks, the third plug was Video Input/Output.
To make this related to the thread, Apple HAD a Mac based home console that had a limited release in Japan. Looking for the link, Bah! The Pippin! So is that another groundbreaking trend that Apple was too soon on? (pssst, Newton!)
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
This is rediculous. Is Katz trying actually to tell us that windows machines are easier to use than macs? That the Public is stupid? They aren't, in fact, they just have different agendas- which from a business perspective, Jobbs is all to aware of. This kind of technocratic closed-mindedness is exactly what has gotten us all into the financial mess we're in now. The digs about Linux as a consumer os, is, well dissappointing (while I spend my morning trying to help a friend get his PPP connection on his Vaio notebook- telling a guy who's used computers in offices for years, how to set things up from the command line). Jeez. Yeah. Linux desktop is great. Look, actually, Apple has focused on design as a funcitonal elemt of computing- (i.e. the interface with the abstraction that we all take for granted- as we know some relatively arcane languages). Art has had this problem in the last 20 years- art has become too ingrown, art about art, and so here, is an instance of this in computing. Don't get me wrong, I think esoteric persuits are totally worthwhile and extremely productive, but general yahoos on the street don't get to play with plutonium, they just want electricity to run their computers. Mr. Katz, I feel you have been an anti-populist arrogant, jerk- and should apologize to all of us, and the masses you put down- And should re-think your place (and the place of computing) in a world where we all have to eat, #$&*, and *#!@ to propogate our species. rm -rf http://slashdot/katz
Jon, I'm sorry, but I've read your last article. I will now add you to my blocked list. This last instance of nonsense is not worth my bandwidth, and unfortunately I have to say it fits a long-term pattern. Goodbye, and I hope Taco cans you soon.
...between Gates and Jobs, I refer you to Robert Cringely's terrific article released upon the creation of the new iMac: "The Best Revenge: Why the New iMacs Will Be Successful No Matter What They Look Like." While largely non-technical, it's much more interesting a read than Katz's post, which seems to go pretty wide of the mark, in my view.
/. .
Sorry I don't remember where I caught the original link. Could have even been here on
Instead of the messy x86 architecture, and the highly propriatory architecture, there was an open hardware standard that didn't suck in one way or another..
:)
If only Commodore had, instead of mismanaging their finances and not putting enough into R&D, actually done something with the Amiga..
I'd give ANYTHING to have the rough equivalent of a Quicksilver Powermac G4 running AmigaOS.
At the very least, someone should take notice of some of cool stuff the Amiga had in 1993..
top of my list, Datatypes
'huh?, what?' you say.
Basically, on an AmigaOS/Workbench 3.0 or higher Amiga, file format compatability is OS level, not application level.
I can fire up UAE, load Photogenics 1.0 (1995), and load a PNG file into photogenics.. when it was released, photogenics had no idea what the png format was.. but thanks to datatypes, any application can read and write the format.
Are you listening Apple, Microsoft, the linux community?
THAT is a useful OS feature
(and yes, this is an offtopic post, and yes, I'm wearing my Amiga fanboy hat)
Quick, get out the old WiReD poll on how many mobile tech devices you own; cell phone, pda, cd-mp3 player, blackberry, laptop ....
... so when a middle class family goes out to buy a PC, they buy the $599 Dell, not the $1299 Mac.
But seriously, what Katz misses is that people would buy a Mac if they were popular; its a catch-22. Macs aren't talked about every day in the media, Windows is. Computers that run Windows are "Computers" to most people and computers that run Mac OS are "Macs". People think of Windows, Word, Money and other MS products when they think of their computing time (oh, and maybe Messenger too). These are mostly available on a Mac, but Apple doesn't seem to bother advertising that fact.
PS, Macs cost more
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
...both bitmap and laser...and also drawing...macpaint ...and word processing macwrite could not be touched except with a machine from Xerox...and postscript support (I actually worked on CricketDraw, CricketGraph, and CricketPresents...)
I want to be alone with the sandwich
My goodness, I never realized how right John Katz is until now. He is so cool and techno savy that I am in awe of his greatness.
I suppose that I should never have doubted him, since he told us about the Afgan's using C64s to watch movies form the net. That takes some amazing technical abillity and Katz knows how.
You go John.
Apple is positioning it's machines-at least it's iMac line- as "information appliances" now. Tools for certain jobs. Who cares how fast an information appliance is, as long as it's fast enough to do it's job?
That's the line that really gets me, "as long as it's fast enough"... Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for Apple and Macs, in fact I wish they would try to actually compete with MS as they could provide some much needed competition if they wanted to, but alas they choose to cater to the "Well, it's good enough" crowd.
It's not just you either, I see it all over these comments, "Well those speakers are good enough for most people" or "Most people don't need to expand their systems" or "Most people are blah blah blah". While this might have a shred of truth, it's not the way consumers think.
Here's an exmple, and this is what Katz (I can't believe I'm agreeing with him) is trying to say. If you are buying a car you look at a couple things, how much money do I want to spend, and what's the most car I can get for that amount. You don't think "I don't want the most car for my money, I just want something good enough..." No. Not the masses anyways. There might be, say, 4.5% of the population that is happy to pay a premium price for "good enough" but most people want the best bang for their buck. Hell, why shouldn't we?
So go ahead and buy one if you like it, hell, pay them $10,000 for it if it would make you feel better. But lets try to be grounded in reality here.
All the best,
--Bob
Anyone who doesn't want to replace hardware every year. When buying a PC, even the non-geeks think down the road. Sure it's fast enough to do it's job, but is it fast enough to do tomorrow's job?
Some perspective on market share:
Personal Computer 0S market numbers
MS 87%
Apple 4.5%
no numbers for rest of the market but don't take that to mean 8% linux
numbers from http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-2332817.html
So this definitely looks bad for Apple right?
But remember that Apple is primarily a hardware manufacturer:
New Personel Computer Sales Market Share:
Compaq 12.8%
Dell 10.8%
HP 7.6%
IBM 6.8%
Apple 4.5%
numbers from
http://www.crmdaily.com/perl/story/6858.html
(yes, unlike katz before rambling I research my information)
Enjoy -jim
Plenty of comments have addressed the fact that Apple doesn't really need more than 5% of the PC market to be successful, but no one seems to have addressed *why* people get confused about Jobs' approach to Apple marketing and design.
I think the problem is that Jobs presents too many faces to too many people.
When he's in mainstream media, he talks about how Mercedes only has 5% of the market and that's just plenty for them, because they're a high-end, niche automaker. He seems to place Apple in the same category, which makes a lot of sense.
When he's on a financial show (Lou Dobbs, etc), he talks about what a great opportunity Apple has to expand its marketshare, because with only 5% currently, they need only 5% more to double their share! This makes less sense, because it tends to devolve into "the worse we're doing, the more things can improve".
When he's on stage in front of the Faithful, though, he still goes on about beating Microsoft, taking over the computing world, the "revolution" started by Apple, and so forth. This is pretty much just playing to the audience and trying to keep the Mac zealots as zealous as ever.
So, I think Jobs does it to himself. He pitches the company too many different ways to too many different people, which leads to conflicted understandings of just what Apple is trying to achieve.
The best way for Jobs to quiet the constant media braying about his "only 5%" share is to stop talking about competing with MS, beating MS, starting a revolution, etc, and start repeating over and over: "Apple makes PCs for a certain high-end niche, and in that niche, we are incredibly innovative and successful, and I'm going to make sure we stay that way."
Moderators can vote on comments, but can the commentators vote on the original articles? This seems like a serious shortcoming in /.. Surely this must have been suggested in the past.
The above article was annoying enough that it made we wish we had such a moderation system.
is for the thinking to be done, without to much thought. m$ has succeeded in providing a system on an open architecture that generally works in non-demanding situations, or for power users. macs pretty much work all of the time, with the last few years being the exception--carbon compliance. but, there is a very good business in catering to discerning tastes and performance capabilities--bmw. apple will probably never be the largest computer manufacturer again, but with the consolidation of the market, and information appliances becoming the norm, they will be second or third. also, i believe that the arguments in this article are very applicable to linux. will a linux desktop ever become a dominant platform? not in the situation outlined, but perhaps midori will. invisibly engineering the pipes, while providing the interface technology is where it's at--the telephone system--and linux has been unable to provide a usable (generally usable, not unusable) interface technology. i don't quite get the discussion of design. as a designer, it should just work well. the imac is kind of growing on me, but it seems to work in an ergonomical and engineering sense. wtf! it's not that expensive, unless $1000.00 pc's are your preferred vehicle. my dell laptop cost a grand more than my tiBook!
If you accept the idea that to be successful in the long term a company must appeal to the least common denominator, then Katz is correct. I don't believe that's Jobs' driving force, nor should it be.
Walmart doesn't support particle physics research, arts funding, or medical imaging. These things are important as well, to the average consumer in Cow Tracks, North Dakota, although not directly.
Apple is fairly close to where it should be - on the leading edge of the curve, far enough up to influence a couple generations of creative, curious people.
This is the first Katz article I've bothered to read since ... well, since he started writing for Wired, actually. Unfortunately, the article is not only badly written (will somebody find him a copy editor, *please*???), but actually incoherent. I just don't understand Katz's point; is he suggesting that Apple should make Wintel systems? Stop spending time on form factor and UI design? Chuck the entire hardware business and devote itself to organic gardening? I just can't tell.
In any event, his basic premise -- that Apple is actually going head-to-head with Microsoft and AOL (um, eWorld, anyone?) for domination of the market -- is fundamentally incorrect. Jobs doesn't need to control the market, because the 'Net and cross-platform apps moot the point. To dredge up that horrid "information superhighway" metaphor, consider the Internet as a roadway. When I drive to work, I can take the bus, I can rent a Hyundai, I can drive my PT Cruiser. Ceteris paribus, all cars work equally well. Likewise, independent protocols let me use Solaris, Windows, MacOS X, or any other reasonably modern OS to get my work done. (The same point applies, with appropriate caveats, to cross-platform apps such as MS Office.) Economic network effects just aren't as important as they were before the popularization of the Internet.
Thus, Apple can survive as a boutique shop, working to maintain and grow a small niche within an ever-growing market. By way of comparison, Nissan has a 3.7% share of the American automobile market, and all European car companies *combined* have barely over a 5% share. Are those companies "failing?"
-kd9
Of course, most Americans don't see the need of an MP3 player when their CD walkman already works. In fact, many are probably pretty happy with their 8-track. Early adopters drive most new technologies. Creating products with "geek appeal" is important to gaining early acceptance from this crowd.
So who pissed in your cornflakes this morning, eh?
Method of processing duck feet
Why SHOULD Apple as a company be trusted? Why SHOULD Jobs be trusted? (ok, why trust any company?)
/// is a five year product. Dead in under 3. (Jobs was trying to prove himself as a designer. The lack of a fan was a big design problem here)
Apple
When Apple's income from the ][ line was sagging, and Apple NEEDED that money to prop up the Mac line, they came out with "Apple ][ Forever" and promises of 16 and 32 bit ][ products. Jobs had a BIG hand in killing the ][ line.
The Mac will sell 20,000 a month, thats why we need the automated Mac factory. They sold 512 and 1288 unit in two months. (ever wonder why the board fired Jobs)
How about the "Steve Jobs - Father of the Mac". He wasn't. Jef Raskin is. (Jef, Woz and Steve for serial #1 of the 20th annv. mac for a reason)
OpenDoc
Newton - Apple lost millions to Harris data over the Ameritech details. (Contracts that were signed and then Apple broke the legal promises) Before they killed the Newton, they were claiming they would not kill the Newton, and on March 3rd (they killed the product on Feb 27th) Apple staffers were seen at the national education convention saing "The Newton is an important part of the Apple product line"
WWDC 1997 the CEO said "Any machine sold by Apple in 1997 will run the new OS"
How about Steve Jobs himself? He lied to Woz over money paid on a contract job, and pocketed the extra money. He said the daughter from one of his flings was not his. That Daughter's name is Lisa. (Yea, he DID name the Lisa after her)
H. Ross Perot called his investment in NeXT - "his biggest mistake" Did Jobs lie, or was just 'overmarketing' the future of NeXT?
At least with Open Source and commodity hardware, you don't need to trust in a company, you place your trust in your fellow man, or in your own skills.
And, as an aside: Do you think people would have such a visceral reaction to Microsoft if the programs worked as advertised?
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Ease of use? Reliablility? Since when has Microsoft been either of these? Apple has always just plodded along, thinking that a superior product would speak for itself. Well you know what it does not always work that way. Sometimes the squeaky wheel get the grease and now that the are getting the press people are suddenly saying thier product is inferior? Sounds like they are being labled a sell out. Well I for one say way to go, it's about time they got the good press they deserve.
The problem is that the entire argument is based on the assumption that Apple isn't successful, when in fact they did were one of the most successful PC manufacturers in 2001. Go look at this chart and tell me where there is, "confusion between what's cool and what's going to be successful." Ditto to his argument that Microsoft and AOL, "get it." Need I provide another 2001 sotck chart?
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
This clueless phrase reminds me of the Blues Brothers:
"We have both styles of music: Country and Western"
All who think Katz should go are crazy. This guy is hilarious!
"You will never seen a Microsoft or AOL exec talking about how cool the their companies or products are, only how useful and easy to use." Oh yes you will! I remember my Win95 had a video on it with Bill Gates saying "cool!". In fact, I believe it is one of his favourite words. And "Apple accounts for only 4.5 per cent of new personal computer sales". Well I'd love 4.5% of such a massive market! Are you only impressed by total monopolies?
Mr. Katz would have been absolutely correct even a few short years ago. Safty, and reliability, but most of all compatability (and don't forget the productivity/power associated with that) were primary reasons for getting a particular computer.
However, computers are ubiquitous now -- *everybody's* got one. Primary uses seem to be word processing and web browsing. My old apple ][ could have done these jobs... Computing power is not an issue, nor are available applications (since the basics are covered on both Macs and Windows pcs). Computers are cheap. What separates different styles of computers when the other benchmarks have fallen by the wayside?
Style.
Why get a PT Cruiser or VW Beetle? Why get Tommy Hilfiger over Wall-Mart Brand? Nowadays, cars and t-shirts preform similarly across brands -- the only thing separating them is style. Because computers have no achived (or are just achiving) commodity status, style will be an important, if not primary, factor in computer purchasing, especially if the style is utilitarian. Even for Jake and Ethel in Des Moines...
Steve Jobs knows what he is doing, he keeping Apple alive. When Gateway is being down graded to a Junk Bond, Apple is moving forward. Is it with a different type of customer certainly, but if Apple didn't go for the Hip and Cool they'd already be gone. Why would I buy an Apple if I am a middle-class basic user. Everything I know how to does is PC, everything I interact with is PC.
The only way for Apple to survive is to go for that Cool, Hip market where people want to Edit their own DVD's and have a 1000 songs on their iPod exist.
At this point if Apple went for the standard middle-class they would have been out of business before the first iMac ever hit the shelves. It is their way of survival.
I'm a bit surprised by Katz's surprisingly unsophiticated view of the computer market. IN this case he has it completely backwards.
What he seems to be saying is that what drives computer standard is AOL and MS because the middle class uses them, and that the new users of computers are being misled by what is new and innovative and that new users and esp. new technology works (programmers,,etc) should concentrate of the AOL and MS and stop wasting their time with newer technologies.
This is clearly getting it backwards. AOL and MS commidify what is on the fringes of the computer society. Remember Instant Message? Hmm sounds like 'talk' to me. This wasnt AOL coming up with IM, but AOL distributing to millions. In this case, IM was something that the elite had already grasped onto the concept and AOL was merely marketing to the rest of the public.
MS never has innoviated. I think most people can agree with this. How than can someone learn from MS? They will always be behind if people really did follow Katz's advice to stick with the "drab" corportations.
But let me make this clear, if you miss my Point:
AOL, MS and the other drab corporations make their money by commidify (ie making safer, more generic) the ideas and concepts that are out on the fringes. It does not work the other way aroung as Katz seems to be suggesting, and woe to any computer programmger who does not keep up with the "fringe" linux, and Opensource ideas floating about because they will be fighting the last war and not this one.
Anyway thanks,
Sigs are dangerous coy things
Mac ads show you what you can accomplish. Windows ads promise you can fly. Truth is you can't fly and it's going to hurt a lot when you finally hit the ground/wall/window.
To paraphrase a visionary in the field, you can be successful two ways. (1) build a better mousetrap or (2) build a mediocre mousetrap and market the hell out of it.
Apple makes a better price/performance machine than anyone - iMac and iBook leading. Beat it. Try. You'll be within $10 for the hardware against a real machine in the Wintel world. Dell, Gateway, Compaq. Even-steven for features, not a beige Celeron box built by seven chinese brothers.
Then factor in the package - single-vendor integration, each Mac ships with AppleWorks, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, Firewire, USB, modem & enet & Airport ready.
(heh heh - a student just stopped by to try and get his d-link 802 pc card on our net... turns out you gotta spell everything out for the little sucker - i mean that literally - you have to type in the name of the network you want to join, so I just pulled down the menu icon on myiBook which can figure it out for itself and spelled it slowly and carefully for him...heh heh... And the little patch antenna dongle that has to peek out of the side of the machine - good for holding your gum, I guess...)
Macintosh runs *nix out of the box, runs Mac OS on top of that *or* out of the box, and can run Windows for another $100.
Lemme get this straight - we should turn up our noses at a still-great-looking indigo imac and head out and plop a beige box in the living room?
The iMac was the first desktop that wasn't beat with the ugly stick, and the Wintel world responds by painting some color on a beige box.
If the mac's not worth all the fuss, then why does XP ape the OSX model right down to the moniker, and everyone else is mee-tooing the port lineup, wireless, etc...
It just don't add up.
Unless of course it's a rambling rationalization for not having or wanting a Mac.
The response trend is correct - this article basically tells you to give up wanting and needing a BMW and drive an Escort, because there are so many of them.
Reminds me of an old MS comparison - millions of flies eat $hit - doesn't make'em right, doesn't make it any easier to swallow.
Oh yeah - and one other lilttle teenie point - count yer blessings that there's now a *nix box for small coin that made the cover of Time and that your Aunt Tilly can recognize on sight.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
The BMW analogy is true to an extent (i.e. they have about the same market share and they sell "premium"
"well designed" products -- I don't actually like Macs or BMW's but for differnt reasons). But the key issue is interoperability with the rest of the world. If I could only get BMW gas at 5% of the gas stations in the world, would you still want one?
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
Microsoft, the OS, has been successful because Microsoft lets others (store salesmen, IT directors, software houses, box-makers) make money up to a certain level. They have caused an enormous industry to build itself for Microsoft's benefit. A brilliant understanding of monopoly techniques hasn't hurt them either.
Apple, the OS, has been constrained because there's no reason for anyone but Apple and its end-users (who aren't likely to buy ad space) to push it. There are no sales margins, there are no options for Fry's people to foist upon you at huge mark-up, things 'just work' so there's a difficulty in justifying massive IT and service departments. And how many end-users really want to be responsible for all the software choices and decisions that they'll face? How many people stick to their guns in a constant torrent of FUD? Probably only 4.5%
Microsoft, the financial entity, has been 'successful' only thru the stock scam it runs, whereby it pays employees in stock, which it reports to the IRS as an expense but not to the SEC. If MSFT were to re-state earnings without the loophole, they'd be a debt-ridden company with its last profit in the early 90's. Their main income and stock value is from completely legal stock manipulation. Software is just kind of a front.
Apple may have four billion in the bank, but that's not helping its stockholders. We've been treading water for a long, long time.
Danielle Steele has written more books and made more money than J.R.R. Tolkien but she will be forgotten a century from now and Professor Tolkien's work will still be cherished. Any one who understands history understands that the Art of a culture is usually all that survives once the culture is destroyed. Better to be remembered for your Artistry then to be forgotten because of your greed.
Keep driving your Echo or Taurus - I like my Mercedes(less market-share then Apple).
BTW-I am a senior Unix System Administrator with Physics and Computer Science degrees and I am buying my first iMac. I am buying it because, unlike Windows, it is a combination of function and form and power.
Jesvs! Is Katz REALLY that stvpid? Everyone knows the real reason Apple only has 4.5% of the market is that Afghanistan has been out of the picture for so long. You see the taliban didn't want anyone using an operating system so simple the apes in the Kabul zoo could use them(think of the destabilizing effect this might have on a stone-age regime), so they were BANNED. That's right! I expect apple to pick up at least another 0.0001% of the market now that there afghanis Hungry for an Apple
Seriously - Katz is clueless, and this is just another example. Throw him overboard!
Apple has such a small market share for a number of reasons - focusing too intesely on design is not one of them. Could the fact that MS/INTEL/COMPAQ/DELL/GATEWAY/ETC were all but passing out free systems to school districts like candy on Halloween(then claimed them as revenue, HA!) play a SMALL role? As if Apple would ever have a chance against that kind of "first hit is free kids" approach. School Admins take what ever is cheapest, not what's best. I grew up on Apples(because we had to pay for our computers, and value did matter then), my much younger cousin is growing up on Win machines because of this. If you start out only knowing Windows, you have little reason to explore outside that realm(unless you really want something better)
Another reason would be Apple holding their secrets a little too tightly - I don't blame them though after what Bill did. If the whole Mac-clone implosion never happened things might be better than they are right now, but then again Apple might be only writing software now too.
ugh...katz you suck
Ever since he's rejoined apple they've had a renaissance. When the original iMac came out, it was certainly unique. Certainly not the most cost-effective system, and its usability at times was suspect (that little mouse, crummy keyboard, lack of removable media). But it was incredibly successful, in ways that went beyond sales numbers.
Take a look and see what consumer products were obviously influenced by the iMac and the translucent scheme. Off the top of my head, Staplers, telephones, car stereos and even some models of George Foreman Grills all took queues from the apple school of design.
It's naive to bundle apple in with the rest of the computing world, for they're not driven solely by sales numbers. They're pieces of art for people who appreciate the merging of art and technology. Apple leads the way in that.
-
I'm stunned. Floored and flabbergasted.
Did you think this argument through? At all? Or has all the recent Apple press which totally overshadowed anything that Bill Gates said at CES just put a bug up your...
I'm sure that cool has never sold any tech gadgetry at all in middle america. It's never sold cool phones with sleek designs and replaceable face plates, nor hot handheld computers, nor cool portable music players. Need I go on?
The fallacy your propagating is that cool/hip design is the enemy of success. It isn't. Cool design is what gives us the future. It may not be today, but even Bill Gates eventually managed to learn something from Apple. Success isn't domination, as any despotic dictator can prove.
If you have a useful point to make, make it. Otherwise, encouring a new generation of engineers to think inside the 'dull beige box' is a waste of your breath and their talent.
If youth is wasted on the young, this argument proves that Vision is wasted on the blind.
It has nothing to do with ease of use or some funny utilitarian slant. For YEARS Microsoft has understood that it's easier to get people to use your software when you don't give them a choice.
That was the gist of Gates' thinking when he approached IBM and got installed on every PC sold. It doesn't matter if it's better. If it's easier to use something in front of you, then people will. This has been shown time and time again:
- Word Perfect was better, easier to use, and more flexible, but Word was given away with PC's and handed to businesses...so...if you want to send me a document at work, you have to use Word!
- IE sucked at first compared to other browsers...but, MS tied it in with their OS, (help files...now you can only view them through our browser! What a coincidence!) and bang...what do I wanna do: use the one that's here, or download another one and install it myself?
- Windows Media Player is attempting to do the EXACT same thing...both WinAmp (for audio) and Real are better, but MS is slowly making you have to work for those, while theirs is right in front of you.
It was succinctly stated at the end of Pirates of Silicon Valley:
Jobs: 'We're better than you, Bill.'
Gates: 'Don't you understand Steve: IT DOESN'T MATTER!'
If people have to climb a hill to get a better product, then they'll sit at the bottom and deal with something almost as good. That's what MS understands...not what people really want, but how much they'll put up with if it's convenient.
"...if you drink much from a bottle marked
'poison,' it is almost certain to disagree
with you, sooner or later."
--Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
I'm tired of all of this hoopla about Apple and Steve Jobs. I'm also tired of seeing apples in every movie that I see , like everyone really uses apples or something. Steve Jobs should do the world a favor and either kill himself or start selling icraps or crapples with linux on them.
You know, I thought that I agreed on Slashdots stance on article submissions and public moderation of them:
Then I saw this submission. While I value the fact that everyone has an opinion and has the right to voice it, I may not want to see that opinion if I think it is hopelessly biased or inflammatory. That's pretty much the purpose behind the comment moderation system. This article has changed my mind totally and I'm now thinking that some sort of article moderation might be a good thing.
I'm not saying that articles like this should or should not be posted, that is up to the people who run Slashdot. I just think that when you have an article posted like this and then you have a large majority of the comments stating that the article is all wet, perhaps there is something wrong with the article and it should be moderated down in some way so new visitors can filter it out.
I do understand that I can filter out certain topics or authors, but this is something different. I haven't had a huge problem with JonKatz in the past and I'd hate to just filter out his postings, although it may come to that if that is my only option.
Maybe the best system may be some sort of "rate the author" system. Whenever the author posts an article, then people can give that posting a simple rating. If an author posts great stuff he gets highly rated and that can be taken into consideration when deciding if the posting goes on the page. If, however, the author is rated very low, then it would be tougher for the author to get a article post approved.
Sapere aude!
I don't know John personally so I will restrict my comments to his posts here on /.
Without a doubt, John has a fantastic ability to stir the pot of criticism among us geeks. And what a wonderful thing it is. All too often I see the nefarious intrusions of apathy creep into our replies and counter-replies. What Mr. Katz is accomplishing with or without his intent, is to keep us geeks from getting too confortable. Flame him if you want (I sure do), but the fact is, we need him and people like him to make us think. Especially when we want to jump on whatever bandwagon happens to roll by that day.
Thanks, John for playing devil's advocate so well.
Now, if I could only get Lindows for my iMac.
:D
There was MacPerl and MacVim, but no bash or mysql that I know of. OS 9 was a fonky thing.
I had dinner with Matthias Neeracher on Thursday night, by the way. How cool is that?
there's more than one way to do me.
Aesthetics, yes. The iMac ad campaign naturally focused on what the computer looked like when it is not turned on. How people interfact? Apple fails miserably on this. The OS has been crippled and limited, the power buttons have been hidden, and there is nothing that says "easy to use" when you replace a disk eject button with a pinhole.
the people who like Apple products tend to actually enjoy using their computers. They don't usually care about whether they can play any one of 10,000 available PC games.
More like people who don't turn their computers on. Once they turn them on, they find out there is hardly any software; not only fewer games, but entire application types with no options available on the Mac.
As long as Apple can keep providing products that innovate in favor of the user
They are failing miserably at this, as 9 out of 10 users feel that Apple computers do not innovate for them. Apple computers only serve some tiny niches well (such as professional print graphic designers).
It still amazes me that people make such a big deal about market share. When will people understand that Apple does NOT have to dominate the "PC" market in order to be successful? Aparantly the answer to that question is "never". Apple is expected to report sales of well over a billion dollars for the past quarter. That's a BILLION dollars.... and they are expected to report a profit. Now, tell me that they are not successful.
Katz is right though, the majority of Americans don't care about style, or the quality of user experience. These are the same lemmings that buy SUVs because the neighbor got one.
What Jobs realizes, and what sooooo many other CEOs and "journalists" (ie Katz) do not realize is that there is a segment of the population that appreciates good design, style, and quality of user experience and is willing to pay for that. I'm one of them. I'm not an "elitist" or any of that foolishness. I simply believe that you get what you pay for... and it might cost a little extra in the beginning but a product from Apple computer is a quality piece of equipment.
As long as that does not change, I'm quite happy with it.
How absolutely true... because the word "elite" never enters my mind when I think of Steve Jobs...
-Dave!
The world won't end in darkness, it'll end in family fun, with Coca-cola clouds behind a Big Mac sun.
We just had a power supply in a Mac G4 die. We knew it was the supply (swaped with a know good system, problem followed the supply, etc). When we went to buy a replacement we found out it is in fact, Apple proprietary. We also found out that you have to be Apple Certified to be able to buy parts. After gumbling a bit, we put the G4 back together and took it to a local place. The power supply ended up being $347 plus another $150 for labor and shipping. An 300 watt ATX supply is about $40 and is available anywhere. How is that *not* proprietary?
