Slashdot Mirror
Leopard Vs. Vista
Rockgod writes to point us to an ongoing series of articles, "Leopard vs. Vista," by Daniel Eran. The latest is part 4, Naked Sales, and it's a meditation on hardware without Windows, Apple's strategy of hardware-software integration, and the dissatisfactions that arise from the creative tension between Microsoft and hardware manufacturers. (The earlier articles in the series are linked form this one.) From the article: "The vast majority of PCs come with Windows pre-installed, and actually can't be sold without it. Leading PC hardware makers can't freely advertise PCs sold without Windows, or with an alternative OS such as Linux, without having to pay Microsoft significantly more for every other OEM license they ship. That's why all name brand PCs prominently repeat their own version of the cult-like phrase 'Dell recommends Windows XP Professional,' as if there were a choice in the matter and they thought it would be helpful to provide some guidance... Apple's current Get a Mac advertising campaign doesn't compare Mac OS X to Windows, it compares the complete experience of a Mac with that of a PC. After all, Windows is only half of what's wrong with the PC as a product."
it's hard getting anything naked.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
I'm aware of their old contracts, but are they still in effect? Can't they be renegotiated?
I'm surprised that Dell, Gateway and HP would still be taking it up the rear. Ubuntu is a good enough system for a lot of homes that only need to do email, web, and type grade and high school papers.
Why would they still be subject to such ridiculous terms, especially after MS has been convicted of abusing their monopoly status?
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
From the original Mac, back in 1984, to the iPod, Apple has always been about integrating hardware and software into one seamless experience. They certainly haven't always hit the mark, but it seems they have an advantage in an era where experience design continues to become more important.
Discussion about whether Apple is a hardware company or a software company has been going on for ages, but Apple has always been a systems company. Microsoft has subordinated hardware to software, and the PC industry has developed according to that dictate. Maybe that is why so many people immersed in the Windows world have a hard time understanding how the Mac is different.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
From the article:
Macs aren't more expensive because Apple ships them with an OS, just as Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer does not raise its cost for Windows. Windows would not be cheaper if the company removed IE, just as Apple wouldn't save any money by shipping Macs without Mac OS X.
Err...well, yes Macs are more expensive because Apple ships them with an OS. That's because Apple has to recover the cost of developing that OS through sales of Mac hardware. Note that I'm not comparing the cost of Macs and PCs here, I'm talking about the cost of a Mac as an absolute. A Mac would be cheaper if Apple didn't have to develop OS X. Whether it would be worthwhile for them to do that I leave as a (rather obvious) exercise for the reader.
Cheers,
Ian
"Windows is only half of what's wrong with the PC as a product."
Yeah, but hardware is at least half of why I haven't gotten a Mac.
I don't *LIKE* the touchpad, I have both the touchpad and the
clitmouse on my laptop and I finally disabled the touchpad because
it got in my way more than I used it. I also have a built-in
fingerprint reader, and am quite fond of using it for 2-factor
authentication. For anything but play, I wouldn't go back to a
machine without it. Sure, I could carry a mouse and fingerprint
reader, but I don't *LIKE* mice, and really don't need more crap
to carry.
Combine that with a friend with a Power Book complaining about how
the pretty from part of the palm rest is too "sharp" and bothers
his wrists, where mine has a nice 30 degree on-ramp, and the
nifty metal cases on the Power Books significantly cuts down
on WiFi range...
I know that Apple wants to both simplify their software support
requirements, and continue to get revenue from hardware sales.
However, they're cutting themselves off from software revenues
by requiring it to be used on their hardware. I'd have bought
and tried on a spare laptop already if I had the option.
It boils down to this: If Apple's hardware is so fantastic,
why do they feel that the only way they can compete is by
forcing people to use it? What are they afraid of?
Sean
I second that! A Mac is a PC that will also run Mac OS and You can do anything you want to do on Mac OS and on Windows or Nix just with different applications.There is no difference beyond that pick which applications you like and buy the appropriate machine/OS.
Not apologizing for Windows, but when you only write for specific h/w, you 'should' be able to get it right. Windows, Linux, and Mac OSX '86 all suffer from the crappy h/w syndrome.
