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.
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.
.
"...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
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
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.
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.
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.
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)
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 -------------------
(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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
'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
If so, I believe it's a lot less so than the original iMac. The LCD screen necessarily raises the price by at least $200, and with a 700 G4, it's no slouch. In my opinion, the only thing truly under-specced is the RAM. They should have included 256 megs, what with current prices for PC-100 SDRAM (I doubt they're using anything better than PC-100). The SODIMM slot doesn't look like it has room for a double-height module and an AirPort card at the same time, so it'll be limited to adding either 256 megs or an expensive 512 megs (as opposed to a cheap double-height 512 meg module) in the near future.
I wouldn't get one as a server, but duhhhh, in no way was it intended to be a server.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
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!
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.
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.
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
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//
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.
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
After I read it, I considered ripping my eyes out, but then I thought "do I really want a Katz article to be the last thing I ever read?"
the funny thing is I read the first paragraph and thought "this is worse then katz! Who wrote it, then I looked and saw it was katz"
the sad thing is I finished reading it.
It occurs to me, a Katz "article" is much like a train wreck, Incredible horrible, but nearly impossible to turn away from.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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!
... 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
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?
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."
...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
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)
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!
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
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."
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.
-
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!
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
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.
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.
Spoken like someone who has never run one. DVD-R (on a home computer, for christ's sake), firewire, 802.11b, we got the hardware.
I think the world is trying to catch up.
there's more than one way to do me.
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".
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.
That's not a great analogy because you need to buy gas a great deal more often than you buy software.
Intereoperability is not bad; CDs I burn on my Mac work just fine on PCs, and most of the important software applications, such as Flash and Photoshop, work fine on both platforms.
Most people don't do much beyond using Microsoft Office, and it works fine on both platforms. In fact, I'd say it's a bit nicer on the Mac.
Even "Windows Media Player" has a MacOS version.
True, there are some software applications and categories that don't work on the Mac, but for what I need to do, it's a lot better than the PC.
If you can have something better than the PC, and it doesn't cost much more than the PC, why not go for it? A low end BMW costs about triple what a low-end car does; a low-end Mac costs only about double what a low-end computer does. That's not so bad, eh?
D
The quote belongs to Hiawatha Bray of The Boston Globe (not Dvorak), I believe.
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.
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
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
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!
That is all.
I've always given him the benefit of the doubt. Until now. What a load of crap.
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.
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
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?
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.
Absolutely.
However this begs the question on how to define the function of the computer.
Ultimately the function of the internals is computational power and the throughput of data through the system. This of course should be the primary concern in the design or form of the components.
However, I must also say that there are more elemental functions that must also be taken into account. The swiveling LCD for example greatly succeeds in its implimentation of a zero footprint monitor that can be placed in almost any position you like, however, it fails it the need for easy replacement and maintenance. So basically what I'm saying is that there are many functions of the computer as a whole that need to be addressed and far too many people only address the functions they are accustomed to using.
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.
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
this cycle seems to be 3 or 4 years with the ever important, and economy driving, middle class... most, not all, but most, computers will not last that long,
Huh??? What kind of cheap crap computers are you buying? I've used almost all of my Macs at least that long if not longer before upgrading. I'm currently using a beige G3, 233 Mhz bought in 1998. (I'll probably upgrade soon, OSX runs pretty slow at 233Mhz) My secondary machine is a 7200, 120Mhz bought in 1995. I even have a Mac Plus bought in 1986 that runs just fine - I don't use it for much, just a conversation piece but it runs perfectly. This new iMac WILL "live up the that kind of reliablity" because Macs are engineered to last that long. Not all of that price premium is for good looks, Apple also tends to use better quality parts and does quality engineering.
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.
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.
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).
.. the obvious fact that Apple has made an inferior OS for most of this history. Only OS-X attempts to try and catch up
I think OS-X is in a position not only to catch up but to leap frog it's competitors.
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.
Granted they dropped the ball in OS development. As the MacOS got long in the tooth it became increasingly unstable and as their marketshare dropped they were abandoned by software developers and so lost out on "utility". But they were losing the war for marketshare even when they had a distinct advantage in all of those areas. It came down to price. The question is not so much about how Apple dropped the ball in the 80's and 90's but how it should move forward now. Being "cool" is not as Katz would imply a distraction that gets in the way of attracting new users. Far from it, "coolness" is necessary to overcome the disadvantages of high prices and low marketshare that Apple is stuck with as a result of those earlier missteps.
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.
