Slashdot Mirror
Apple Surpasses Dell's Market Value
bonch writes "Nine years after Michael Dell said he'd shut down Apple and give the money to the shareholders, Apple has passed Dell in market value, at $72,132,428,843 compared to Dell's $71,970,702,760. Analysts expect Apple to continue to outperform competitors, citing 2006 as 'poised to be the year of both iPod growth and, more importantly, Mac market share gains,' with earnings growing more than 35%. I should have bought stock two years ago!" We talked about the approach of this moment back in November of last year.
Situations change.
What this has shown is that Apple was viable back then, and that Michael Dell doesn't have the necessary vision to run a company such as Apple.
He has enough vision to run a business selling PCs. Enough capability to scale it up to its current dominant position. He may indeed be a better business person than Jobs - I don't know - but Jobs clearly has something he doesn't (apart from the emotional attachment to Apple).
I'm sure he wouldn't say that today. Indeed I doubt he would have said it in 2000. But in 1997 it was certainly an option. An option that would have removed a competitor.
While moving the OS to a BSD-based (or BSD derived?) kernel, I think the iPod also contributed largely to their success. I mean, most kids at the high school I went to, they didn't want an MP3 player...they wanted an iPod. This ties in with marketing.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
This is the bit people fail to notice about a company. Apple for example aren't actually worth more than 70 billion but just their shares are. They're based on speculation and hope. This might sound like mac bashing but nothing at Apple indicates 70 billion in value anywhere. 6 billion in cash, some buildings and designs, some patents and about 1.5% of the market. with 5 billion revenue quarters. that's revenue not profit. so you're looking at maybe twenty billion at the tops in what something is worth.
Looking at the fundamentals like you say is the important thing. Dell is a much bigger company and has almost 50% of the world market. That's more profit in one quarter than apple's entire value.
The share market is a funny thing.
"Unix is the only way"? Eh, Microsoft is very successfull with it's own non-Unix operating system.
The fact that they're that close really does say something, though -- Apple's earnings are nearly half that of Dell's. Given that a few years back, Apple would have been lucky to make 1 percent of what Dell made, that's impressive.
ScienceSeeker.org
Dell's aim is to have the best supply chain and produce computers cheaper than anyone else, this means they don't really do any innovation its more of a Wallmart sort of play. Now you can get very big being a Wallmart type of business but the challenge is that Dell are in a field where competition has almost always been around innovation. From a margin perspective the aim of Dell is to operate at low margin but sell in bulk, Apple are aiming at high margin and selling decent volumes. The reason people pay more for Apple's stuff is the innovation and design, the reason more people buy Dell machines than Apple's is because of the cost.
Two different models, its not comparing two similar businesses.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Apple's hardware prices are generally in line with market rates in the 'not cheap tat' market areas.
For example, the PowerMac is competitive price wise with any 4-core system you can configure from the major PC manufacturers.
And now the MacBook Pro is similarly competitive, price wise. The parent poster did rightly point out that you have many more options on the PC side however.
You can either save money on the PC side by going with a lesser manufacturer, building it yourself, or making use of a wider range of customisable options. For example, Acer's Core Duo laptop is supposed to be significantly cheaper than the MacBook Pro. OTOH IBM's ThinkPads are roughly on par.
Also don't forget that many people are fed up to the eyeballs with Windows XP, and hell, that Mac OS X keeps getting recommended, and there's all those applications, and my iPod is easy to use, hmm, maybe it is worth a couple of hundred dollars on its own to not get the XP stress.
It does show how overpriced previous PowerBooks were. I wouldn't have liked to buy one in the past few months just to have this come out.
Sometimes, an image is worth that. Just that little shiny apple...
Try to buy Coca-Cola. The buildings are not worth whatever they would ask for the company. Its just those two words in their name.
To Tech or not to tech...
1.5% of which market?
1.5% of the computer market of course. And when iPod is a big moneyspinner for apple it is still not the core, of their business. Most profit they make is still coming from MAC's and software with them.
So they have 1.5% of the market for their biggest selling product. Doesnt sound so good 72 billion now does it.
But again the share market is a funny thing.
The P/E multiple indicates the expectation that investors have for future growth, because the market anticipates the success of a company (or lack thereof) moreso than it responds to it. Investors expect Apple to have substantially higher growth rate than Dell in the coming months/years. To get in on a piece of that action, you have to pay a premium, which is why the stock price - and hence the P/E ratio - is so much higher.