;P
I built a Smoothwall firewall last week, that kept crashing. I finally tracked the problem to a bad NIC (that was just good enough to run in Windows and to not to generate error messages in the log).
Does that make Macs better than SW? maybe h/w-wise
Do I blame SW for the crappy NIC? I shouldn't, although I cursed them repeatedly while trying to find the problem
Do I blame Microsoft for the crappy NIC? of course, this is Slashdot
Vertical
72 CD D7 52 D0 7E D8 47 44 91 D5 84 D1 59 F1 A9-This is my 128bit integer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
It was deemed illegal to have "per-processor" licenses. So they don't have them any more.
But it is still "legal" to pay Dell to be part of your "advertising campaign". Which, in effect, reduces the cost Dell pays Microsoft per license. Those who do not want to be full partners in the campaign will be paid less than those who do.
Logical, isn't it? So if you push Windows instead of Linux, you pay less for Windows than if you did not. And the profit margins are so slim on computers now that the OEM's will take whatever deal is offered in order to increase their profits.
And since Microsoft still has the monopoly on the desktop, all the OEM's have to offer Windows. Even if they don't like the terms of the deal.
Today I watched my dear father struggle for four hours (4! whole hours) trying to make his complicated new digital camera work with Windows XP. I could not believe the complications he experienced. On a Mac, this would have been simple, easy, intuitive. What amazed me was his persistence. That's what Windows people do, they persist. See, the Windows experience is not just an OS experience, it is an application experience. So f***ed up. Like most fans of the Mac, I let fanbois of the Mac do my talking for me. I sit back and keep quiet. I am more than a little pleased when they go overboard. As electric as they get in their praises for the Mac, I am silently even more electric. On a Mac, you hook your camera up to the computer and you're done. On XP, you persist for 4 hours. What a difference a sixth of a day makes. So the "Mac user experience" is about how not to waste time. My dear old dad is in his 70s and won't switch to Mac. I enjoy watching his frustrations, actually, because his comments are priceless, and he doesn't have that much to do. But seriously, who would willingly accept Windows as the way to experience the wonders of modern CPUs? People with a lot of time on their hands.
It's not racism -- PCs aren't people -- it's bias, but I'm with you. The whole argument is tiresome and really quite pointless. Get what does the job and forget the platform bigotry.
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
> A Mac would be cheaper if Apple didn't have to develop OS X.
Of course it wouldn't be a Mac either.
no taxation without representation!
After all, the hardware half of a Macintosh is just a PC.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
And yet the hardware in a Mac is only half of what makes it a Mac. Apple designs products that seamlessly combine hardware that is compatible and optimized to work with the other hardware (i.e. motherboard is completely compatible with processor, etc.) and well-engineered software to effectively work together efficiently as one unit. The hardware that Apple selects alone does not make a Mac, and at the same time Mac OS alone does not make a Mac. It is the seamless integration of the two.
"There is no Honor, without Pie."
-Weeble
But that's not really a wise way to "measure" it. Apple is a hardware and software company. Where would Apple be without their OS and software? It's integral to their strategy. The original Mac was revolutionary because of the software design in the OS, not the hardware (although there were hardware innovations as well.)
Same with iLife, iWork, etc... all of the consumer level offerings are not serialized.
But Apple sells a lot more than just consumer-level software. Final Cut Pro, etc. Logic Pro is not just serialized, you need a hardware dongle to run it.
They are a hardware company. They sell Macs and iPods (soon to be phones). People buy Macs because of the software, not the other way around.
If people buy Macs because of their software not the hardware, then isn't that an argument that they are a more software-driven company than hardware-driven?
... and then they built the supercollider.
It's a common misconception that Apple computers are more expensive than similarly priced computers from other Windows VAR's (Dell, HP, IBM, ect)
I did a comparison between a Dell D620 and a MacBook. Guess what? The price was almost exactly the same. And depending on how you configured each to get a close match between the two, either one could be more expensive.
Bottom line, there is no appreciable difference in price when it comes to base features, warranty, ect.
E-nuff already - just buy what you like!
Hmmm, how about a nice Dell Power PC, preloaded with Debian? What, I can't buy such a nice hardware and software combination from the world's bigest PC maker? What gives? Oh yeah, the M$ monopoly I had almost forgoten about.