Part of the better security for the Mac is a function of it's smaller marketshare but part of it is also a (slightly) better attitude about security at Apple than at Microsoft. Apple seems to have more security minded defaults. As to the general compaint of less software: while Apple doesn't have the insane amount of software titles available that windows has it still has plenty of software titles and developers. You may not have 100's of titles for every possible category but you will likely have 2-5 strong competitors. I have yet to run across a need that I couldn't find software to meet. (Admittedly most of my needs are in graphics and web development two areas where Apple has a strong presence.) Now that MacOS X is BSD based there is even more software available particularly server software an area where Apple had been weak is now a strength.
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
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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); }
This is my first anit-katz of 2002. What a load of hogswallop. Fuck off katz.
:wq
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.
-
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.
Was that the 1984 spin-off off the six million dollar man series!?
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.
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
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
Have you ever used an apple? I have before, I am a pc user, I have no mac's, but I have a lot of friends who fix them for a living, and when they do break, they are VERY easy to fix. There are rarely any large problems on a mac, and the reason why is you buy the unit as one thing, and you leave it alone. Apple has tested EVERYTHING in that machine to the point where its essentally perfect, and if something goes wrong, its usually easy to fix. (Im coming from OS9, not sure about OSX).
I can understand what your saying, and as I said, I do not have a mac, I want to buy one, but mainly because I think OSX is a piece of art. If I were to buy a new imac, I would use it to read email, play music/movies, things like that. I can say that the machine problably wont have a single problem with it.
Right now I work in a call center that takes calls on pc games. I work with about 15 people per day, fixing their computer over the phone. PC's can get real screwed up real quick, and with windows, sometimes the only thing you can do is reformat and try again.
So, when you buy an apple, your buying a machine that is proven to be reliable. When I buy an apple, im not thinking well, its good enough for what I want to do, Im thinking, this is what I want to do, and its going to perform that well.
So, im coming from the reliabilty standpoint. I might be coming from a skewed perspective (the only computers I deal with are mine, which work, and all my customers, which dont work (ive worked here for almost 4 years, so ive dealt with thousands of people calling me up over those years) but I feel that an apple computer is much more like a microwave then it is a computer. It does what it needs to do, and it does it well. If I want something more. You ask, why would I want to buy a machine that is 25% the speed of the fastest machine, but I will probably not run into as many problems as someone on a pc, unless they know what they are doing.. My home machine really hasn't had to reboot since I put winxp on it. I had to reboot once or twice when installing software/drivers, but not because of my resources going to hell or anything like that. Does that make me still want to get an imac? Hell yes it does =). I used to play a lot of games on my pc, but im getting sick of them now I think (4 years on a tech support call center for games will do that to ya), so now, I pretty much use my machine to download mp3's, look up guitar tabs, and small things like that, read email, look at the internet, bla bla.. The only thing that really kept me to windows was games, but now that I don't play games, why do I need a powerhouse of a computer to read my email?
Anyway, I can see your point, but there is still a place in this world for macs, I hope they never go away myself. Im not saying that a mac is for everyone, as you yourself seem to be stuck on pc's right now, but there are others who may think a bit different then you, who just might beneifit more from having a machine that just works. I hope you can see my point...
Oh and by the way, lets say im a big photoshop/premier and whatever else fan, buying a mac is going to be in my interest because the programs seem to work much better using the g4 processor vs. a pentium 4 lets say. Macs are heavily used in the media sections of many many many companies, and there is a reason why. Its not cause mac's are cute, its because they are reliable and they work... Josh
> At least I can fill my BMW's gas tank locally.
You're the one who walked into an Apple Store and remarked on the prompt, friendly service. =)
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
cheap crap is the bread and butter of the computer market
Sadly this is true - Particularly for the Wintel market.
why else did Apple make/sell the iBook or the iMac?
Gee, and i thought the big complaint was that they weren't cheap enough. Yes they are cheaper than a PowerMac or PowerBook but they are (as frequently noted by the PC weenies) significantly more expensive than comperable Wintel machines. Some of that money goes into Apples higher profit margins, some goes into it's lower economies of scale - a result of it's smaller market share. But some portion of it's higher price goes into better engineering and better components. Every Mac I have ever bought, even the cheap consumer ones, is currently running just fine. Going back to my Mac Plus which I still use from time to time just because I can.
basically, it is just a Duron or a Celeron (less MHz, slower bus).