Cool hardware? ... maybe
... ok I guess
A BSD box
Still the number one draw to apple is simple,
You can use a macintosh laptop to easily upload a virus to the mothership of an alien race that is attacking the earth. This in turn shuts down their shields long enough to for Americans to lead a successful international attack on the invaders. And its so simple even an ordinary Joe can that works for some satellite tv company can do it.
P.S. I'm not a Mac user... but, I may become one if my country ever needs me!
Since the Mercede's and BMW's only run on smeed and smeed stations only exist by mail or in a handful of urban centers those Mercede's and BMW's don't go too far.
Oh, wait... I meant to say Macintosh "applications" and not "smeed" and Macintosh computers.
Face it -- the Mac is still a bit market player. They have a small market share for a non-compatible product. When you think about it they have done quite well actually considering their lack of installed base.
The Apple stores are a little scary though. Having walked into one the other day in the local mall I can say they are a true statement on style. One huge empty store. 5 salesmen. A row of machines on one side of the wall. Impressive machines. Should it worry Apple that all 5 of the salesmen asked if they could help me in turn within minutes of each other (prime time shopping hours -- 7:00 pm or so)? Should it worry Apple that the store appears as though it may have issues paying the rent let alone the salesmen?
If you are targetting the Target/Walmart shopper build a Target/Walmar. Never build a high rent boutique to sell to the masses.
At least I can fill my BMW's gas tank locally.
Apple understands that form and function are not independent variables. For Apple form is a basis for function.
Consider the new iMac. Here is a quote from yesterday's Ive interview reported on /.,
"The new shape emerged shortly afterwards: a dome is the only shape that lets the screen swivel without having "preferred" positions, maximises stability and offers lots of horizontal space. After that, it was the fine detail - of which there is a huge amount.
"
Thus we learn that the dome isn't there simply for asthetics, it is there for functional reasons.
And that is how Apple views design. Not as a veneer to be layered on a finished device but as an integral part of said device.
Steve M
Works right out of the box? A hammer does too. But, like the iMac, a hammer is only good for very limited applications. The reason you have fewer driver and install problems is because the world has passed the Macintosh by: fewer different things to add or run on it, so of course you get fewer problems!
The author of this gem needs to quit his job at Wal Mart and go to work for his hero, Bill Gates.
Dull and boring is beautiful!
Be careful next time you go to the movies. They have them in nasty color now not just black and white.
Apple new Imac is a great machine and if its like the 2 generations of Imac is better built then any store bought computer out there but apple weakness is is the same one they always had great stuff just a bad way to get to people it need to be more open but now it steves way or no way that what stops apple. but thats also what saved apple.
You can avoid being soaked by buying PC's. Generally, they cost half as much as Macintoshes, run a lot more software, and come with more extras.
However, few PC's look as good on the table as Macintosh computers. This is the most important factor driving Mac sales; the MacAddicts willing to pay a lot more for a lot less.... but at least it looks good.
Sorry, but I love it when I know these....
Faith No More - Last Cup of Sorrow
Did you even reply to the right comment?
:)
I guess the Subject still hold true
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Jon Katz : /. sanctioned Troll. Oh well.
I'm no Apple fanatic, if I had the moolah, I would buy one. But I don't so I can't. However, Mac users are on average, some of the most non-tech clued users out there. That's not a slap, just an observation. I'm no graphic designer, or DV editor, so in that respect, I'm the clueless one.
I believe PC's are for the office workers. PC's are also great for hot-rodding, gaming and buildiing the Ultimate Box. PC's are like sedans, minivans, sportscars and dragsters. It all depends on how you build it. Just like a car. Most cars are for The Rest Of Us.
Now, OTOH, we have the Mac. It's a Jaguar. It has sleek, sexy styling, the newest technology and gimmicks, and is engineered to last. The luxury auto of home computing. And a price tag to match. But nothing beats driving a nice well-made car no?
Apple can and does market to the Dubuques, but the Dubuques don't know shit, so they buy a Gateway Cow and get on AOL. And Bill Gates just got another dollar (or more). But a Mac is just what the Dubuques needed. See, Apple markets to the elite, when they're product is more than suitable for The Masses. Any newbie would be better off with a Mac than a PC any day. But the pricetag scares them off, because this is their first fray into computing, or their second and they think PC=computers. Another dollar to Bill.
I don't think Steve Jobs minds. He has a vision of the Mac as an expression of oneself. Image, style, and function. The Select. Macs are suitable for the die-hard artist, and for Grandma. But Mac users like to think of themselves as a cut above. Ok. That's cool, they make great machines.
But Katz is DEAD WRONG about them being troublesome or flaky. That award goes to PC's. PC's are like Frankenstein boxes, you never know what the hell is going on in there. If Apple wants to gain more market share, then just start slipping in the ads some stuff about reliability and long term value. That'll prick up ears, especially in this economic climate.
PC's the same price as Mac's are usually a lot faster and come with a lot more extras. And the Mac GIU is still inferior.
Apple doesn't strive to make cool products for coolness sake. It strives to make incredibly well engineered products that result in better accessibility and design than industry counterparts. It is the degree to which Apple's products are better designed that make them stand out, make them "cool."
Coolness isn't the design goal. Coolness is a biproduct of the design.
As to the success of Microsoft products (and AOL to a lesser degree) there are more poigniant, and far less noble reasons for its success than JonKatz's notion of appealing to the needs of the middle-class home and business user (which I reject outright).
The idea that "utilitarian and dull" are interrelated ingrediants to successful technology is nonsense. Why does Microsoft put all those special effects into the user interface of its new operating systems? And I would need a calculator to count the special effects and visual gadgetry in Microsoft's Offcie Suite. Utilitarian and dull, indeed.
Apple products are about getting things done efficiently and pleasantly. That, for some strange reason, strikes people as being cool.
DAMN STRAIGHT!
I know many think it is 'cool' or 'hip' to rag on Katz (the same people who probably ran right out and bought the new iMac), but in this article he is exactly right.
...easily.
...Apple's problems are mainly caused by it's flaky history of reaming its own user base ...something that Microsoft should take note of.
You Linux fanboys don't get it, do you?
You're getting your asses whipped by Microsoft (and AOL for that matter), because those campanies make products that in the public perception (at least for now), are products that work
And the point about Apple market share is valid
I Agree that Pre-X MacOS has quite a few flaws(mostly in the backend, the interface was still quite nice, though not mouth-watering like Aqua :-) )
I will say though that the hardware is absolutely top notch. I work at my Comm College doing Mac and PC Tech support for the Art and Computer Graphics departments. We just sent out one of our almost 2 yr old G4's for the first time(power supply problem). These are systems that are used 6 days a week for nearly 14 hours a day doing heavy video editng, fairly high poly rendering, quite a bit of photoshop work, and Poster sized Illustrator and Freehand files(now if we could just get Postscript 3 printers that will actually print half of the nifty effects).
You have to admit that isn't bad, especially considering this is a public Comm College and the machines aren't exactly treated nicely all the time.
The Win2k labs on the otherhand... Constant problems caused by what amounts to "lowest bidder" hardware.
This is why old Stevie took a company that was bleeding money from the jugular (~$500 mil a quarter) and on the verge of collapse to one of the most successful computer companies out there. Apple has several billion in the bank in CASH, and they didn't do it with a beige box. Jobs, while he is a bit of an eccentric (obviously,) DOES have some pretty good business sense.
And as far as Apple's products not appealing to the middle class masses, I know plenty of people (non-techies) who were drooling over the new iMacs. I sense a lot of hostility towards the Macintosh on Slashdot, and I don't doubt it's because Apple has done in a year what has taken Linux the past six: A successful desktop UNIX system. Apple is one of the few companies in the market that ACTUALLY innovates, not just content to sit on incremental improvements, they're willing to take a huge risk. Sometimes, they flop (the Cube.) Sometimes, they're monumentally successful (iMac, iBook, PowerBook G4.) But you do have to agree, whether you like it or not, the new iMac is definately different than any computer ever put out there, and you do have to give Apple credit for that.
Except for a few niches, Mac's are not "general purpose computers".
Apple has a great story, they have a solution that caters to geeks (the cool factor, OS X being a BSD derivative) and they're doing well there. What's needed is for the masses to break out of the Microsoft mentality and realize learning to Mac isn't that hard of an ordeal. I'd like to see Linux get more penetration too, but not on my Dads desk, it's not there yet for him. OS X is, and when he learns OS X he'll be more apt to give Linux a try as well.
;)
...
... gimme!" ;)
I have never owned a Mac, although I have worked with them and supported them (what little support the Macs needed
OS X peaked my curiousity. But I thought that the candy-colored iMacs were as ugly as sin (I'm not into bright colors) and the gray-colored one was a little too expensive (it was the options-stuffed "professional" one, I believe.) The Apple towers were as boring as anything else on my desk.
I like the iLamp. I really like the iLamp. This big desktop-hogging system has been getting on my nerves. These huge monitors have been getting on my nerves. The tablet PCs that companies have been blabbering about for the past 12-16 months have interested me, but they're not on the market yet (and I wouldn't want to buy them first generation.) When I saw the iLamp, I saw what I wanted, even though I couldn't have described it to you before *seeing* it. The concept is not that far a leap from what has come before, yet it is not a way I thought about computer design.
I'm not going to jump up and buy the new iMac as soon as it hits the shelves. I liked the cube too, and we all know where it ended up. I'll wait a while to see (make sure they don't run into any major hardware problems, etc.)
But I'm not afraid of switching operating systems--an OS is just a means to an end, whether it be Windows, OS X, Linux, *BSD, Solaris. I think there are a lot of "up-and-coming" kids who think the same. (Alot of kids who wanted a candy-colored iMac in their bedroom had a beige PC in their family room; alot of kids have Macs at school and PCs at home.) There is a real possibility that an iMac may come to join the rest of the household network at some point in the future. As long as it plays nice, none of the other systems will care
For me, the old iMac, was "cute idea, but I have no desire for one." The new iMac is "wow
Steve Jobs is a person who cares passionately about the quality of his products. He seems to want them to shine in a way that other technology firms don't give a damn about. While this isn't by itself a recipe for success, let alone seizing great globs of marketshare, it certainly has it's benefits. It may make him a megalomaniac. But it does compel millions of people to buy, use, talk about and emulate his stuff.
I think everyone is fully aware of what Apple's marketshare is. That's a tired old point that really doesn't serve to inform or enlighten anyone anymore. When it changes significantly, then let's make it newsworthy.
What would be really informative for people is to be reminded of is exactly how big and successful Apple is in some respects. People are so used to hearing marketshare statistics and about Windows dominance that we are expecting tomorrow's paper to carry an "Apple Goes Bankrupt" story. We actually forget that Apple is one of the top computer makers in the united states (I don't know what the exact ranking is today, but I'll bet my bottom dollar that they're in the top 5). Or that they make the highest margins on computer sales in the industry. Those certainly are measures of success that belie the 4.5% marketshare statistic so often cited.
I think it would interesting to remind people that Apple is an actual technology company as opposed to Dell, for example, who simply buy off the shelf parts, jam them in a box, brand it and sell a warrantee. Don't get me wrong, Dell is a great company and I'd buy their stock as well as thier products. But they're not a technology company. Apple has actual R&D and actually *does* the kind of innovation that other companies talk so much about.
Apple still *is* "a welcome antidote to the elitism and cluelessness of the tech elites." I hardly need point out that Mr. Katz and many Slashdot readers fall squarely into this category. Claiming that Apple caters only to "excitable teenagers and college students" is disingenuous at best. In fact Apple seems to be attempting to do is make a computer "that works like TV does." They want to make an appliance of it. "Consumerize" the former geek-toy in ways that haven't ever happened yet. That, I sometimes suspect, is one of the real reasons why the tech-head crowd refuses to give Apple it's due - they have no need for consumerized computers, and in fact have a vested interest in keeping the machines frightening and difficult to use.
I suppose there's always been a great deal of safety and even great financial success for people satisfied with making "what's necessary" rather than "what's neat." Frankly, I'm glad Apple often chooses to go out on that limb, to attempt "what's neat." Even if you never, ever buy or use an Apple computer you too should be glad that someone is doing it. After all, the whole industry benefits because of it.
Finally, as to the "foolish idea" of making somthing hip and cool and then eventually "hoping" that it will succeed...I say if you've made something that truly is hip and cool, then in a certain sense you already have succeeded. For I think that Steve's definition of success isn't mere marketshare or profits. These things certainly matter, nobody's saying it doesn't. But if all that "success" required was higher marketshare and more profit, I think Apple would become an entirely different company. Steve partly defines success by whether or not hist products meet his own standards of "great." There's a certain integrity to that position and I for one don't want to see this kind of sentiment disappear from this otherwise bland industry. I salute Steve's foolish, blind, naive, insistence that his products be great.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
My Plymouth Neon gets me to work faster and better. I spit on your dodge! (What's that you say? They are the same? Noooooo......)
The Coleco Adam was very different from any computer of its day too. So what is your point?
That's the line that really gets me, "as long as it's fast enough"... Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for Apple and Macs, in fact I wish they would try to actually compete with MS as they could provide some much needed competition if they wanted to, but alas they choose to cater to the "Well, it's good enough" crowd.
The thing is- I don't think most people know enough about computers to even TELL when they are getting the most bang for their buck. I can guarantee you my parents don't (I think the new iMac is too weird for my Dad, though).
But anyway, to explain my point in the comment above- say you buy a computer to edit home movies. What does it matter if its a Athalon 8.5 GHz, with 1 Tb of RAM, if it edits movies just the same, with the same ease as the iMac? If it accomplishes the goal for the machine, in the same time, with the same ease of use (or better) - why should you care what's under the hood? That is the philosophy of most Apple users (note: I am not an Apple user). That's what I'm getting at in my comment above. Apple people simply don't care if they can get a PC that's faster. If this one edits video (or whatever) easier, with less errors/setup, they want it. Which is a viable point of view, especially if you don't know enough to troubleshoot a computer.
I can see someone buying an iMac for their kid who wants to play with editing home movies, moreso than I can see them buying a eMachine and then the DV editing card, then Premiere...
It's not just you either, I see it all over these comments, "Well those speakers are good enough for most people" or "Most people don't need to expand their systems" or "Most people are blah blah blah". While this might have a shred of truth, it's not the way consumers think.
More than a shred. My parents have NEVER upgraded any of the computers they've owned. None of the various non-computer-geek girls I've dated have, either. Neither have most of my non-computer geek friends. The most any of them do, generally, is buy peripherals. Maybe these people are weird- I mean, I upgrade my boxes all the time and you probably do, too- but I tend to think we are the weird ones.
Again, as I said... It remains to be seen whether Apple will be successful with their strategy. I don't own a Mac. I might get one, used, for Final Cut Pro purposes, MAYBE. Definitely not an iMac, though. Remeber, too... As long as Apple doesn't LOSE their faithful, they stay a viable company. That's the main thing to them, pleasing the "MacAddicts".
Despite high margins on computer sales, they flirt with bankruptcy all the time. The only reason we have Apple around today is because Microsoft bailed them out a little while back. Apple is now nothing more than a "beard" to insulate Microsoft from claims that it is a monopoly. "No we aren't a monopoly. See Apple over there?"
The truth is their products just can't make it on their own in "the real world.". Not surprising when this company concentrates on what computers look like instead of what they do.
nice troll, i suppose...although its a bit obvious, eh?
How much does Jon Katz have?
Silly question, obviously, but I just don't understand why every mention of Apple must compare them to Microsoft, or some other computing company that just doesn't fit the unmentioned analogy.
Apple is bigger than Gateway. They're bigger than a lot of computer companies, and their edge is that they're not just pushing beige boxes and whatever components float in from overseas, they have control over their entire platform.
Microsoft and Apple's business models couldn't be much further apart. And yet every mention of Apple in the media has to compare them to MS, or mention Bill Gates....
Get over it, Katz. Ot at least get it.
I've been debating doing this for a long time, but this article has finally set me over the edge. I will now make an account, for the sole purpose filtering all Jon Katz posts. I never want to see anything this moron writes ever again. I'd be proud to post this fact unanonymously, but obviously I can't yet.
;)
My home network server is an SE/30. Built in 1993. Running software written in 1995. I'm still using a 7500 as my primary computer, purchased in 1996, with FireWire and USB and all manner of peripherals. I've got a Centris running 8.1 attached to my Cable router checking my e-mail and keeping track of my Slashdot headlines 24/7. This hardware and software is not obsolete in my "middle-America" home.
Apple's Tech Support is generally very good. Their computers last a long time (which has caused problems for them in the long run - no real forced upgrades), work consistently, and are very easy to use. Supporting them is cake. Look at any cross-platform manual: reams of paper for every little change in every version of Windows, three pages for Mac OS.
What this tells me is that what middle-America wants is cheap crap. C'mon, people, you get what you pay for. My inital investment in these computers was high, but over the course of 5 years . . . . Most of this "obsolete" hardware can be picked up for a song and used as I have used them for well under $500. Of course, I also buy used cars, and try to keep to brands with a proven standard of reliability. This is exactly why so many people are so deep in debt: unrealistic, myopic desires for the bigger, better deal (think SUV).
You will pay the price for your lack of vision.
Do not touch -Willie
- is it normal that there must be a total domination over a market to be successful?
- can you also be successful with a 4.5% share of the market? if the market is a extremely huge one?
- could it be that there are not only people who make business only for the sole purpose to earn as much money as possible?
I'm sorry, but this is silly. Today's excitable teenagers and college students are tomorrow's consumers. I imagine many of the tech sector's high rollers were excitable teenagers once. If the conservative elements drove the market as much as is insinuated here, we'd still be using mechanical calculators--at best.
It is not "you get what you pay for". It is "you have been taken". The box is prettier, but you can't do near as much with it, it comes with a lot less and is slower for the price.
I've seen a few posts discussing how Mac has more market share than BMW and Mercedez-Benz. Well, um, the iMac is cute, but is it really fair to say that having an 800Mhz "Pentium crushing" iMac, with a different looking case, instead of a 1.6Ghz Athalon in a boring box is the same as driving a BMW instead of a Neon? When you sit down in front of a Mac for the first time after using PCs your whole life, it's not like sliding in behind the wheel of a new BWM. The last time I used a Mac (OS 9, I think) it wasn't any easier to use or more reliable than Windows.
How about measuring success by business success? Apple is a failure, always flirting with bankruptcy and is only there now because Microsoft bailed it out. After all those people get over how cool the iMac looks on the table, they turn it on, find out it can do very little, and they go get a PC.
By the way, Apple cannot dominate the PC market until it builds PC's. They build Macintoshes, not PC's.
Many years ago, during the bad old days of Gil Amelio (who still did a lot of good, necessary things for Apple), I argued with anyone and everyone who made fun of Macs. I am not so pugnacious these days.
As Jobs says, survival is success. I don't care if my Mac is liked by others. I don't care if the MacOS doesn't have the highest market share. I don't care if I could have gotten a better deal on similar hardware. I don't care if the latest greatest seizure-inducing bloodbath games don't run at the highest frame rates on my Mac. I don't care about any of that anymore.
I care about Apple's survival only because I care about the continual improvement of Macintosh hardware and software. I care about having hardware that will run reliably for a long time. I care about having software, both the system and the available applications, that lets me get done what I want to get done, with a minimum of fuss. I care about having the power and flexibility of Unix, without the hassle of tweaking config files if I don't feel like it right at the moment. This is all I care about. As long as Apple survives and keeps doing these things, I will go quietly about my day, blissfully writing code.
For those in the U.S., and an increasingly large portion of the world, we live in a pluralistic society, where others' choices are tolerated and, ideally, ignored. To Jon Katz, I say: Run the OS you like, on the hardware you like. I will, and I'll be happy if you do, too.
Jon
The quote belongs to Hiawatha Bray of The Boston Globe (not Dvorak), I believe.
Why can't we mod down shitty front page stories like this? It'd sure stop morons double-posting stories, or stupid monologues like that of Katz above.
mogorific carpentry experiments
Reading both of them it becomes obvious that it's better to get something out there, as long as it's not unacceptably bad, and then auger in on perfection.
I can remember when the IBM PC and Apple were going head to head. What it came down to is that you could get your work done on the IBM PC without having to pay the huge sums Apple always demands. People voted with their pocket books. They always do.
Now Gates, et al., have a deathlike grip on the world of popular computing. Apple may have the right thing, but the right think always costs too much and takes too long to arrive.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
How is Linux superior to Windows or MacOS?
Asked in a more precise way, how is it superior to a normal (non-programmer) user? Because it crashes less? It moves bits around inside the box in better ways?
Linux is not a priori superior: it is a better OS for a segment of the population. Katz is digging for nerd cred. Pffft.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Mark Twain once said
"Good books are like wine, my books are like water. Everybody drinks water"
Apple computers are like wine and Windows is like water.....
http://www.kubuntu.org/
And even though Gates may be terribly embarrassed and keep trying to improve the upscale appeal of Windows, it's a losing proposition. Microsoft is the KMart of software. Compaq/Microsoft will not take over Apple's market segment, but neither will Apple take over Compaq/Microsoft's market segment.
The real problem with the PC market is simply that there isn't more choice on the OS side: Windows, MacOS, BeOS, and Linux do not even scratch the surface of the space of possible and useful user experiences and interface styles. There should be 20 companies making entirely different systems, each with 5% market share (and all interoperable, one would hope). But, on the PC side, at least we get a lot of hardware variety and form factors. In fact, while Apple's iMac is stylish, its form factor has been available for a while from several PC vendors, including IBM's NetVista X series (at roughly the same price).
The computer industry may be at the same historic cusp that faced the automobile industry in 1931 when, for the first time, General Motors surpassed Ford in sales. Ford had built it empire upon the Model T - a utilitarian car for the masses. However, through the 1920's, Ford had saturated much of the untapped demand from first-time auto buyers. By the early 1930's, most new car purchases were to people who already owned cars and were looking for something new and exciting. In the late 20's, GM had captured the imagination of the public when Lawrence Fisher, head of the Cadillac division under GM president Alfred P. Sloan Jr., hired Harley Earl to design the 1928 LaSalle. His daring designs were exceptionally well received and soon he was designing all of the GM car lines. The "model year" was born and, with it, "planned obsolescence". Ford never regained the sales lead and the auto industry has never been the same - and has never forsaken the paramount need for style.
/ history/, esp. chapter 6)
This is a very similar situation to that faced by the computer industry today. Much of the pent-up demand for computers has been exhausted and second- and third-time computer buyers are looking for something new and captivating. In a marketplace where most computers are sufficient for the needs for most users, the only distinguishing features are ease-of-use/consistency/dependability and, gasp, style. Some may argue, but it has been widely noted that Apple provides superior ease-of-use and consistency, if not dependability, by controlling the whole widget. And few would argue that Apple is the company most aggressively testing the style envelope in the PC industry.
The marketplace for the utilitarian PCs may be drawing to a close. Although I am sure users yearn for the greater reliability JonKatz describes, I doubt they will find it from the "truly successful" companies he describes. And in an age where many new computer buyers think in terms of "hot rods" rather than "toasters", style may indeed be king. Hold onto your hats, the age of the computer "model years" may be just around the corner - and Apple may well be leading the pack.
(for more automobile history, see http://www.theautochannel.com/mania/industry.orig
I'm sorry Katz but can't you expend a little more energy THINKING before you open your mouth? I particularly like the argument that Windows is a success because it has better "ease of use, safety and utility" than the Mac. Apple is aimed directly at the people you say it should be aimed at: The technophobic masses. It already has "ease of use" it already has "safety" (you wouldn't believe the number of times I get a message to 'look out' for a mail virus going around - that I just happily ignore) it already has "utility."
The ingredients Apple is missing to become a success (apparently defined by Katz not as profitability but only by market dominance) are the two ingredients he failed to mention.
The first is that market dominance/monopoly that guarantees that even an inferior OS will have a plethora of software available for it. Apple is in the unenviable and paradoxical position of having to succeed (gain marketshare) in order to create the conditions required to succeed (attract developers) Fortunately Apple has just enough marketshare to attract just enough software titles to maintain it's "utility."
The second missing ingredient is a competitive PRICE. Of course to be successful as defined by most businesses Apple must be PROFITABLE which unlike it's hardware competitors in the current market Apple IS. And it is profitable because of it's higher margins. Also, in order to justify those higher margins it must take on far greater costs in R&D (compared to other box makers) with far fewer economies of scale (compared to the wintel industry as a whole). Apple will always have a disadvantage in price which to a large extent is unavoidable.
So how can Apple address these two inherent disadvantages? How does it increase it's marketshare and so increase it's utility by increasing software availablity? How does it attract developers even though it's marketshare is small? How does it compensate for it's unavoidably higher price? By being "cool"!! Being "cool" gets it noticed (and maybe even purchased) by those technophobic masses that otherwise would just go along with the herd - even though the Mac better serves them because it HAS better "ease of use, safety and utility"
Standardized up the wazoo, gives pretty good service, aimed squarely at middle-class consumers that want value and reliability at not too high of a price.
Extremely standardized (to the lowest level), very cheap... aimed at consumers who want/need the product (be it food, cars, computers) at the least cost. Products aren't as reliable and may produce breakdowns as a side effect (gastric or mechanical). Product as a commodity.
Not bad products, aimed at their target segments (companies that need lots of them) mostly for price and cost of ownership (although in Compaq's case, that's debatable).
Aimed at upscale, upper-middle and upper class image-conscious consumers who usually don't know too much about the product they're buying. Product hallmarks are that it looks cool, nobody will look down on you for buying their products (except the next segment), they're usually overpriced, it looks cool, and they have good reliability, service, and ease of use. Did I mention it looks cool? Underneath the appearance, they have pretty standard, very good quality components.
Products that are usually upgraded from stock products by people with a high knowledge of what they're doing with it. In Mom's case, she goes to the grocery store and cooks some damn fine pasta from ingredients she gets there. Sometimes she orders ingredients from specialized stores. In the computer geek's case, they take a stock computer (or build one themselves) and replace and upgrade the parts they choose. And we all have a car geek friend who can tell the 20 different modifications to a '69 Mustang just by listening when someone revs it up. (Sometimes we are that person.)
And how can you summarize another long-winded Katz article and lots and lots of posts?
To each company their own market segment. Business 101.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
"It's style has influenced countless PC designs."
??
Really?
How many companies have gone away from the traditional PC look since the Imac came out?
Not counting E-machines which was sued by Apple for imitating the Imac...
Check out the meaning of 'influence'.
Innovative: Yes.
Influential: No.
Apple is as bad as Microsoft when it comes to proprietary stuff...remember the whole idiotic Aqua look threats?
Besides, wasnt there already a all in one computer from Compaq (or other large company) before the Imac?
zeke
1. Live next to a horse farm and across the street from a cornfield in rural Ohio
2. Make less than $60.000 a year combined
3. Don't own a standalone DVD player or home theater system
4. Own a $1000 digital camera
5. Burn CD's and use MP3s
6. Own Mac G4 for all digital movie editing, CD burning, DVD player for watching movies, connecting to AOL, digital camera printing
Did you ever stop to consider before writing an uninformed article that perhaps YOU are behind the times, not Middle America? Just because YOU refuse to understand emerging technology doesn't mean other people follow your lead.
" the fact is that Apple's machines still cost a premium compared to a PC that appears functionally equivalent to most users.
Typically, the PC in question is functionally superior: it is a lot more useful out of the box, and can be expanded a lot easier.
If he had researched any of what he had said this article wouldn't have been posted. If he was reading any of the comments in this thread, he would be adding an "UPDATE: I'm an idiot!" This story is just a troll, there's nothing to see here, keep moving.
P.S. Dearest Slashdot owners, for your countless bad articles and idiotic staff, and general trolling to gain hits, I'm off to your favorite news source The Register
damn I already posted but forgot to mention this one thing:
innovation (n-vshn)
n.