The market is not free to provide people what works best or even what they want. The Mac people, like everyone, puts up with the higher costs and intentional waste of M$'s dirty little tricks. It's worth documenting, but it won't last forever. The price is so high that people are looking for alternatives. M$ won't last much longer.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Of course they're not people, that would be silly!!
My mac, on the other hand...
Windows may eventually topple as the operating system of choice, but no time soon. Even if companies like Dell could freely advertise other OS's without penalty, I doubt it would make a dent in their sales of Windows PC's. Say what you like about MS, they have built remarkable brand name recognition. To erode that in the minds of people who say "the internet is broken" when IE won't launch is going to take a long time. Apple too, while having strong brand name recognition is seen often as cool, funky and not serious. Do they build a superior platform? Absolutely! Apple has always had superlative hardware and the easiest to use OS. I don't know why anyone would buy a mac and put windows on it, expect maybe to play games. There's an irony, Apple is often viewed by the general public as not serious and yet they have a superior suite of work applications while not having anywhere near the number of games available for windows. Windows is seen as the machine for work while having a mediocre suite of work apps and a killer selection of games. Apple has made inroads into the mass market, but with the iPod. At the rate macs are penetrating it is going to be ages before they make Bill Gates sweat buckets on the OS front. Right now he's laughing. In the PC wars, so what if a mac is a better windows machine? So much better for his market share.
Linux, Ubuntu is a step in the right direction, but until you no longer need to be an ardent computer hobbyist or know one to set it up, it ain't happening fast either. What Linux really needs is some kind of mature plug and play especially because people keep buying crap to hook up to their computers and they want to use it. There's lots of good software, the hardware link is what's needed if Linux is ever going to have a "Year of the Desktop".
In any event, in terms of manufacturer's offering an OS, it's going to be a Windows world for them for quite a while. There is no incentive for them to upset the apple cart until MS brand recognition go south. Geeks and their friends may think it has, but not enough to make a difference. In the meantime, all people who favour a particular OS or platform can do is enjoy their difference and show their friends. Someday it will make a difference.
I've recently got a Mac Mini and it's kind of handy, though I'm undecided as to whether my PC will get upgraded, or replaced, or if I"ll stick with Macs. What I do know is that I won't be plumping for vista given the high system demands it's got. 1GB memory at least? Er, no. What Leopard has going for it is that it doesn't require a significantly higher spec than a Mac running OSX 10.4.
The problem was that those solutions were very expensive, and what MS did was decouple the OS from the machine to create a myth of an equally powerful cheap machine. I say myth because if all the costs were factored in, the savings often were not that great. What was the benefit is that a person could buy a much more flexible machine, and if they were on a budget, but a lower quality machine than would be available from a company that actually cared about reputaion. As time went on, MS forced it's OS onto every machines, and created the monopoly. Any OEM, really system integrator that actually provided support to the end user, was forced to supply only MS OS, while MS could sit there raking in the profits while doing comparatively little.
But the front line is still, and always will be, the system company. These are the people that provide the front line support. The problem with the PC industry is that though they provide the front line support, they do not in fact reap very much of the profit. MS, who does relatively little, get the money, while all the real producers are fighting for the crumbs. But it is thier decision.
The point is that the long term successful companies are system companies that keep attuned to the users needs. IBM is a good example. HP is a good example. Apple is a good example. In fact, when Apple tried to be a hardware company, with spin off of Claris, the Newton that did not integrate, and a failing OS, the company floundered. It bought into the idea that hardware companies were more viable than system integrators. As much as people wish for Apple clones, supporting every cheap piece of trash on the planer comes at too high of a price.
Even MS is going to be a systems company, if it will survive. It will survive on the XBox, which is an intergrated product. It will survive on phones, if it will ever just make one instead of trying to force the phone companies like it did the computer OEM. Otherwise it will just be a speciality shop, serving legacy machines.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
If you remember the early days of personal computers, companies only sold systems. They designed the hardware and the software, you bought the whole package as a system.
When the IBM PC was introduced, the whole "system" idea was almost completely forgotten by the general public. In 2006, when you say "computer" most people think "I buy a box from someone and install an OS from someone else on it".