This isn't a very good comparison. The Duron and Celeron are CPU's and are designed to be the cheap, low-quality, bargain basement chips in the Wintel stable. The iMac is a whole system and to illustrate my point it does not use a lower-quality 'value' chip but the same G4 chip that is arguably of higher quality (if lower clock speed) than the top-of-the-line Pentium. Even Apples low end computers sell for a premium and that premium buys you the MacOS and quality components. I have no doubts that if I buy an iMac today it will still be running fine 5 years from now. If you have no such confidence in your Dell or Gateway (or homemade) machine that is just one of the differences between Apple and it's competitors.
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;
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
FLW did say that, but he never mass-produced anything. He also forced many people to furnish their homes, and even dress a certain way inside of them because it fit the form of the piece. If applied to mass-produced items, or commodities, the form-function rationale falls apart, because you're not allowed by business constraints to custom-make everything for everyone. In addition, if every object really did put function first, industry would establish what is the best way for everything to look, and then every object fitting that purpose would look that way. Useful, maybe, but not a lot of fun.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
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.
I haven't looked lately, but as of a year ago, the answer was 'yes'.
You could buy a IBM CHRP motherboard for $3k, slap in a $400 CPU, choose your own PCI ATI video card, standard ram, standard hard drive, flash your own BIOS, and boot up OS 9.
The reason you wouldn't want to is, of course, price.
3 years before that there were Mac clones, proving that there was a market, but Apple, in it's wisdom, figured out it wasn't profitable, so stopped licensing Mac OS to them.
BeOS proved you could create CHRP mobos too.
It's not Apple's fault, per se, that no one else produces PPC chipsets or mobos, in the same way that it's not Microsoft's fault that the Pentium IV doesn't use the EV6 bus or the Athlon doesn't use RDRAM. Apple doesn't exactly encourage it, but you can't say that it's Apple's fault that there aren't 10 mobo manufacturers producing PPC mobos.
GPL Deconstructed
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.
> 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.
Buy AppleCare for $300 when you get a system, and it will be taken care of for three full years, no matter what fails, with very quick turnaround time (much less time than you spend digging around in there). If you're still using it after three years, consider yourself enjoying the bonus long life that Macs usually offer.
They can't do hardware without making it cost twice as much as PC hardware while doing less.
While Apple computers generally cost more it's certainly not so bad as TWICE as much. Simple clock speed comparisons are invalid since the PowerPC chip while not as much faster as Apple marketing would claim IS more powerful cycle for cycle than even the high end Intel chips never mind the cheapo chips like the Celeron processor the eOne had. In fact I would wager that the 333Mhz G3 in the original iMac was probably actually more powerful than the 433Mhz Celeron in the eOne. Both had 64MB of ram (not officially but most mac resellers throw in extra ram to compete with Apples online store without violating pricing agreements) Both had 6GB hard drives, Both had 24X CD-ROM, both had a 15" monitor, the iMac had 10/100 ethernet while the eOne only had 10base-T. the eOne was more expandable and had more ports and of course a floppy drive. Finally the eOne was significantly cheaper (though not half the price the eOne was $800 the original iMac was half again as much at $1200). After comparing the bullet items on the marketing sheets I would be curious about the relative quality of those components. Apple tends to use better quality components because the depends more on their reputation and repeat business. If a fly-by-night company like eMachines sells you a lemon it is less a problem for them than if Apple does so. I am guessing that the iMac monitor was probably somewhat higher quality and had a better picture and calibration. I know Apple generally uses better power supplies (dirty power at one office I worked at screwed up the PC's and Mac clones but the Apple boxes didn't appear to suffer at all - it also taught my employer the value of a surge protector.) Little things like that can end up costing a lot more as you add them up.
That allegedly overpriced iMac sold millions and led Apple to profits that eMachines can only dream about. Figuring out the value you get for your dollar is even more difficult today. Comparing the CPU is still problematic though Intel is winning the battle through sheer speed (I'm curiuos to see if the introduction of the G5 does anything for Apple). The OS is now very different with Apple arguably leap-frogging Windows in the places where it used to be at a disadvantage. Apple includes a lot of very good software and services for free (iTools, iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes, as well as Apache, SAMBA etc.) and Apple machines are still very well engineered and designed and generally use high quality components. I think the overall effect of these changes actually makes Apple a little better off than it was before when figuring out what you get for your dollar.
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
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.
> 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
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.
> The swiveling LCD for example greatly
> succeeds in its implimentation of a zero
> footprint monitor that can be placed in
> almost any position you like, however,
> it fails it the need for easy replacement
> and maintenance.