1. The act of introducing something new.
2. Something newly introduced.
When it comes to *Innovation*, it's not MS or Dell, it's always Apple. Apple consistently pushes the envelope of Consumer computing, more so than anyone else. At least give them credit in atime when the word innovate usually translates into "commandeer your competitors technology and call it your own". The browser,instant messaging, CD burning, home video, the list goes on.
ok, bye.
...Apple should have changed business models long ago and gone after the commodity computer market where 2.2 Ghz processors run email clients and web browsers.
Like Gateway. Or Compaq. Or Hewlett-Packard.
Man. Imagine where they'd be now.
Oh well. Hindsight is always 20/20 as they say. I guess I'll grudgingly continue using 1% of the CPU in my beautiful Titanium PowerBook browsing the web rather than 0.5% if I had a beige Apple box with a 2.2Ghz P4.
Come on. Most of those things were started ELSEWHERE, not on the Mac. I bet you think that Xerox stole the GUI idea from Apple, too!
Apple's main innovation typically is to make "form over function" computers that end up crippled in order to fit the look.
In a brief piece on the BBC web site, Donald Norman offers this opinion of Apple and the new iMac:
Apple is the best company in the world to make this because Apple understands consumers, understands design and understands computers.
Steve M
Even though you wouldn't know it to hear Jobs and Ive talk about it, that new design is really stunningly obvious and recognizable. (The original iMac was never compared to existing products like desk lamps or vanity mirrors.) Thus this could be Apple's version of the "beige box" intended for widespread appeal.
Was that out loud?
There is plenty of astute commentary, which Katz has apparently not bothered to read nor absorb, on how MS won the desktop battle. It was over and above all a business victory, not a technical one. The only thing easy about AOL and Windows is that they're easy to buy. The so-called "ease of use" falls into two categories: familiarity due to dominance of the market share, and being forced into limited options of what you can actually do by poorly designed software.
I'm not a Mac fanatic. I've used both systems extensively and all computers basically suck to work with, because they're like Model T's: very early phases of a burgeoning technology. I was convinced enough to put in an early order for a new iMac because it was a truly different entity from the usual desktop monolith, because it was a powerful computer for an acceptable price, and because it meant I could stay away from Windows XP. Having seen plenty of OSX and XP there is no question whatsoever what is the OS I'd rather own.
It is the first new computer I've purchased, although I've owned or borrowed several and been working with computers near-daily for the last 16 years. Not a bad accomplishment for Mr. Jobs.
All this being said, I'm sick to the teeth of hearing about Steve Jobs' "attitude," about hipness, squareness, personality, and market shares. I don't care if Steve Jobs is an egomaniac or obsessed with being the hippest. I don't care if he's a maverick just to satisfy some mental hang-up. Would someone just review the damn computer?!
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Slightly off topic, but I doubt I'm the only one that took offense to the above.
I agree that the early Apple was revolutionary, but making computers more accessible was not an antidote to anything. It was the logical next step in bringing an inordinately useful and complex tool into the mainstream, and it didn't come quickly for Apple either. Their first computer, the Apple I, was not a mainstream machine. Hobbyists at the time didn't respond very much until the Apple II, but we're still talking hobbyists. The Apple that we know today didn't really show its face until the release of the unforgettable Macintosh.
Computers are products of science, and engineers struggled long and hard to bring them to the point of mass consumption. Apple has employed and continues to employ some of the most adept computer engineers of the time (including quite a few of the "tech elites" that you mark the cluelessness of), but it has also stood on the shoulders of a lot of great minds that predate Apple. And you managed to insult practically all of them with one little sentence...
Microsoft succeeded, not so much by meeting the customer's needs, but rather by making it as difficult as they could to make another choice.
Windows produced error messages when run over DR-DOS instead of MS-DOS
Per-processor licensing
MS-Office file format changes
Stupid Windows keys on keyboards. Can you buy a keyboard today without ringing Microsoft's cash register?
Of course, he's still stating the obvious, but at least I'm almost agreeing with him this time...
This is just one example, but my aunt and uncle, in their late 50's, early 60's, bought one of the original iMac's. They couldn't be any more middle class, run-of-the-mill-type-users if they tried. With this original iMac, they got on the Internet all by theirselves, can scan images easily, do word processing, etc. I don't think Katz's claims hold water in their case.
:)
BTW -- I'm a power user. I just sold my P4-1400MHz/512MB RAM/40GB Wintel system to a friend at work. My new flat-screen 800MHz/256MB RAM/Superdrive equipped iMac is on order and arriving next week. I can't wait to try serving my website with Apache on Mac OS X. I've been using Linux & BSD for > 4 years. Windows for as long as I can remember. I think there are a lot of users out there like me, wondering whether to take the plunge into the Mac world... I for one am excited about computing again. Can't to get my new iMac!
.... the obvious fact that Apple has made an inferior OS for most of this history. Only OS-X attempts to try and catch up.
If Macs had better "ease of use, safety, and utility", I'd still be using one. Instead, their market share does indeed reflect their failure in this regard.
As for safety, of course you get less virus problem with Mac: when you have hardly anyone making software for a system, this includes hardly any viruses.
Is a Mac really the equivalent of a BMW in computer terms? Everyone keeps pulling up this BMW market share thing, but I've been in a BMW before, and, sure no question I understand why someone would pay 10 times as much to have one. But I've used a Mac, and okay, it has some nice features, it looks nice, but it's not the BMW of computers. There is no equivalence between driving a Neon and driving a BMW and browsing the Web on a PC as opposed to an iMac, even if the iMac looks like a lampshade.
That is all.
I've always given him the benefit of the doubt. Until now. What a load of crap.
What about the vast majority of cases when the other "choices" were pathetically inferior to begin with?
This is how MS won the browser war: they made MSIE better and better as Netscape continually downgraded its browser. The Real Spyware Corp is now in the process of handing over the streaming media world to Microsoft as we speak.
I believe they are refering to the display being the focal point of the media stroke fest.
According to the Michelin Red Guide Key, the most stars a restaurant can get is three, where the stars refer to exceptional cuisine. The 1-5 scale refers to the "Comfort Category", ranging from "Quite Comfortable" to "Luxury". I always wondered myself...
sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
Not to jump to harshly on a simple grammatical error, but "easy of use" is precisely the problem. There is nothing about MS Windows nor has there ever been anything about windows (or DOS for that matter) that is easy to do. The middle class wants the "status quo" -- not ease of use.
1) Apple has the best tech support of any company out there. I recently had a problem with my 3 year old 21" Apple Studio Display (still under Apple extended warranty)... it was sent to Apple overnight ($500 on their dime) and was back with me in less than a week (this is a 100lb monitor mind you).
2) iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD... all free, all best in class. Nuff said.
3) And if their hardware is almost instantly outdated, how come my 3 year old g4 500 runs Return to Castle Wolfenstein 1024*768 at more than acceptable framerates using normal settings? No small feat by my estimation.
"Smokey, this isn't Nam, there are rules." -Walter
First of all:
The truly successful technologies and technology companies are utilitarian and dull -- decidedly non-hip. You will never seen a Microsoft or AOL exec talking about how cool the their companies or products are, only how useful and easy to use.
"You will never seen?" - what the hell are you talking about? That's bad grammar, not to mention the rest of the sentence is false. You're saying MS products are easy to use? Well, I admit, they've gotten better, but they're still playing catch up in that department.
The following is just complete nonsense, and if I can organize all of the rants floating in my head I'll show you why:
Gates understands something Jobs and media don't. When it comes to technology, it's middle-class consumers and their tastes, needs and expectations that determine success or failure.
First and foremost, Apple and Microsoft are two completely different companies. Apple sells computers, Microsoft doesn't. Microsoft sells services, for the most part Apple doesn't. Comparing these two companies is really absurd. In the same way, it's not fair to compare Apple to a company like Gateway, as Apple makes an OS, MP3 player, etc. The point is: MacOS is dominated by Windows, but no Mac users give a rat's ass.
Next, you show your true ignorance with your statement that "middle class consumers" drive the market. Are you really that stupid? Everyone knows that it's businesses that drive the PC world for a myriad of reasons. Yes, every day there are more and more personal goodies for computers, and individuals are buying more of them, but that still does not compare to the amount of money generated by businesses. Every company that uses microsoft software is forced to have a license for every single workstation, unlike the home user who just borrows a friend's. When these businesses upgrade to XP, Microsoft is going to rake in a huge amount of profit. That is what drives their "innovation," not the whims of individual PC users. This is one major reason Mac users are so loyal. Macs give you the feeling that every single part of the computer was designed so that it would be extremely convenient for you to use, that's something that customers really appreciate. Sure, maybe everyone uses Windows, but there's still about 5% of people who use Macintosh, and that's a very happy and pleased 5%.
~ now you know
Microsoft execs *only* talk about how kewl their products are. Take .NET for example - the amount of "coolness" in this product far outweighs anything I've ever seen come out of Redmond.
Actually, I'm sick of "cool" coming from Microsoft. I'd much rather see substance than fluff (which they sometimes eventually deliver, I guess).
AOL on the other hand caters to brain-dead people so it's kinda difficult to expect them to avoid "cool".
JonKatz keeps saying that consumers need ease of use, not hipness or coolness, but he's missed a very simple thing: Usability can't exist without coolness. A product that is drab but otherwise perfectly usable has a distinct competitive advantage, because it looks out of date and unprofessional, and fails to make users want to use it.
You insist that Jobs is wrong to pursue the form of his products so relentlessly, and that Gates is doing the right thing by largely ignoring it. But that's not what Microsoft is doing at all! Look at the effort that went into giving Win XP a pretty interface, or the fun little glowing red light on the MS IntelliMouse Explorer. On a more global level, look at what the original iMac did to the industry: now everyone's boxes have translucent plastics and come in different flavors.
I agree that people want stability on the level of a basic household appliance, and that we're not there yet. But I think that's a separate (though related) issue.
Usability is inseparable from aesthetics. But in addition, I think that as computers become more and more a basic consumer commodity, the aesthetics will continue to rise in importance, and hardware makers will again find themselves copying Apple. This wouldn't be the first time...look at the industrial designs for established consumer electronics like Walkmen, portable CD players, and to a lesser degree cell phones.
http://www.salon.com/tech/log/2002/01/10/iklown/in dex.html
At Macworld, out-of-work dot-commers pose as marauding clowns. The authorities are not amused.
Macs give you the feeling that every single part of the computer was designed so that it would be extremely convenient for you to use
Actually, Apple makes less convenient machines. This is why they are so unpopular. Remember the first iMac for which you paid $$$ more to have a total LACK of removable storage... at a time when removable storage devices were standard on PC's?
How is a tiny pinhole for disk ejection "more convenient" than the button standard on PC's?
How is the cumbersomeness added to the OS by not having a 2nd mouse button "more convenient" ?
How is this other iMac blunder, lack of standard peripheral interface to serve most existing Macintosh printers, "more convenient"?
Katz, like many other Pro x86 dimwitts, fails to realize that Pentium is a "spin oriented" company that is not concerned with performance, only public opinion. In other words, I'd put a PPC at 1 GHz up against a Pentium at 2.2 GHz or whatever they're up to now any day of the week. Katz is apparently trying to say that because the clock rate of G4's doesn't go up as fast as Pentiums that the hardware is worse... well, he's wrong, plain wrong.
PS - let's not even get into the plethora of other architectural issues that contribute to overall performance, I don't think Katz could follow.
~ now you know
-1, Flamebait
Guvegrra?
http://www.apple.com/myths/
On a more global level, look at what the original iMac did to the industry: now everyone's boxes have translucent plastics and come in different flavors.
Apple harassed companies that tried to look like iMac with frivolous lawsuits. Remember the eOne? Hardly anyone's boxes have translucent plastics now. Go out and look.
Have you actually seen their ads? Both advertise how cool they are. As for useful and easy to use, that's pretty much been the Apple focus for *years*. Making something useful, easy to use *and* cool(the iMac apparently) is what broke them out of their slump.
They don't really care how much heavy breathing they generate in the media
[sarcasm]Yeah, Microsoft doesn't care how it's portrayed in the media *at all*![/sarcasm]
Apple's text is outright incorrect on myths 3,5,6. But what do you expect? They are trying to sell their own computers, not tell the truth.
Pretty funny on Myth 3: Macs can only run a lot of software if you run PC emulation. hehehe
And all for about the same price as a mid-to-high level P.C.! Of course the P.C. would then incur additional expenses to begin to have the same funtionality as the iMac...
What's less clear is whether or not the public -- especially that critical middle-class chunk of it -- wants to do those things on a computer,
"What's less clear is whether or not the public -- especially the critical middle-class chunk of it -- wants a mouse and a GUI and a 32-bit operating system like the Mac!" -- P.C.-apologist circa 1985.
or is confident about its ability to use machinery that's still more complicated and problematic than its makers seem able to admit.
But somehow Microsoft's first few attempts are going to be on-par... or "better" than what Apple has now: see Windows 1.0, Windows 2.0, Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1, etc.
For nearly a generation now, from Jobs to the makers of instant replay TV machines, some of the best minds in the tech world -- usually the younger ones -- have been crippled and misled by the confusion between what's cool and what's going to be successful, between what's neat and what's necessary.
For nearly a generation now, some of the most mediocre minds in the tech world -- usually the older ones -- have been crippled and misled by Microsoft marketting: "What's cool, neat, useful, robust, and availble now is not necessary... wait and test our beta-version copy of this, besides we know all the secret Windows API's!"
The survivors of the Net's first generation -- brilliant plodders like Gates and Steve Case -- understand quite well that they aren't the same thing, and have, as a result, increasingly come to dominate the Net.
Ha! Calling Gates a "survivor" of the Net's first generation is like calling Saddam Hussein the survivor of his own first wave of Kurdish/ethnic cleansing! The only thing Microsoft understands is this:
I believe that Apple understands this (largely due to Jobs running things again, IMHO) and that's good for them. If they were to continue to kidd themselves (like they did for years before Jobs came back), they wouldn't have survived much longer. The iMac brought them back, and now they realize what they're doing. They got a large, profitable niche and Apple is getting comfortable.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Just out of curiousity, how come so many people seem to identify an attack on a giant corporation that's not M$ as tatamount to an assult upon themselves? Let's face it, no matter how much rhettoric is spewed by Apple marketing, when the chips are down, you the indivdual is nothing to them. Your demographic and the amount of income spent upon their products, on the other hand, far outweigh your opinions for good or ill. I think that in that sense, I, the individual am no closer to regarding Apple, INC. as a close personal friend as I am thinking that Billy Boy up in Redmond wants me to come over and play cops and robbers.
Grow up people. Your identity isn't dictated by the car you drive, the shampoo you use, or your brand of cigarettes. Why should your computer be any different?
Finally a voice of reason and logic. Laws of business still apply even to a religion-powered argument. Apple is a good business, they're about the size of Gateway but no one's rating Apple's credit as junk status. No one's saying sell Apple stock like they are about Gateway!
Katz seems to have focused on total market dominance to be the key factor of success. But we all know that's not true. To many, his article read more like a rant than a logical argument. True Mr. and Mrs. Joe Blow don't need or want the digital hub hype. But there are quite a few people to whom it is important. And there are enough people there to call it a niche.
So What you're telling us is that if Apple toned down the colors (I'll remind you right now that the iMacs, iBooks and PowerMac towers are all white), made a keyboard and mouse wireless (which is all about the cool factor) and changed their marketing you'd buy a Mac?
None of your "suggestions" seem to actually make the computer any better or any worse. In fact, they have nothing to do with the actual product we are discussing. Are you seriously going to make your purchases based soley on a company's advertising campain and the use a wire for the keyboard and mouse and not on the actual merits of the product itself? I'm sorry, but your post seems all too much like a poor reason not to buy an Apple product.
sin(6cos(r)+5A)
PC's are already much more functional and easier to use than Macintoshes. No "catch up" necessary.
"Don't worry about this being "fair," after all, why bother having monopoly power if you can't leverage it to drive anyone else out of business?"
Last thing a pro-Mac bigot should ever bring up, in light of the fact that Microsoft bailed out Apple and Apple owes its existence to MS influence.
http://a740.g.akamai.net/f/740/606/1d/image.pathfi nder.com/time/images/rtcover_011402.gif
Aside from that, how fast is that "new CPU"?
1/2 of what the pc world is, bubba.
May be tough to use, but it is far easier than Mac. Especially DOS. The power of the command line prompt was what made the Windows environment superior in ease of use to the Mac for so many years: there are so many tasks that are easier using a CLI than a GUI, and Windows was always more "open" about this than the Mac, not straightjacketing you with a user interface that is not apt at the time.
Given that a fair portion of Slashdot never tires of bashing apple and a fair portion never tires of bashing Jon Katz, what in the world is going to happen here?
Me, I'm getting as far away from this discussion board and Slashdot's servers as possible....
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
"They want computing that works like TV does -- that's easy to use, takes little space, costs relatively little money and works every time you turn it on, year after year."
Sounds like a Mac to me....
"I hope they legalize drugs so you hurry up and fucking die." Charles Bronson (the band, not the man)
Actually, Apple terms this 'Full Keyboard Access' and it's available as of 10.1.
Apple's The Power of X presentation includes a demo of this by Avie himself.
My Centris 650 has over 40,000 hours of runtime, has never had a hardware failure, and I can only recall having to reinstall the OS once.
The G4 tower has likewise never been in the shop, nearing 5,000 running hours.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
Given the fact of hardly any software for the Mac, and harder to use, too, it would be like a TV where you can only get 2 channels and in order to change the volume, you have to use a menu as difficult as that on most VCR's. But, boy, it sure looks cool sitting in the corner when you don't have it turned on!
(Don't forget the amazing remote control with just one button on it! How ergonomic this is... just like the worthless Apple mouse. And the VCR where you have to jam a pencil in a hole to eject the tape: just like the Mac)
Look at apples' slashdot posts this year. Yestarday,slashdot had this.
Last week ago,we had this,this,and a bit before that,we had THIS!
All of those posts had many replys,so,i wonder,are Geeks(TM) starting to like apple's computers/software ?
Consider what they've acomplieshed in the last years:
- Made nice hardware, growing in leaps and bounds as the market for those things matures (pc133, yes it was late, and yes, it's slower than DDR, but hey, better than pc100), nice processors, removing all relic hardware as necessary (USB instead of ADB, etc). Apple has always done this.
- Making the powerbook g4 was the next step, making a laptop just slightly less powerful than a desktop, *AND* has a battery life to speak of.
- Good software: OS X. BSD core. No need for them to figure out how to reinvent the wheel with their crappy old OS's--Simply change a few widgets, and call it Darwin, then add a GUI, and Voila! instant OS. With a *LOT* of software available, not to mention the 20 billion BSD hackers, the people that'll keep the Darwin OS up to snuff.
- Totally reengineered interface--Finally a command line that doesn't suck! And for that matter, a GUI that doesn't suck! And multitasking! And all sorts of neat widgets that make techies and non-techies alike scream out "I WANT ONE!"
- Giving computers to schools, making great leaps in hardware, standardizing their video system. I see this as a incredibly brilliant move for Steve Jobs.
All in all, more power to them... They may live, they may struggle, or they may die. They are pushing the user's into a whole new realm: DVD-R's in affordable systems, laptops that don't suck, and keeping up with technology a lot better than they used to.
Apple is marginal. To survive, Steve is heading down the path of making all Apple products consumer electronics. Even the faithful are slightly annoyed that the UI (yay Tim Wasko) breaks Apple's UI guidelines to present a mostly static face ANYONE can use - that is - even make the applications look like consumer electronics.
As Apple continues down the path of being marginal, even the devote will be ticked. Will I buy an iPod to work with my Cube? No, because I use RealJukebox on my PC and iPod uses HFS+ on the inside... I want stuff that fits-in-and-stands-out... as the faithful will remember, Nagel's credo.
Its funny even MS is going this route. MediaPlayer looks more like QuickTime Player every release. And now we have XBox. Funny MS doesn't remember their failed Printer division, their failed HandHeld division, or even remember the Pippin...
Convergence only makes sense if it saves you money.
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
Did Jon figure this all out on his very own or did he spend the weekend reviewing a clue roadmap?
When was the last time Apple seemed to care about market share?
This Sig doesn't like The Force, The Matrix or Middle Earth. It also gets laid.
Computers don't have to be exactly the same to be "compatible". As long as they can communicate in some fashion and exchange data, then they are compatible.
Slashdot is a perfect example of this compatibility between different platforms - I'm able to access Slashdot from my OS/2 and Linux systems at home as well as the Windows 2000 system on my desktop at work. My friends who run Macs can also access the site without any problems.
MS's options were never superior to begin with...what has always ended up happening was that MS used their business dealings to have their software be the first option.
This is not the case in many situations, including many of those you mentioned.
I stopped using Word Perfect because it was terrible, and getting worse, at handling graphic files. Nothing to do with business pressure from Word.
DR-DOS? Used that too. Too buggy.
Access vs dBase? I wonder if you realize that MS actually was the company that kept dBase alive. Ashton-Tate was long gone before MS started to make inroads here.
IE vs. Netscape? I remember this. I've also watched as Netscape has made their browser slower, uglier, and basically unusable. They now make an 8th rate browser. Everything, even Opera, is much better.
Media player vs real? Again, Real makes theirs worse as MS makes theirs better.
Every example in your list had companies failing to even bother to keep up, and in some cases, making worse products over time.
It's becoming obvious that as time passes, Katz just gets more and more out of touch with reality.
So Steve Job's doesn't get it, huh? Ask any advertising exec in the world about which trends and products one should keep an eye on in order to stay innovative and creative. Two names will always come up: Volkswagen (Beetle) and Apple (iMac).
Ask any creative professional - designers, animators, film editors, sfx pros, sound engineers - which computer is the holy grail for their undustry, and they'll say the G(x) series Macintosh.
If anyone is this industry truly has a handle on what computing needs to be, it's Steve Jobs. Bill's marketing machine is a juggernaught no one has been able to beat... that doesn't mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that Gates' products are the best there is. Perhaps Jobs and Apple aren't focusing on just becoming the biggest computer/software company in the universe. Maybe Jobs and Apple are actually trying to make a better product, rather than just sell as much as possible of whatever tripe they can put in a box. And to think Katz is trying to argue this on Slashdot??
And Katz stating that Job's just doesn't "get it" because his products are pretty and "neat" but not powerful and stable makes it abundantly clear that he's just... a dumbass. I especially like the statement that the world isn't ready for 1,000 song MP3 players, so Jobs shouldn't bother trying to make one. And what would happen to the whole of technological progression if new technology wasn't introduced - or even researched - until the public was "ready" for it?? To restate, Katz == dumbass.
That's right, think about the whole next generation of kids. They're predicted to be much larger than the Baby Boomers. These kids are growing up in an environment where Macs are still viable teaching tools. These kids will grow up being media CREATORS and not just media CONSUMERS like their parents were. If you teach kids that they too can create media just as easily as they can consume it, there will be a whole generation of people who will be more willing to do it.
Think about it: a whole generation of kids who had access to iMovie and iDVD and who made video essays as part of their assignments. The whole state of Maine will be giving 7th graders access to iBooks. I now regularly watch short scripts that my 14 year old cousin puts together with his friends that are much funnier than SNL (not that that's saying much.)
You're wasting your time if you think you can teach an old dog new tricks but these kids are just puppies and they're having a great time playing around with the technology. Don't underestimate this strategy. Kids have a huge pull in what parents buy. The standard argument is that people buy the same computers they have at work. But what if you throw a wrench in that logic: what if your kid asks for an iMac because it's what he uses at school and he wants to put together a short DVD for Grandma? Maybe just enough parents will put the kid's wants before their own.
Apple Corp. will be around forever. Next time it dies because it can't even bother to make computers anyone wants, Microsoft will prop it up again.
Because of this situation, Apple designs and customer desires will never have to really meet up with each other.
I agree, people really dig the 'technology as furniture' idea. I have seen some beautiful home theater rooms because not only are the rosenut speakers useful they look very nice. Style and function, it doesn't come in high doses.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
The premise in the above article that people want ease-of-use above all is negated by the conventional wisdom regarding micro-computers, is incorrect. It simply does not fit the historical facts. Apple's first generation of computers [Apple II] followed by the Macintosh were easier to use than the equivalent micro computer of the time. Ease-of-use encompasses many factors such as ergonmics, reliability, performance and appeal. Ask a member of the "middle class" and he/she will tell you the Macintosh is a "better" product. It is easier to use. If anything would turn people off from using computers, it is Microsoft's Windows 95 constantly crashing when they write a letter to Grandma.
However, ease-of-use is not what the market is primarily interested in.
The reason why Apple has 4.5% of the market is similar to BMW's 4% share of their market: Their product is expensive compared to others. Granted, cars and computers function under different market forces but the fundamental principle of price still applies. [Also, they f*cked up their dealer program, pissed off their software developers and got out manuevered by Microsoft in the application and OS market.] When the typical person is buying a "computer" they are trying to get the biggest bang for the buck. Apple doesn't compare. Their computers are expensive. This maintains Apple's extremely high gross margins.
Being utilitarian and dull has little to do with success or failure in the computer industry. Pricing does. Perhaps Mr. Katz should take a refresher course in economics before he attempts to analyze an example of the free market.
Thank you for your time.
When I lived in central Texas (Ft Hood if you care) Just off base in Killean there was a burger joint named Grid Iron Burgers, and they made the single most greasy burger ever, it was called the pigskin burger.... here's the blueprint, half a pound of fatty ground of beef topped with count 'em 4 strips of bacon 3 slices of montery jack cheese mayo and picles and ketchup. this thing would soak through four layers of paper they wrapped it in and the paper bag it came in before they could hand it through the drive through window.
They were Awesome
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
Stupid really.
Apple boosters won't be mentioning the iPod when in a few months some other company (Nomad?) will come out with a much cheaper, easier to use (iPod still has Apple's ongoing problem with understanding power buttons) MP3 box that stores 2000 songs and doesn't have the requirement of blowing $900 on a Macintosh boatanchor just to use it.
By the way, how about that idiotic "don't steal music" warning on the ads? The only way to steal music with the iPod is to smash a window at a CD store with it before breaking in. And a brick will do this job much better.
Size, appearance, elegance, and style will become more and more important to the average user as computers become necessary household appliances.
Nothing is holding me back from making the new iMac my newest toy. I've been a MS/IBM clone user my whole life, but right now they aren't offering me anything fun, exciting, new or different. I have a degree in MIS, but I develope in platform-independent Java, and most of my GUI is made in Photoshop.
Me too, I'm an avvid power user with a P4-1500MHz Dell system. I didnt sell my desktop, but replacing my recently stolen Dell laptop with the new iMac semi-portable flatscreen model with SuperDrive.....
I can't wait till they arrive next week!
www.atacomm.com - The Leader in VoIP Product Distributi
You will never seen a Microsoft or AOL exec talking about how cool the their companies or products are
I guess JonKatz hasn't seen this yet. That just goes to prove that you can be a billionaire Microsoft exec, and still be absolutely insane. Only Ballmer could yell "DEVELOPERS!" over and over again, and still be taken seriously (kind of).
Actually, Apple makes less convenient machines. This is why they are so unpopular. Remember the first iMac for which you paid $$$ more to have a total LACK of removable storage... at a time when removable storage devices were standard on PC's?
Exactly what are you talking about? No... wait... I don't care.
How is a tiny pinhole for disk ejection "more convenient" than the button standard on PC's?
How is pressing a button on the front of the PC more convenient than simply having the computer eject the disk for you?
How is the cumbersomeness added to the OS by not having a 2nd mouse button "more convenient" ?
How is accessing menus by pressing a second button on the mouse more convenient than using OS toolbars present on the desktop, along with having every possible command associated with a shortcut?
How is this other iMac blunder, lack of standard peripheral interface to serve most existing Macintosh printers, "more convenient"?
How are you still talking? STFU please!
~ now you know
...the fact that the Mac is not easier to use, never has been. I remember when the first Macintosh came out. Comparitively useless, could only do a few things with it. The PC's at the time were much easier to use and could do a lot more. Most everyone else agreed.
Ease of use is what rules the market right now actaully. This has resulted in the market shares you see here, and why myself and many others here are "former" mac users.