Apple simply never stopped selling systems, but we still hear people "I want to buy the Apple OS for my beige box" comments.
Apple sells complete systems, you can't have the software without the hardware, or vice-versa.
Something Mac only:
Delicious Library
Comic Life
Grid Computing out of the box
Handbrake (although I hear there's a Windows beta now)
MacTheRipper
iLife (iMovie, iPhoto, iDVD, GarageBand, iWeb)
Shake
Logic, and Logic Express
Final Cut Pro
This list of Mac-only software was written from my memory in less than 30 seconds. I'm of the very strong belief that tides have turned, and now OS X has the strongest line-up of software available on any platform at any price. Sure, there may be 10x more contenders for various tools (like DVD rippers, editing software, etc.) but the best in class is on the Mac. And it keeps getting better all the time due to technologies like Core Data, and Core Image, (and now Core Animation) that means that one person developing for the Mac can produce something that would take ten people to do the same on Windows.
This sig has been deprecated.
I feel like a broken record. Apple is not a hardware or software company. Apple is a technology integrator. They buy (or get for free like BSD) technologies, integrate them, pretty them up, and sell them for a huge markup. They don't manufacture their own hardware. They didn't develop the vast majority of their OS. They didn't invent the portable music player or the online music store. They integrated technology in a way that the mass market finds useful.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Why do we need USB for connecting a kayboard and a mouse. I don't exactly know how it works on the hardware level, but it seems that the PS/2 connectors do a good job as an interface for keyboards/mice. The PC industry has gotten to the point where every new technology does not have to be better than what it replaces. It's like saying that everyone should use WLANs because they are easier and newer than wired Ethernet. Great, but moving this 4GB file doesn't feel quite as.. "snappy". And is it really as stabl***CARRIER LOST*** Same goes for EFI. There is no reason to rush it, the BIOS works great! No-one cares about the BIOS anymore, the OS (drivers) just talk directly to the HW, so who cares if the system needs partitioning and boots in 16-bit mode , I don't notice that, and neither do 99% of the developers.
My late boss and I did an internal study for our company on the total cost of ownership difference between Macs and Windows pcs several years ago. He and I both happily used OS X, Linux and Windows for various functions.
:wink:). So I have NO idea why his machines hate him. Strangely enough, other than the normal "Why is this happening (or not happening) from the other Windows users in the company, their computers don't suffer from 1/10th of the problems of his.
At the time we were (and still are) building our own pcs for desktops and servers and installing Windows XP Pro on the desktops and Windows Server 2003 on the servers.
As far as hardware went, buying Macs were considerably more expensive than our build-it-ourselves machines.
Software though was almost the same between the two and either platform would serve our needs just fine.
Where the difference came in was when we added in the cost of additional software required for Windows like anti-virus, anti-spyware, etc. and the cost in downtime/manhours spent rebooting Windows, reinstalling to get the network working again, etc. i.e., the day to day maintenance of a Windows machine in a business environment.
Our final decision was that at least for our purposes, Windows vs Mac was Leasing vs Buying. Windows + our home brew machines gave us a much lower initial cost than buying Macs. However, the cost in downtime and maintenance over the life of the computer was much higher than that of our Macs. Total cost was about the same whether we went OS X or Windows. OS X would just keep us more stable over the life of the computer which is a very good thing when it comes to servers.
But not long after deciding that we were going to start moving to an all Mac house, he died from liver cancer. I'm just the system admin and his partner detests Macs. So we're still running Windows for everything.
Funny though, he gets bent because his computers are constantly getting infected, run slow, etc. while my two computers never have any problems. Of course my two machines run OS X and Linux and he seems to spend a lot of time on pr0n sites (even though he denies it.
So as far as I'm concerned, neither is more expensive than the other. When I can, I use whatever will do the job the best. When it comes to servers, I tend to use Linux and build-it-yourself server hardware. At home, we're almost completely OX X now.
Yeah, but hardware is at least half of why I haven't gotten a Mac. I don't *LIKE* the touchpad, I have both the touchpad and the clitmouse on my laptop and I finally disabled the touchpad because it got in my way more than I used it. I also have a built-in fingerprint reader, and am quite fond of using it for 2-factor authentication. For anything but play, I wouldn't go back to a machine without it. Sure, I could carry a mouse and fingerprint reader, but I don't *LIKE* mice, and really don't need more crap to carry.
