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."

Comments

For nerds at least

[eclectro]

it's hard getting anything naked.

Re:For nerds at least

[ameoba]

Hard : You getting someone naked.
Easy : Someone naked getting you hard.

Integration has always been Apple's differentiator

[Infonaut]

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.

When you write for specific hardware....

[vertical_98]

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.
 
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 ;P
 
Vertical

Because there is no enforcement.

[khasim]

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.

Re:Because there is no enforcement.

[westlake]

So you're telling me that if Gateway + HP + Dell decided to offer Linux only, they would go bankrupt because no one would buy anything from them?

Well, yes.

There are enormous economies of scale in building for the Windows market. You do not opt out of a market that has ninety to ninety-five percent of your potential customers.

Re:Because there is no enforcement.

[eno2001]

How true. Most people think they are using "Word" no matter what word processor their system came with. I still can't comprehend what it must be like to not be able to discern the difference between a brand and an application. I can't comprehend how someone can't tell the difference between a web page and a local application. And yet, here we are... with a large segment of even the brightest people who can't deal with abstractions. And take into account that future releases of mainstream Linux distros will be including virtualization of some kind where the end user can run Windows on top of Linux and you have a formula for disaster even though you shouldn't. How did we get to the point where people can't process abstractions? It's pretty much a necessity these days if you deal with any usable computing.

the silent mac minority

[Darth Cider]

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.

Re:the silent mac minority

[gardyloo]

OK, OK. Anecdotes are fun, and sometimes useful. But here's are some that may seem to counter yours (too, just a story). Generalizations are always iffy.

      Our research group uses lots of USB keys, partially because we have lots of people in our group, but also because some of us *cough, cough* tend to lose theirs. Of three major brands of USB keys, they all work initially with XP, with OSX, and with linux (KDE, XFCE, command-line, whatever). About eight of the ten or so keys, though, have eventually failed on the OSX machines around here, though still work just fine for XP and linux. I don't know which OS/filesystem causes it, or if the OSX machines just don't push out the voltage necessary to operate these USB devices properly after a while, or what.

      Also, plugging in my dad's digital cameras and my girlfriend's into OSX has never failed to bring up easy dialogues to transfer pictures, etc. But they've never failed on XP (without installing drivers) nor on linux (again, drivers are already in the system, and there are no problems).

Re:the silent mac minority

[Spencerian]

Your problems reflect a lack of knowledge in making these features work. I do this for a living. Want SMB volumes to mount on startup? If you're working in a Microsoft Active Directory network, make your Mac a member of the domain for single-sign-on authentication and many other features. Or make an LDAP domain if you have Linux servers and get it done. That's just one way to make that work.

Not all tools are perfect (the Finder does have problems sometimes), but to blame the tool because the building won't go up, well, that's just uncool.

There is nothing you haven't mentioned that hasn't a resolution that requires you to spend a lot of time on it. Tired of using the GUI? Go around it; this is a BSD after all. It'll likely work.

Re:"Macs aren't more expensive..[shipped] with an

[kraut]

> A Mac would be cheaper if Apple didn't have to develop OS X.
Of course it wouldn't be a Mac either.

Is It the Same Half That's Wrong With Apple Too?

[MSTCrow5429]

"After all, Windows is only half of what's wrong with the PC as a product."

After all, the hardware half of a Macintosh is just a PC.

Re:Integration has always been Apple's differentia

[dangitman]

Not with anyone I talk to. Apple is most definitely a hardware company, if you measure this by income.

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?

Re:Hardware and software...

[Kjella]

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?

1) Piracy. By making you buy complete Macs they know they got paid for OS X as well, the hardware is the biggest and most complex dongle possible.
2) Support. By having just a few fixed configuration, testing and support is much easier. Many crappy experiences with Windows is due to crappy hardware and crappy drivers.
3) Image. Apple wants to have an image, for example they've never released a low-end machine. The iPod was built on image, like "You can have any color you want, as long as it's white" which most people thought died out with Henry Ford. They're not going to give up on their hardware image easily.
4) Pricing. Apple doesn't really charge a fixed price for OS X, they can price-gouge you based on what hardware you intend to run it on. If they had to offer one price that'd run on anything from Mac mini-class to Mac Pro-class machines, they couldn't.