I hate to look like I'm joining the anti-Katz flame crusade here... but I cannot help it that reading this piece reminds me of my high school yearbook. You see, in my yearbook there was this funny little section "most likely to succeed." I always thought, with of course a natural little twinge of jealousy, that this was a crock of ____. Of course, those likely to succeed were all popular people, jocks and the like. But it totally missed the point, which has already been made above--namely, that success has many definitions, and net worth & market domination might not be the best ones.
It strikes me as very odd that this is coming from Katz, given his views on American capitalism, etc. To me, this view of success is exactly what is driving everything that is wrong in American business, from Enron to the Nasdaq to MS abusing its market position. Politically speaking, we could easily find a corollary.
On a side note: next to the "most likely to be successful" was the photo of people voted "most weird." This photo included two of the most intelligent people in the school, along with the one goth-girl in the school, who is quite intelligent herself (this was ca '93). I feel like there's an implicit statement buried in there...
katz you are a fucking troll.
Jobs IS in the process of making computers easier and more accessible for uncle owen and aunt maru. They're not going to be obsolete in 18 months either cause every shred of mac hardware is already lagging behind the cutting edge, so what if they're slow. remember uncle owen has such meager needs it doesn't matter if his computer is fast.
THe only thing apple has to overcome is the idiotic perception that "macs don't work with pcs" and that they are too expensive or too stylish for uncle owen's simple tastes.
"Tension is the great integrity" -- R. Buckminster Fuller
Does this describe Macs or PCs? It seems to fit either, it seems to fit all technology.
The real reason Windows is more popular than Macs is price. PC initial price is less than Macs. 95.5% of businesses purchase the solution with the lowest initial price. 95.5% of people purchase computers that are compatible with work. This has gone on long enough so that games (the other reason people purchase computers) are now PC first or PC only.
Long live the PC
Started to read this then I realized it was written by Katz. Why oh why is this man allowed to ramble on here. He is like that crazy old guy who sits on the porch and tells stories. Everybody knows he's out of his mind but the stories are just so darn good.
Cool! If you like, let me know how your new iMac works out for you; I'll do the same. You can reach me at russellwgordon AT yahoo DOT com .
:)
A few of my co-workers are sitting on the fence, but as of this moment I have no one to directly trade tech tips with (except users via various community websites). Lately I've been checking out the O'Reilly Network Mac DevCenter. It has a lot of lucid, informative articles on the Mac power-user side of things.
Cheers!
As a rule, they don't. There are some Mac programs not available on the PC, and many PC programs not available on Mac. Even when they are the "same" program, they do not work just the same due to OS differences. There are many other differences as well. Even when file formats are the same, the files often act different on each machine.
They are two separate environments, with different files.
Since when have Microsoft _not_ made (or at least branded) hardware? Currently they produce a wide range of PC peripherals (mice, keyboards, etc), and then there's the Xbox and their plans to expand into the "home media station" market. Believe me when I say that Microsoft is working their way to owning both the DVD and audio CD content standards, creation tools and playback systems, all aimed for their 2003 launch of Longhorn.
Another major factor for business choosing Windows is the wide variety of specialized business applications available which you do not have on the Mac.
"Doesn't matter how 'cool' it looks or what it will do - bottom line is someone walks into a store and sees the iMac sitting there for $1400 next to a PC for $699.
Both run Office. Both access the 'net. Both play music. Both can probably edit video to a limited extent.
Which one are you going to buy?"
The one I like better. If you don't like buying the cheapest thing you can find move out of mommy's house and get a job.
I guess I will be joining the rest of the /. faithful and finally relegating Katz to the killfile. I kept giving him a chance, but his opinions are based on such a lack of knowledge, that it renders his them as woeful and misinformed. Hence they're just stupid.
:groan:
But to my specific objections. College students DO determine the mainstream and are the greatest barometers of the mainstream five years down the line. Does Katz realize that this is one of the reasons that advertisers find the 16-25 age span as the most important advertiser range?
College students were the forebringers of the goddamn Internet! They were the first to adopt it. They were the first to adopt mp3 techonology, CD PLAYER technology, DVD technology, jeez... I can keep going. They were the first to adopt the USE OF THE COMPUTER.
College students don't determine the mainstream market. Wow, that quote is soo stupid it's definitely earned a spot in my sig.
---
"College students don't determine the mainstream market." - Another wonderful Katz Quote
This new imac isn't built for speed or anything, its a very small computer with a really nice screen, people know they wont be folding protiens on it, nor making the latest 3d rendered movie, but for what people want it for (watching movies, surfing the net, reading email) you can't get much better then buying a new imac in my opinion..
If your a person who wants to have speed, buy a pc, or buy a machine from apple thats built for that.. I just maxed out all the options on a dual g4 tower and it turns out to be a very fast machine, but also very expensive.
And for your example.
Lets say theres a person who needs to get from point a to point b. They have some money, they can get what everyone else has, a big fast car, but theres a lot of work involved in that, keeping it running, giving it gas, all sorts of stuff. Now, this person could also buy a bike, which is good enough for what he needs, and this person really never has to worry about maintenance, not compared to a car anyway.
The machine isn't built for everyone, so dont try to put it into a performance market, or whatever else, its a small computer, and it does what it does well..
I lament this behavior everyday. If people would just stand up for quality, we wouldn't be dealing with the above "popular" products. We would also have movie theatres with properly focused lenses and clean screens.
The goal shouldn't be (as Katz seems to be saying) to emulate mediocre thinking. It should be to develop the technology to a point where it becomes like a portable radio. You turn it on and it does what it's supposed to do.
And, contrary to what Katz thinks, Apple is the only system vendor that is working toward this goal. Microsoft and Compaq and Ford could care less. They just need to sell a lot of what they make. The user experience matters little to most companies.
Apple has certainly had their share of usability snafus (eg. the stupid thumb-wheel volume control in QT4), but generally respond to user input and change these (the volume control in QT5 is now a slider as it should be). Why does Microsoft still have the Start menu? Many studies have shown that it is non-intuitive and even their inhouse GUI guru thinks it was a bad design. The Start menu is still there because Microsoft doesn't care about the user experience.
I'm sorry Jon, I'll take a well designed "cool" product over a lackluster offering any day.
* As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
What? Using Windows has a social advantage? Damnit, no wonder I'm not getting laid! Gotta stop using BSD and move to a less stable OS...
The average troll can consume as many as 500 flames in one day. In concert with this diet, trolls can also consume roughly 3 gallons of camel semen for protein and potassium suppliment.
This troll, however, seems to be severely starved. Notice how weakly it attempts to coerce flames upon it. Fortutately for the troll, it appears to retain the capability of acquiring its desprately needed camel semen.
Yes, that's what I'm telling you.
If the damned base were not such a blazing shade of white, if the frame around the LCD were not reflective, if there weren't a bunch of cables snaking across the desk, if I could forget about the artsy fartsy aesthetics of the damned thing and just use it (thus my reasoning for resigning Jobs to the Apple campus where he belongs), then yes I would buy one.
Face it, the computing power is "good enough". The OS is "good enough" (although too damn shiny). There's no need to draw attention to the fact that there is anything there. So make it easier to forget that it's there and I'd be willing to purchase one.
In fact, the whole concept of a "computer user" is a little misleading here. A far more appropriate term would be "computer consumer." These are people who are never going to push their hardware to the limits, and who use all the same apps as all the other consumers (email, web, office suite, solitaire, etc.) just like TV viewers watch all the same shows as everyone else.
I'm a computer user. I program, assemble my own systems, play high-end games, tweak settings, and much more. My wife, mother, father, and in-laws are computer consumers. They use email, the web, WordPerfect, and would faint if they had to set jumpers on their motherboard.
In a commodity-like market such as this, the only way to achieve any kind of differentiation is with design. Witness the advent of multi-colored Dells, Gateways, and Compaqs. LCDs are shipping with lots of home systems not because they're better for the price or because people really need them, but because they're different.
All the systems in Apple's main product line have always been aimed at computer consumers, which is why design has been so important for them. We tend to tease and talk down to them, but they are 80% of the computer market, and if I were in that group, I'd find all of the Macs pretty tempting.
When the Mac came out, PCs were command line driven and stayed that way for years.
This paradigm was and is often much easier to use. No modern GUI has caught up with certain aspects. For example, there was at one time a very common DOS "menu program". People set these up with the common apps of the day, like Word Perfect and Lotus. It was extremely simple to use.
The Mac can only do everything a PC can do only if you use emulation to turn the Mac into a PC. Without this emulation, only a few niches are served well by the Mac.
How much more general do you want? The ability to run even a fraction of the types of applications that are out for the PC (not to mention total numbers of apps, which is also very important).
MS has NEVER innovated a goddamn thing! The ms management are jackals that trade on fear, gullibility, and bullying. In other words they're exceptional businessmen. Sure Steve is cut from the same cloth, but I believe he sincerely wants to create a good user experience for the individual. Where as the hive cares only about moving product to consumers. The old stability/price argument is no longer true. Mabey it was a few years ago but it's just tired and weak now. What about OS2, Gnome or Be? Don't you folks see the sci-fi cliche' taking shape. WE are becoming a FOOD SOURCE for the hive! Resist the siren call! Brothers and sisters... there's nothing to be afraid of! You don't have to do as you're told! Now go out there..... and fight for your right to party with your digital life enhancing devices!!!!!!!!! Ooh yea. That felt good.
So, um, what's the point of this? Are you suggesting that Steve should either: 1) Compete more directly with Microsoft 2) Become another Dell, Gateway, Zeos, etc. 3) Switch to Linux 4) Just close up shop, liquidate the assets, and distribute the take to preferred stock holders? Why do people buy Mercedes when Toyotas clearly get the job done at a better price/performance ratio? It's "engineering-centric" thinking like this that leads most software companies to let their engineers design the user interfaces, and it's why I and millions of others will continue to buy Macs.
Actually, I was trying to be Insightful, not Funny.
The most reliable Mac I had was the Classic. I think it's still working
My faithful PowerBook 140. Mobo fixed once. Trackball replaced twice. Floppy dead. I was using it well into 1998, running off a ZIP drive. Haven't used it since.
My poor Performa 6205- publicized failure with the mobo, replaced under warranty. Hard drive failure (1st) replaced under warranty. When I called about the HD, their support tech had me troubleshoot the MONITOR to see if it was UNPLUGGED. How stupid did they think I was? Oh yea, I bought the Performa.
Hard drive failure (2nd) not covered by warranty. Mobo failure (2nd) not covered by warranty. Performa 6205 now sitting in my closet used as a step stool to reach the upper shelves. So in a year and a half, it'd gone from an expensive "designer" machine to a piece of junk. [The Apple 15" MultiSync still works though. I have it hooked up to my Celeron/FreeBSD machine using a NEC adapter I found somewhere. Great little monitor.]
It was also around the time they decided to end the lifetime phone support. That's when I decided to jump off the Mac bandwagon. I don't think I'll ever jump back on, it's just not for me anymore. I don't have a desire to buy a BMW or Benz for that matter. BSD on my Tosh Portege works for me.
Not to say I don't agree that Katz is a moron, just that I was an mac diehard until 1997 and jumped ship due to the junk they were producing.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
But, I could buy a PC that's faster, I'm guessing by at least 25%, for less money. And by faster I'm not talking about clock speed, I'm talking about running apps. So why should I spend a lot more money for less performance.
Now, this person could also buy a bike, which is good enough for what he needs, and this person really never has to worry about maintenance, not compared to a car anyway
But, the problem here is that they are paying more for that bike that, while it looks very different and it fits in the garage better, offers you less. Plus, there is no proof that it will need less maintanance. Most PC hardware, even the real cheap stuff, will work fine for a decent amount of time. Heck, I just threw out an old 486 66 last year that was still working just fine, I just had no use for it.
My point is that it doesn't make any sense to actively seek a compuer that offers less performance, unless your getting it on the cheap. The "well it's good enough" philosophy doesn't match the price tag.
All the best,
--Bob
"I can't think of any software category that there isn't some kind of reasonable offering for the Mac."
It is easy to think of many. From the collector collecting postcards to the video store wanting a video inventory program to Ham Radio to the Maybury sheriff tracking dog licenses. Bazillions of specialized categories where there aren't even ANY Mac programs, let alone a "reasonable offering".
The ability to satisfy an extremely wide variety of specialized applications makes the PC suited for this, a general purpose tool that can be used for many things. If you "think different" and use a Mac, you have little chance of finding a program to help you compared to with a PC.
Even in common applications like word processing, there are many times more programs for PC than Mac. We all know how most programs are crap; much less chance of finding a good one to meet your needs if you have a Macintosh. I remember looking for a good general-purpose terminal program for the Mac. Out of the many choices for PC, I could find one good one (Procomm), but for the Mac, everything I found was useless.
If you think that the Macintosh has any strength at all in usefulness for most types hobbyist or business, you really need to look into this more.
And you ARE?
*cough*
Er.. Actually, I think the registry thing was a good idea, especially in light of what it replaced (loosely found *.ini's mostly).
As a comparison, look at the kind of package management (or lack thereof) that happens in Linux (choose yer version).
I wish Linux had things placed in more standardized areas and less module conflicts with software.
I'm not say Windows doesn't have their share of problems too, but you have to admit the situation is certainly better in the regard with 2000/XP.
A PC is typically only half the cost of a comparable Mac. And this PC usually has features that are missing on the "comparable Mac".
1) Hire an editor/writer who has perfected the art of trolling, and set him loose to write articles covering current events.
2) Put banner ads at the top of the page of his story.
3) Watch money roll in as thousands of people post to the troll and make impressions on the banner ad.
Loser.
Yeah! Go Apple!
His books is only 81,543th on the sales list.
So by his criterion its a failure.
Doesn't matter whether it is cool or not.
When you buy a Mac, you are paying more for less. Paying more for slower speed, less memory, and a lack of basic features found on the much lower priced PC's. You are paying for less ease-of-use: unless you use just a couple of apps, it is pretty tough to do anything else on the thing.
What a pointless article! That is so silly, as others have expressed: why do people buy BMWs, Mercedes over Honda Civics? why do people like to eat in good restaurants rather than McDonalds? why do some self-respecting technical people prefer to use UNICES over Windows? Why would I buy a Dell rather than a Gateway or no-name brand? Why buy a new iMac rather than another Wintel PC?
It's a question of taste, whether you have it, what you have it for and whether or not you're a sheep!
Me = Flat-screen-iMac+OSX+GNU = ideal machine
Consumer market = BAAAA!
Mike
Even though I like many of Apple's recent products, buyers generally should follow the old adage "Don't buy the new model". As with cars, they're more prone to problems, and as with new tech gear, they have high prices. I don't blame Apple for it, just like I don't really blame Ford (Focus, I bought) or Panasonic (plasma tv, which I've not bought yet) for it, I just try my best to follow the rules. I would suggest you do the same as I would assume the new iMac will have a few quirks that rev. II won't.
I heartily agree with all the highly-moderated posts that take Katz to task for being an idiot. Those are VERY good points. But people are perhaps missing the boat a little about market share with computers versus automobiles. ALL CARS ARE COMPATIBLE. They can all use basically the same gas, drive on the same roads, obey the same traffic signals. If you know how to drive one of them, you can pretty much drive them all. The switch between Windows and Macintosh is much more wrenching than between a manual and automatic transmission.
My point is that market share does mean a lot more in the computer world, when it comes to operating systems, than BMW's market share does in the car world. Apple vs Dell is irrelevant, but Apple vs Windows is a meaningful statistic. This certainly doesn't mean Apple can't survive, or even thrive, as a "niche player" (I hate that term, since Apple's influence is huge). But don't just blow off such comparisons, because they do say something about the near future of the computing world.
If you look on the side of every Apple store -- they say "5 down. 95 to go." Apple does want to have the market. They're not happy being a niche/luxury player. The analogies to BMW vs. Ford are not accurate -- BMW sells very expensive cars that are out of the reach of the proletariat. Apple sells computers for equivalent prices to PCs. The goal really is to win over the market, the whole market, with a solution that Just Works Better through their own flavor of "holistic engineering".
Jobs is about using better technology to win, not just to have better technology. He won me over: I had hated Macs for about a decade. Then the Titanium Powerbook came out along with OS/X and I just knew I needed to have the sexiest version of Unix around on the sexiest laptop ever made. Now, I'm a convert.
David E. Weekly
Code / Think / Teach / Learn
h4x0r for
This is piss-poor journalism and it really turns me off Slashdot. I know I can check the box to not see Jon Katz' articles, but I think his continued ability to post is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with Slashdot. But that's just my opinion.
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
First of all stating that apple has been getting fabulous press for years is very wrong, before Steve Jobs took every news source worth its weight was bashing Apple and writting "Is Apple Dying?" articles. Jon Kats then goes on and makes the same mistake as alot of people do by comparing apple a hardware company to MS a software company and then further confuses marketshare with profits. Profits are why companies are in business, Nintendo may not by selling any more game cubes then MS is selling X-boxes but they arent bleeding cash on each unit and therefore dont need to sell as many.
Error 404-Sig File Not Found
I think in the end what really hurt Apple is the fact they want to produce both the hardware and software, which leads to a position of being almost completely dependent on Apple for any improvements in technology. Alas, this has kept prices high, which puts it out of reach of many computer users.
I think the biggest reason why Microsoft has done so extremely well was the fact they were able to take full advantage of truly open hardware design--the desktop computer architecture pioneered on the IBM PC two decades ago has evolved in a very open fashion for the most part. With the hardware specs being so open, there is much competition for hardware improvements, so the cost of PC hardware has gone down significantly. Remember the days when the average computer cost nearly US$2,000? Nowadays, very useful and power computers can be bought for less than US$500.
It is because of the very nature of open hardware design that on the PC compatible side, you have multiple operating systems that will work: Windows, commercial UNIX variants, Linux, FreeBSD, and so on. Indeed, because people widely know how PC hardware works, Linux is heading to the point that within 4-5 years it might as well a OS with a graphical user interface, automatic detection and driver installation for new hardware, and so on.
In short, competition in the hardware side of computers has been a huge factor in lowering the cost of PC compatibles to significantly below that of Macintoshes.
before he writes this crap? How about the link to the article yesterday about how apple's design has allowed them to fare much better than boring box maker Gateway.
/. be better off if he went somewhere else. He can't seem to formulate an argument without getting at least 50% of his premises wrong.
I know it's fun to bash the Katz, but wouldn't
"being cool is nice, but it's not nearly enough. Steve Case and Bill Gates have known this for awhile."
Oh really? So with the teenage girl squeeking "I love it, its so kewl, I LOVE instant messaging all my friends", that's not trying to "be cool"?
If anything, AOL exemplifies the "cool"; "everybody's doing it", look at all those "cool" graphics and "You have mail!" sounds, etc...
Does Katz ever think things through fully? Its like the guy's in the shower, thinks something up, doesn't bake the idea fully, and spews it out. Thank god its only every few weeks...but this guy's got to be the most unpopular contributor on slashdot(aside from CmdrTacos random side-taking; loves the iMac, dissed the iPod without even knowing anything about it.)
After a few weeks on /., I realised that I had to register myself and get a real account because:
/. experience
1) I wanted to be part of the
and
2) I couldn't deal with Jon Katz' filthy brainless (and of course, LONG!) drivel every few days.
Now I'm using someone else's computer, and by not being logged in automatically, I see a JK article. Nice to see that in two years he hasn't gotten any better. Long, pointless, wild jumping-to-conclusion articles which are a waste of electrons.
Ye gods, someone help me--I need my filters back!
Common!, i wont bite that!, my computer with a GForce3, Pentium 4, sound blaster live platinum and a nice set of Altec Lansing are much better than that crap (shit-like with a monitor) computer called iMac... The same way i dont like monopolies i dont like when someone tryes to sell me things using stupid sentences like: think different, or shop different....
Seriously, Mac's are useless.
eres un idiota de veras. no puedo creer que exista una mente tan cerrada y totalmente Window/Gates brainwash. Windows es una porqueria, esa es la verdad. Es una lastima que en el mundo en que vivimos tengamos que depender de un programa tan horriblemente estupido al igual que tengamos que escuchar a vendidos como tu
Next, you show your true ignorance with your statement that "middle class consumers" drive the market. Are you really that stupid? Everyone knows that it's businesses that drive the PC world for a myriad of reasons. Yes, every day there are more and more personal goodies for computers, and individuals are buying more of them, but that still does not compare to the amount of money generated by businesses. Every company that uses microsoft software is forced to have a license for every single workstation, unlike the home user who just borrows a friend's. When these businesses upgrade to XP, Microsoft is going to rake in a huge amount of profit. That is what drives their "innovation," not the whims of individual PC users.
Right on! Windows and MS Office are very well suited for doing your basic run of the mill office work. Windows boxes provide a cheap and standardized way to fill your office full of machines that you can easily find minimum wages workers to run and do routine office chores.
But an iMac with OS X is suited better for other "niche" markets. Sure theres the Artist/Musician market that everyone says is Mac land. But now with iPhoto and iMovie they are also well suited for the doting parent market which is full of people like me with pictures and home movies I want to get out to far flung relatives without spending hundreds of dollars for extra software that I'll have to fiddle with to get working the way I want anyway. For me the extra cost of the iMac is offset by the software that it comes with that will let me quickly cobble together photo albums, dvds, and CD-roms with movies on them to send out to the extended family thousands of miles away.
I also happen to be in another niche market. I'm one of those people that uses computers for hard core number crunching (ya know the sort of work that got computers called "computers" in the first place). The iMac has a G4 with its AltVec vectorization routines and that means I can now have a machine at home that will outperform the $10,000 HP workstation sitting on my desk at work. The iMac really is like a mini supercomputer and I start drooling when I start thinking how much time this little thing could save me. Granted Linux boxen and Linux clusters can reach comparable performance levels to G4 macs... but with a mac I don't have to do any work to set up the system or to keep it up. (I've run Linux and I like it, but the laziness in me prefers OS X) With OS X I have a full-on UNIX development environment right out of the box. Besides, I'm betting that the G5 will pull ahead of the Pentium-4 in terms of number crunching ability (measured in flops not megahertz), so I'm porting my software from the HP to the Mac hoping I'll get a G5 at work with the next replenishmnet cycle.
Finally, I have to give OS X credit for finally making me like GUIs. I always hated hunting through mazes of menus to change a setting where in UNIX I could just edit a config file or type a command line argument. So far my experience with OS X has been that I get the power of the command line very well integrated with the GUI. Heck, I can even drag and drop icons into the terminal window and get the full path to a file and that is sooo sweet.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
How is pressing a button on the front of the PC more convenient than simply having the computer eject the disk for you?
I'd rather eject the disk when I wanted to, rather than wait for the computer to decide. So would just about everyone else: many companies and hardware manufacturers have had a chance to copy Apple's unintuitive approach to this. Who has? How many candy-colored iMac-immitation PC's have it so the computer decides when to eject the disk instead of the user?
As for the "pay more for less" of Apple, look at the first iMac. You did pay a lot more for it than for a PC. and there was no PC at the time that lacked removable storage: a pay-extra option on the iMac.
...all important system architecture is, AFAIK, all theirs.
First of all, if by "system" you mean computer system, you should know that Apple hardware is no longer proprietary. There is nothing preventing other vendors from manufacturing PowerPC desktops. It's just not a viable market.
Apple now utilizes the following technology in their computers:
PCI & AGP slots for expansion
PowerPC processors
USB & FireWire
Open Firmware
However, if you are talking about "Operating System Architecture":
They retain a grip on the Mac market by having their operating system only running on Mac hardware. However, it is perfectly possible to run other OSes on Macs, f.e. Linux, BSD etc due to the open hardware specs. This is a long way from the NuBus/LC PDS/680x0 Mac days.
The core of their OS is open-source. They maintain control by having a proprietary user interface and high-level APIs. That's all. And if they didn't, they'd die so fast you couldn't say "Jack Rabbit". Then there'd be no Apple, no Macs....nothing. Is that preferable?
First off, Microsoft does not have a monopoly. There are no legal barriers preventing competition with Microsoft. If you want an example of monopoly, take a look at the post office. It is illegal for me, or FedEx, or UPS, or anyone else to carry first class mail. There are laws preventing this. Please cite what law prevents competition with Microsoft?
If Microsoft was overcharging a captive consumer public due to illegall monopoly power, then the market would be quite conducive for an alternative.
I should note that I am a Mac user and have been for over 10 years. But I am sick of all this crying about monopoly. McNealy, Ellison, Jobs et al are simply trying to accomplish in court what they could not in the marketplace. Perhaps if they would stop whining and offer something better (read: what people truly want, not what they say they want) then perhaps they could solve their problems.
You yourself say that "they want what everyone else is running-- i.e. Windows -- because they're worried about compatibility." Your answers right there. What you & I want may be different, but like it or not we are in the minority. I don't care for certain practices of Microsoft so I don't buy all of their stuff. Others don't feel that way. Please tell me how they abuse their "monopoly"? IE used to suck, now its better than Netscape (on a Mac IMHO), Office 6.2 for Mac was awful, so I used AppleWorks. Office 98 & 2001 are fantastic so now I use those. and the list goes on.
I enjoy using a Mac personally and think that Apple's got some great products (that I'd love to have), but my next computer will be a Win laptop, because I need to choose between how much I value spending $x for iDVD and a SuperDrive vs. spending $y for a Win laptop to run some apps not available for the Mac. And as much as I like Macs, at this time I value the latter more.
If the marginal utility derived from a Mac's (or anything else's) offerings was great enough to that those in the mass market, they would buy them like hotcakes. But most people apparently want something cheaper, or don't want to wait a year for their favorite game to be ported, or don't find the Win interface obnoxious enough to be the only guy on the block with a Mac, or whatever. The point is a choice is made. No one is coerced into buying what they don't want to.
On a similar point, take a look at the Honda Insight. I hear so often that we need more fuel efficient vehicles. Well here's one right now. Honda takes a loss on each one sold, but all those Nader voters apparently are not running out to buy them as Honda can barely move them. This leads me to believe that what we say we want and what we actually want are two different things. We need to look at people's actions rather than just their words.
P.S. Don't bother responding with 'but this would cannibalize sales!' because I've heard that 1000 times.
They CAN compete. They CHOOSE not to.
Initially, Apple was a welcome antidote to the elitism and cluelessness of the tech elites who designed early computers.
Yeah man.. I mean.. sturdy, all-metal cases that help shield electromagnetic radiation are totally stupid and way uncool. What were those crazy elites thinking? And what's with the rectangular shaped boxes? You'd think they were trying to make efficient use of volume or something. Duh.. irregularly rounded cases made of flimsy rainbow colored plastic are totally the way to go.. Duuuuudde!! I need another hit when you're done with that..
Apples have been around for a long time. I remember using an Apple IIc in Computer Camp back in the eighties. Or was it an Apple IIe?
We all know the story about how they ripped off Xeroxs idea for a Graphical User Interface, and how Microsoft ripped them off to create Windows, which nearly killed Apple.
For a long time, Mac users were ridiculed, scorned and left without many of the more common applications that Windows users were privy to. Yeah, Photoshop was Mac only until version 4, but what about AutoCAD and QuickBooks, not to mention the myriad of games available to those running Microsoft's operating system.
Arguments about who is better are always boring to listen to. Yeah, yeah, Windows people always win in the compatability arguments, and Mac users always have this ineffable feel-good *left-brain* artist friendly thing they talk about. But let's be real. Windows kicks Macs ass when it comes to availability of software, comparability, multitasking and memory management. But it's a piece of shit in many ways. The Mac OS rarely gives you an error when you try and drag and drop something, a basic (no pun intended) function, and besides, how cool is it to be greeted by that calming chord when you turn on you Mac in the morning, versus that unholy grind of a floppy drive doing a boot-up seek.
Macs seem to be going through a minor revival now, nothing serious. I think they gained a few percentage points in the *overall users* category with the introduction of color-coordinated cases and Unix... I mean OS X. But really, they are still the minority player. They are Microsoft's best argument against the DOJ.