I prefer mice to touchpads but as for clitmouse, I don't recall ever hearing of them. Years ago when I had a working laptop, now that Apple has released the Macbook Pro with Core 2 cpus I'll get one, I had a second mouse I kept in the laptop case to use when away from home. Sometimes I even carried a keyboard. Now, when Apple is actually shipping MacBook Pros, I may get a graphics tablet with it. Of course if so I'll run into the problem of being able to carry it all in one case.
I know that Apple wants to both simplify their software support requirements, and continue to get revenue from hardware sales. However, they're cutting themselves off from software revenues by requiring it to be used on their hardware. I'd have bought and tried on a spare laptop already if I had the option.
Apple isn't just a hardware or a software company, as someone noted earlier in this thread Apple is a systems company. If Apple were to release OSX for generic PCs, to tell the truth I'd like to see that, then they woud run into more than one problem. First Apple would have to support more than just one hardware system or a multitude pieces of hardware. Then if for whatever reason, a computer system or hardware didn't work, Apple would get blamed, it wouldn't "just work". Two, Apple would see a decline in hardware sales. And conceivably the biggest mistake is that they would run smack dab right into MS's territory, the commodity desktop OS.
It boils down to this: If Apple's hardware is so fantastic, why do they feel that the only way they can compete is by forcing people to use it? What are they afraid of?
Apple doesn't force anyone to use thir hardware, I'm using an HP PC so Apple didn't force me to use a Mac. Yes, if you want to use OSX you have to use Mac hardware but that's a choice, you don't have to use OSX. Simply if you use OSX on a Mac then you know it's going to work, Apple couldn't guarranty that if they allowed OSX to run on any old computer, on top of which as stated above Apple would see a decline in hardware sales.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The *only* complaints you could have in the ones you listed are the motherboard and (possibly) the processor... And Apple design their own motherboards, so that's what you get. Who *really* cares what motherboard you have, as long as it does its job ?
To break it down for you:
Either you're smoking something illegal, or you're woefully uninformed.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Just to note... Shake is a compositing application, and a fairly nice one at that.
s oftware)&oldid=84014269
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shake_(
And as you can read there, but I'll say here because I just love saying it in any MS vs Apple discussion: Apple killed support of Shake on Windows shortly after acquiring NothingReal.
So yes, GP poster, it's "Mac-only" (actually, there's the Linux version - but they charge you considerably more.) - but only because Apple made it such.
That is equivalent to MSFT partner programs which cost a lot more than three and a half grand. It gives you access to compatibility labs at Apple and other perks including discounts on hardware and early access to the next version of OS X seeds. None of MSFT's programs offer that.
Compare that to Microsoft's approach to developers, which is reflected by Steve Ballmer's comic "DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!" dance. Eg. Microsoft gives away free versions of Visual Studio.NET, you can downlad all the SDKs for free, etc. Visual Studio is by far the best IDE out there. The other ones don't come close to it in long-term usability (as Carmack said on his blog some years ago).
Right.... MSFT gives away lite versions of their expensive VS.NET product which you cannot be used for large projects. Apple includes gcc, all the SDKs for shipping and previous releases of OS X, Xcode and interface builder with every release of OS X on the DVD. Anyone can sign up for a free account to download free updates to the tools and SDKs.
Speaking of MSDN:
Sorry, but you are going to have to try harder. I have the top tier MSDN subscription through work.Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
It's a common misconception that Apple computers are more expensive than similarly priced computers from other Windows VAR's (Dell, HP, IBM, ect)
Naw, really?
Sounds like it to me -- remember, the cost of OS X are amortized over all the Macs sold, and possibly by iPods too. It's entirely possible that the fraction represented by a single unit becomes negligable.
That's possible too, if you really do mean "nearly identical." For example, a system supposedly equivalent to an iMac but does not include an iSight is not "nearly identical." Neither is a system supposedly equivalent to a Mac Pro that uses a Core 2 Duo instead of a Xeon or that supports less than 16GB RAM.