When the tube fails in a 21" CRT display, how do you go about the easy replacement and maintenance of it? You take the whole dislay somewhere and they open it up and put in a new CRT. Same with an iMac if its display fails. It's a part of the whole system, which happens to have the computer in the same box (just like the original iMac).
You're arguing for a separate display, in order to make for easy replacement, but a separate display has a host of its own problems. You may not notice them because you're used to them, but since I've been using Macs, I've noticed those problems because I no longer suffer from them. All of Apple's systems have integrated displays, even PowerMacs. One cable runs between tower and display, and the thing sets itself up. You don't have to set timing frequencies or resolutions, and you don't have to worry that what you see on the screen is not accurate, because of ColorSync. You don't have to power the system and then the display to avoid frying a DVI display because of grounding issues, because the whole computer has just one power switch (why have more?). A mouse doesn't have a power switch, so why should a display? By integrating their displays, Apple got rid of so many problems. I recall someone saying to me that they liked the fact that the Monitors Control Panel in Mac OS 9 would show a picture of your display, letting you know that it knows what kind of display you have. I realized that I had never opened the Monitors Control Panel at all, even on my PowerMac. Just plugged in the display, booted up and started working at the display's native resolution and the graphics adapters best color depth. That is good design.
As for service, with an iMac, you buy AppleCare for $249 and Apple fixes anything that fails for three years. I just sent a PowerBook in because the graphics adapter failed, and it was only gone for two days. It would take me two days to order a graphics adapter, have it shipped, and install it myself into a beige box PC, so I didn't lose a thing by having a 1" thick notebook instead of a classic big beige box. I'm sure that Apple's techs have no problem replacing iMac displays. The iMac Take-Apart Guide at Apple.com shows that it is pretty cleverly designed from top to bottom, for both the user and the tech. The original iBook had a small plastic toolkit inside it, so that techs could open it and have the right little screwdriver for the tiny components that are in notebooks these days. They consider everything in a Mac, because it's their job to do that and take complexity away from the users.
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."
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
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
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).
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.
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.
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
> 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
Yes, it is like that, and it gets better all the time as you discover the number of things that are just plain better. Apple uses smaller, low-power CPU's (7-14 watts) so that they can make smaller, low-power computers and run them on batteries for 5-6 hours, or cool them very quietly in the case of the iMac. Intel and AMD sell based solely on MHz, so they make big honking power-hungry CPU's (50-70 watts) that run at ridiculous clock speeds. Although the P4 has its big clock speed, it has 20 pipelines compared to the G4's 7-10, and the G4 also has its Altivec component, which does supercomputer-style vector processing that is great for the kinds of heavy stuff many people are doing with encoding and encryption and such. So, when you balance out the total system's performance, taking into account also how much better performance Mac OS X offers over Windows, you end up with machines that are fast enough to do today's computing tasks. Go figure, since that's what they were designed for.
There are plenty of people with big beige box P4's with multiple noisy fans who are going to go into the Apple Store over the next year or so and see Mac OS X running tirelessly and almost silently on the new iMac and they're going to run some apps and be blown away by the performance and realize how fucking ripped off they've been by Wintel for so long.
> The last time I used a Mac (OS 9, I think)
> it wasn't any easier to use or more reliable
> than Windows.
Whether they were or not back then, Macs are certainly easier and more reliable now than anything that's come before. Mac OS X Macs basically don't crash, and the machines are designed to be left on all the time, just going into deep sleep and instantly waking up when you want to use them. People reboot only after low-level OS updates. The interface is very approachable, and with a plain user account, you can tell a newbie to go ahead and explore because they can't wreck anything. The UI doesn't pop things up and bug you, and there is a good help system and consitency between the apps in menu placement and key shortcuts, so you only have to learn things once. The single menubar also really, really helps newbies, and power users learn how fast it can be pretty quickly too.
Just realized that many people are readily comparing the new iMac to high-end 1.6GHz Athlons and 2GHz P4's. The iMac is the low-end desktop in Apple's line. It's not the fastest Mac by a stretch, and there are new PowerMac's due pretty soon.
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.
If you want a wireless keyboard and mouse, Logitech makes them and they work on the Mac just fine.
Anyway, the mouse plugs into the keyboard, and then there is a single cable going from the keyboard to the base of the display. The cables are translucent. Hardly an eyesore.
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.
Apple have been shy so far with their marketing, hiding Mac OS 9 in the back room and focusing on the outside in their advertisements. I think this is changing now, though. Mac OS X is here and in full swing, and their systems have never been better. Now they have some ads and Web pages that debunk Mac myths for Windows users, so they are starting to ramp it up. The Apple Stores are also all about trying a machine, so they are obviously showing off software down there.
