Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Leopard Strategy to Kill Microsoft and Dell?
RX8 writes "A Digital Trends article suggests that Apple's Leopard agenda is to get Windows users to use Apple hardware then convert them to the Apple camp and that Apple will also be directly targeting Dell by offering a better experience when it comes to media and related tasks. Lastly, they suggest that Steve Jobs held back on showing more Leopard features so people would not get too excited and stop buying in 2006. 'If you get too excited about what is supposed to be an incredibly amazing product you simply won't buy a new Apple this year.'"
At the top if you look at Alienware or High End dell systems dell is beating apple because apple just does not offer the best technology possible where they really thrive is the middle and media creators.
Yes, that's why Apple's first generation products have so many reported problems before they get it right in subsequent generations. Personally, I think that you're paying to be a beta tester if you buy a generation 1 product from Apple.
If you want say quad or dual graphic cards you would need to replace the motherboard, if you want the top of the line ram you need to replace the motherboard, if you want the best processor you need go out and buy it because apple does not offer core duo 2 extreme edition like alienware and dell, the best sound cards are for PCs and things like watercooling or high end psu are only supported by PCs. In the end you have the top moderate products but if you want a customisable computer or the best money can buy you need to stick with PCs.
"fast, good, cheap, pick two." that assumes Apple offers any of these.
Fast? No, used to be slow and now is the same. OS X is somewhat slower than competing OS'es.
Good? Subjective, but made from the same parts bins but with polish. Software choices are good in some ways and bad in others.
Cheap? Of course not. Not always expensive though.
Hip, pretty, alternative. Those are what Apple offers. Fast, good, cheap, only in Apple marketing campaigns.
Apple's problem started back in the 80's when they chose to bundle their hardware witht he OS. The whole reason Intel/AMD based systems have pretty much been the only game in town for persoanl computers is the fact that IBM allowed clones to be made. IBM computers were hella expensive. The clones were not. Guess which machines everyone and their mom went for? Then you have Microsoft who doesn't force vedors to fork over their left testicle and first born to create software for their OS. This combo is what has made Microsoft the jugernaut it is today and Intel/AMD systems so dominant. You can't expect someone with a bunch of software they already know and love to switch to a whole new platform and more than likely be forced to look for other apps to fill the holes left by the apps that simply do not exist in the Apple OS universe. OK let's say that Apple can compete on price. (snickers) Can they compete with available software libraries? The answer is no. :-) I seem many windows apps with ports to Linux and Unix but very few to Apple OS. Why do you suppose that is? Lack of market share. Apple, try as they have in the past, is not mainstream. It's actually loosing ground. The places where it traditionally reigned supreme (schools and Multimedia) are being taken over by Windows boxes. Let's try to remember the only reason Apple is aropund to day is that Microsoft (Bill Gates) saved them. They invested 150 million in Apple. I suspect to avoind even more chrages of being a monopoly. Had that not happened Apple would not be here to day to make these wishful boasts. If Apple really wants to gain marhet share they will have to drasticly change the way they do business.
I assume you're referring to yourself with the new thread title? Trying to pass off Parallels as useful for gaming could only be seen as such. http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6546370.html in other words, its utterly useless currently for gaming.
by the time you goto the trouble of paying the extra cost and time of setting up bootcamp, any price difference is likely gone and it takes time, as is said around here, time is money.
as for an xbox360, great. Only what? another $500 or $600? plus you've now got a second machine. That makes total sense.
Mac hardware is proprietary and expensive. If they had MS's market share, Apple would be in an even more monopolistic position than Microsoft. Remind me again why people switching to Macs is a good thing?
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
PC hardware is commodity. If you don't like Windows, run Linux. Apple is a holdover from the bad old days when computers first got to the consumer level. We had Ataris, Commodores, Apples, etc. You had to port for all that stuff. Add-ons cards? They had to be designed for the hardware.
I trust Apple about as far as I can throw it. Bitch all you want about MS, but at least you can install some other OS on open, commodity hardware with a well known BIOS interface. If Apple wants my business, they'll have to drop their proprietary hardware model and play fair. I don't think they will though. As long as they can hide behind their proprietary hardware, they don't really have to compete with the gorilla from Redmond. This is probably a smart move on their part, because the gorilla throws some mighty big feces. So. They've got their business from people who don't care about the hardware being closed. Best case scenario? Someone figures out a way to clone the Macs legally, then Mac becomes the new PC and MS has to port Windows to run on Macs natively. But then it's just "full circle". In effect, it would be the same as Apple competing directly with a PC version of their OS.
If anybody can compete with MS, it's Apple, but they won't do it. I understand why; but it's still a shame because it would be a great tech story--much more interesting than the Intel switch.
Anyway, with commodity hardware, a bunch of hackers can rebell against the monopoly. Rebelling against a monopolized proprietary hardware vendor would be much more difficult, and that's why I shun Apple.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?