In other words, making a system that runs OS X could be cheaper than buying one from Apple, but only by cutting corners (not to imply that that's a bad thing -- there's no real downside if you didn't want the extra stuff anyway).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
As an Apple user, I am guaranteed that OS X will run perfectly on Apple's hardware - you don't have to think about it... it just works. If Apple were to give up control of the hardware spec, they would have an exponentially harder time making changes to the OS without breaking this seamless user experience.
As much as I would like to save some cash on my next computer purchase, I'm not prepared to sacrifice stability to do this.
As for the cases themselves, they're not just good looking, they're well engineered and well constructed. Remember, it wasn't until Apple showed the industry that case design mattered that PCs had anything other than big beige boxes with noisy fans.
First of all, you have no idea what "TurboCache" means, do you? Let me enlighten you -- it's Nvidia marketing-speak for "fake memory." The "256MB Quadro NVS TurboCache" doesn't have 256MB of memory; it's named that because it can use up to 256MB of system memory. It's not actually much better (if at all) than Intel's integrated video. And it certainly isn't comparable to the MacBook Pro, "with up to 256MB of dedicated graphics memory!"
Second, the MacBook Pro is also most likely better in several other ways, so you'd have to upgrade all those other things on the Dell to make it comparable. You can't go around saying "Macs are more expensive" when you're cherry-picking particular aspects of the machine -- they have to be comparable in every aspect, not just (for example) graphics.
So, in other words, your argument is both wrong and stupid. Have a nice day.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Control Panel -> Sharing -> hit the 'XGrid' checkbox. Done. I guess that qualifies as "best in class".
The parent poster's argument was that a lot of the Mac apps are "best in class", and I think he has a point. Certainly nothing you've said has managed to disprove it. As for "the only reason people buy
Physicists get Hadrons!
As opposed to doing what on a PC?
Mac:
1) Plug it in and it works
PC:
1) Plug it in
2) It works
I think Apple programmers are more productive than their MS counterparts, but not because they're in any way "better" - I think they have an easier life.
To code a Windows app on your own isn't particularly hard, but I don't think it scales as well to large groups - there's too much cruft in there, and too many ways to screw up with C++ because it's a complicated language. A group of 30 clever people, experts in the language, can be let down by one not-quite-so-expert person not realising some subtle interaction.
Apple, on the other hand, don't much care about backwards compatibility (just upgrade, and get all these extras too), have a much cleaner OS (basically unix), and a much simpler object-orientated language to work with. Objective C is 90% as powerful as C++, but it works in a different way and although it's very powerful, it's simple to pick up and use. Apple's guidelines are simple as well, and this helps when group A are relying on something that group B are developing, when groups A and B haven't even ever met.
So, Apple get to leverage lots of frameworks in an easier fashion. I think MS have a complexity-management problem forced on them by their language choice and their commitment to backwards compatibility. If I'm right, it's only going to get harder for MS as time goes by...
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
My experience is that Apple tends to have the LEAST amount of originality and they actively frown on people thinking outside of their box. Apple is the ultimate "mental monopoly" model, designed to lock consumers in as much as possible and force them to think and work the Apple Way.
MS is almost as bad. They practice economic monopolies. Most Apple fans consider this nothing more than crass capitalism compared to Apple's more artistic monopolistic model.
Linux is the only truly "free" solution. Do whatever you want, however you want to do it, and don't worry about making the wrong choice because the only cost to the consumer is their time.
The author behind these pieces clearly has no understanding of how markets are defined or represented. He continues to insist in his articles that it's possible to combine Microsoft + OEM marketshare in the PC industry into a single number, then give 48.3% of it to MSFT. Reality is, market share is measured in only [b]one[/b] product category at a time. If we're talking operating systems, that's Microsoft. If we're talking hardware PC shipments, it isn't. The kind of arbitrary graphing he produces (and bases a number of his arguments on) is nothing but made-up garbage. If I sound slightly peeved, it's because I read and emailed the author a few weeks back (after another /.ing) and tried to engage him in dialog on some of these issues and got no response. Now here he is again, continuing to tout his made-up numbers and methodology.
