Slashdot Mirror
Newsflash: Mac Users Love Apple, Hate Microsoft
An anonymous reader writes "An article on wired.com talks about how Mac users helped Apple through the dark years of the 90s." It goes on to discuss how a psychologist was hired to figure out how to woo Mac users away from Apple, with some (to him) surprising results.
"Apple is like a strange drug that you just can't quite get enough of," the musician Barry Adamson told the Guardian newspaper. "They shouldn't call it Mac. They should call it crack!"
;)
Whoo! Oh, boy, my sides are aching! Oh, my ribs hurt! Oh, man!
Also...
Andrew Lackey, a visiting professor of business and economics journalism at Boston University, said Apple's monopoly in the Mac business allows it to get away with things companies in a competitive market can't...."With Apple you're a captive, and to some extent they abuse that privilege," Lackey said. "I would have thought Apple would be all folksy, like a Ben & Jerry's kind of company. But in my experience, PC companies are much more responsive."
BMW has a monopoly in the BMW market. GM has a monopoly in the GM market. And yet, they both sell cars and compete against each other. I guess that's why this guy is only a visiting professor of economics.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
Or Nike? Or Coca-Cola? I use Linux, but I think the idea of wearing a Tux the Penguin t-shirt is kind of lame. Same for people who pay extra for clothes with the Nike logo on it. . .what you share to the core of your being is identification with a logo that is larger than you could ever hope to be, not some enlightened life philosophy.
From the article...
"[mac users are] more dedicated than users of any other computer, perhaps even Linux. Linux and Unix users are, in fact, switching to Macs in droves. "
Hmm, what could be the attraction?
Actually, with OS X, it was a bunch of Mac users who were being switched to Unix! (sort of)
...the real reason a story like this was posted was the Anti-MS FUD Campaign has run out of ammo. Apparently, MS didn't make the news yesterday so they had nothing to attack them with. Relax though, you'll find more Jerry Springer'esque drama as soon as MS makes any type of move.
"Commodore hired engineers, Apple hired marketers."
And you know, only one of them is still in business. Its not what you sell, its what people think they are buying.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Are you saying that a computer that "just works" and "is prettier" is somehow less worthy? Why are these criteria unimportant in your expert opinion?
It seems to me that a computer that "just works" and "is prettier" is far more valuable than one that doesn't "just work" and "is uglier."
Circa 1999 it was Linux user = hobbyist geek. Now Linux has been revealed as a savior to businesses of all stripes, but if you're an "early convert" you're still seen as a hobbyist geek, rather than a smart person who picked Linux early for the right reasons.
Something similar may be going on now with the Mac. It's been the cultists who have kept Apple and the Mac alive, but with the release of OS X and the influx of UNIX folks and perhaps a few Windows converts, the cultists are viewed with scorn as the faith-driven zealots rather than as rational adopters of what is really just a computer system.
The Mac has always offered something basic that Microsoft and most (but not all) PC vendors simply don't understand. The computer is built to work out of the box for the human being, not the other way around. You can argue all you want about how it limits your upgrade options, costs more, doesn't run as many apps, but there will always be a certain segment of the computer-using population that very strongly wants a computer that just works, with no fuss.
Now why should people who believe in that concept get labeled as oddballs? Maybe its the rest of the population that's odd, for settling on buggy, conflict-riddled, nonsecure by default, inelegant crap.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
cognitive dissonance is an extremely powerful component of the continuing strength of MS. Admitting that fear, uncertainty and doubt has led you to lock yourself and your company into an abusive relationship with a monopoly is not something that people want to do (if the latest licensing scheme doesn't qualify as abusive, I don't know what would). People would much rather declare that their "choice" of MS is sensible and will save them money.
Disclaimer: I used to be a Macaddict, but I switched to Linux in college "because I can code", and I never went back.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
We don't all toe the slashdot line. Some of us just want something that works well, doesn't waste our time, and lets us work effectively. OS X fits that bill wonderfully for me, and it plays well with my *nix servers.