Well Unix was a smart shortcut for Apple. A relatively quick way to make a Stable and Secure OS. Take a Unix kernel Modify it for you OS. and there you have a stable OS in a lot less time from starting from scratch. I would say apples portable systems are the real grab. (iPods, iBooks, PowerBooks, MacBooks), Unlike most desktop systems, which you just put on your desk and work on, there is where price/performace is the key factor. But with portables design and style becomes a part of the factor.
With portable systems they tend to be accessories with your cloths that are functional, much like watches, you could ware an ugly plastic digital watch, or a shiny metal analog watch, they both do the same thing but one looks better. The same with portable systems, if you have to go to school with a laptop and you pull out some 3rd party Laptop which may be powerful but looks like a brick. Or you pull out a clean new Powerbook err um MacBook Pro, or some other stylish laptop such as a Sony Vio, even if the specs are not as good, you still look better to your class and other people. I am sure a lot of slashdotters don't care (or say they dont) about impressions to other people, but most people do, and they are the ones buying most of the computers now. Apple tends to understand the need for style. Secondly with portable gear you need to have what you really need integrated with the laptop and placed in a spot where you would use it. Things like needing to add Ethernet Dongles, or having to switch between Ethernet and Wireless cards, Easily accessible USB ports for Flash sticks, and things like Apples new magnetic Power Cord because you may be plugged in on a high traffic area. All these add up and are important to portable users. While the OS has some to do with apples success. I find that OS X is the best platform for Laptops, It detects new wireless hotspots easily, It changes networks without much of a hiccup, It works well on Windows, and Unix networks. But that is why it is doing so strongly lately. First people get the iPods because it is cool. Then while they are at the store they see the other cool things apple has and they realized how good much of their products are.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
And you know it.
1) Non-gaming software. Apart from some specialised applications, every software area is covered just as well for Mac OS as for Windows.
2) Games. Yes, an issue to be sure. I bet that now Apple are on x86 that Transgaming will release their software to get Windows games running under Mac OS X.
Macs are for people who don't want to think about the computer, and just get the work done. Quite often these people aren't hard-core geeks, but they earn a lot of money from their work, and they more often than not choose Apple hardware to earn their money. Interesting that.
As a (non-Windows) programmer, working under Mac OS X merges the benefits of Linux/BSD (decent environment) and having excellent applications on top, with a good user interface. Although the Aqua look is starting to look a bit samey to me now.
No, you seem to have misinterpreted the "which market" question. To illuminate this a bit, let's try it with a different industry: imagine if an analyst published an article saying about BMW, saying "their outlook is dire; they control only a tiny fraction of the automobile market, and are taking few steps to expand their market share". You'd look at that analyst like he was crazy, because you'd realize immediately that BMW's target market is a restricted subset of automobile owners -- they market themselves to affluent customers who want something that's perceived to be a superior product and who are willing to pay a premium to get it.
Apple occupies an analogous place in the computer market; they're sort of a "luxury computer manufacturer", and their advertising is similar to that of luxury-car companies, focusing on design, amenities and uniqueness rather than on price point. So it makes little sense to talk about Apple's market share in terms of the total PC market; instead, any measure of their success or failure must be taken in the premium niche they vie for.
No it is not.
The pricing of the stock takes into account future growth prospects. Dell might own about half the PC market, that means that they can't grow significantly in terms of units shipped. Maybe they can raise the price? No, they can't because the only reason people buy Dells is because they're cheap. So dell has no significant growth prospects.
Apple on the other hand can grow in terms of units shipped plus they can sell their products at a premium. Some of the most fantastic ideas in the industry such as the GUI and the iPod have come from them. Not only can Apple grow in the markets its already in, but they have shown that they're capable of inventing products that create new markets. Therefore, Apple being worth more than Dell is completly justified.
Dell 9400: 1.6" Thick
;)
Mac Book Pro: 1" Thick
Dell 9400: 7.94 lbs (3.60kg)
Mac Book Pro: 5.6 pounds (2.54 kg)
I'm not sure which Dell Screen you picked but:
Dell 9400 17" Screen Res: 1440x900
Mac Book Pro 15.4" Screen Res: 1440x900
Dell 9400: 4 Pin IEEE-1394 (I'm guessing)
Mac Book Pro: Powered 6-pin IEEE-1394
Dell 9400: Windows Mandatory
Mac Book Pro: OS X
Both can dual boot Linux, so that's not really an issue.