I recently bought a 20" iMac, my first Apple product ever. While researching it, I went through and configured, as best I could, a Dell with exactly the same components. In the end, the Apple was $4 cheaper. The baseline Dell was initially cheaper because the hard drive was 5400 RPM, the video card was an integrated Intel thing, the screen had a lower native resolution, etc. Once it matched the iMac's components, there was essentially no price difference.
I have seen Macs do stupid buggy things just like PCs do. If you think you can type faster or click and drag faster -- Apple will be there to happily take those extra bills from your wallet to make you feel better about yourself.
First, you clearly didn't read what I wrote. I made no claims about any software being "bug-free." What I said was that the integrated solution provided a better user experience for the end user, and that was what has apparently been the driving force behind consumers' purchasing decisions in every industry EXCEPT the desktop PC market. I, personally, am happy to pay more money for a better user experience, whether that takes the form of fewer visits to the repair shop because I bought a Honda instead of a Hundai or the form of fewer reboots, crashes, viruses, trojans, and other end user problems because I might choose a computer system that was designed and integrated as a whole rather than a cheap (and badly integrated) operating system and PC hardware combination.
You obviously still ascribe to the "old think" about what constitutes value in a personal computer. I suspect you fall into the hobbyist category of user that enjoys being confronted with some nasty little problem afflicting your computer and derive some sense of accomplishment from solving it. That sort of self-eating watermelon of a computer system is inherently broken. Owning a PC isn't supposed to be about buying into a culture of continually fixing broken stuff. It is about obtaining and using a device that makes you more productive and able to perform tasks you couldn't do without it. In my book, one of those tasks is NOT at-home computer diagnostics, repair, debugging, or any other sort of jacking around under the hood of the machine to make it do what I want. That is what I PAY for when I purchase the machine. I assume someone competent has already handled those issues.
Sadly, 90% of the user base out there doesn't expect that when it comes to PCs. That is the one great disservice Microsoft has done the computer industry and its consumers -- forced lowered expectations on us. Well, sorry if I don't share your lowered expectations.
Shut up and eat your vegetables!!!
When you buy a Mac, you're not just buying a computer. You're buying an experience.
When you lay down the cash for that shiny new MacBook, you're not just paying for the hardware. You're not just paying for the OS. You're paying for it to Just Work (tm).
Apple has quite the reputation to live up to in the Just Works department. Even if they released a 'generic x86 OSX' with the disclaimer of 'don't expect it to work at all,' people would still expect it to. Apple would still get bad press over it. That's not what they want.
No it wouldn't be a better world, because we'd still be stuck with Mac OS 9, or 7, or 6...
It's never healthy for one company to dominate to this extent, whoever they are. A truly healthy consumer PC market would have at least three equally strong players, with about 33% market share each. Just think of the innovation that would drive. The ironic thing is that computers would by now have considerably exceeded the current abilities they are now endowed with in terms of features and usability, and it's quite likely that the whole market would be larger as a result. Meaning that companies like MS would still be making just as much if not more revenue. It's in nobody's interest to have a stranglehold on the market the way MS do - not even MS's, in the long run. I think they are afraid of innovation because they are in fact pretty bad at it. They should hire better staff, relax and let competition have its way. It will get them in the end anyway, it's just a matter of time. Does anyone here really think we'll still be using any form of Windows in 2106?
I've switched permanently from Windows to Debian in 1998 (after toying around with it for a couple of years) and 4 years ago bought an iBook G3 and used Debian on it for everything except watching DVDs. The main reason I bought the iBook was its long battery life. This was before Centrino came out in Europe. One and a half years later, Skype came out and suddenly the fact that microphone wasn't supported under Linux made me try out OS X more regularly. After two weeks or so I nuked the Debian partition and switched to OS X. Haven't looked back so far, and my next laptop will be a Mac as well. OS X beats Linux as a desktop any time, it's simply no comparison.
It's not so much that OS X is shiny as it is polished and doesn't get in my way when I want to get work done. Of course, a properly configured Linux box does this as well, when you compare it to a Windows machine. But you miss out on the great integration that the Mac offers, not only between the apps that Apple makes, but also how third-party apps integrate into the desktop.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
Well, actually, what they did was build their own and then build their own OS on top of it. So I don't think that anyone is stopping you from building your own computer and your own operating system. By all means, GO FOR IT! Maybe it will keep you occupied enough to stop making stupid posts on slashdot.