Vista? No thanks. XP or OSX will do fine.

[Channard]

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.

Re:Integration has always been Apple's differentia

[fermion]

The thing is that the only companies that mattered, up to the mid 80's, were the system integrators. They were the one that deliver the machines that would do the job. It made sense. Few people wish to have a compressor dropped off at thier door,and then be told they can build the refrigerator. Most people don't even want to repair the refrigerator. So the important companies were the ones that not only delivered complete solutions, but that supported those solutions as well. Companies like IBM and Xerox.

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.

Re:subject

[Nexum]

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.

Parent is wrong, not insightful

[mrchaotica]

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.

Just a few problems in your post...

[Space cowboy]

In the interests of accuracy...

• Comic life - if you haven't tried it (and by your comment, it seems you haven't), then you're just uninformed. Comic life isn't the most essential app I've ever used, but it's more like "DTP for comics" than "add a few speech bubbles"... And it's interface is gorgeously intuitive. It's sort of in a class of its own, but it's *really* nicely done, to the extent that it was a showcase app at one of Apple's events.
• Grid computing - lots of (linux) systems can be configured, but I doubt any of them are quite so easy to configure as a Mac:
  Control Panel -> Sharing -> hit the 'XGrid' checkbox. Done. I guess that qualifies as "best in class".
• iLife - um, either you don't know what you're talking about, or you're just wrong. Show me the gentoo program that can create a DVD menu by dragging photos, adding transitions and behaviours (akin to "Motion") to make them move/interact, drag/dropping movies for both menus and content, allowing layout of all this and interaction-scripts to be written. Now show me a program that does all that with an intuitive well-designed interface. I could do the same for pretty much all the iLife apps (not just iDvd) - they're textbook examples of "best in class" apps.
• Shake is not a plugin. I was privileged to know and work with the Shake team, and it's a truly awesome (in the traditional, rather than Californian sense) piece of software. The coders are demi-gods - yes I mean you Christophe and Arnaud. Shake is a compositing application that is used to create entire movies - just about every movie in recent times will have been through either Discreet Logic or Shake (probably both). I used to work in the post-production business, I know of what I speak - a licence for Shake was ~$10k. A "plugin" it is not. Sadly it's been discontinued, however the original team are hard at work on (presumably) its successor.
• Logic, Logic Express, FCP - I've lumped these together because your ignorance is showing here. These are all standout-applications. Go to the BBC, or CNN, or just about any post-production house and you'll see FCP being used. Really used, as in workhorse-used. These are flagship applications for Apple, and it shows. I have a friend in ops at CNN - almost every journalist there will use a Macbook (Pro) in the field, with FCP to do rough-edits and provide EDLs back to the studios. The BBC are the same. When the two largest news organisations on the planet swear by your software, you're doing something right...
• Core-data is not "old technology" just catching up. It's a full object-relational model, built into the OS that can use a SQL (or other) back-end as storage. You get full undo/redo functionality "for free" because of its comprehensive object model. It's essentially "Enterprise Objects" scaled down for the desktop. There's nothing (that I know of) like it bundled with any other OS. "Best in class" I guess
• Core-image is a top-notch image-io framework. It's the basis of Quartz composer, and it's how Aperture can (in real time) apply effects to enormous images without having to write a new image every time - Aperture just stores the instructions on how to get an image from a raw source, and Core-image is the grunt behind it all. There are only 2 programs I know of that can do this, and of the two Aperture is by far the more impressive. The other is Lightroom, and its still in Beta. "Best in class" again, I suppose.
• Core-graphics - another cool technology that provides innate use of the GPU, and is the basis for Quartz (the compositing engine that the Mac UI uses). CG treats the VRAM like a hard disk, and can "swap" textures in and out automatically, effectively providing an infinite amount of ram on the graphics card.

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

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[BlueCodeWarrior]

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.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[Nefarious Wheel]

Please understand, I love Apple AND Macs. Heh -- that sounds a bit like "both kinds of music".

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.