I don't get paid based on the liberation of my software, I get paid to get things done. Fuck the KDE/Gnome amateur hour; give me OS X and software that works.
Oh my god! They're right. I've finally gotten away from using a proprietary operating system on non-proprietary hardware, and now I'm going to switch to using a proprietary operating system on proprietay hardware.
Or maybe (gasp) they switched to Linux because it was the best for them, and MacOSX is now better for what they need?
Most people are practical, not on an ideological crusade like RMS and his ilk.
I use a Mac because that's where the creative tools are. Way too many people think that Mac and Windows are the same because there are lots of Mac/PC applications, but they're not the same at all. Digidesign's Pro Tools runs on both Mac and Windows, but it's been running on the Mac for much longer and with more features, and all of the pro-level plug-ins are Mac-only. So, all of the #1 hits done with Pro Tools are also Mac-only. Similarly, Quark runs on Windows, but most of the plug-ins are Mac-only, and color management, advanced typography, a PostScript renderer, and PDF workflow are built-in to the Mac, so most of publishing runs on Macs. Many other mainstream creative applications are only a few versions old on Windows, and five or six versions more mature on the Mac.
It's just that the technology is so much better than any other platform when it comes to creative stuff of any kind (art, music, video, design). If you replace "Windows PC" in this article with "typewriter" and then read it again you'll see how it looks to a Mac user. No, we're not anxious to trade our multimedia audio/video/graphics workstations with great UI and amazing stability for IBM Selectrics. As a creative workstation, Windows makes a shitty typewriter. That's all there is to it. The rest is window dressing, with non-Mac users wondering what the buzz is about.
Frankly you don't pick the main trend - those who were Windows fans and got burned. They are much more visceral in their hatred toward M$ than anyone else. Because they feel betrayed. And that's what I feel in every cell of my brain. I started with a Windows 1.0beta. Till the advent of Windows95, I was critical of many M$ moves, but still I believed that they were doing something in the right way. Back then, OS/2 was far away from being considered as a real system and IBM did a lot to become the Evil Empire of those times. However, when Windows95 came out, I sincerly felt that someone sold me snakeoil in 100% purity. Many of my old programs went broke. Several third party programs I used couldn't simply work. While I tried hard to adapt to the new SDKs and environment, I couldn't because it was all a mess and a pure waste of money. That mess ended only with the advent of Windows95 OSR2, but the loss was irrecoverable. For some time I tried to reach the "secrets" of Windows NT4, only to discover that there are companies that are well able to create crap in tens of disks and name it "Developer's tools". However that was not the last drop. The last drop came in 1998 with the "fresh, new Windows98". I was hacked three times, one of them trashed completely my HDD in less than a minute. In a moment, years of hard work went into oblivion. A little later, I discovered that even M$ was hacking my own computer by sending interesting IP packets right to Redmond's HQ. A month later I was fully switching to Linux and sending M$ into the deepest bottom of Hell. I never regretted that.
I know a few people who passed nearly this same M$ Paradise. Some have switched to Linux/BSD. Others remained in Windows. But no one has ever stopped reading the whole slang dictionary over Redmond. And other OS fans can ever repeat the HATRED about Microsoft we and similar people have.
One thing about you Apple fans. Well, you are naive, sometimes look a little bit childish. You may think that we are too straight-head, naive and childish also. But there is one thing I shall say to you. People, you were ABSOLUTELY RIGHT to stick to Apple. You can't imagine how the Hell goes hot in Windows. Keep the faith people. Apple forever!
What is under the hood of most things is actually not very important, and in general this issue does not occupy the thoughts of busy people over much. Further, not caring about things that do not matter makes one neither a zealot nor ignorant, and should actually be a measure of maturity.