I mean, does Apple advertise, "This is waaaay better than you could ever do it!" No. Again, nothing is stopping you from posting your 1337 r0x0r new system (d00d, with picz!) on the intarweb. I don't see what that has to do with Apple, or to the other guy's post.
It has been a nervous year, with people beginning to feel like Christian Scientists with appendicitis.
Macs are a bit more expensive by design, I believe. Cultural exclusivity plays a small part in the pricing and marketing. But a strong economic reason for Macs being (a) perceivably better and (b) more expensive is that by narrowing their choice of common components down to a single set that they know integrate well, they are opting out of the competitive race that drives the costs and quality of a typical Windows PC down to least-common-denominator.
BTW I've worked for both Apple and Microsoft. Apple's reality distortion field was way nicer.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
IBM licensed PC-DOS from Microsoft for every PC that hit the street. The clone makers licensed MS-DOS because it was compatible with IBM, but not bound to IBM by copyright. Microsoft 'conquered' the desktop because no business would buy anything but IBM because 'nobody ever got fired for specifying IBM'. The clone market took off because now people could buy a cheaper computer for home and take their work home at night.
The killer app for the PC was Lotus. Everybody had it. You could put in your floppy, turn the computer on, it'd come up, you could work all day, save off your work at 5 & just redswitch it. Lotus was an industry standard.
Apple, SGI, and Commodore ended up fighting it out in the graphics arena. When it was all said and done, Apple pretty much killed them all; graphics was the Mac's killer app.
People chose the PC for business reasons, not because it was so much better than anything else. Back in The Day, IBM meant business. And no clone maker would put anything other than DOS on their machines so they'd be compatible with what you used every day at the office.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Let's talk economies of scale.
Assume you spend 20 million bucks to create an operating system. Remember, this is a thought experiment, the 'real world' costs might be higher. Or lower. But in any case, me & thee will never know. Assume the marketting wanks are lying when they say 'This operating system cost $DOLLARAMOUNT to produce'. Odds are, they are lying.
Your brand spanking new computer is the only computer in the universe that can run this operating system. Thus, its price is 20 million dollars plus the hardware costs.
Assume now that you sell 20 million copies of that computer. Your amortised cost of developing that operating system is now down to 1 dollar per computer. Sell 100 million of those computers and the cost is now down to 5 cents a computer. And the more you sell, the cheaper the operating system becomes. The unit price of the computer stays the same, say 800 dollars retail, Parts would run you maybe 150 in quantity. (Hell, I can build my own machine for under $300) You get half the retail price of the computer from the wholesaler, who jacks up the price to 600 dollars and sells it to the retail outlet who adds 200 dollars to bring it up to the full $800 retail price.
You, as the manufacturer, make $400 for every computer you sell to the wholesaler. If you sell 20 million computers to the wholesaler, your profit margin is $249/machine. You've paid for the $150/machine & amortised the 20 million for the OS. Your total profit on that 20 million unit 'run' is $4,980,000,000. That's right, almost 5 billion dollars. Starting to see why vendor lockin is such a big deal to Microsoft and Apple?
The questions you now need to ask yourself are, 1) How much did Apple spend to develop their OSes? 2) How many units did they actually manufacture and sell? 3) How much did Microsoft spend to develop Vista? 4) How many copies of Vista are going to be shoved down everybody's throat?
It costs me about 50 cents to get a DVD I can write to. How much is Microsoft going to spend per DVD for several MILLION copies of Vista? I'm guessing pennies. And that's just for the home market. OEMs will put Vista on the hard drive with a reinstall partition that's hidden away from Joe Sixpack.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
There is nothing stopping you from installing Ubuntu on the Intel macs if you are a masochist. I have Vista RTM installed on the other partition on my MBP.
AFAIK Mac's come with OSX and you can't order them without OSX either.
Sorry to be rude but "no shit sherlock". Macs bought from Apple come with OS X installed for "free". The hardware sales subsidize OS X development. If you really want linux, you could install it yourself or talk to the guys at terrasoft solutions. MSFt do not make hardware solutions, Apple does. Therein lies the difference.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.