I've had my TiBook for 2.5 years now, and was shocked when I saw colleagues getting these huge, fat Dells. Maybe I'm a weak person, but when you can be carrying around a laptop that's 1" thick in place of a laptop that's 1.6" thick, and about a pound and a half lighter, why wouldn't you? I suppose if you like cheap looking plastic, you might prefer the Dells, though, and making sure Redmond gets their tax, and a nice big, low-res screen. I'll take the MacBook Pro
Isn't complaining about $600m when you are considering $72b basically a rounding error? That's like comparing two items that cost $10 and $10.08. It's almost negligable.
A lot of their success hinges on his charisma alone. Charisma is hard to value or replace.
Apple's iPod sales have been amazing... they really hit a hole in one there. But is there really that much room for growth in iPod sales this year, as the summary suggests? Now that they've been out for a few years, and who is left to buy one?
The difference between their market values is only about $150 million, so no, it is not just a rounding error. Had the difference been like at least a few billion, then yes.
"Sony is an R&D and manufacturing juggernaut and could outengineer Apple to build a better iPod."
So why haven't they done it yet? I mean, it's not for lack of trying. They've released 'ipod killer' after 'ipod killer' and Apple has gone from strength to strength. The reason that nothing has 'killed' the iPod is because it is a cool gadget. People want an iPod, not an MP3 player, and thats the main reason why Sony and Creative probably won't be able to 'kill' it for a long time.
While I might get flamed for this one, in the home market at least, it's not Unix that people are buying, it's an experience. Unix is an important part in the scientific communities and for some hard core techies, but the people who buy the mac mini, iMac and iPod's aren't worried about the underlying technology.
Apple has created a brand experience that most marketing people try to copy harder than eCommerce sites copy Amazon and eBay. Everything about an Apple product lets you know your dealing with a company that puts the user experience first. That's Apples brand niche.
When I bought my first mac some 8 years ago... I was awe struck by the packaging - not of the computer - the card board box it came in was user friendly. It was perfectly clear what was in each box. It was intuitive which piece needed to come out next - the foam that was around the monitor was easy to hold on to and take out. Nothing about unpacking the computer was frustrating.
When Apple retail stores hit the scene, did anyone note that the UI on the electronic signature box matched that of Aqua? Did anyone notice that your receipt font matches the fonts on the box / os x / sales literature etc?
I bought a G4 tower a few years ago and the little details that go into engineering the case and hardware are what diferentiates Apple from any other manufacture I know. I lift a little handle on the side of my case and the whole thing flops open and I have access to clean the entire machine. Additionally, all of the edges of the stamped steel were de-burred so I didn't cut any of my knuckles open as I poked around inside the case. I understand most non-slashdot-reading users will not ever open their case, but much like a Mercedes-Benz, when you look under the hood or at any small corner of the car, you know no expense was spared to ensure whatever level you interface with the product it is solid, reliable and nice.
Even the iPod I bough 3 years ago came in a package that was clearly labeled. It was clear that designers had thought about the process of opening the package, puting the iPod on the left (since we're a left to right society here in the US) where we would look first when orienting ourselves to the two halves of the box.
I expect Jobs and the rest of the crew at Apple to continue making an experience that is every bit as robust and consistent with their products as my last few years of experience with the company has been.
AF-Design, web development.
Style, flair, and innovation are Apple hallmarks with Steve Jobs at the helm. Dell is just another PC maker, nothing more. When Apple suffered through those other CEO's, the style, flair and innovation were missing. Apple never was, nor will it ever be just another personal computer company. Gil Amelio and John Sculley never really understood that.
Dell has no real style, flair, nor innovation. Michael Dell sells PC's, nothing more, nothing less. The most creative thing he has done is build an odd sense of customer loyalty where Dell owners believe that their computers are better than other Windows PC's. There is a place for that, but in the end Apple excites the consumer PC market, and Dell along with others ride the waves.
Every time I read slashdot, I keep wishing for a clear "rolling eyes" emoticon.
Anyway, no, this is not a valueless metric with applied to Apple and Dell.
Dell only has 3.5 times the revenue and twice the profit of Apple as of FY2005, and further, that margin is shrinking in the most recent quarter.