Mac users have always had their alternatives against the Windows-centric juggernaut in the software and hardware world. Adaptec, the patron saint of SCSI, always had Toast available, as an alternative to Easy CD Creator. For those Mac users who couldn't run WinAmp, you could get MacAmp, written by Mac enthusiasts, although you had to pay a little for it. The Rio, the first MP3 player, was Mac-Compatible. And let's not forget Microsoft, who demonstrated with their Mac software what that company can really do when they have competition. Internet Explorer for Mac remains my favorite browser of all time. Outlook Express is pretty cool too, but who needs it when you've got *Mail* built in to OS X?
But hey, who needs all of them? If you've got a newer Mac now, you've got iTunes, built in! Who needs MacAmp? And it's got Disc Burner for CD's. Toast? Whatever. Why would I pay for that? A Rio? Why would I buy a Rio for 125 bucks with 128 Megabytes of space when I can get an iPod with 5 Gigabytes for 399? And it works as a FireWire hard disc, too! Need a wordprocessor? Why spend money on Microsoft Word, previously the best-selling Mac word processor for about 130 dollars when you get AppleWorks for free with any iMac? Or buy AppleWorks for 99 bucks, and skip the 500 pricetag for Microsoft Office. Oh, and did I mention that CD burners come standard in most Macs now sold? So much for aftermarket CD burners.
And if this wasnt enough, Apple is now opening up dozens of Apple Stores in malls all across the US. The hundreds of independently owned and operated Mac resellers weathered the blow when Apple started selling their hardware on their website, but will they be able to compete with a brick-and-mortar marketplace in a high traffic area such as a shopping mall?
Apple just doesn't have the market share to fuck all of their supporters like Microsoft does. The availability of software for the Mac has always been a problem for Apple users, and Apple is doing nothing to encourage their current developers to continue writing Mac software. Why make something that people would want when you know Apple will come along and make their own version of it and bundle it with their OS?
This is really the wrong time to pull this sort of shit, right when Apple is trying to convince Mac developers to rewrite their code for OS X. Already, the only software company that writes a program to write and rewrite CD-RWs on the fly for the Mac has no plans to come out with an OS X version. And why should they, when you get Disc Burner free with any Mac with a CD-R? By the way, Disc Burner doesn't re-write CD- RWs on the fly.
Don't shit in your own nest is the lesson here. Once Apple introduces all this cool stuff in their computers, they're going to piss off a lot of people and kill their market for new stuff if they ever try to take it out. And if they do, what will be left to replace these missing features? Nothing, because no one will write code for the Mac anymore, and no one will have made aftermarket hardware for the Mac in years! And even if they do, where are they going to buy it if the Apple Store is the only place left to buy the stuff and there isn't one in your area? This seems to be their agenda.
Apple isnt a monopoly, and they better stop pretending that they are one, if they ever hope to become even close to one.
I think the past has taught us that what PCs are used in the home are typically what PCs are used in the workplace. For Apple to obtain more marketshare, I think they'll have to agressively pursue the offices of today. However, the products they push are suited towards a home user, so if I'm right about the trickle-down effect, they're not going anywhere. I still love my iBook ;)
Ease of use means it is easier to use. Duh! Whether or not the interface is transparent or opaque.
A command line is not easier to use by definition, but it is easier to use for some things if the tasks are easier with the command line than with the GUI.
Directory with command line?
DIR
ls
Directory with a GUI. Squint at the screen. Look for that desktop icon: might be in a different place this time! Click on it (or press some obscure Apple key or Alt or Ctrl key). The file browser is up. What does it look like? Oops. someone messed with the settings. Now, start to hunt and click, squinting and waiting and scrolling all over the place.
Apple hasn't been able to compete because it's always been overpriced versus PC's. The new Mac is a good bargain...but of course there's the software availability question.
Windows XP ( you know, for the Windows eXPerience) is touting the same marketing philosophy that the article says Apple has failed with. Hmmm....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1 761000/1761289.stm
When it comes to technology, it's middle-class consumers and their tastes, needs and expectations that determine success or failure
I absolutely agree. Since the introduction of the original macintosh, Apple has been striving for an "appliance": you just plug it in and it works. There's no unnecessary complexity. You use it, you don't tweak and tune it. It's in the background.
Here's an example for you: Most people just drive their automobiles. They don't know, and don't care, how they work. With the exception of the windsheild washers, they don't check the fluid levels. They don't look for wear patterns on the tires. Many can't even change a tire or find the fuse box.
Remember the original iMac? It was pretty much universally panned by pundits, geeks and others who "know about computers"... and it sold like crazy! I see the same tired analyses trotted out this time around. They ignore the simple truth that macs are designed for the vast majority of people who don't care about computers. They want to pay attention to the work they're doing; not to the tool they are using. Cool is just the sizzle that sells the usability steak.
-- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
Nazi Germany dominated most of Europe during the early 1940's. I wouldn't consider them a success story.
There's something wrong somewhere here
So through the clean streets
I made my way
With holes in my shoes
And my children asleep at my feet
I paid my way
In every town on the way
The people looked grey
The buildings looked healthy
But one day I met a man
With money to spare
He said he would tell me how it is
The State he began
Has been propping up people too long
For far too long
We all got lazy and couldn't be bothered
To make our way through the world
But we are all bourgeois now
Once there was class war
But not any longer
Because baby we are all bourgeois now
So go out and make your way in the world
We're free to choose
We're all free to choose
We're all free to choose
We're free to choose
In booming Britain we all work together
To raise ourselves in the world
Each of us knows someone
Who has done well for themselves
So well for themselves
"Thank you" I said as I left
I'll be on my way
I see how it is
We are all bourgeois now
And somehow I'll raise myself in the world
I'm free to choose
We're all free to choose
We're all free to choose
I'm free to choose
We're all bourgeois now
We're all bourgeois now
We're bourgeois now
But I doubt it. MS is a software company. They don't sell PC's. They only force PC manufacturers to use their software.
~ now you know
I think OS-X is in a position not only to catch up but to leap frog it's competitors.
OS-X is indeed a radical departure for Apple, which has had a "closed system" mentality ever since it abandoned the Apple 2. Will they do the bold thing and license OS-X for non-Apple hardware and clones???/
Waah, Xbox is more powerful, Anandtech said so. PS2 ahs the best games, this website said so. Nintendo is the best, Nintendo Power said so. Indigo is a kiddie/gay color, waah.
The whole thing is retarded.
Follow the money, all makes sense.
Sony dominated the video game market by selling the playstation cheaply, and offering rediculously good deals to third parties to let them create games. The third parties CRANKED out the games. Some were good, some sucked. Some people made a lot of money, Sony did alright.
Nintendo watched their marketshare plummet (from 90% in the NES days, to 60% in the SNES days, to around 30% in the N64 days)... Nintendo made more money from the N64 than Sony did from the Playstation.
Apple sits at 4.5% of the hardware market. They made much better margins than the PC makers that sell the other 95.5% of the market.
Look, the consumer market? Very little money in it. The companies pushing computers to the middle class see next to nothing. Compaq/Dell/HP make all their money on business sales. Dell did well by not having such a huge split in the consumer/business department.
Interestingly, last time I saw the figures, 12-18 months ago, the big manufactures of PCs, Compaq/Dell/HP/Gateway combined for something like 50%-60% of the market. The "grey box" market (local stores, etc.) was most of the rest (Apple had the 4%-5%).
Apple's share isn't THAT small of a manufacturer, and they make more than the rest.
Yes, Microsoft blows away Apple in marketshare. Compaq does not.
Apple is in a good location.
As far as Apple focusing "only on what computers look like instead of what they do," I refer you to the nearest Apple computer. you've obviously never used one enough to know better.
Went there, done that. Bought one and used one too. Looked nice. Crisp screen, too. But the OS was rudimentary, unreliable, and could hardly run any software.
Got real disgusted when the Mac OS decided to wipe the hard disk once. No warning message, no error message, nothing in the trash. Just lost all of my files is all. I had this happen on Windows PC's, but every time, there were hints and messages, and every time I was able to go to the command line and fix it.
I think that some people have forgotten the meaning of Marketing.
Marketing is all about selling and creating a brand, an image that consumes find attractive. This is exactly what Steve Jobs does and also what Bill Gates does, how much money does gates give out for branding and marketing the X box and all of the Windows OS's ?
Some people have failed to look at the target market of Apple to realise that what the apple community like about their computers is they are not just computers but there is a personality to the mac, people buy macs usually because they want what macs offer, including the image which is appealing. A Secretary with an imac is a much better picture that one with a wintel box in the reception.
I don't think Steve jobs is aggresively chasing the Windows market if thats what your worried about. Lets have a bit of competition
Before I talk about Sony let me just say that 4.5 percent of the whole computer industry is decent considering Dell, Compaq, Gateway, Sony, and HP all have similar numbers. Why is he lumping Apple into a seperate catagorie? They make computers, so does Sony. They run different software, but they are computers. Apple has 4.5 percent of the COMPUTER market which is a ton better than a lot of computer makers out there.
128741
My second point is this: Sony is an extremely successful company, and they are copying Apple. They have some of the best looking computers, monitors, and peripherials. They are copying Apple, and everyone I talk to (who doesn't build their own computers) wants a Sony because they offer a lot of stuff, but also because they look cool. Who does Katz thinks buys computers? Drones?
By keeping everything in-house, they can guarantee the aesthetic and technological quality. However, doing this will not allow them to lower prices enough to compete with the vastly spread out PC industry.
Many people, like researchers and businesses and the like aren't too concerned with the aesthetics of computers. Speed and cost are an issue. And it is these people that really drive the industry.
Consumers on the other hand are a bit more concerned about it. But in order to maintain their quality and art of the systems, they simply can't afford to move the tech out of the house. Thus, they will never dominate.
-
I've been marvelling at how easy the latest & greatest PC stuff is. The last P4/XP box I built could be easily setup so that the user only has to:
1) Just hit spacebar to power on
2) Just press the little grey button on the Logitech kbd marked "www", IE launches and
3) A box appears asking to connect to an ISP
So, all someone has to do now is hit space, wait, press one button, then return and they're at their home page, Yahoo, google, bank, ebay, whatever. Having always on cable would bring the ordeal down to only hitting space, then the 'www' button.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
...and said to yourself, "Hey! I can't wait to have a really good *brand experience* today!"
PC is a generic term? Ask MacMall.com and PCMall.com. Ask PC World and Mac World magazines. Everyone else knows what a Mac is and what a PC is. The well known term "PC Compatible" does not mean as you imply that it will run on every microcomputer. You and I both know this.
Yes, Apple is flirting with bankruptcy. Not at this instant, but Apple has at many times over the years been "on the ropes". It will keep happening until they concentrate more on the contents of the box and make better machines at a better price.
This is my first anit-katz of 2002. What a load of hogswallop. Fuck off katz.
:wq
Not at this instant. But we can all count the many times over the years that Apple has been "on the ropes". This $4 billion will quickly get frittered away if Apple can actually involve into an innovative technology company instead of the "buy it because it is blue" guys.
Given their past track record, they will be posting huge losses again within the year.
But maybe not. OS-X is a step in the right direction; the boldest move they have ever made in the Macintosh era (except perhaps the decision to allow clones long ago). They could also make $%$$ if they sell the iPod to the general public instead of requiring like they do right now to buy a thousand-dollar peripheral to use it.
Virtually every other one does a poll to the system. In general though, if the system doesnt respond to the question, it'll eject it anyway (provided the drive has power). I can't think of a single modern drive that uses an actual mechanical eject button (aside from the pinhole emergency ejectors).
It goes somewhat like this: drive asks "can I eject?" "OS: not yet" "*os closes pipes*" "OS: now eject" "*disk pops out*.
And quite honestly, thats the way it should be.
-
I've heard rumors that Sony has tried to cripple CD burners in its machines as part of digitil rights denial. True or not? This rumor has kept me from looking at sony, actually...
There's an old joke about how Apple products are developed by a committee consisting of a genius and and idiot. Personally, i've decided that Apple is managed by a committee consisting of a genius and an idiot, and the committee's name is Steve Jobs. :}
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
Personally, I tend to think that price tends to trump all of those concerns
Price is the lowest common denominator, when nothing else matters anymore. If you have nothing more to offer the world, or no other value, then price is your only 'selling point' (and how lame is that?).
If price were all that matters, then nobody could deny that a Hyundai or a Dawoo or a Yugo would get you to work just as well as a Ford or Chevy or Dodge. Further, if price were the determining fact or, why would anyone spend the extra money for 2-ply toilet tissue?
Sometimes price isn't, and shouldn't be, the only consideration in our buying decisions.
--geethree.
They ignore the simple truth that macs are designed for the vast majority of people who don't care about computers
Yes. Even though you couldn't do much with it when you turn it on, it sure looked good on the desk. The computer equivalent of the Bowflex sitting unused in the corner.
...and that's the fact that the middle-class ultimately has to get *a* computer to be considered acceptable, and for many in this demographic the computer is simply a tool to get things done. They aren't hardcore gamers who need GeForce 3s to play the latest and greatest, or 3D modellers who consider a 19" monitor the bare minimum. They browse the web, type up e-mail and letters to friends and family, maybe play a few games, and (invariably these days) download music.
For them, the new iMac is likely perfect. OSX is a very visually-oriented OS and tends to avoid as little cryptic PC logic as possible. Ever had some casual user say "I didn't want the program anymore, so I deleted the folder" (not realizing that Windows still has associations with it)? On a Mac - even in OS9 - doing something so simple as that actually works! There aren't really any special rules depending on what you're doing, so there are fewer surprises for the average user.
The new iMac also helps a lot with space; the computer takes up as much of a desk footprint as many smaller monitors do. You don't have to position the computer exactly to get the monitor into a proper angle, either. Cords? There's only the cord for power and the obligatory ones for the mouse and keyboard. It's all simple and straightforward.
So, why isn't the Mac selling like mad? The sad truth is that most people just don't go to much effort in researching the computers they buy. They often gravitate towards whatever appears to be the largest computer store (or the closest), and buy whatever fits their price range and needs. Macs tend to be crowded into corners of stores, if they're there at all - and rarely are the sales clerks qualified to explain just why an 800 MHz G4 is faster than the Celeron 1200 in the next aisle, or why OSX would actually be better than Windows for what they want to do.
I find it hypocritical to say that Microsoft is horrible and that people have to look for alternatives, yet attack the most genuinely viable alternative the average person would consider. Is the only acceptable alternative (if you're trying to avoid buying Windows altogether) to custom-build a Linux or BSD PC that, as of now, wouldn't really address the problems with PCs today? I don't think so. As far as I see it, Apple's challenge isn't in hardware at all - it's overcoming marketing and the pack mentality of the PC buyer.
Was that the 1984 spin-off off the six million dollar man series!?
You turn it on and it does what it's supposed to do...Apple is the only system vendor that is working toward this goal.
They certainly are not, with machines that can't do much when you turn them on compared to PC's. They also have ongoing physical design blunders: pinholes instead of buttons for eject, "have to buy a new printer to use this! (first iMac)", "where's the power button?" --- seen in many reviews of the iPod.
This is the company that thought it was "obvious" that to eject from the machine, you toss it in the trash, same as erasing files.
That's why we use VHS instead of Beta, Windows instead of Mac, and drives Ford Escorts instead of Volvos.
Actually, we use Windows instead of Mac because the vast majority of us find it easier to use, and we can do a lot more with it. The Volvo comparison only works if the Escorts go on all roads and the Volvos only go on a few roads.
Don't like the Start menu? Shove it down, ignore it. There are two other ways of getting to the files. Maybe 3 or 4. That is one reason why the Mac-OS is so inferior, it limits your choices.
A more user-responsive PC designer might leave the start bar down there, and merely offer more alternative options. An Apple designer would make the high and mighty decision that it is "Bad" and remove it altogether, instead of allowing the user this choice.
Time and time again, Katz is right on the mark.
Here is the irony of it all . . .
Apple tried to bill itself as the computer for the people back when IBM was practically all there was. And they filled an important niche back then. However, when the x86 architecture was opened up to competitors, it allowed for cheaper computers -- and more importantly -- it supplanted Macs as the radical platform. When I say this, I mean radical in a deeply political sense. Apple is dead. When will it go by the wayside? It already has! The only thing that can replace M$ dominance is something like Linux. Apple hasn't had a new idea in years.
nt
Apple set out, from the start, to make machines that were easy to use - putting the geekiness on the inside and the ease-of-use on the outside: an approachable computer that was among the first consumer machines to see computers as tools for expression.
It's time we gave thought to making the tools we use beautiful, elegant and useful. Sure a dumb beige box will work. But does it make our workspace nicer? Does seeing it bring a bit of joy? Of course not.
Same for GUI. You can claim that Aqua is "eye candy." I've always hated this because it says there shouldn't be beauty in our lives. You may fault how it looks, and rightfully fault how it works, but it's not a bad thing to want to be better and more elegant. It's a good thing.
I've often compared Macs to my BMW 540i, a car I truly love, the most perfect machine I've ever owned and at 50+ I've owned a couple of cars. When I quibble about how the door locks work and the stability of the cup holders -- and this after owning the car for five years -- well that says something about elegant design. Its superb engineering saved my bacon when I was run off the road by a truck in Wyoming at 80+ MPH. A fine machine.
Apple, esp since the return of Steve Jobs, has tried to deliver a computer that works as well as my BMW. They aren't there yet. Maybe they're where BMW was with the 2002. But at least they are trying. In doing so they raise the bar for the other guys.
Apple says commodity products don't have to shlock that disrespects the owner. I feel Apple wants to make better products so I'll buy another one - not products which lock me in so I HAVE to buy another one. That's Microsoft think.
It's also the kind of thought that drives innovation away -- from companies, from NASA: don't fail, be very conservative.
Give me Apple any day. At least someone there is passionate about a product from the ground up!
Forget "kill 1" - that's dirty.
Log out from OS X and log in as ">console" with no quotes. Straight to a prompt. Put in your username, password, and enjoy.
--
you must amputate to email me
i read all replies to my comments
Will they do the bold thing and license OS-X for non-Apple hardware and clones???
No - they will not. Despite everyones confusion on this point Apple is a HARDWARE company. The business plan and structure of the company is fundamentally different from Micro$oft. Better than 5/6ths of their revenue and profits come from Hardware sales. At one time perhaps they could have made the transition to an OS and application software vendor but that is a long lost oppurtunity. Even when they had that oppurtunity it would have been a difficult transition - it might have led to a better business model in the long run but they would have had to survive a MASSIVE downsizing. Back in those days Apple was already a huge company and Microsoft was comparitively tiny (and primarily pursuing the Mac application business). Even as late as 1997 when Micro$oft had 90% of the OS marketshare Apple was still a bigger company!! (according to their Fortune 500 ranking Apple was #150 Microsoft was #172) Imagine the difficulties and risks entailed in making a transition from a HUGE and reasonably profitable hardware manufacturer to a much smaller and only specutively more profitable software vendor.
If they were more passionate about building better computers, they would build something better than the 2nd rate machines rejected by more than 90% of computer users. I speak as a former mac user......
More like a Cadillac than a BMW: people think that it is better, but you're going to find a better Toyota with more options for much less.
It's really very obvious, once you think about it. Bill Gates's scripture seems to be The Art of War , while Steve Jobs's is Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance . Whether or not you think Apple is successful depends on how you view the relative merits of those texts.
FreeBSD - the power to serve.
Just because you can post on slashdot doesn't mean you can magically spout nonsense and pass it off as fact.
Nor does it free you from such mundane tasks as proofreading.
-=The Dude=-
They have sealed their doom. They can't do hardware without making it cost twice as much as PC hardware while doing less.
There are so many glaring examples. For example, look at the eOne "clone" of the iMac. The eOne cost half as much. Was somewhat faster. Had much more RAM, larger hard disk (twice as large, perhaps?). Had many more ports (and variety of ports) than the iMac. Had a floppy and CD-ROM. Better mouse (not hard to do). eOne output to video (doubt iMac had this, could be wrong) iMac had just the CD-ROM: no way to copy any program out of this thing without going online!.
To start to approach the value of the eOne, the iMac user, who has already paid a lot more, would have had to shell out many more hundreds of dollars and would have had a very bad cable tangle with dongle peripherals laying all over the place. Suddenly the iMac doesn't look so good sitting at the center of a mess of wires....
Here's what I think drives the consumer PC and Software markets...
People go with what they know.
Of the 4.whatever% of the market share that owns Apple Computer, I would bet 90% of them use or have used an Apple as part of their job or education.
The 80something% of users who run Windows at home, at some point have used Windows at work or school as well.
The history behind this is plain to everyone who has been in the industry for awhile, or saw Pirates of Silicon Valley. Simply put: When the market needed a business platform, IBM and Microsoft were there and Apple was too busy with the home-market. When the market needed a home platform, Microsoft was there again and Apple was...somewhere else.
Point being, it does not matter what the middle-class consumer wants or needs. It doesn't matter who makes the best PC or OS. It doesn't matter which products in any category is the newest, coolest, or least expensive.
It matters that people are creatures of habit, and will use what they know.
"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake."...Tyler Durden
2). I've invested too much in MS-DOS and Windows software that I still want to run now and then. "Sam and Max Hit The Road" being a good example. I bought it for my 386, and three computers later I still haven't finished with it.
3). No compelling reason to switch. I can manage pictures and create MP3's and CD's on my old Pentium. I can create a VCD on my reconditioned Pentium III. Why would any reasonable person want to create his own DVDs? Even creating a VCD is a very time consuming process (capture the video in real time, then compress it for eight-twelve hours). Who has the equipment to create a professional quality DVD anyway? If it isn't going to be professional quality, why not just make a VCD instead?
4). Mac users seem to be an elitist bunch. They look down on people that actually write software and enjoy tinkering with computers. Like Jeff Goldblum in the ads: "I don't want to be that person!" and "You can have a computer and not be a computer person." Who needs that?
I *have* switched to Linux for most things because there was a lot of software I wanted to try out and because I didn't have to give up my old stuff. All my machines dual boot. I would give OS/X a chance if it ran on Intel hardware. Hell, I was ready to try BeOS and NeXTSTEP and would have if they were still available.
You will never seen a Microsoft or AOL exec talking about how cool the their companies or products are...
p eg
Yeah, sure.
http://www.instantcool.com/video/dancemonkeyboy.m
InstantCool
I just wanted to add more, and maybe clarify.
What's proprietary right now?
The mobo spec may or may not be open. At one point they had documented something called the common hardware reference platform, or CHRP. IBM had a few mobos, but no one else took that initiative to make their own. Apple, Motorola, and IBM are the only manufacturer's of chipsets for PPC, I suspect.
The PPC chips isn't any *more* proprietary than the Pentium chips. There are at least two manufacturers, Motorola and IBM, and more to be had as far away as a license and a phone call, or some good reverse engineering teams, no more or less than on the x86 side.
System busses. Electrically they are 66-100-133MHz and use standard SDRAM, no different than a PC. They use soDIMM for their laptops, but that's not a big deal either.
For graphics they use AGP. Only the PowerMac has an upgradeable AGP slot, but if you check out the electrical specs, all the current systems and even the older systems used PCI or AGP video. Also, they used industry standard ATI or NVIDIA graphics solutions, and are no more or less proprietary than any other graphic solution.
Networking. They use standard 10bT, 100bT, and 1000bT on their lineup. They use standard 802.11b wireless network protocol for their wireless connectivity, and that's a IEEE standard as well. They use, surprise, the BSD TCP/IP stack. They speak HTTP, FTP, telnet, SMB, and Appletalk all out of the box. None of those are proprietary.
Connectivity. They use USB and Firewire. Those are about as standard and nonproprietary as the rest of the industry.
Storage. They use DVD-R, CD-RW, DVD, on an EIDE bus. Those are as standard and interchangeable as any other drive. Heck, they use ATA-66 or ATA-100, and that's industry standard too. Their hard drives are the standard Toshibas, IBMs, and Fujitsus.
Expansion. Internally the PowerMac uses PCI, the same as everyone else. On the PowerBook thy use PCMCIA/PCCard, the same as everybody else.
Video. They use VGA on everything, and for digital output they use ADC, which is an industry accepted DVI compatible connector; it's DVI with USB and power bundled along.
OS. Heck, even the OS is non proprietary. Darwin is open source and available for the x86 platform. The presentation layer, Aqua, is written in Objective C and uses Quartz, a displayPDF solution, and is 'proprietary', but no more than PDF is proprietary.
Video: Quicktime isn't, as many believe, proprietary. It's well documented and has been for years, from what I've been told. Some codecs are proprietary, but then again, so is WMF and ASF. Quicktime is available in Linux under xanim and Windows provided by Apple.
Sound is traditional PCM and mini-headphone jack. They also support USB sound and industry standard MIDI.
Productivity. Courtesy of Microsoft there is 100% Office compatibility. Appleworks from Apple has good/decent compatibility. There's the full availability of web, email, ICQ, AIM, and IRC on OS X as well.
The reason you have a plethora of manufactureres of $499 pentium IV class machines has nothing to do with proprietary. You just have a bigger market share of proprietary components (95%).
GPL Deconstructed
I think that Apple is pretty successfull. Just think of it, if Apple had created some sh*tty products, it would not have lasted for more than a couple of years. Apple is cool because it makes something different, yet useful. It doesn't have to compete with Dell, HP, IBM, etc., since it has a very distinct line of products. If the majority of the population doesn't like Apple and its products, its their fault. Apple will always have that small portion of loyal users that will support it.
If Slashdot allowed moderation of articles themselves, I think Katz's would be labeled as Flambait.
InstantCool
the early idea behind Apple was revolutionary -- make computing accessible to everyone
"Accessible" primarily means "affordable", and that has never been an Apple strength since the introduction of the Lisa. The Mac has always cost more than an Intel/AMD box of similar power, and that's why it has a tiny market share. Why is that so difficult to understand?
About a year ago I decided I wanted to buy a Mac, mostly because I was excited about the impending release of OS X based on the beta I had seen. I really wanted to be able to play around with the OS and get good with programming it (having never used Objective-C before), but after pricing new Macs, couldn't justify the cost for one. On a hunch, I decide to try eBay and found tons of used Macs for decent prices. I ended up getting a G3-266 with 160MB ram, 6GB hd, cd-rom, and audio/video input/output for about $400. After about another $75 to upgrade it to a G3-300 (300 has 1MB cache vs 256KB or 512KB in the 266) and 768MB ram, it runs beautifully. The only problem it has running OS X is because of the built-in video card (Apple supports these G3 machines with OS X, but won't supply accelerated video card drivers for them), playing any kind of video full screen can be an unpleasant experience. However, if you're like me and could care less about that, something like this would be perfect for you.
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
Yep, thi story has finally make me come to my senses... I will now go to my preferences and avoid all future Katz nonsense.
You will never seen a Microsoft or AOL exec talking about how cool the their companies or products are, only how useful and easy to use.
What planet are you from? Microsoft might not BE cool, but that does not stop them from trying to act like they are. They pay millions to associate their brand name with hip songs like "start me up" and "quicker than a ray of light". The fact that they are so desperate to be seen as cool is part of the reason they aren't.
I am so sick of people bad-mouthing Apple for commiting the crime of not being the market leader. I am not even a Mac user, much less an advocate, and I am still sick of it. How slow a news day is it on slashdot, if we have to read yet another person whine about how Apple is too cool to stay in business. I've been hearing that for nearly twenty years, and it's getting old!
The people who are bewildered as to why Mac users tend to form communities where Windows ones don't really should read the previous three messages. It's heartwarming. Good luck, guys.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Go to an Apple Store near you and take a look.
Make a list of everything wrong with computers today (not Windows, not Apple, just computing) and see what Apple has done with OS X.
It's stable.
It's pretty.
It's functional.
It's useable.
You want to know something? The new Macs aren't exactly targetting graphics people.
Perhaps you don't know: LCDs have a smaller coloer range than a CRT. More precise, but smaller. LCDs also have a smaller viewing angle and they change color as you look from different angles. LCD screens are also polarized. None of these things, by default, attract a graphic pro.
Anyway, I'm a PC user who bought a new PowerBook last year. *My* anecdotal view, every bit as valid as *your* anecdotal view, is that OS X is 10x more functional, useful, and enjoyable than XP, and a Mac PC is 10x cooler, more useful, and more attractive than *any* PC hardware.
GPL Deconstructed
Do you know what Win95 is referred to as? Mac'89 Mac realized that Gates was obviously dominating the industry with software (allmost exactly like MAc's), so they simply tried to find something with the hardware that people would buy.