In a few more years the computer technology industry will become a consumer electronics industry. People will not care how the applicance works, so long as it fetchs email, browses the web, and archives Buffy episodes. It will make no more sense then to ask what is under the hood of (what is now called) a personal computer than it does to ask what kind of compressor is running in your refrigerator. Unless you are the equivalent of a refrigerator repair person. But repair people do not run the world, do not determine the future of technology, and do not have any special place in the pantheon of labor. They are like crows, waiting for something to fail so they can profit. They contribute little to the advancement of technology. This is the future fate of tech-glorifying nerds who today think someone is stupid if they don't buy a PC over a Mac based on specifications of the component parts.
A better use of your time would be to find a solution to spam, or invent a fail-safe operating system for information applicances, or devise sensible ways to limit child access to porn, or some other interesting challenge that, indeed, makes no big deal of what is under the hood. If you are not up to the task then you can either go back to school or leave the rest of us alone while we focus our adult attention on things that matter.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
It's another semantic name game here.
If Apple had given 10.2 a bigger number, like 10.5, less people would complain.
If Apple had waited 10 more months to release it, less people would have complained.
If Apple had given a 10.1->10.2 *upgrade* path, less people would complain.
*However*
10.5 is just another number. People would have accused Apple of manipulating version numbers to make their product look 'bigger'.
If Apple had waited longer, people would complain that Apple wasn't releasing fast enough. We have journaling (10.2.2) now. Apple doesn't seem to wait on it's products very much.
Apple released 10.1 as a free upgrade CD(available at Fry's, CompUSA, or Apple Stores) or available for $19.99 online. Logic? They charge $20 for a point release, they charge $129 for a full release, and Apple doesn't otherwise do upgrades.
Microsoft, in comparison, released Windows 95, 98, 98SE, and ME every two years and charged you for it. This is different how? Because Microsoft didn't relelase a Windows 96 for $20, it's okay? Because Microsoft didn't call them Windows 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3? You do know the code name for Windows 2000 was Windows NT 5.0 right?
GPL Deconstructed
I think there is a pretty simple explanation for the current state of things, where Apple has a small marketshare and is loved by their users, while Microsoft is dominating software but is despised: focus.
Apple has always focused on doing things for the customer, even if it means screwing the developers and the existing user base. Apple has sort of a family-style "tough love" philosophy - almost parental. It will say things like "The dock is better for you. Just take it." Even though people may or may not like it, Apple has your best interest at heart, and so it will jam things down the users' (and developers') throats, if need be.
Microsoft, on the other hand, focuses on the developers. They want to make Windows the best development platform in the world. Microsoft figured out early on that people only buy computers for software, and that people are not going to write their own software. By luring developers to their APIs, MS achieved market dominance. The users in this case are more of an afterthought - they are sort of a problem left to each independant developer.
Some examples:
When Apple introduces something new, Jobs comes out and talks about how insanely great this will be for users. When MS introduces something, BillG will talk about how the API makes it easy for devs.
At Apple, we would routinely make API changes that would break every single major application (like PhotoShop and PageMaker). Our attitude was "screw them, the devs just have to keep up, the new way is better." At Microsoft, we still have code that makes sure WordPerfect 3.5 for DOS still runs in a command window in NT.
I have worked over five years apiece for the research labs at both Apple Computer and Microsoft, so I have some insight here.
I think you wrote an excellent article which explained your point quite well. I consider you 100% wrong but that shouldn't diminish a high quality post which does deserve to be modded up.
/. before and after OS9. Instead we now see OSX being treated with the respect that /. gives to OSes they do take seriously like: Linux, MSFT, Solaris. People vigerously argue about the pluses and minuses; particularly value over quality. There is genuine interest in the platform even from its non users.
/. is a Unixphile forum (that is many are not Unix users but most admire Unix). By making the switch to a Unix based platform Apple gained respect. In addition they have created a Unix variant which is centered around the mainstream desktop and not the server which is genuinely unique in today's market. Since most /. ers are desktop users and Unixphiles the unique desktop Unix is obviously going to be treated positively.