Comparing companies of this size is perfectly appropriate. Now, when you're talking about a difference on the order of, say, a hundredfold (or a thousandfold), yeah, you're right. Except this isn't one of those cases. Apple and Dell are companies operating in the same marketplaces, with largely the same target markets, and very similar lines of products. They are in direct competition with one another.
When you look at the last three years and you have one company (Dell) with a flat 20% revenue and profit growth, and the other company (Apple) starting with 20%, then 30%, then 60% revenue growth and 6%, then 400%, then 800% profit growth over the same period, it's definitely a valuable metric to look at. Dell has growth, but it's flat. Apple has growth that is growing.
I mean look at KMart and Sears. Very good store with very good prices. Both added some value to through the product initially, through selection and location, but failed to continue to push that value. Walmart can in and they were toast. Dell is the same thing, but worse. Dell has the added cost of repackaging, but limited flexibility in terms of managing costs. OTOH, Apple has shown that will act aggressively to manage hardware cost, and is able to make changes to the OS to so do.
Dell is succesful becuase they are able supply large number of cheap computers to large firms. As long as they can win contracts, they will survive. However growth is out of their hands. Growth depends on MS maintaining a release schedule that encourages fast upgrade schedules, which they have not done. Growth depends on firms growing enough to add machines, which has happened. Growth depends Windows providing enough value so that large firms double license at least some machines. Growth depends on new machine running Windows, and not *nix, unless of course Dell is so cheap that even with the MS license the machine is a good value.
That is to say Dell has little control over it's future. It may decide to risk the MS gravy train and set out on it's own, but no one at Dell sounds that creative. At some point someone else will do MS Windows machines better, perhaps MS, or the desktop PC may become a thing of the past, and we will see how Dell does on low margins and low volumes. I mean, is anyone actually going to buy Dell at even a 10% markup?
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
So, wait... a very successful CEO who built his company from scratch to market leader, not a Carly Fiorina or some other overpaid asshole, makes an observation that Apple probably won't survive with its proprietary offerings and such a small market share, and he's got a big mouth? In April 2001 (pre-iPod, days after OS X v10.0, in the wake of the bubble burst) would anyone have disagreed very strenuously with this conclusion? The Appleatchiks might have been always faithful but the rest of the world could be forgiven for doubting.
In October of that year came the iPod, and in April of 2003 Apple opened the iTunes Music Store. Dell's failure was not that he was wrong in analyzing the fate of a company dedicated to making proprietary niche-market computers, but that he lacked the imagination to see that Apple wasn't always going to bank on proprietary niche-market computers. He says he would never take the job of Apple CEO. Honestly, would anyone have wanted Dell to head Apple? Would the iPod have come out under Dell? Would Apple have ever expanded into the media market under Dell? There's no way. He's just not that creative. So, thankfully, Michael Dell would never take the job of Apple CEO. So what?
I have to ask this question because I can point to a very similar company in design standards that has the exact same situation: Nintendo. Nintendo certainly takes a share in the home console market but their real money maker is, and always has been since the early 90s, their handheld systems. Yet, despite that, Nintendo is the only console company out there that makes a consitant profit. In fact in over 50 years of company existance they have only had one single quarter where they posted a loss(they still pulled a profit overall for that fiscal year too).
The comparisons between the two companies is also pretty similar when you look at it. Both companies are concerned about the user experience. Be it customer support, system design, interface, etc they both try to make it a special experience for the user. And, they use that positive experience to build a brand loyalty that helps to sell even more systems.
Anyway, the point is even if it is the iPods that are helping to propel Apple right now, it isn't the first time this has happened to a technology company. And, the profit they make due to the iPod success can only help them to expand slowly into other markets as well as evidenced by the heightened interest in the new intel powered Apple computer platforms.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
I Still haven't bought one, and i won't until the offer what i want from a media player.
Proprietary software isn't needed, (Just shows up as a HD).
Audio Input with no extra adaptors. (2 jacks, 1 in, 1 out so i can monitor what i'm recording)
FM Tuner.
I was realy tempted to get one of the old Neuvos Media players, mostly because they had everything you could want in one unit. including FM Transmitter, Customizable EQ (Wish i could get more than a FSCKIN 5 band... 11 or 13? Come on!)
Until Apple does this I will not be owning an iPod. Still waiting on the perfect product....
While I might get flamed for this one, in the home market at least, it's not Unix that people are buying, it's an experience. Unix is an important part in the scientific communities and for some hard core techies, but the people who buy the mac mini, iMac and iPod's aren't worried about the underlying technology.