I once shot a man who posted too many, "Imagine a beowulf cluster of these"
...that based on Katz logic, Jon Katz is definitely cool.
Again, though, I have to ask: Why can't I create and sell a Mac compatible computer, using an IBM PPC mobo, Motorola PPC G4, and IBM chipset, and preload it with an authorized copy of OSX? I suspect the latter is why--you can't get authorization to sell a computer preinstalled, or with the intent to sell and install--an Apple OS. Again, I could be wrong here, but if I'm not, this is more along the lines of how I'm using 'proprietary'.
Or am I wrong here, can I buy off the shelf components from any # of manufacturers you've mentioned to put together a Mac-like box, load OSX, and sell it to you for a profit?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
You will never seen a Microsoft or AOL exec talking about how cool the their companies or products are
I guess Katz has never seen how Steve Balmer reacts to upcoming Microsoft releases. He makes Jobs look like a mute, an armless and legless mute without sweat glands even.
'Same speed C but faster'
Well I'm aware Katz is just stirring up the milk in the coffee, but let me comment on one last thing I haven't found replied to yet:
Katz says that Apple does not understand that neither College students nor Graphics designers are going to win them marketshare. And Gates got it right by focusing on betraying John Doe and Lucy Miller...sure.
Our world is not a static thing, we don't live in 3D, we live in 4D, the fouth dimension - TIME - is what a lot of people seem to forget when they make statemens about Apple. Who do you think is going to work in the IT industry in 20 years? The gurus of the first day and their neighbors John Doe and Lucy miller? Noo, they'll probably be dead by then, and new generations are going to define the market. If Apple succeeds in having both idols now, and young adopters for the future, then Apple is going to prevail in the future, not those who have always been giving as much new as absolutely necessary, as little service as possible and as little satisfying products as you can imagine. The computer industry may appear short lived, but you should NEVER ignore the fact that computers are likely to stcik around for the next few decades or centuries. And if you ask me, I'm pretty sure in 50 years time, nobody will be running Windows on Personal computers anymore. Both will likely not exist anymore.
Compare this to the car industry, if you're not tired of those endless references already. I actually am, but will point this out:
American cars have continued to focus on mainly one thing: Power. The bigger the car, the more HP it has, the bigger and more luxury they are, the better. They did that because aparently the majority of US citizens dig into those aspects, if they want to buy a car. Japanese cars have become increasingly smaller, more modern, more economic and more ecologic. They often have the latest gimmicks with more ease of use and security. And last but not least, they're proven to be about twice as reliable and long-living as US cars.
Suzuki and Toyota may not be prestige objects, and not as powerful as a Chrysler, but if you look at the stats, the later is about 47% more likely to break down sooner or later.
What does not fit into this scheme, is that for a change, the superior products are also cheaper, which is definitely and admittably not the case with Apple, they are more expensive, although it always pays of course.
I am aware this is quite the contrary of the often seen comparison of "Mac = Ferrari/Lamborghini, PC = Honda or similar" I guess it always depends on what you consider important with a car. IF you think power is the most important part of a car, you will also compare the most powerful car with your preferred platform, if you think real value and economy are important (which aparently nobody cares about, just look at bush "It's not the industry (or similar) causing pollution, it's the particles and toxics (or similar) in the air that are causing it".) you'll speak for the platform that you feel offers better value/economy (which almost certainly has to be the Mac, that's probably why nobody ever uses the reference that way around).
All that said I've come completely away from my initial statement, thus I guess I had better stop now, before I get into world politics and other chimp sciences (such as the famous Prezel experiment...oops did I just say that).
G-News (I'm a lazy bastard, not an anonymous coward)
You're one of the Industrial Engineers who came up with the Ford Festiva aren't you?
...this sentence from Katz's article:
"And of many people (like me) whose entry onto the Net and Web has been made easier for the first programming language that really made sense to non-techies."
For the life of me, I can't work out what the hell he's trying to say.
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
(did I do it right?)
sic transit gloria mundi
Listen, I'm not a Mac user (the new machines are enticing, though) but I'm sure Mr. Jobs will appreciate all the free advice and second guessing that's going on here. Geez, I wonder how he managed to sell all those Apple II's and all those little 9-inch Mac's without you.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Steve Jobs is as big an asshole as Gates, Case, et. al. The Macwhatever is as big a piece of crap as a Wintel machine. OSX is a proprietary operating system stolen from Xerox just like Windows.
And if you're stupid enough to think Apple is some sort of groovy utopia where all men are brothers and love is the answer, you deserve to pay twice as much money for half the computing power of an "evil" Wintel machine (which can be switched to Linux very easily and quickly, thank you very much - try *that* with your closed-system Mac).
People have addressed ease of use in the posts I've read. Few have addressed reliability issues. As a fanatical mac user, I would nevertheless like a much more reliable system than the current ones, pc or mac. Reliability, backing up, diagnostics: they're not terribly sexy, but boy do computers need improvements in all these areas
ok, there's something janky going on here.
He needs to buy a special PCI card to enable the ability to have two harddrives
how to make sense of this cryptic assertion? several possibilities:
1) the new drive is SCSI, and iGawyn's friend is trying to install it in a G3 tower that only has IDE support. hmmm. guess he really shouldn't be surprised at having to buy a "special PCI card" then. oh, those horrible, un-upgradeable Apples.
2) the new drive is IDE, but the ribbon cables included with the system only have one plug apiece. hmmmm. guess that's good news for the local Micro Center, who managed to sell a PCI IDE card instead of a ribbon cable, and bad news for iGawyn's friend.
3) the new drive is SCSI, and the G3 tower has a PCI SCSI card already, but it's already packed full of its maximum complement of devices. i don't think this is likely.
4) iGawyn's friend is just an idiot. not because he doesn't know much about upgrading his computer, but because he doesn't know how to check the Web or call Apple to find out what he doesn't know. personally, i'm leaning towards this one as the best explanation.
exactly what model of Mac does your friend have, iGawyn? hmmmmm? fucking troll.
-steve
--- "We also were guided by the unlikelihood that anyone would face supernatural evil armed only with technology."
For several minutes, as I ploughed through the wandering monologue above I was almost tempted to respond to this trolling 'article'.
Next time Jon Kantz posts something quite as wrong-headed, confused, and directionless as this, I suggest no one bothers to respond at all.
The solution--Implement moderation of articles on slashdot.
You're either Bill Gates, one of his closest friends, or haven't ever used neither a Mac nor Linux, right?
So Apple having something like $4 billion cash in the bank (let's not forget, that's not assets) as well as having a very low debt load for a company of its size means that Steve Jobs doesn't get it ?!? I typically read what JonKatz writes with a relatively open mind, but trash talking what Apple (and Linux!) has done is silly.
I had a friend write me today with the news that he downgraded his main dual-proc PC from Win2K to Win95 (only single-proc capable) because '95 could run certain applications better and didn't crash as much! Is this what makes Microsoft a more successful company? This person was 'Joe average user', for certain. The average, middle-class PC owner does not use Windows to the exclusion of Linux or MacOS (by PC I don't only mean x86) because Microsoft targets their needs better, its quite simply because since its inception, Microsoft has had a marketing engine the likes of which the world had never seen. Getting your name out there and getting OEMs (who always want to make a quick buck) to rollup your OS with their systems is what got Microsoft its success.
This feature makes me question how much JonKatz has experienced Apple products, to think that Steve Jobs doesn't know what the 'average user' wants. How about all those adds that Apple ran when the first iMacs came out? Out of the box and on the Internet with three cables (keyboard/mouse, power, phone) in less than 10 minutes. I do believe 'easy as 1-2-3' appeared in one of the ads (I recall Jeff Goldblum's ads most distinctly). The new iMac will be no different, except that now it addresses more issues that the average user wants (speed: G4 processor, compactness: LCD flat-screen, etc.) The fact that Apple is able to bring to market a machine that 'fits the bill' and looks designed is remarkable and only to be lauded, imho.
Apple is trying to repeat it's desktop publishing success. To this day, a majority of publishing houses are mac-centric. Now, many studios have already converted to using Macs and Final Cut Pro to produce trailers and stuff like that. Steve Jobs is way into the video entertainment industry, and he's trying to make Apple be part of that.
Apple will never be huge like Microsoft, or Dell, but Apple is poised to become a dominant player in making all aspects of video - creating, managing, and viewing - accessible to everyone.
People have such a narrow focus on what computers are; they are bland commodities. Digital video is becoming a commodity too, and Apple is right there. Apple is trying to be part and parcel of the entertainment industry, not the computer industry. The entertainment industry is gargantuan compared to the computer industry.
Yes, the iMac as a computer industry commodity is a failure. But it may succeed as an entertainment industry commodity. That's Job's Big Picture.
All pass beyond reach of medicine. None pass beyond the reach of love.
This is hilarious!
it's not hard to make a lot of money, if all you care about is making a lot of money. dell's success doesn't help me, except that i can get cheaper crap. apple's success helps me, in that i get a better computer.
i don't see the problem.
Sigh, I posted a fairly lengthy post before... but some of it bears repeating.
What isn't proprietary on a Mac? Let's start with hardware then software then OS.
Memory: DIMMs and soDIMMs. Electrically compatible 66-100-133MHz busses.
CPU: Common, available, everyday Motorola and IBM PowerPC G3 and G4 CPUs. If you claim the CPU is proprietary, well so is Intel or AMD CPUs.
Internal bus: AGP 4x for video, PCI for everything else. As far back as the 9600 PowerMac, I think, maybe farther.
Video card: ATI Radeon or NVIDIA GeForce(X) on AGP or PCI bus.
Connectivity: Standard USB and Firewire busses.
Networking: Standard 802.11b for wireless, and 10b/100b/1000bT for wired.
Storage: ATA-66 and ATA-100, with run of the mill Fujitsu, Toshiba, or IBM hard drives. Panasonic EIDE DVD-Rs I think.
Okay, how about software?
Standard HTTP based web browsers, POP/IMAP email clients, and HTTP, SMB, webDAV, FTP, SSH and telnet out of the box. Standard Office compatibility with Office v. X and good compatibility with AppleWorks. Standard use of mp3s, movs, and DV files for music, movies, and movie editing. Use of standard CDs and DVDs, as well as CDRs and DVDRs. Oh yeah, Quicktime movies, too, for all people malign it, is not proprietary. It's well documented and is available under Linux through xanim and through Windows through Quicktime player. Yes, *one* codec is proprietary, called Sorenson, but then so is WMF or RMF. Heck, even the display layer of the OS, Quartz, is nonproprietary. It's DisplayPDF, which is a subset of DisplayPostScript. PDF is owned by Adobe, not Apple, and *anyone* can create a DisplayPDF layer if they wanted to.
How about the OS?
How about the fact that Darwin is open source and you can compile/install/port it to your x86 box? Standard TCP/IP stack, command line interface, GNU tool chain, BSD tool chain.
Okay, I'm getting tired of writing. You get my point?
GPL Deconstructed
I agree that the computer/car parallel is meaningless, but not because of compatibility issues. The difference between what you get with a BWM as opposed to a Neon is just so much greater than the difference between a Mac and Windows that it's just silly to try to relate the two comparisons. A better parallel would be with something like office furniture. Do you buy a $150 office chair, or a $500 office chair? I mean no one is ever going to try to convince you that a Neon is a superior car, even the people who make Neon's. Regardless of whether you think that Mac's or Windows' are better, you can't completely deny that the other side has some argument to make. The Neon/BMW debate does not even exist as a debate among sane people, so I don't see how this can be used as an analogy for Windows/Mac.
Now, how would Jon Katz drivel about cool but not mainstream computers (made by Apple) would transpose to cool but not mainstream OSs (like Linux)? The only thing that one could guess it would be is... more vacuous drivel!
ZP
We only can learn from our mistakes.
Why is this marked Troll?
Ok so let me see if I am understanding this correctly:
AOL DOESN'T point out how AOL is easy to use? What about the fact that every single television commercial they air talks about how easy it is to use. What AOL doesn't mention is how easy it is to get spammed.
Microsoft does the same. The whole point of Windows XP for them is that it looks cute (although I disagree).
And about the middle class.....
The whole point of the iMac is for the middle-class to be able to afford a powerful computer.
And for all of the hackers out there, Macs should be a computer of choice for them, since MacOS X is build on BSD UNIX! And Apple has succeeded to make it usable by anyone, not just pros. UNIX used by your grandparents.
Not to mention most self-proclaimed hackers don't really know how to use UNIX, so this would be a gret system for them.
I've got a 7500 also! I hear Pee-Cee people whine about how Macs aren't upgradable - my ass! I'm on my 3rd CPU upgrade, 2nd hard drive upgrade, and I've added a Rage 128 video card and a USB card. This machine is good for anything MacOS 9 can throw at it. All in a case that allows EASY access to the components. Hell, the way this baby opens up is what sold me on it.
If I buy a new G4 tower I've got at least a GeForce 2 card in an AGP slot, room for two more hard drives internally, 3 free PCI slots, USB, Firewire, up to 2 G4 processors, up to 1.5 GB of RAM, and built-in wireless networking capabilities. And that's in a beautifully styled tower case that is THE EASIEST to get into to upgrade. Mac OS X is great! It's got an increadible GUI and underneath it's freakin' BSD!
I also own one of the newer iBooks (not the toilet seat). This is an ultra-portable monster of a machine. The only thing it lacks from a full-featured laptop is PC Card support and a larger disply - both sacrificed to put into such a small form factor.
It's a shame more Pee-Cee people don't give Apple a chance. They've got some incredible hardware.
YOU DID!
Aaaiiieeeeee, nooooooooooo......... :)
mod this sucker up, it's the most insightful response to the Proprietary quesiton i've seen in all the /. stories
The Myths about Macs will settle some questions the basic user might have.
-S
My little Universe is cool for the people who can fit inside it (being 250 6'4" there aren't that many who can)
I think the real criticism with Apple is simply this. They have failed to come up with anything truly innovative and have resorted to sexy packaging to try to win hearts. As a caveat to all of this, I am the first to say that I am thoroughly disgusted with Windows 2000 and Windows XP and don't feel compelled to defend their own ugliness. Feeling pride in comparing yourself with the next to worst thing is like patting yourself for not choking when eating your dinner. But let's get back to the issue at hand.. the new iMac. The new iMac boils down to one thing - Design: It swivels! Neat. So does my $9 Ikea desk lamp. But my desklamp has 3 joints in it. It allows me to move my lamp in all sorts of directions. But simply offering a single joint, I don't think I really gain desk space - to have it at the correct height, I might to move it down, but then it also moves forward and I lose the desk space for my keyboard and mouse. It reminds me of the urinal puck design of mouse of the original iMac. (Finally a quicker way to get carpel tunnel syndrome and sue my employer!) A good design is not one that just looks neat - it's one that serves it's function as well. "Form follows function" and that is the key to really great design. It need not be sophisticated - it just needs to work - and there is awesome beauty in elegant designs. The iMac is a form looking for a function. It tarnishes the reputation of the once great Apple computer.
Jon,
I'm not sure I agree with your analysis. But it is an easy mistake to make.
Over the past few years, I think Jobs has started to change the path of apple. Apple has traditionally been about building the easiest to use computers. That's what made the iMac so successful. That's what their marketing campaign was all about-- remember the ad? "Step one: Plug in. Step Two: Get Connected. Step Three: There is no step three!"
But I think Jobs is moving away from the ease-of-use world, and into the world of high performance home computing. Apple's image is changing with these machines that look and feel, and well, are expensive. Why? Apple's given up on trying to be #1. They won't be.
For the same reason that BMW will never be the #1 auto manufacturer in the US. BMW builds and caters towards a different market. BMW builds expensive, high performance driving machines. Apple is shifting towards building sleek, innovative computing machines. Apple wants to be the BMW of computers.
I bet if you compared the market share of BMW to that of Ford, GM and Chrysler, you'd get a similar trend. But BMW does not want to be #1. BMW has stuck to its niche, and is making a lot of money doing it. Apple is doing the same.
What complete garbage. This was the first time I've viewed this site, and it's the last. My suggestion to Slashdot if it wants to maintain a legitimate and respected reputation, would be to refrain from putting up such narrow-minded bigotry. I'm not even going to bother with my reasons.
Apple caters to the "it's good enough" crowd? I am rolling on the floor laughing at your comment. They have already said how they had a flat-panel iMac ready to go a year ago, but went back to the drawing board in order to make it better. The arm on the display moves like butter but stays where you leave it, and has been thoroughly tested so that it can do that thousands of times. How is that aimed at "good enough"? The CPU is optimized for graphics and multimedia (that's what people do today) so that it doesn't have to run at 2000MHz to let you edit video without an accelerator card ... as a result, the loudest thing in an iMac is the hard disk. When those go solid state, Apple's machines will be completely silent. How is that just "good enough"?
If you just look at the speed of the CPU in order to measure a machine's performance, then 2GHz P4's are all you're going to buy. Too bad for you. Head to head, crunching some kind of numerical benchmark, the P4 will beat the iMac's G4. However, back in the real world, where there's more to a system than the CPU, when you factor in the much, much better software design of Mac OS X (lower latencies, better throughput, better multitasking) as compared to Windows, the iMac gets faster. When you factor in that the G4 and it's Altivec component are optimized for the kinds of "big computing" jobs that most PC users are doing these days, such as encoding MP3 or MPEG-2 (DVD), then the iMac gets faster again. When you factor in that the user is the slowest component of any PC, the ease of use, thoughtful touches, UNIX stability and security ("go ahead and explore, you won't break it"), and "friendly approachability" of the iMac makes it faster again.
The other day I made a DVD video disc with about five minutes work and it encoded and burned in the background and looked great when I was done. How many MHz do you think a PC should have so that I can do that? No wonder Intel's announcements of a 2.2GHz P4 were met with "blah". Same slow Windows running on top. Same broken aspects of the computing platform. Same outlaw mega-corporation with no ethics at the helm.
In short, I'm saying that many, many users will do faster, better work on an iMac than on a Windows machine, even if the Windows machine has a 10GHz processor. If the Mac elevates you where Windows trips you up, even one time per day, you are going to see real productivity benefits.
The new iMac is nice looking, but is it giving the consumer something truly new and unique? Seems like much less of a leap forward than the original iMac to me. Actually, it's a bit like a laptop on a stick, if you think about it...
I'll always have a soft spot for Apple. They realized early on that a GUI-based operating system was the way of the future. Since then, few of their bright ideas have actually rocked my world.
If you ask me, the future of computing is going to have very little to do with Apple unless they come up with another truly revolutionary product. But that would require some amount of risk-taking, wouldn't it?
and, in the 100% content-free department!
(slow news day?)
> he is trying to fight the total user experience war - something MS can't
.Net and Hailstorm and MSN that MS is thinking in the larger sense of thinner clients and fatter servers--in essence, the perfect paradigm if you want to manufacture a PC with a very, very long shelf-life, since the server will do most of the actual computing and storage for the client.
.Net and Hailstorm into a simple box that will ensure Microsoft's dominance for a few more decades. It's a lot harder to replace an infrastructure of all-in-one, whole widgets, than it is to replace an OS. Microsoft is afraid that other OSes, like Linux, might advance to the point where x86 vendors start using them instead of Win32. That is no longer an isue if Microsoft becomes a dominant hardware vendor.
.Net infrastructure.
> do unless it wants to start making boxes.
This is the problem for Apple--once MS starts making "the whole widget" and doing it right, there's no longer any reason to buy an Apple unless you're a crusty graphics designer who uses one out of loyalty to his experiences with Apple. Everyone else, including computer-stupid Grandma, will just buy the MS widget. After all, it'll be just as easy and integrated as an iMac, have guaranteed interoperability, and come with a seemingly great deal on integrated MSN internet access and network support. The iMac will only win, on paper, in the looks department, and only narrowly.
See, Microsoft has been planning this for years, albeit with some retarded stops and starts. Why else would they buy WebTV? They thought they could turn it into the Digital Hub which Apple is just recently beginning to talk about. Gates may not be a nice guy, but he's a brilliant businessman. He was hip to this digital hb business when he bought WebTV, it's just that he soon realized that was entirely the wrong platform. This is pretty obvious from the fact that WebTV support was coded into Windows 98, but nothing was ever rally done with it.
So, instead of building up WebTV into a PC, Gates has started with the PC and is stripping it down to its essentials. Xbox is a trial run for this. Microsoft has essentially just mass-produced its own PC, only the software is stripped down to just play games. Yet it's clear from
Xbox is a trial run and proof of concept that MS can be a hardware company. Their next hardware release will be a beefed-up Xbox with a keyboard and mouse and an optional LCD, unless they get inspired by the new iMac and integrate the LCD into the package. It'll play Xbox games on insertion, but the default desktop will have pretty and simple with an MSN Internet icon, a My Documents folder, and icons for word processing and whatever functions neatly provided by the MSN/.Net subscription. All popular Windows-compatible pieces of hardware, like MP3 players and camcorders and such, will have integrated support through simplified software inspired by Apple's designs.
This is clearly the next step for Microsoft, which has been afraid of its software losing marketshare and has wanted to enter the real hardware business for years, at least ever since the abortive WebTV purchase. Microsoft is in a unique position to integrate its software and its
The hints have been there for a long time. Xbox is a trial run. The real hardware, Microsoft's x86 PC with proprietary bits, will be here as soon as Microsoft is happy with its
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
And if Apple can peddle the Apple store to middle America -- not to niche markets -- then it will be a resounding success no matter what it costs.
The issue may be that it wasn't a Walmart (thank God!), it wasn't a Target (a little better) it wasn't a Gap -- it was truly a trendy approach. Does that appeal to middle America? I don't know -- can't say that I represent middle America.
I could make a new years prediction and say that (taking a page from Gartner) Apple will close the majority of it's retail outlets within the 2002/2003 time frame (85% probability). But then I'm no Carnack, or Gartner either for that matter.
"Gates understands something Jobs and media don't."
So, Mr. Katz, you think you've thought business/marketting strategies that Steve Jobs, a self made billionaire, hasn't?
Jobs isn't in a position to make run-of-the-mill products, even if that's what middle America prefers (and that's quite an assumption you make). If Jobs does that, Apple dies - its survival is dependent on Apple doing something different, something glitzier, from the Big Guys.
Gates doesn't have to offer anything so spectacular because he's got a monopoly. Most consumers choose Windows because they're afraid that if they don't use the monopoly product, they'll not be able to use the same stuff that everybody else is using, even if they're not sure what it is they need. And when it comes to computers, the average user ISN'T aware of what they need, they just want to be able to use what everybody else has. Even if mail, internet, etc, is available on both platforms.
Katz and his continual drivel drive me nutz.
Of course my BMW has 240,000 miles on it and will beat the pants of your Mazda any day.
And my W2K Intel hardware has many, many months of uptime and beats your Mac in reliability, performance and usability. When OS X really, really flies (wide adoption) it will be technically adequate.
Of course since 95%+ of all business applications run on PC's and less than 5% of vertical market applications (excluding Desktop publishing) run on Mac's I, my company and the companies I consult for will not use Mac's any time soon.
Lastly coward, perhaps if you were to seek higher education you could use more colorful metaphors. I realize that grade school education isn't what it used to be but had higher hopes for our youth than your simple response.
... but in case the poster looks at late responses:
...
"begs the question" doesn't mean what you're trying to make it mean. It means "assumes the proposition one is trying to prove". In other words, circular reasoning.
"raises the question" would be more appropriate, I think.
Sorry for being pedantic
Tons of people are just blindly knocking Katz. Admittedly it's fun, but a bunch of people missed the point. They yelled at him for saying Microsoft is better then Apple. What he's saying is they are MORE SUCCESSFUL.
An example of this:
By Katz's argument McDonald's is better than the 5* Michelin-Approved restaurant down the road...
Excuse me but B fucking S. He's not saying that at all. He's saying that of the millions of Americans with computers/ buying computers a majority of them are going to McDonald's because they know what they are going to get. It may not be as good as the 5* restuaraunt, but a lot of people don't know that, and many don't care. They want something that will work with every app released right out of the box.
All in all, good job Katz, and to people knocking him because that's tradition... Shame on you.
No sig for you.
So when I am logged in at my desktop, Jon Katz is never seen (as his articles are filtered) on slashdot. But while I'm away at school or something I have the misfortune of running into his well-thought out and provoking articles. What I don't understand, and I guess this is a general comment on slashdot, is that why are such articles posted? Are people viewing the site interested in seeing such articles? Does slashdot has any financial or any other advantage to keeping Katz posting?
Does anyone have a reason why Katz should be posting? I'll be honest: I've never read his book or know much about him. In the case of posters and submitters who make unsubstantiated comments (like the new mp3 player from sonic blue is better than the ipod), I can understand that I need to accept it as the voice of some population of computer users who visit slashdot. But what subpopulation of the site actually listens to Katz.. I can't believe I've spent the last 10 minutes even looking at the article and people's raging.
Please Slashdot maintainers.. I implore you to examine the real need for a jon katz.. there are actually informed and intelligent social commentators out there on sites that are devoted to such matters. If you see a reason to keep him please tell me. Can we start to see a rating of the actual articles? Perhaps that'll be a good way to stop such waste. Thanks!
--tahir
The fact that most of the world is on the dumb kick of driving trucks dressed up like cars does not make everyone want to own one of them, either. Times will change as things change. It's fun, and yes, cool, to try to look past the present to something better in the future. As Apple says, think different! Live a little! Enjoy the arts! Computers have become "communicators".
ThosEM
We're supposed to believe that Apple is perfectly thrilled to be coasting along at 4.5%? Right. And Roseanne Barr should be booked to sing at the next Presidential Inauguration too.
And the comparisons to BMW are slightly insane too. One person made the analogy and everyone happily followed along, giving it no thought.
Number one, all BMWs are not insanely expensive. There are BMWs priced in a reasonable 20's and thus accessible to the mass market and these don't lack features that you can get with another car at the same price. In fact, the BMW will probably be BETTER than that other car.
However, in the case of Macs, you spend way more for a computer that lacks software and features that are available on much cheaper PCs. Yeah, it looks nifty, but the stupid thing can't even run Halo or that cool freeware you just downloaded off the Internet. You guys can blow over this lack of software support to justify Apple's static and uninspiring market precense all you want, but these are simple facts.
Jobs does NOT understand what it takes to get to the next level. All this man did was raise Apple from death to slightly better than death, largely by putting pretty covers on his product. Ever since then, sales of macs have been down or flatlined.
There were 6 models of the floppyless iMac that did not offer CDRW, (in 99 the original & DV/SE, in 2000 an updated original, and updated DV, the DV+ and the DV SE)
I sit in font of a PC and I have a stack of hard ware around me, it takes up heaps of space, is noisy and requires efort to move.
I sit in front of the new iMac and I can move thescreen around as I wish, push things out of the way. The computer becomes a useful tool. not the whole toolshed.
The traditional PC design is going the way of the mainframe, too bulky and too ugly for use.
You can't tell the difference between a $150 and $500 office chair? How fucking fat is your ass?
Any billionaire who's a decent and honest billionaire, and who hasn't totally forgotten that at one time in his life he was utterly helpless to do anything for himself, will quickly tell you that "self-made billionaires" simply don't exist.
But maybe I'm just missing some things here. Was Jobs the only employee at Apple and NeXT? Apparently so, but how then did I think there were so many other people working alongside him in these companies to create the products they made? Were all of the other people working at Apple through the years merely illusions spun off by Jobs' indomitable personality and force of will? Or were these thousands of people actually real human beings who helped Jobs become a billionaire at every single step along the way?
I can see Jobs as a public lightning rod for companies like Apple, sure, but "self-made?" Absolutely not. Even Frankenstein would have been nowhere without Victor...:)
And that's really the question in my own mind. I don't really know who "made" Gates and don't particularly care, but I'd guess if Gates was asked that question he might just ascribe things turning out as they did to being at the right place at the right time and leave it at that. But in Jobs' case--in all sincerity--I have to wonder if it wasn't actually Gates who created Jobs--really, that's a joke. But thinking back on all of the mileage Jobs has gotten on the specter of Gates, it certainly makes you wonder. Is Jobs the "Anti-Gates" or not? I guess that's the "real" question! *chuckle*
Now, as I age, I realize that technology does not exist for its own good. People want to accomplish tasks quickly easily and reliably. Computer designs still have not accomplished all three yet. I'm a network administrator and I get paid well...guess why....because computers suck and I know how to secure them and make them work.