I'd offer a simple piece of counter proof, the treatment of Apple before OSX came out. Prior to OSX the overwhelming attitude of the slashdot crowd towards Apple was disinterested hostility. Apple system were simply not taken seriously at all; treated as more of crippled computing appliances than computers. Almost no one advocated the advantages of OS9 over Windows, Linux, BSD...
Were your argument true, that is that the behavior is based on price and lack of market share there should have been no difference between the behavior on
That is a huge change in attitude. I think the more likely explination is this:
no. the term "endowment effect" would better describe it.
take this example. you are a peacefull person, you would not kill another human. but then there is this ethnic group that you hate so much that you want to kill them. (this is cognitive dissonance) how do you resolve this? well, you go and kill them anyway, because THEY ARE NOT HUMAN!!! (opinions are hard to change, you will NOT change your belief that you can not kill another human, you tend to stay with the familiar)
another example, your brother is a 'nice person', however so it happens that he kills somebody. (again, cognitive dissonance.) well, he obviously had a DAMN GOOD REASON. (again, you tend to stay with the familiar).
this endowment effect works like the information (beliefs) you have in you work as filters for all incoming information.
another way to say all this is that BELIEFS are impossible to change!
than there is this question: why do you actually have those beliefs that you have? its because they were there first! IT IS THAT SIMPLE.
Wow, you think Apple could grab 20% of the PC platform by releasing OS X86?
Right now they have (generously) 4%, on margins *like* 25% on their hardware. However, that 25% is based off of $2k average price for their machines, meaning $500 per Mac.
Selling a OS X86 for $130 would garner them, possibly, 50% margin (lets be generous), or $75. So they *have* to sell 7 copies of OS X86 to make up the difference, and gain an improvement.
That means they need to sell to, instead of 4%, 28%
Of course they could have higher margins, meaning less necessary sales... but higher margins necessarily means charging more for the product, right?
Or they could have lower margins, due to costs I cannot account for, in which case... 20% or 30% of the market isn't sufficient.
It probably means bundling 'free' iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, and iPhoto would have to stop, or at least start charging, to make more money. $30 per product would mean OS X86 would cost $250... which makes it much less attractive.
GPL Deconstructed
Non-Microsoft users not only had the "trial by fire" of chosing an alternate route, but they have to justify some of the dissonance they have regarding format incompatibilities - they may not be able to play a game, or watch a video, or see a web site, that their MS-using friends and family can. If a critical mass of the market were on the same platform as them, however, there would be less of that interplatform disconnect for them.
I hate to feed the troll, but.... Apple keeps a few bits of hardware detail secret because of contractual obligations with the companies that make them (e.g. the USB modems in newer machines). Most of the hardware in Macs, however, is not only documented, but comes with SOURCE CODE.
See also:
http://www.apple.com/opensource
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
Apple Computer, Inc. is a business. Furthermore, Apple Computer, Inc. is a typical business. They hire employees, develop and sell products, and satisfy their shareholders.
Apple Computer, Inc. is not dissimilar to Microsoft Corporation. They both control their markets very tightly, will kill off companies that stand in their way, and even risk angering their loyal customers in an attempt to achieve "the big picture".
Apple Computer, Inc. wields lawyers when they think their brand is threatened, to a positively ridiculous level at times. e.g. The Graphical User Interface, The Aqua Theme, Apple Communications, etc. Even Microsoft Corporation doesn't sue as liberally as Apple Computer, Inc. does.
The signficant difference that I see, however, is that Apple Computer, Inc. has stuck to the same marketing theme for more than two decades: Apple Computer, Inc. is for the free thinkers, the rebels, the nonconformists, the people who need to be different. Microsoft Corporation has not.
Apple Computer, Inc's original Macintosh commercial may have been inspired by George Orwell's 1984, but it is from Aldous Huxley's Brave New World that they learned that it takes 64,000 repetitions to make one truth.