The power switch is on the back of the new iMac, because recently Apple changed the power switch to be a sleep switch and rolled out Mac OS X's instant-on wake from sleep. They have essentially modified the hardware considering what's required if your OS doesn't crash, and Mac OS X really is that reliable.
... the internal components are not sitting next to some 50-70 watt Athlon or P4 monster ... good for component life. Apple also has a three year extended warranty where you call and they fix it.
Plenty of people will just plug these things in and turn them on and use them reliably for years. The CPU's only take 7-14 watts
The appliance computer is closer than you think. The iMac looks like a lamp and is UNIX compatible. How much more applicance are you going to get?
How about "first consumer computer"? Many feel the Apple II is the first personal computer ever, because it was the first with the familiar keyboard and display (in other words, the Altair doesn't count). Steve Jobs is credited with inventing the term "personal computer". People laughed at him all over the place for that in 1976. Even if it was not the first PC, it was the first consumer PC for sure.
Also, first with color graphics, and Apple has also pushed all-digital flat panels. They are the biggest vendor of DVI computers, the largest vendor of UNIX, the biggest vendor of FireWire.
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.
um...You need to compile wine? I just use the codeweavers RPM. I think you can just double-click on them to install it, but I like to go rpm -i. The first is about as easy as installs get -- way easier than windows installs. Think about it. Click -- it's in? Whoah!
Of course, a lot of commercial vendors don't distribute in RPM form for some reason. They like to make things complicated apparantly. Has anybody else tried to get one of Suns IDEs to work with Suns JAVA? It just isn't worth the effort. Sun didn't even set it up with defaults set up, so you have to decipher a cryptic message just to run the IDE. That's all Suns fault right there.
It's been a long time.
...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
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
> I can fire up UAE, load Photogenics 1.0
... the Mac has this, too. QuickTime (not the player, but the media architecture) "knows" about something like 85 media types and variations. All an app has to do to support those types is hook into QuickTime. Mac-only apps pretty much all do this, but if an app is Mac/Windows, then the developer usually builds their own media support for a handful of formats and includes it in both versions of the app. If Windows had traditionally had a media layer like QuickTime included by default, then it would be standard practice to let the OS do the file formats. Unfortunately, that's not the case.
> (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.
I can fire up BBEdit 3 (1995), drop a PNG or an MPEG movie on it and it will display them just fine. It doesn't know about PNG or MPEG, but the QuickTime media layer in Mac OS does know about them. BBEdit is a text editor by the way.
So
In fact, the kind of offloading of common functions to the OS that you're after is a theme of Mac OS X, especially the Cocoa environment and tools. There is a pretty complete audio/MIDI sequencer built into Mac OS X itself, so that any app that wants to work with pro audio automatically has a full 32-bit, 96kHz, multichannel, pro-level audio plumbing that supports audio plug-ins and can import and export almost any file through QuickTime. So, the only coding you do with your app is the stuff that's specific to your app, not reinventing the wheel all the time. There is also a PostScript interpreter, the graphics layer (Quartz) knows PDF so you don't have to, and Quartz can also take anything onscreen and format it for printing, without the app having to do this stuff itself. Support for every known font is there (even the Windows format TrueType fonts - Apple invented TrueType so why not?).
There's an app for Mac OS X called Watson, that is basically a new kind of Web browser. Instead of showing you the MovieFone Web page, it gets the actual data and combines it into an application-style interface, bringing together the movie locations and times and also preview clips and info. It works with about 15 different kinds of Web services (looking up Zip codes, that kind of thing) and it was all built by one guy over the past six months using Cocoa. He didn't have to code any of the interface, or teach his app how to display movies, because Mac OS X already has objects built in for this.
Anyway, I guess overall I would say that you're sitting there using Windows or Linux and longing for a similar experience to the Amiga, and it's out there in Mac OS X. The elegance is not immediately apparent, because Mac OS X is very developer-flexible and fairly new. The stuff is there if the app wants to use it, but you can also port your UNIX app in one day with almost no modifications, or bring a Mac app to Mac OS X using the traditional Mac toolbox type of methods (now called Carbon). If you want it, though, there's a pretty good chance it's there in Mac OS X. This OS incorporates the best of Mac, the best of NeXT, the best of UNIX, and the best of Java. Don't assume it's missing something.
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.
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.
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.