Maybe a day will come when average joe can network his whole office and won't need me; but at the rate technology is going, i'll have job security for life.
why dont you go use it then rant? have you used it or do you just talk out of you ass as a hobby?
do you bitch about other machine which arent wireless?
funny, i dont really know any mac users who stare at the machines all day and not get work done. must be you. are you suffering from ADD? too much visual stimulation from the color white cause to lose your concentration?
as for the artsy fartsy aesthetics, at least it has an aesthetic which is consistent across of the entire product line. an aesthetic most people are happy with and idoubt apple is going to change so they look like dell's boxes. pity our not happy with it too.. sorry for you. go back to you beige boring box, a box a industrial designer deigned somewhere to be ugly and enjoy
First, Mr. Katz, don't forget what made Windows the success it is now: INNOVATION (although it may have been stolen innovation, let's not cross that line now. Leave that for the fanatics on either side)
I feel that Mr. Katz really was struggling with coming up with the "central" reason for Apple's supposed lack of success. In that struggle, he may have assumed some myths were truths. Here's my version of a blow-by-blow on Katz's view of public trust.
Katz> "Burned by years of outrageously poor tech support"
A> First, has Katz tried Microsoft's tech support more than 4 out of the last 5 years??? Second, Apple at least listened to their customers and have now developed quite a good tech support relationship.
Katz> "increasingly expensive software"
A> Actually, my Mac clients are spending 10% less on average for the same or more software applications this year compared with three years ago. As OS X is maturing, I'm noticing more middle class males (female clients generally enjoy the spit-and-polish of commercial apps so far) actually getting adventurous and downloading truly free *nix software rather than forking over the high prices software moguls want for commercial apps like MS Word. If they want to go with commercial apps, they are just as affordable as comparable PC apps (at least at the places I shop!)
Katz> "hardware that's almost instantly outdated"
A> Really?!? That's wierd... I still have clients that find that their early-model (ex.- 333MHz) iMacs give them a positive user experience. Although they think the new iMac looks interesting, their only reason for considering upgrading is often the new small footprint. These aren't just recipe-card filing, tax-filing folks; these are your average Joe/Jo experimenting with new, fresh software. I don't know about you, but I can't run Office XP with Windows XP on a PC I bought just three years ago, but I CAN run Office X on OS X on a three-year-old Macintosh (comfortably multi-tasking an action game in the background).
Katz> "middle-class consumers aren't the least bit interested in the coolest new new thing. They want computing that works like TV does -- that's easy to use, takes little space, costs relatively little money and works every time you turn it on, year after year."
A> I'll give Katz that one. That statement is true, but the implied meaning needs some factual support. He implies (I think) that Macs have been unfriendly, bulky, unstable, and expensive. Unfriendly user interfacing is an individual opinion that cannot be easily argued either way. The footprint of a (classic) iMac is smaller than the footprint of a 14" SVGA Monitor and a heck of a lot less than a tower with a monitor. Stability? That's no competition... Mac OS has consistently won that in more major releases than MS. I see 15 blue-screen customers for every one Sad-Mac. I hope Windows XP continues to be an improvement. The price point of an iMac IS higher than your average aluminum-can PC made with a no-name MB, science-project power-supply, and low-spec memory, but you can see why an iMac owner is generally less troubled than a bargain-PC customer.
Katz> "In fact, it was only a couple of years ago that the candy-colored iMacs were the next cool thing. Now they're about as hip as Windows 98."
A> In fact, it was only a few months ago that Intel and AMD came out with a Gigahertz processor. Now they're about as hip as a Pentium III with the serial number turned on.
I don't deny that CURRENT DEMAND is low and that middle America ISN'T BUYING Mac, but geez, try to use a thoughful argument against them, huh? Jobs may have some skewed ideas of consumerism, but that one paragraph of yours makes your argument a little hard to maintain.
I look at my aunt as an example of what middle class users can and will do with a computer. She doesn't take my advice about what computer to buy, and indeed she often does precisely what I was hoping she wouldn't, so what she actually does is of interest to me.
She has a nice digital camera - it takes higher-resolution pictures than mine. She takes lots of pictures. She has problems organizing them and until recently had no idea that there are professional services that can turn your digital pictures into photographic prints, so she printed her pictures on her color printer at home.
She is excited about e-books and six months ago declared that she was going to read only e-books from now on.
She thinks this MP3 thing is a cute idea but doesn't use them. She has CD players in her house and car and doesn't see the need to listen to her music from a computer. She does have a CD burner and uses it to make mix cd's. Ogg Vorbis vs MP3 is an incomprehensible argument to her.
She uses her computer to watch her DVDs because she likes the way they look on her flat panel display. She doesn't want to ever look at a CRT again. She doesn't want to get VHS tapes any more but still buys a few if she can't find equivalent DVDs. I've explained the whole RIAA and DVD versus fair use rights conflict to her, and she says that's too bad, but doesn't do anything about it.
She takes lots of videos of family events with her quite-conventional camcorder. She has heard that it's now possible to make your own DVDs and wants to be able to do that, but thinks it's too expensive to get the appropriate software and equipment for her Windows PC.
She uses Windows 98. I doubt she will ever upgrade her OS before replacing the computer.
She managed to accidentally unplug her amplified computer speaker set from the electric outlet once. Her computer sat silent for several months until I came to visit and took care of it for her. Other family members had looked at it, but after verifying that the speakers were connected to the computer, they were baffled.
Behind her computer is a tangled mass of cables, which is never moved. I don't even know if all the cables actually go anywhere - legacy cables may live there forever.
She has a WinCE based PDA with as much additional storage as she could make it accept. She uses it to read e-books. I think that might be all she uses it for. She didn't like the e-book reader dedicated hardware because none of the readers would accept all formats.
Now, how does my aunt feel about the Mac?
On the day the new iMac came out, she messaged me with AIM to say hi and ask me what I was up to. I told her I was installing iPhoto, and told her about it. She wants it. She wants it now.
I told her about the new iMac and explained that I thought she'd like one. She laughed and said I'd pry her Windows machine from her cold dead hands. I told her about the DVD burner. I told her about iMovie and iDVD being free. Now she wants me to bring my titanium powerbook for her to try out MacOS.
Check out this piece from the Onion poking some fun at the new iMac. I especially like "special drool tray catches saliva of enthralled technogeeks."
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
Mr. Katz sure knows how to provoke!! I take an interesting thought from his remarks: Like Clinton-era liberals, where some good work was lost to the public in the overemphasis on style and a pretentious and self-serving politically correct morality, the Apple crowd is increasingly depending on snob chic to sell their wares. They would do well to remember who really pays the bills and gets the work done in this country... Microsoft, afterall, would have us do things their way--for our own good. There might be alot of good--and maybe some profits--in Apple offering a bit of competition, revisiting their promise to provide useful tools for the masses.
Go, Mr. Katz!!... I'll keep reading...
I don't get it. We want the capabilities of computers to leap ahead exponentially--we want nation-wide networking and videoconferencing, realisitic 3D games, photo-realistic imaging, voice activated and controlled interfaces, psychiatric AI routines to mimick human feedback, etc., and etc., ad infinitum. Each and every year our expectations for technology surpass all previous expectations. MHz is no longer "enough" unless it's GHz. Megabytes become gigabytes become terrabytes. You know what I'm getting at.
And yet buried in all of this enormous and ever intensifying complexity we express this wish--desire--daydream--whatever--for "simplicity."
How is it that we can reason that more complexity and capability should ever equal increased simplicity? If "simple" is what we want then why not return to the abacus? If easy to use is what we want then why not return to realm of print journalism and read newspapers? If ease is what we desire then why not return to the era of passive television voyuerism where we all pleasantly vegetate as couch potatos?
In short, whoever decided that computers should accomplish enormously complex goals with the simplistic ease of a kindergarten primer? Are such expectations wishful thinking, and aren't they fundamentally irrational?
Computers require us to interact with them and by extension with each other on a variety of levels. IE, to use a computer is to execute the opposite of passivity. Is there some sense that computers "ought" to do our thinking for us, thereby becoming much "simpler" to use? I hope not, because that's frightening for me.
Me, I think that if we ever reach the level where the average Joe can network his office with little to no level of understanding as to what he's doing then we'll have actually left the age of "computers" behind us and will have entered the age of programmed appliances, in which every device will have three or less functions and we learn only how to button push with no understanding as to what we're pushing the buttons for.
As much as I can sympathize with the sentiment, I don't think computers will become simpler, and I think we need to encourage the average Joe to master his computer environment--otherwise it will surely master him.
Whenever I read "commentary" on the computer industry that sings the praises of Gates, I can't help but be reminded of the way that MS periodically "suggests" to its employees that they stuff a ballot box or write glowing essays or otherwise sell out their integrity and reputations for the good of Mr. Gates and "THE COMPANY".
I've been in the industry for decades and seldom hear anyone speak well of Microsoft. Most of the more vocal complaints come from their users. The only praise I ever hear comes from people whose jobs and paychecks are directly connected to Microsoft. So I consider the probable source... and click a link to something more interesting and less of a blatant "kiss-up" to Billy.
After all... just how much intelligence does it really take for someone to run a monopoly????
When you graduate high school, you're allowed to post on the internet. Until then, talk with your friends.
Normally I don't mind articles by Mr Katz, but this one is wrong in so many ways. Reading most of the 1,000+ posts here, it seems most Slashdotters likewise find it off-target
Let me say something first. I'm not a Mac user, and have never even owned a Mac: I use Windows every day. But as part of that group of "Harry and Martha Dubuques" who "isn't ready for it" as Katz says, I've been seriously thinking of getting my first Macintosh. And I think Katz is underestimating the Harry and Martha Dubuques of this world - how does he know what we're ready for? I guess he does and that's why he's running a successful computer company and little Stevie is not.
Katz also has the most narrow definition of success. Apparently, if you're not the monopoly, you're not successful. So Linux is also an abject failure because of market share? I would have to say in many respects, Linux is a great success despite a low market share. And so is Apple; our entire computing experiences - from our GUIs to software to hardware - have been heavily influenced by Apple, even if we've never used a Mac before. And as was recently and wisely stated, success in the computing industry is spelled "survival". From that perspective, Apple is not just successful, but flush with profits when other, more "successful" computer companies may not survive for much longer.
Katz seems to say that Apple focusses on being cool, while MS and Compaq focus on being functional. This thinking is wrong: cool and functional are not exclusive. Isn't it both cool and functional to burn the DVDs you want with ease? Isn't it both cool and functional to have a small computer that dosen't take up half your desk space? "But the middle class, for years abused and exploited by the arrogant tech industry [...] wants easy of use, safety, utility." And is this not exactly what Apple is giving them? How utilitarian is Apache? Or easy to use is iTunes? How much safer is a stable computer that is immune to 97% of viruses out there? The list of contraditions to Katz's arguments is endless.
Katz is right with one thing: Apple won't Take Over the World. They may never even achieve dominance on the desktop. But I don't give a rat's ass. So long as they survive and innovate that spells success to me.
Think about Apple for a second, they have always marketed products and ideas that were different, ahead of their time and most certainly not popular. Even when the first mac came out, it was different and tech people didn't like it (at first).
Now years later, Apple has been through 47 million dollar losses and come back to still be a profit turning company. This time though, Apple isn't marketing to the masses. Why? They're dull, boring, orthadox, pattern forming, and conformists. They don't allow for new ideas. As the man said, they don't trust the computer industry (paraphrased).
These are not the people that Apple sells to anymore. Apple sells to photo buffs, movie buffs, music buffs, *NIX geeks, people into style, non tech savy people, people who want to have a part of the future today. While these are all niche markets, they are loyal niche markets.
Photo buffs, movie buffs and music buffs all have a favorite company they use. They like to get as much stuff as they can from that company. Never mind they can get a better price from someone else, or maybe even a step better, the fact of the matter is, they can get what they need for their product reliably from one place. This naturaly lends them to be loyal people and thus ideal customers for Apple.
*NIX geeks love to be different, and love to be creative. They don't like things to be done the orthadox way, it's not interesting. New a different ways of doing things are what makes a *NIX geek tick. They love tweaking the code, and trying a different approach. Again, an ideal mac customer.
Non-tech savy people are looking for something easy, fast (to get going not processor speed) and all in one packaging. And since Apple provides all of this, they look good to new users. Since most new people like to stick with the original company for a while, they are at least temporarily loyal, and once again make an idea Apple customer.
Finaly the people who want a bit of the future today. Almost every product Apple has designed has been ahead of its time. Maybe not in sheer power, but in design and style, which has later been copied or imitated in the mass computers. Yes, no matter how you look at it, colorful PCs are the result of the iMac. And these people are also very willing to try something new. SCSI, USB, Firewire, PDAs, GUIs, OS X, all of these ideas and concepts, while they may have been developed elsewhere, where succesfuly pushed and marketed by Apple. They would not be where they are today without that push. And to try to market those ideas to the masses would result in failure. For example, USB, developed by intel, and used occasionaly, but not accepted because no one wanted to change. Along comes the iMac, a USB only machine, and suddenly USB springs up like wild fire.
Apple is succesful, not because they turn the best profit, but because they have loyal cutomers. They have lived through debt and profit, minimal sales and best sales, each time, comming out sucessful in their endevor. That isn't to say they haven't made mistakes, the 20th aniversary mac and the Cube didn't do good at all. But Apple can afford to make mistakes because they have customers willing to wait it out. Their success may not be based on profits, but then again, niether is the Chevy corvette's.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
It looks like it should be hovering around Robin Williams' head in a Disney movie. A really cool case design would be something that is so sleek it kind of fades into the background. Not jumps out at you screaming "Look at me, I'm cute!" like Dot Warner.
I really wish Jobs would say a permanent sayonara to the Hello Kitty school of design. The modern Apple machines are not only eyesores, but the end user pays for such obnoxious artsy l33tness. It's this kind of thinking that pushed the Macintosh into a niche market.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Thankfully, the iMac announced as I was contemplating a complete tech refresh for the home. So my iBook arrives Friday, and the iMac in Feb-- I couldn't justify a DVD-R to myself, so I went for the mid-range.
I've had opportunity to play with OSX recently, and I really look forward to putting the Linux desktop in the back room, and having a UNIX laptop that actually *works* without days of hammering at recalcitrant and semi-supported hardware.
My technophobe son will love them too. And that, when it came down to a decision, was the swing vote.
-- Cerebus
What's even funkier, on an OSX box login as ">console" with no password.
:)
The gui will immediately shutdown and you'll be sent to the true console
very nice.
Once you've logged in, you can exit to get back to Aqualand
---
Live Long & Prosper \\//_
CYA STUX =`B^) 'da Captain,
Jedi & Last *-fytr
if you want to do video editing why not buy an SGI?
Katz's argument is that hot-shot, cutting-edge companies can learn a lot from sitting around and watching how Microsoft does things.
But he doesn't seem to realize that none of the companies that do cutting-edge-tech have a monopoly to rest on while others do the hard work so they can come gliding in on the trailing edge.
Additionally, if these self-same companies sat and waited to do what Microsoft was doing, nothing would ever happen in the computer industry! It would be an infinite feedback-loop of inactivity! And who would go out of business first in that kind of situation? (See paragraph 2)
You're right! if you click the X in the corner of a navigator window in MacOS, it closes the whole browser, i promise!!!!!
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
First off, Microsoft does not have a monopoly.
Even if you were on the appeals court, your opinion still wouldn't add up to shit. It's over with, the Supreme Court didn't take the case. They are a monopoly and there is nothing you or Ayn Rand can do about it.
Sorry Katz, but in the world of technology the concept of better product = success is bunk. It's all about market penetration and monopoly power. It makes very little difference if Mac OS X is better than Windows XP because 95% of the market already uses XP and I'm willing to bet that most of those folks have never even used a non-Microsoft OS. It's hard to compete when you can't even step on the field.
I have a perfect, highly unscientific example of this. I teach an introduction to Macintosh course in the art department of a local college. This course is a prerequisite to all the other design courses in the curriculum since all the classes are Mac-based. On average, less than 5% of my students have ever used a non-Microsoft OS and, in fact, most of these students thought "Windows" and "Computer" were synonymous -they were unaware you could even have one without the other.
Despite this demographic skew, at the conclusion of the course around 90% of my students stated that they were planning to switch from Windows to Macintosh. Now the question is, were the students switching because they liked the Mac better or because everyone in the art department used Macs? Part two of the question? Does it matter?
Marketshare = success. Plain and simple.
DigiSquid Design.
All I can say, Mr. Katz, is that your condemnation of another outspoken techie has drawn a thousand comments in a day, which is quite good for Slashdot.
That and I'll be buying a Macintosh this year, but not just because I don't agree with your analysis of Mr. Jobs. (but partly!)
I'll be buying a Macintosh because they're well designed, long-lasting computers, with a phenomenal new OS. (which I now use at work.) My last Mac purchase was in 1994, and that machine is still in daily use. I've gone through no less than six PCs since then, and that's just at home. (another five at work.)
I am very happy that such an egotist is at the helm of Apple. This means that the product turned out is going to be damn good, as usual. Get back to your Ayn Rand roots and maybe you'll gain some new insight on why Mr. Jobs is the way he is, and just maybe you'll admire him for it all the more.
Cheers.
JB
You have just paid Steve Jobs and Apple the biggest compliment I have ever read. Thanks!
johngaltone@hotmail.com
"Too lazy to create an account since 1995"
After a month she stopped calling and has never looked back. Hopefully she can convince my dad that there are other alternatives. If this continues Apple can grow beyond it's 4.5 marketshare.
As long as your family has at least 80,000 people in it...
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
Simply because the price that's set by where the demand & supply curves meet up, makes it unprofitable to do so.
Consequently HP, Compaq, IBM, Packard Bell/Nec, etc all lose money on their home computer sales. The only people making money on home sales are local neihbourhood whitebox cloners, & many only do because they are ripping off the tax dept by selling up & re-opening under a different name every year or so to dodge salestax.
Look at Internet appliances, the public only buys them when they cost about $100, about a 1/3 of what they cost by the time they get to the retail shelves.
The only way to overcome this problem is through the economies of scale of a supply monopoly - maybe through the govt contrating a company to build a factory & supplying every household with one in lue of a $500 removed from everyones tax-returns. Oh how the economic (ir)rationalists would hate that. But the only alternative would be the ongoing waste of having more than half a dozen odd 1st-tier OEMs going bust & slowly taking over each other till all that's left is a dualopoly/monopoly, which would in the end cost the nation much more.
Plus computers just arn't user friendly, they just don't work like tellys & fridges do. Personally I think the day will come when domestic electronics giants like Sony, Philips or Panasonic will just embed a slot on all their TV circut boards & stick a couple of empty 5.25 inch drive bays on the side. Then if people want to pay extra to have a computer built into their new TV they just pay an extra fee & a card with an ebedded chipset/cpu (like a Geode X86) & memory is plugged in & a hard drive & OS is fitted & they get a remote control keyboard/trackpad thrown into the cardboard box that their TV comes with, all before the TV is picked up or deleived. The OS would have to have a office bundle & brouser complete with plugins (Real, Quickime, WMP, Flash, Shockwave, Acrobat)already embedded into it (So users won't have to fuck arround with that sort of thing) & a dumbed down front end. Afterall with HDTV eventually all Tellies will come with PC standard resolution (ie pixals small enough for decent text imaging).
"First off, Microsoft does not have a monopoly."
Monopoly is a term DEFINED BY LAW.
Microsoft was found guilty of
1. Being a MONOPOLY
2. Criminally abusing that monopoly
This finding was upheld by
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Microsoft is a monopoly, since nobody cares about your personal definition of "monopoly," but rather, that used by actual courts of law, with real Supreme Court Justices, no less.
Sweating Monkey Boy "I Rule" when you need him to demonstrate a point?
Microsoft's version of sprituality:
"Double-click the lifestone to attune your spirit to the lifestone"
You forgot to mention what I think it is the most important thing about keyboard shortcuts. Apple has very tight guidelines for application writing. This cause that those 'main' shortcuts (Open, Close, Copy, Paste, Cut, Select-All, Print, Undo) are the same in 99.99999% of the applications. In windows that's not true. Even in MS applications, Select All could range to about different shortcuts depending whether you are using Windows itself, an Office app, Outlook,....
And ironically, but I can't be sure about this, it was Microsoft that invented (ok blame me) the keyboard shortcuts when it released Word for Mac.
I've got to agree with most of the posters here -- the iMac is a cool piece of funtional equipment, and we're going to be buying them. Your perspective rests upon money being the most important factor in computing. Sorry bud.
I'll need to get my Slashdot 42 digit confirmation number.
A professional Graphic designer using PCs? must have been one for quite some time since the masses have switched to Apple. As for me, I have only used Mac, both in college and work. Apple has caught up to and passed the speed of standard PC's. Don't believe me? vrooom
i think i was writing more cogent arguments when i was in highschool. at the very least i wasn't painting myself into a corner with my own stupidity.
jon katz writes:
"Burned by years of outrageously poor tech support, increasingly expensive software, and hardware that's almost instantly outdated, middle-class consumers aren't the least bit interested in the coolest new new thing. They want computing that works like TV does -- that's easy to use, takes little space, costs relatively little money and works every time you turn it on, year after year. The public is increasingly wise to tech scams like hardware that's obsolete every 18 months and software that doesn't even last that long."
how does this make sense in his greater argument? apple seems to be the only manufacturer and large os retailer that is doing anything about these issues. so is apple addressing these concerns and is thus losing the battle? or are they not but others are? or nobody is?
point by point commentary (slashdot take-down style)
"Burned by years of outrageously poor tech support...
apple has excellent tech support and wins accolades both over the phone and at the apple store. what makes it even better is that their products are easier to provide tech support for.
increasingly expensive software and hardware,
final cut pro has certainly lowered the cost of professional-level video editing by about $50 000. and the iapps are the best consumer applications of their type on the market, all free. apple hardware has not risen in price, it has fallen. the imac configuration last year offered a slower processor for $4500. this year it sells for $1800. impressive.
that's almost instantly outdated,
apple hardware retains its value in resale better than anyone else and remains in service longer. in fact, one of apple's problems has been that their hardware (and software) last too long. users don;t want to upgrade because their machine is doing for them.
middle-class consumers aren't the least bit interested in the coolest new new thing.
six million imac owners and 150 000 ipod owners say otherwise.
They want computing that works like TV does -- that's easy to use, takes little space, costs relatively little money and works every time you turn it on, year after year.
the mac works more like a tv than anyone else's box, more reliably. (i will remind jon that the whole reason we are using computers instead of watching tv is because computers are more complex and challenge us in ways that tv cannot (the info flows two ways here), and that there will be trade-offs in ease of use.) if the tv could do it, why isn't it? if someone is doing this better than apple, why aren't they?
anyway, my point, jon, is that you can't have it both ways. either apple is going in the right direction and you've defeated your own argument or they aren't and you just aren't paying attention. or everybody is going in the wrong direction which doesn't make for much of an argument.
either way you lose. what makes you lose even harder is that you walked into it.
maybe apple's market position has to do with other factors you haven't cared to comment upon?
maybe.
OK folks, how many of you would actually develop software for MacOS? All this Katz baiting and denial of the obvious is funny. Marketshare matters. It matters to Jobs and it matters to you. How many of you would develop exclusively for MacOS? How many would refuse to make Windows or Linux versions of your software to support MacOS exclusively. Because we all know that Linux is growing and Windows is 85 percent of the marketplace. No one who wants to live well will bet exclusively on a shrinking 4.5 percent of the market. I would bet not many. Why? Because you like money and Windows is a fat, open, market. PostGet has a nice article on how Apple builds in software features to their next version of the OS. So you tell me, if Katz is so wrong about marketshare, which one of you "gentlemen" will place your economic future exclusively in Apple's hands. Oh, and the iMac may be computing's greatest failure. Why? Because as quoted here, was designed to get people to switch to Macs over Windows PC's. Even though they sold six million of them, they merely replaced older versions of low end macs. The few people who switched, dumped them for Window PC's when they got a new machine. Let's face it, Linux offers more and cheaper options for the specialized user looking to reject MS. MacOs lingers because of its installed base.
Why does this crap get posted? I'd venture that most of the /. readership are out-and-out geeks who give less than half a rat's ass about marketing hoo-ha. If you're gonna post a story about the new iMac, why not talk about the obvious technical superiorities: Altivec (leaves MMX in the dust at over a gigaflop), full vector graphics, a solid BSD kernel, fully pluggable filesystems, etc. etc.
those who say apple is all about form are just wrong and probably the closest they have gotten to a mac is passing one in comp usa.
Apple and steve jobs understand the relations between form and function better than any other computer company, and better than any other ceo, period.
if some of you actually had used a mac, rather than judgeing them based on pictures you .
saw on web, you would know from the moment you unpack it from the box, you see how apple pays attention to details you and every other pc make dont even think of.
apple has the highest customer satisfaction rating in industry for a reason, and its not becuase people bought a pretty machine and were let down when they learned 3 months later it wasnt functional in it design.
iMacs are for idiots who can't figure out PCs. I'm sorry if i offended any of you die hard Apple fans, but Apple sucks and so does Bill Gates so WTF? In my prior post about putting linux on iMacs, that would be the only improvement that I could see fit. Yes I have used Linux, no I'm not an elite hacker as you yourself think you are. I always value someone who posts false accusations anonymously. What a brave soul you are.
Mr. Katz - Regardless of the subject, your articles suck! In fact, they suck so much, I wrote a song.
(To the tune of moonlight sonota)
john katz' articles suck
he thinks he is a hot journalist
he bites
he has a nerd following at slashdot
they think he is a physical manifestation of god
john katz' articles suck
john katz' articles suck
yeah yeah yeah
john katz' articles suck
look there is a nerd patting katz on the back
kats is happy now, and when he
needs!
yeah needs needs needs!
another selfish rush
he will write another piece of crap
and post it to slashdot
and john katz' articles suck
but he doesn't know it!
when the world doesn't go like he planned
he writes an article saying how great he is
and how great his opinions are
and the nerds bow before him
john katz' articles suck
john katz' articles suck
yeah john katz' articles suck yeah john katz' articles suck!
he uses a a news source as a personal opinion board
and gets away with it
because the slashdot owners love him too!
and they have pictures of him by their beds
and their toilets
and their kitchen sinks
and, most of all, their computers
john katz' articles suck
john katz' articles suck
and this message will get moderated out of sight
because the slashdot moderators worship john katz too
and they won't admit it
they can't admit it
they're so mezmorized by his articles
so, they do the ~democratic~ thing and bury people that speak out
slashdot is a stinky heap of chronyism
john katz' articles suck
john katz' articles suck
Isn't that a great song?
They want computing that works like TV does -- that's easy to use, takes little space, costs relatively little money and works every time you turn it on, year after year.
Gosh. Silly me. I thought people bought Windows because they were afraid of being left out. I'm sure glad you cleared that up.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
PCs/Windows are succesful because they are easy to run by the non techno literate, but Macs fail because they are designed for geeks?
Did I just enter bizzaro world?
Funny, and I always thought it was because of heavy marketing to the business community to use products with a MS core, and by extension to the consumer market for interoperability.
Oh well. So all those mac people who kept telling me there macs were easier to use and more reliable were wrong. Thanks Mr. Katz for clearing that up.
The Internet is generally stupid
Dear Jon Katz
Do us all a favor; give up the journalism - face it, you're a *really* shit journalist.
Best Regards
Anonymous Coward
Movie and TV people don't just use Macs in sets because they look better (which they do). In the movie and TV industries, as well as in music and audio and graphics, the Mac is just a plain, ho-hum computer that everybody uses. You expect a TV person to have a PowerBook and Final Cut Pro. You expect a musician to have a PowerMac with Pro Tools or similar in it. "PowerBook" is synonymous with "notebook" in these industries. Often, the PowerBook you see in a shot is the director's, or someone else on set.