Generally true, but "the experience" runs on Unix. When my non-techie friends ask what kind of computer they should buy, and I tell them to get a Mac, I don't say, "It's really cool to have a great GUI as well as access to all the great command-line Unix tools, all in one carefully thought out integrated package." What I do tell them is, "You get the best, most modern interface, plus it's much more secure and stable than Windows because it's based on Unix, which is the operating system that actually runs the Internet.* So you can just do what you want to do with your computer instead of spending half your time dealing with crashes, viruses, and spyware. Also, if you ever do decide you want to get into some more advanced stuff, let me know." Which is a pretty successful sales pitch, and has the virtue of being both true and relevant to "the experience" they'll have with the computer.
* Yes, I know this is a horrible oversimplification, but it's essentially true, and I'm always happy to go into more detail if people ask.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Microsoft better hope Bill Gates stays around. Because when they want/need to make an impact, they only have him to trot out. We could take a look at companies throughout history and say the same thing. And it is true. Don't you think that Apple was quaking when Steve Jobs was diagnosed with cancer? However, Dell does not have that problem. Few people even know who Michael Dell is...really. And, if he left the company, I doubt it would hurt them in image or management. Mr. Dell's genius was in getting senior players into his fledging home computer business early. He let the really bright guys run the company. And don't dismiss how much courage and smarts that takes.
But, if Mr. Dell left, then Dell, Inc is not loosing a visionary or motivating force behind an organization. They are just loosing the guy who started it and nothing more. They'll gladly toast to the founder's portrait in the boardroom every meeting. But the board knows who is making the real decisions at Dell.
Besides, "vision" is not something that Dell, Inc. is known for. They look at what others are doing and then try to make it cheaper. Never (there might be exceptions) do they attempt to make something better. And even when there are apparent attempts, do they succeed. Are Dell's desktop/laptops/servers/MP3 players better than anyone else's. No. They just offer decent (giving them benefit of the doubt here) products that appear less expensive, in their catalogs, than their competitors. I say "appears" because if you even compare a Dell to an Apple -feature for feature - the Dells often cost nearly the same or even more. And Apple is supposed to be a premium player. So they should always be clearly higher in price than the Dells...right? But they are not.
What do you mean by "dissimilar sized"?
:D
Dell employs roughly 63,000 people, where Apple employs roughly 75,000 (from Wikipedia)
Dell's profits were $4.2b, while Apple's was $2.3b; so Dell isn't quite twice as profitable.
Dell's revenue was $49b while Apple's was $14b; so Dell's raw income is a little more than three times bigger than Apple.
If trends continue, there is reason to believe that in 2006 Apple will continue growing and be just as profitable as Dell, with probably half as much income.
They are, mathematically speaking, in the same order of magnitude
GPL Deconstructed
Obviously you have the opinion that Apple stock is overvalued, and everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. However, I believe the statistics will back me up that Apple is a very valuable company indeed. The iPod sold better than ever before this past Christmas shopping season. Plus, Mac market share is finally growing again. What's further sauce for the goose, Apple sold in one week, twice as many songs on iTunes as had ever been sold in a week ever before; the previous record happened to be the week previous. Obviously that trend can't continue, but that kind of exponential growth is just incredible. Apple is behaving like a company that is valued correctly. They keep producing, and they produce better and better. Look for their market cap to increase. If you want to see an overvalued stock, take a look at Google (NSDQ: GOOG). They are giving the signs of an over-valued company and are taking the necessary financial precautions to help themselves in the future. Microsoft is another over-valued company, and its shares are priced pretty low. he reason? They don't produce innovative stuff. The only think recently that they've done well at all is the little live.com experiment, but this is the beta stage, before they tailor it to work only with IE and require users to pay hand over fist. This is the way of Wall St.
If you ever feel you should have bought a specific stock, print the story up and stick it on your "Thank God I didn't buy stock" wall.
Buy a stock when it is priced at 6-8 times earnings and seems to have a productive, profitable product line that isn't a fad.
Buy a stock when the SEC and the IRS turn back regulations and taxes regarding dividends -- so you can earn an honest profit from honest work instead of earning a "profit" from selling the overpriced stock to some other sucker.
Buy a stock when the Federal Reserve lets interest rates change based on the market, not based on fantasy. Once interest rates are allowed to fluctuate freely, savings accounts will return a very nice and very safe return on your money. This is where most savings should go.