Maybe you work in IT, or you're a programmer, or you develop Windows software or whatever, so you think of Windows as the standard and everything else as weird. In many industries, the opposite is true.
Man, don't sully Ayn Rand by pretending that she would defend Microsoft. Lying, cheating, and stealing are not attributes she held in high regard, and MS has plainly been seen to have been doing all three big time (even stealing code verbatim).
Ayn Rand would buy a new iMac in a blink, and kiss Jonathan Ive and Steve Jobs full on the mouth, then make Avie Tevanian her new muse. Apple is clearly the right choice for libertarians and capitalists. They compete with their brains and their own brawn, bringing new creative tools into the world that others use to build the next generation of culture. It's hard for me to imagine Howard Roark fighting with Clippy and enduring system crashes and mysterious freezes so he could get his system at Costco.
If you ask me, which I noticed that Steve Jobs didni't, computers should be green-and-black monitors sitting on top of a large, blocky beige box with a bunch of obtrusive cables coming out of the back. Either that, or we should all devote a room in our houses to computers that are comprised of millions upon millions of vacuum tubes. I don't worry about things like size, just functionality. Computer marketers should be focusing on the nostalgic computer users, since we're the only ones that really count!
In order to be immortal you must be organize
I have a friend who almost gave up computers entirely after getting his second Windows PC a couple of years ago. He couldn't figure out how to get his old data to the new one, he was always have little mysterious hardware glitches, and he just generally felt uninspired and put upon by the machine. He called me two or three times per week with different problems and I walked him through it as best as I could. Then I got a Mac and after a short while I told him he either had to learn to use Windows on his own or get a Mac. I wasn't going to keep my Windows knowledge up-to-date and spend hours helping him to get his Windows box back up when I was totally enjoying my Mac. He got an iMac solely because he wanted to be on the same platform as me, so I could continue to install his software updates and help him with problems.
The funny thing is, though, that he got the iMac and then I didn't hear from him for two weeks and I thought he was unhappy with the thing and had just turned it off and gone ahead with his plan to drop out of computers. Turns out that he had just simply been working away, catching up on stuff, trying out new softwares, having a blast.
Now, it's two years later and we have talked computer troubleshooting only once or twice, and I had a fix for him in a second because it was never anything complex. He is going to get a notebook and he doesn't even consider to look at anything but an iBook or PowerBook. For him, he's been totally liberated by Apple, free to focus on his work and get things done instead of admining a computer all day.
You mean, like my Mac (clone actually) that I've had for going on five years. $600 worth of upgrades and and I'm still on par or ahead of people who are buying their third wintel box (or *upgrading*...which means swapping everything minus case/power supply).
Apple lost the OS war, but they're unique....and so what...maybe grandma doesn't edit digital video right now....but you give her something she can actually use (without chasing driver downloads for 2 days) to do it and she might!.
Que Deus te de em dobro o que me desejas
[May God give you double that which you wish for me]
> Preferred font format is OpenType, but it supports all the others, too, even Windows-format TrueType.
Actually, Apple invented TrueType fonts. See this history of TrueType from Microsoft's typography site: http://www.microsoft.com/typography/history/histor y.htm.
Here is an interesting quote from Greg Hitchcock, one of the Microsoft engineers who adapted TrueType for Windows: "Interesting enough, and somewhat unfortunately, the press gave Microsoft credit for TrueType, instead of Apple. This had nothing to due with us, except for the fact that we were actively evangelizing TrueType, and Apple said almost nothing." Read the full article at http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/tthist.htm.
Ummm....perhaps someone will realize that today's college students are 2010's middle class Americans.
Whoa Nellie Belle!
When Jon katz says "The truly successful technologies and technology companies are utilitarian and dull -- decidedly non-hip. You will never seen a Microsoft or AOL exec talking about how cool the their companies or products are, only how useful and easy to use. They don't really care how much heavy breathing they generate in the media or among excitable teenagers and college students. Those two companies have, in fact, dominated their environments by pointedly focusing on the non-technologically adventurous middle-class and busy business executives and workers and by presenting themselves not as cool but as reliable and accessible. And for this sin they get jeered at -- all the way to the bank. Their motives may be money, greed and power, but they understand what really drives technology in America and much of the world. Steve Jobs does not. "
Yes they may present themselves as that but the reality is far far different.
First lets take reliability - Windows still hasn't got it and AOL is only now getting somewhat reliable. I was with AOL (both as a beta tester and then as staff) before it became AOL and for many years AFTER it became AOL and I can tell you all kinds of system availability problems, broken programs,lack of customer support, etc. etc. etc. AOL had (and probably to this day still has) an incredible churn rate. They lost customers by the thousands, then hundereds of thousands and even millions, but the rate that they acquired new users kept pace with the attrition.
They won not because of reliability or usefulness but because of size/critical mass. They won because their marketing machines could outstrip the losses generated by their mediocre service/performance/features.
The same is true for Windows.
These two paragons of "getting it" according to Katz are no such thing at all! It isn't the hipness or usefulness or reliability of these two behemouths' products - their success stems mainly from being able to continually pull the wool over the consumers' collective eyes.
AOL did it by spending horrendous amounts of money to acquire each customer in an interesting game of trying to achieve both market dominance and critical mass numbers large enough they could ink all their side deals with content providers - which is where their revenue came from. Once they got beyond a certain size it became self supporting more or less.
Windows did it by similar means - marketing thrust to gain critical mass by both "normal" and as we have seen during the anti-trust trial also by illegal and unethical means to drive out competitors, "capture" a critical mass of market share and then dictate to these captives what they are or aren't going to buy.
It has nothing to do with reliability and usefullness (or un-hipness) it has everything to do with ruthlessness, marketing prowess, and in some cases dirty tricks.
Customer service - you really want to hold Microsoft up as a paragon of customer service?
Products that are easier to use?
Well golly, Mr Jobs and his company has been making products that were easier to use almost their entire existence - that some of these happened to be cool or god forbid "hip" from time to time has very little to do with what the company's message has been all these years - "Buy our stuff, plug it in, do what you want to do."
While Apple (along with everybody else) has fallen sort of that idyll, Apple comes the closest to achieving that goal of everybody out their trying right now.
Steve may be selling hipness as part of his personal media agenda but the company is selling solutions that work.
Katz' premise is wrong. It has nothing to do with how cool (or un-cool) a product is and a lot more to do with how much time do you spend using your computer to do the work you want to versus how much you spend trying to make your computer work.
Nobody has it right yet - but AOL and Microsoft are certainly not where they are at due to their un-hipness and their reliability and usefulness.
Puh-leeze!
Frankly, my Tibook is an amazing machine. I don't buy DVDs, but since I bought it I've borrowed some from family and recieved a few as gifts. Well, I can hook my TiBook to a TV to watch movies with just some AV cables and what the computer came with. I can also easily hook it to my stereo to listen to MP3s and CDs.
The trouble is, a lot of machines can also do these things, and I don't have an iPod (which is really just an Apple brand MP3 player.)
However, I do think that the ability to hook it up to standard A/V equipment, as simple as that is, is kind of impressive in and of itself. I can't do that with my IBM-clone desktop unless I upgrade my Graphics card or buy some kind of adaptor.
You're comparing a top Intel computer with the lowest computer available on macintosh. Wanna go top computers here ? ok. PowerMac Dual G4-800 with 2x256K L2 a 880MHz 2x2MB L3 a 200MHz cache btw: it's funny to see an intel bragging about his CPU
Migx
So apple is dead ? By dead you mean they are selling more stuff ?
Migx
Um, I live in the New York area, my apartment could be likened to a closet, but I don't choose a computer on size. I choose one on functionality, power, support, etc.
Then again, I guess it's sorta like that whole "Art for art's sake" thing here. Throw eggs at a canvas. It's "creative". It's art. Make a computer look like a desk lamp. It's "creative". It's a good product.
Maybe Microsoft? Maybe AOL? hahaha Sorry. While you may have some valid points, especially in the end result, what I hear from you is that better isn't really better because people are dumber. So, give them crap and don't bother innovating because the gray people just want to stay gray. If you can't sell 'em, join 'em.
Blech.
If I use an iMac or not, or Linux or not, I certainly appreciate innovation. Mercedes and BMW also have a low market share, but they define upper scale innovation and tend to lead their industry. Selling more Subaru's doesn't make them a better car.
-=Nightasha
...the settlers get the land."
"If you want to be on the cutting edge, expect to bleed."
Early adopters ALWAYS pay more for new products than the people who have enough self-control to wait a few months for bugs to be worked out and production to be fully ramped-up. If you think otherwise, see your doctor now.
~Philly
The issue is representation in the media versus real-world representation; as exhibited by the market share data that was posted elsewhere in this thread, Macs are the exception, and not the rule.
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
From the comments I've read, I think most of you are missing the point. I do not believe that the argument made by Katz is for or against apple/microsoft or anyone else.
He is simply stating that Apple has filled a niche in the computing world. A niche that he believes has hampered the development of young minds in this world. On this point, I agree with him. Macs make computers so simple that a person using them often doesn't learn how or why things work. Windows is marginally better. It is easier for someone who is interested in becoming a "computer guru" to do so on windows than it is on Macs.
It is not about performance and/or price. It is about choosing the right computer for you. If a mac is fully capable of everything a person needs, there is no reason one shouldn't choose it. And to make an analogy, everyone owns cars, but not everyone is an automotive mechanic. Apple is trying to create an easy to use integrated environment. Unfortunately, like with anything else, compromises have to be made.
If one is buying a computer because it "looks pretty", they are missing the point of owning a computer. (In my humble opinion.)
I personally use each OS/computer for it's greatest abilities. My servers are all FreeBSD, my laptop is a powerbook, and my desktops are Windows 2000.
"Ask me that again usind different words." --Divy
[Please forward on to Jon Katz]
Jon,
I read finished reading your "Steve Jobs And The Oh-So-Cool iMac" article. It was a good read. But I have to say, I think you contradict yourself by adding that Apple "accounts for 4.5 per cent of new personal computer sales." In todays Windows dominated market, that's a lot.
Maybe you didn't contradict yourself so much, as possibly missed the point? Apple's sold 6 million iMac computers in just 3 years. As the president of a Massachusetts based S-corp, I wish I could say the same for my companies product sales. 6 million computers in a Windows-dominated industry is a heck of an accomplishment.
And last I checked, Apple's already sold 160,000 of their iPods. In just under 3 months. Damn.
Both Bill Gates and Steve Case are definitely successful businessmen, no doubt about it - but I'm not really sure why you brought them up in this article. Neither of the two are computer manufacturers. Again, not so much as a contradiction, just perhaps a misunderstanding?
Apple's not in a war against Microsoft. That's not the point. Apple's merely a computer manufacturer, making computers and making money. It's that simple.
Respectfully, Shilo McDonald Technologist
Also there is the old "nobody gets fired for buying IBM" attitude. Computers have generally been very unreliable. When a Windows 98 PC crashes, people go "well, that's computers for you", but if you are in the next office and your Mac crashes, people go "well, serves you right for having a Mac". Microsoft has benefited by being generic. Apple knows this, and they've reacted by creating the most reliable PC ever, with the coolest style, the easiest interface, and the most user-friendly application platform. It's the perfect computer for today.
... I want to get one." It is so much better than Microsoft's offering in its space that you can't argue with it.
I have friends who have gone to Macs after trying mine, but since the new iMac came out, I have people who tried my Mac and were non-committal call me up and go, "OK, tell me about this new iMac
It's not about identity, it's about an 12 hour Windows workday vs an 8 hour Mac workday where you do twice as much work, and it's better work, too, and you enjoyed it instead of hating it. It's about a computer that gets out of your way and lets you continue to be an artist or whatever IN SPITE of the fact that you are using a computer. You don't have to learn Computer Science because you already learned art, and the computer science is left to Apple.
Reminds me of an amusing anecdote I heard from a personal acquaintence a few years ago...
Son-in-law and daughter were going to chip in and buy mom a "real" computer for Christmas that they profusely promised mom was "real easy to use." Mom wasn't initially receptive to the idea because mom only used a computer for one thing--she fired up a simple accounting program once a day and kept the machine powered down otherwise, and was having no diificulties at all and had become used to a routine. But mom relented since her sweet kids were so insistent and so convinced she'd benefit so much by the new computer.
So son-in-law and daughter brought mom a Mac for Christmas thinking they had done her a world of good and suggested that she could donate her 386 DOS box to charity for a tax write off. Mom accepted the gift graciously and set out on the road to "ease of use" in computerdom.
Well, in less than two weeks mom was literally in tears and howling to her sweet kids to come and get their Mac and get their money back. She had studied the owner's manual and gotten Mac guide books and spent hour after hour after hour trying to decipher the Mac GUI and learn things like what a folder was and how it corresponded to her programs and files and so on. Basically, after less than two weeks she was tearing her hair out and miserable with her Mac experience.
To paraphrase what she told her kids:
"All I had to do before was to hit the power button to turn the computer and monitor on, I'd get a C:> prompt on the screen, I'd type in the program name, and my program would run and I could do what I needed to do, hit the save button, and then turn it off until next time. It was as simple as pie.
Now with this horrible Mac I've got all of this gobbledegook on the screen--little pictures of all sorts of things about which I have no earthly idea, strings and strings of menus and submenus to wade through, layers of windows which open for no reason that I can see, and I'll tell you it's been the most frustrating experience of my life! I went back to what I was used to and am extremely content to stay that way and I only hope my kids can get their money back or THEY can donate this Mac to charity! I'm keeping what I've got!"
So when you say computing has gotten progressively easier to use over the past decade, I think you may be forgetting that people like you and me grew up with the technology over the past 15 years or so and have had the changes in GUI and organizational logic fed to us incrementally. I like using computers and so obviously do you, and we like learning newer approaches and have even learned enough to suggest positive changes that have been implemented over the years.
But the lady in this story is typical of so many others, isn't she? She uses a computer for one or two specific tasks and afterwards has no more use for it. She learned how to type in program names at a DOS prompt and found that was as far as she needed or wanted to go in learning about them. Think how she felt then to go from that incredibly simplistic command environment to a GUI like the Mac's (Windows wouldn't have been any different for her) which has developed slowly over the last couple of decades--a GUI like that just dumped on her in one fell swoop! Think about all of the things she'd have to learn just to navigate the GUI simply to run a program!
Windows XP seems very easy to me, but when I think of what it must be like to take home your first computer as a current Power Mac or a Windows box, I sincerely feel sorry for the learning curve these people will have to endure before they get productive with the hardware. There's just SO MUCH people have to learn about how the visual organizational structure of a GUI relates to the hardware they're using and the software they're running before current machines become useful to people. It's really mind-boggling if you think about it.
So have computers REALLY become "easier to use" over the last ten years? I think the answer depends entirely on an individual's prior experience with computers with a variety OS's before that question might be answered in the affirmative. For the lady who's the subject of this anedotal story--again, which is entirely true--of course the answer is that computers have become much more DIFFICULT to use--from her individual perspective.
Ease of use is definitely in the eye of the beholder, I think. As computers grow exponentially in capability and power, a simple GUI is a must for using them productively, no doubt about it. But if you're a person who doesn't need all of that capability and power, and needs only to run one or two software applications, powerful GUI's are overkill and are far too complex for the situation, IMHO.
So this is where I think a market for "appliances" will develop--devices hard-programmed to perform one or two simple specific applications--and do nothing else whatever. I see the development of the "computer" as we know about it remaining to proceed on its own developmental track, which, it seems to me, will definitely always be far more complex than an appliance simply because the increased power and flexibility of an open-ended computer device will demand the additional control complexity, regardless of the specific GUI used.
f you're a teenager, Web designer, film editor or visual arts major, or even a loving Grandma, it's great that the iMac allows you to create your own DVDs, organize and edit digital pictures, play CDs or convert MP3's, turn home videotapes into high-quality edited films. What's less clear is whether or not the public -- especially that critical middle-class chunk of it -- wants to do those things on a computer, or is confident about its ability to use machinery that's still more complicated and problematic than its makers seem able to admit.
Katz clearly has his head up his ass, because this article indicates he has completely missed the amazing sales in the middle of a recession of digital cameras and digital video as well as portable music devices. These are not gadgets being purchased by Linux dweebs; these are gadgets being purchased by everyone and these gadgets demand a PC in order to fulfill their purposes. Apple simply wants to be the obvious choice for that PC.
In Steve's mind, he has won. Why? Because -- as the Woz said, "every computer today is essentially a Mac." And because every computer tomorrow will look like the new iMac. And because Windows XP tries to look like OS X. Microsoft is always following Apple. They will always be following Apple until they actually start ... ahem ... innovating.
Microsoft may have the lion's share of the market, but that doesn't matter to Steve Jobs. As Cringley said, Jobs has already won.
In response to that "writer" who critized Steve Jobs for "The Oh-So-Cool-iMac, I can only assume he has not seen the latest reports pertaining to Apple's unbelievable profit while our economy still seems to stagger. Or could it be that his report was originated on a Windows PC and he did not have time due to its "Oh so easy to use" OS? Some of us that have tried both types of systems will be thankful that you will not purchase an iMac so that more will be available to those that can/will use them for all available situations.
Trix are for Apples.
Who is this "Poster" guy and why does he own all of my comments?!?
... in the consumer market. Consider these 'innovations' that were first successfully marketed by apple that are now widely adopted. Consider also that with each introduction these were considered 'wrong' according to then current dogma.
- A windows based OS (how could it compete against DOS or CPM?)
- A mouse based OS (who needs a mouse?)
- 3.5 " floppy disks (they're not even floppy!)
- built in networking (networking?)
- MS word, excel, powerpoint (they'll never dethrone Lotus 1-2-3 and Wordperfect)
- laserprinters (they'll never do the work that dot-matrix printers can do)
- Pagemaker (it doesn't even smell like printer's ink!)
Most others have been mentioned elsewhere in Katz-reply posts.
The new iMac is brilliant, not just in design but in positioning and in usability. OS X is what the public wants, it's slick, it's easy, it's powerful, it's stable, it's all the things that Windows isn't. The only reason that it's not on every desktop is that unfortunately something else is there. Hopefully striking designs like the iMac will draw enough attention that people will take a closer look, give it a try and see that there is a better world out there.
I repeat Katz is an idiot, the iMac is a great idea, even more so that the original. The way to make inroads in a market that is completely owned by someone else is to grab attention, the iMac will certainly do that.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
If you think that computers should be like televisions, I don't think that you get what computng is all about. If you think that people buy computers just so they can use a word processor, calculate spread sheets, send e-mail and surf the net, you better think again. What made computers exciting in the first place was that they let you do new and exciting things OR helpted to simplify/improve tasks that were difficult or messy. Who led the way to personal computing? Apple. Who was the first to introduce a mouse and a graphical user interface? Apple. Who was first to incorporate built in networking in a personcal computer? Apple. Who was the first to introduce built in SCSI? Apple. Who was the first to incorporate multiple monitor capability? Apple. Who was the first to introduce design and color into computers? Apple. Who was the first to abandon the floppy drive? Apple. Who was the first to abandon CRTs? Apple. Who was the first to bundle DVD, recording and image managment software? Apple.
Who was second on all of these things? Gates and the Pee Cee world. Who copied the Apple interface and features? Gates and the Pee Cee world. Now you tell me that Apple's "cool" isn't relevant? I don't expect that the masses will embrace all these technologies when they are first released. But as they see Apple users doing cool new things on great stylish machines, they will want to "do that too" - and the copycats like Gates and the Pee Cee makers will cry "We can do that too - we really can!!!" and then they will accuse Apple of being irrelevant as it is producing the next revolution in computng.
So, is BMW a failure because they have less than 1% of the auto market and the typical johhny-punchclock can't afford one or relate to one? Should I ditch my silky Honda because most people drive crappy Fords?
Give me a break. This is one of the lamest excuses for an article I have seen.
Excellent article on Apple/Jobs. The new iMac has good aspects, but I can't believe Apple has devoted so much of their energy to trifles (round motherboards) instead of important advances.
You will never hear MS/AOL brag about how 'cool' thier products are because they know they are BORING. As for 'how useful and easy to use'???? hello, what planet are you one? how about how useless and easy to crash? how about 'upgrades' like Windows ME? I still can't believe people PAID for that crime against humanity, at $100 a pop! Yes, utilitarian sell because of neccessity, but MS/AOL make toilets and Apple makes porshe boxsters, which would you rather drive and be seen in (on)? And if you think Apple won't sell more of the new imacs than the original, you've got your head in the sand.
Sorry but bash shell is there as well as mySQL. Same for perl, vim, vi, python, dylan, fortran, C, C++, Java, tktcl, tcsh, csh, sh, emacs, nedit, gimp, AFS, NFS, CVS, etc. etc. etc. and the rest of Unix and OpenSource Linux world, GNU software and GNOME. Sounds like enough for you? Too long a list of what is available with OS X. It would take weeks to write it down and then it will be obsolete: packages from Linux/Unix, GNU, OpenSoftware are popping out on a daily basis. Oh, not to mention XWindows running rootless side by side with OS X applications: say emacs and BBEdit opened on the same screen. To have a peek at Unix/Linux applications running on OS X go to www.sourceforge.net. Something that never appeared on Linux? A decend package installer/deinstaller with dependencies checking? Go look at Fink: fink.sourceforge.net Final comment: in our group we do scientific software, mostly in Java and C++. Our 10 people group was all on Wintel machines till December. Now is 50% - 50%: OS X and the new Ti PB 667 MHz made us to switch (after due testing of what it could offer us). Work integration with Linux and Unix platforms is absolutely perfect and transparent with those PBs. Not so with the old (note: 1 year old) PCs we were using (and additional emulators to get into Unix clusters and WORK!) I will not be surprised if within a year it will be again 100% on the group: the other 5 colleagues who have not switched (yet!) are now pretty much reconsidering their positions weighting out all differences. XP? Our entire Lab will not move to it because of security reasons.
What a brilliant article! Finally, someone lays it on the line. There is simply no place in this world for interesting industrial design. There should be only one computer, and it should be beige. There should be only one car, and it should be beige. The Soviet Lada or Chrysler K Car were very good ideas. There is no need for paintings, sculpture or fashions of any kind. All clothing designs should be standarized. So should architecture. There is no need for style. Michaelangelo, DiVinci, Frank Lloyd Wright, Jonathan Ive and Raymond Lowey are completely overrated. In fact, the only color should be beige. And comfortable furniture is totally unecessary. Taking this further, GUI interfaces are a waste of time. All that is needed is a command line interface. A mouse is a useless accessory. I think the Taliban got it right in that regard. Perhaps we need a Department for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice to regulate that computer designs hold to a firmly applied standard. One company should be appointed to create all software to a rigid standard. Mr. Katz really hit it on the head about Steve Jobs. The nerve of that man to propose innovation and radical thought. It's a danger to the fabric of our society. I think that Mr. Katz was most intrepid in showing the dangers of innovation by those miserable, gravy-sucking Apple elitists and their capitalist lackeys. I say let's put a stop to this now! Let's take all 5% of their marketplace and ship 'em to Guantanamo Bay! (And while we're at it, let's put everyone else we don't like there too. That would eliminate predjudice, because there would be no one left to hate.) Then, we can make the world safe for beige. End innovation now! Sincerely, Charles Ulmer Farley ("Call me Chuck!")
Why do people hate Apple?
What is it about a computer company that only controls 5% of the market that people find so threatening that they have to call for it's destruction? It seems rather odd to me that there is so much vitriol out there that people take the time to tell Steve Jobs and Apple to just give up. Go away. You can't win. You haven't got a chance. You do everything wrong. Nobody wants your innovation. Nobody is going to pay what you ask for your machines.
What I don't understand is, if all this is true, why are you wasting breath on it? Why not just let market forces, that you claim to understand better than Apple, take their course and let Apple go down on it's own? (It also seems odd that this same vehemence isn't directed at the other competitors on the field. Where are the people railing for SGI or SUN to give it up, you haven't got a chance?)
On reflection it actually seems contrary that people would call for the end of Apple. Many a pundit criticizes Apple's innovations, designs and ideas, saying the people don't want that, won't buy that, whatever, and they point to all of Apple's failed devices as proof. But the irony lies in how many of those innovative machines and ideas were eventually co-opted and adapted by the computer industry as a whole. The biggest being the windows interface with the Lisa (a flop), but the list is much grander than that: The first mouse, the first with a 3.5 inch floppy, the first notebook computer (Powerbook), the first PDA (Newton, a flop), the first digital camera (Quickpix, a flop), the first CDROM, the first consumer inkjet (Color Style Writer, a flop), the first with standard USB, the first DVD burner, the first track pad, the first multiple monitor display. Before Microsoft looked to the game market Apple tried the Pippin (a flop). The first to bring word processing, photographic editing and video editing to the consumer. The first to different colors and plastics. The first with no fan. What am I forgetting? I'm sure a ton, but I think you get the point.
And I know your response. Look at how many of those failed! See? See? I was right! Apple is a screw up!
But each and every one of those innovations, successful or not, was eventually adopted by the rest of the industry, often for cheaper, sometimes better, more often not. Do you see what this means? It means that Apple is the R&D department for the rest of the industry! While Apple spends billions of dollars developing these amazing toys and bringing them to market as best they can, the rest of the industry sits on it's ass and just waits. Apple comes out with something cool and everyone else says, hey, that's neat. Lets do that too. And they do. And everyone takes a step forward. Now Apple may find them selves priced out of the area but, well, that's the market. You think Apple will die because of it? Fine. Shut up and let nature take its course.
But look at what you have? You have a company that only has 5% of the market, communicates just fine with the other 95% (so it's not an issue of creating work flow interruptions or what ever), that is actively leading the industry into the future, and isn't hurting anyone. In fact, I feel I've argued that the loss of Apple would actually hurt the industry and reduce the amount of innovation, change and improvements that we see everywhere.
So back to my original, mind boggling question: Why do people hate Apple?
lezone
"not college kids editing movies or downloading music and DVDs, or using firewire ports to fiddle with video clips. "
And to think... it was college kids that first promoted the Internet.
Wasn't it Bill Gates who said "People don't want the Internet... that's for college kids and geeks...what people want is MSN"
(or something along these lines... gates basically said that people really want a closed online environment akin to AOL)
I can never understand two things. 1) Why the idiots take such a self serving attitude and dump on Apple. 2) Why do Apple owners care what PC people think? Everyone grow up. When you are mature you will understand that: a) 99% of people buy cars based upon price and looks. Otheriwise we would all be in those Russian buggies. Why do people buy Ferraris when for $30K you can put together a car that would beat every performance benchmark of a Ferrari. The reason is because it wouldn't be a Ferrari. A $10 Timex quartz keeps better time than the best Rolex. But I would rather have a Rolex - maybe you wouldn't. There is an inherent joy in style, in design, in look and feel. If Microsoft didn't believe that as well PC people would still be using C:\> b) You have the freedom of choice. And guess what. It doesn't make you wrong! Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, has its advantages and disadvantages. c) You have the right to like what you like. And guess what. It doesn't make you wrong. I like what I like. I don't have to justify it to you or anyone. And since I left home I don't need anyone to judge me and my tastes. Thank god there is an Apple, because unlike all PC clones, Apple delivers a significant choice. You think Apple is stupid? Good for you. Shut up and go back to your PC. You think Apple is great. Good, now shut up and go back to your iMac.
Well, let's not forget that the 4.5 market share are devoted to their belief that Apple Rules.
Yes, Apple really does rule. Their computers are not only user friendly to those who have no clue, but also enable those who do have a clue to reach the sky. Those who don't know this, have never used a Mac. I have many friends that after just using a Mac for two weeks, now own them in their homes.
Another great testament to the Mac was when I taught my mom, who had never used a computer, how to get on the net, send email and just basically use the Performa 636 I gave her, in less than 24 hours.
If you want to think like a computer, use Windoze. If you want to just think, use a Mac.
Apple Rules, rocks and just basically is the best!
Wasn't there some saying about talkers vs doers?
Exactly, which also again account's for people, managers & users alike not being able or even willing too make decisions on their own.... their under the pressure of the "public opionion", which amounts too a very oppressive situation....But yes hopefully time's are a changing.... i have also a friend, who was a hardcore MS friend until recently when he got himself an iMac.....