The stock market isn't for long term savings but for risk taking and profit making -- both of these things have been destroyed over the past 25 years, and if you feel your 401K and your private accounts are "safe," they're not. Give it a little more time, and everything tied to the dollar will have a very nice price soon. Including foreign stocks on any market governed by a government that invests in US dollars as part of their reserves. You can't make wealth on inflation, friends.
Some other arguments...
--
Actually, Apple gets value from the combination of style and solidity.
Consumers resent a crappy product in a pretty box. They feel, with justification, that the company should have spent more money on "making the damn thing work" rather than just slapping on a few go-faster stripes.
That makes style a big market advantage for Apple. It doesn't matter how much you case-mod your Winbox, you'll still be on the patch-and-virus treadmill, and still have the same risk of BSODs as someone using a POS white box. Likewise, a KDE box in a gorgeous enclosure will have exactly the same function set as a built-in-the-basement wonder.
Apple's products are solid enough that their style is worth considering. People freaked out over the Nano because you could scratch the screen if you put it in a pocket full of change, not because it randomly locked up, or because they couldn't transfer some of their files, or because it stopped working in cold weather, or any other basic function issue.
Once you hit the point of diminishing returns on 'making it just work', style is the next playing field on which you compete. But you can't play in the 'style' arena until you've aced the 'it just works' level.
Exactly!
Apple's succes really is more than the looks of their products.
Some people really want software or appliances with tens of toolbars, hundreds of buttons, thousands of tweakable settings etcetera. Apple doesn't do that, no hundreds of settings here.
But lacking these abundance of options doesn't mean that the functionality is (too) simple! This is the mistake some geeky people make. Sure, sometimes an Apple piece of software clearly lacks some function or option in some aspect.
But at other moments it is clear that loads of options and buttons weren't needed in the beginning anyway provided the software had well thought through workings and a sensible user interface..
This is why non-geeky people quite often prefer the Apple way compared to other ways of doing something.
It is much harder to develop software that combines power with a simple user interface, and Apple demonstrates that it continues to excel in this arena. That is what investors see and like.
--[rosso bright]--
there is no a chance apple would do this for so many reasons, but here are a few:
1) apple likes to make money on hardware. when you install os x, it doesn't ask for a product key? why? apple doesn't care that much about the $100 for OS X; they already got you for $3000 for the hardware.
2) dell makes vastly inferior hardware, and apple would not sully its good name by putting OS X into a shitty dell box
3) as a former dell user turned mac user, i would never buy a dell running os x, since i have experienced the difference in quality first hand. there are probably quite a few other mac users in the same boat.
one last thing: im not sure where you get the idea that dell has better support than apple, but that has definitely not been my experience. for one thing, apple computers require much less support because they don't break as often. beyond this, they have a very functional voice recognition system that is way faster than dialing in a million numbers (maybe dell has this now too, i dont know). this gets you to a person much faster than dell in my experience.
...why do we then use them ?
Simple really. Because while they don't really excel at any of those categories, they are "good enough" in most of them.
"Unix is the only way"? Eh, Microsoft is very successfull with it's own non-Unix operating system.
Basically, yes. Every good operating system I know of or have used in the past 10 years is unixy. I did not do pre OS X Macs, I did do Apple squiggle squiggle in for 10 years before this time, and had no UNIX experience. The first MacOS was pretty cool, because there simply wasn't anything else remotely like it available. I didn't use it, I just played with it on other people's computers and in stores. I did occasionally use pre-OS X MacOSes, and I did not like them. Bombs from memory mismanagement, other stability issues, and whatever. I thought they were behind X windowing systems and even Windows in terms of cosmetic looks. The OS wasn't 3d-like until 8, but I crashed 8 within 10 minutes of using it, and was not impressed.
Hell, even Microsoft is starting to add UNIX features like better headless support, scripting, a real shell, remote access, periodic commands (cron), etc. They have had SFU, etc. These are standard unix features that have been around for about 30 years. I work with UNIX and Linux systems, and use Macs as my personal machines. At work, we have Windows, Macs, and UNIX and Linux, more on that later.
I'm not sure what "market value" is really an indicator of.
Actually, when first reading the headline and stuff, I was thinking what commodity OS are people going to use after Windows?
I don't see OS X being the standard any more than Ferrari or Porche or other high-end cars being standard. Even though the price (TCO for the PHBs) is about the same as other systems now, I just don't see Apple with 90% market share, and I'm not sure if they want to either.
But, IMNSHO, Windows is dead. Bear with me. At work the Windows admins, have mostly switched to Macs for their personal machines. I don't talk to them or see them that much, but I see that their emails are coming from Mail.app (Mac default mailer), and I have heard of people switching. Honestly, I can't think of one of our Windows admins that does not have a Mac now, I could be wrong. All of the UNIX admins have Macs.
I'm a geek, and a computer guy by trade. I simply don't have the need to use any Microsoft software for my personal or professional needs. The only MS software I have on my computers is IE and WMP. Both are basically EOLed, and horrible on the Mac.
Maybe people will still use Windows because it has been "good enough" and maybe that will stay the same. If Apple breaks the bond between the hardware and software integration since they now use commodity processors like Dell and others, then maybe OS X will become the standard. I just don't think Apple wants to have the issues with 3rd party hardware and the associated stability issues and support costs and possible tarnish their reputation. Maybe people will use Linux if the fundamental issues of conformity, ease of use increases with software installation, and a good GUI. However, there does not appear to be enough focus on that end. Maybe a commercial company will put these things together, and it will be the commodity OS. Don't know.
Interesting times for computers. There is still plenty of room for improvement across the board though.
How many times has Apple been on the mat and down for what seemed like the last time only to rise up and start fighting again? I don't know but it seems like a lot. I'm only familiar with Apple products in passing, I've never owned one and never had to do any real work on on so I'm obviously not an Apple fan but, I have a very real and healty respect for them.
It really looks like Apple is making all the right moves. Their iPod product line has a lot going for it and their new computers sound really sweet too.
Frankly I'm wondering what took them so long to join forces with Intel, from a marketing standpoint this sounds like a slam-dunk. In a short time I think we can see a lot more software running on the Apple platform (you can read this as Apple will emulate the Windows platform or actually run Windows or whatever you want). With more software availability, they will find a home in more business environments.
For Apple, the business world isn't where it is all at. They seem to market to consumers, especially younger consumers very well. This means more Apple products in homes and dorm rooms too. In some ways, the iPod product line is a "taste" of the Apple world and since they like the taste, it isn't such a big step to move up to bigger products. This is especially true if the marketing mavens at Apple make sure their products work better with the iPods than Windows machines do -- this means that Apple will maybe offer very easy to use software for their computers to interface with the iPod as a standard feature. I would at least.
Apple is posied for some great things to happen in the next few years. Steve Jobs is the right guy and this is the right time. I think it is pretty easy to say "Apple is back and here to stay."
You know, Michael Dell really has never liked proprietary anything. Nothing built at Dell is proprietary, except for the irritating OS on consumer PCs (you can get linux on your servers).
It's not a shock that he hates Apple. I still don't understand why we all love Apple so much, they're the same evil, repackaged.
Good for you Mr "If I can't afford something then I'm perfectly within my rights to just take it without paying" Kezuki.
Yeah, either that or just grow up.
You know, you could just as easily say:
Those cars are very nice, but none of them are really practical for everyday use. It's pretty hard to put in a 300lb. toolbox inside a BMW.
and then use that as proof for why the Dodge Ram is the best performance car.
Yes, I am well aware of the fact that if you start adding condition, on top of condition, on top of condition, you can eventually construct a scenario where there is only one choice that makes sense. That doesn't make your ultimate argument a proof of much of anything though. For example, it isn't hard at all to fit a child seat in a Rolls Royce, is it?
All you are really saying is that for cars under $200K but over $30k, that can be used for suburban errands, have a fair amount of acceleration, and are made in Germany, The BMW rates pretty high. Well fine, but I don't really see how that very limited example is particularly at odds with what I said to begin with. As I said before, the BMW is just a middle of the road car that they sell to a certain type of person who likes being told that they are paying for the "ultimate driving experience." You yourself admit that the car might not be exemplary in any way, but just that it makes the people who buy them feel good. This is true of every single upscale brand in every market. A pair of $250 Designer jeans aren't really made out of any better fabric, or constructed to last longer, or even necessarily more attractive than a $40 pair of Levis, but they make the purchaser feel superior to your average K-Mart shopper, and thus they say they are better. That doesn't actually make them better, it just makes the person who bought them more susceptible to marketing than your average consumer. This is the same thing.