Slashdot Mirror
Can Apple Take Microsoft on the Desktop?
An anonymous reader writes "RDM asks Can Apple Take Microsoft on the Desktop?, a comparison of recent sales and profits and the future outlook for Macs and PCs. It's the opinion of the article's author that Apple doesn't have to take a majority share of the desktop market to win. The key is to take the most valuable segments of the market. They show via a few quick financial numbers that even though Apple is selling fewer machines, they're making more money per machine than your Dells or your Gateways. Not being beholden to Microsoft gives them a big advantage when competing with traditional PC sellers. Once Apple is positioned, Microsoft will be forced to choose whether it wants to battle Mac OS X for control of the slick consumer desktop, or repurpose Windows as a cheaper, mass market alternative to Linux in corporate sales. If it doesn't make a choice, the company will face difficult battles on two fronts.""
The cost of a product is not just the cost of the box but the cost of the people to support it. Linux requires more support from people with more knowledge and hence the support is more expensive.
Interesting. The fairly large medical clinic at my university is also an all-Apple environment. (Even the TV screens in the lobby run a looped Keynote presentation.) There must be a good set of patient-management apps in the medical space for OS X. I've seen the login screen my doctor uses, but I can't remember the name of the app offhand.
I for one though, do not like Apple and its OSX as a platform and wonder why people say it's very good as a platform.
I don't like their hardware strategy, but I like OS X because it requires far less effort to maintain it than anything else I've used. I like it that there's no registry that can get corrupted such that one installer can ruin everything, and most programs don't need an installer or uninstaller (drop the program icon to trash & empty usually removes the program), and that there's nowhere nearly the dependency hell of any other OS I've used. I also like the fact that I can actually force a user account to have no admin priviledges and the software would actually work. This works under UNIX, but for my family, there's always one program that they need that pukes when it doesn't have admin priviledges.
I question any kind of technical superiority below the window dressing
As a desktop system, I'd say OS X is technically superior to Linux. As far as UNIX's go, Darwin state of the art circa 1995, but its perfectly adequate for a desktop machine that doesn't need to saturate a 400 MB/sec RAID array or handle a server with a thousand concurrent threads.
On the other hand, the graphical infrastructure is really superior. Quartz is a couple of years ahead of Cairo in maturity and performance, which is not so surprising given that its several years older. The compositing infrastructure is really mature in OS X, while its immature enough in Linux that Ubuntu still doesn't see fit to ship a compositing manger by default in Feisty Fawn. And HIView/HIToolbox (the view/control framework that's been slotted underneath Carbon and Cocoa) is miles ahead of GTK+, although the latter has a much cleaner API with less historical baggage. And DRI is just now getting some crucial features (management of GPU memory, virtualization of GPU resources) that OS X's GL stack has had for a while now.
As for slowing down, there is really no indication that Apple is moving more slowly than Linux. It'll still be a couple of years yet before the DRI/X.org/GTK+ stack catch up with OS X 10.4, much less what's in 10.5. And there are some really fundamental problems with XRender that would keep it, without a significant redesign, from being able to support features past what Apple introduced in OS X 10.2.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The thing is with Apple you only have one supplier, Apple, and one price, what they say is what you pay, you can't shop around at all. With PC's you have dozens of supplier to choose from. So finding a PC maker that is selling a system at a similar price to a similar Apple system is not difficult. However it is also not difficult to find PC makers selling systems at a lower price than Apple, it's called shopping around, something you are unable to do when buying from Apple.
So yes, you can show me plenty of examples of expensive PC's and say Apple is on par with pricing. But I can reply right back; I just bought an Acer Aspire 5102: dual-core AMD processor, 1 gig of ram, 120 gig harddrive, 15.4" screen, dvd-burner, built in webcam and ati graphics. All of it for 675 bucks, delivered to my door, for just an hour or two shopping around on the internet. Show me an Apple laptop even close to that configuration for that price and I'll eat my hat.
"It coudl cause a push for some companies to adopt cheap Macs on the desktop. Maybe if Apple can bring the price of the Mini back down."
It is not a question of cost. Mac are quite competitive compared to equivalent machine. The problem is the range of available machine. You have a *very* limited subset of hardware you can choose from Apple, and all of them are designed either for home ( cheap one ) or for very top of the range professional ( MacBook Pro, MacPro )
There is no average common machine. Example: The mac mini is slightly underspec for a developer ( mainly: harddisk sucks, only 2 GB memory max ) and the design is completely irrelevant: we have all plenty of lost space under the desk. My company buys beige ibm/dell boxes with the same spec as the mini and roughly the same price, but the fact that the dell/ibm come with standard disk in a standard ugly box is seen as a benefit, unlike in my livingroom.
Off course, there is the mac pro, but it is completely overkill, both in cost and performance. ( Again, not saying it is not competitive against similar spec machine, but that's the equivalent of 'if a knife is not good enough for hunting, we also sell machine guns' )
Because first you need to find a computer user who "just wants email/browsing/office and access to some apps through a browser".
The grand parent was talking about the corporate market and so was I. You're correct about the home market, but not a locked down business.
Among home users this excludes games; among corporate users this excludes most of business software that is out there (assuming MS Office for Mac is procured and tested for compatibility.) Training of the employees is a problem as well. Myself, I have an old PowerBook 5300ce somewhere, and it still works, but when I tried to use it the experience was far from intuitive. That was with MacOS 9.x IIRC, I can't say if the modern OSX is more Windows-like (to appease the Windows users.)
The corporate I work far has all it's business apps written in Java. Theoretically there's nothing to stop them switching to OSX.
In other words, nobody is interested in the limited choice that you offer. But you are not the first to offer it; a number of "thin computing" companies, starting with Sun, tried to promote this concept.
Except that it wasn't what I was suggesting.
They all failed so far, because hardly any modern app (like Outlook 2007) can run in a browser. In a pinch you can use Webmail, but it is light years behind the native, local code. If you own a computer you might as well use it to its full potential.
Have you tried OWA recently? I realise it's not the argument I was making but it works extremely well. Even using Safari. And like I said, I wasn't suggesting a thin client.
It took me less than five seconds to discover you're wrong.
comma
Instead taking an Apple computer, and then trying to configure a PC to be similar, turn it the other way. Take a bunch of random PC's, and try to get an Apple computer with the same features. Due to Apple's limited selection of hardware, almost always, the Apple computer is going to be more expensive (though you will end up with features the PC doesn't have, that doesn't mean I want to pay for them). This is especially due to the fact that you have to move up pretty far into Apple's line up to get features found on basic and mid-range PCs, like a 3.5" harddrives, expansion slots, and non-integrated graphics.
The E1505 is a completely different class of machine. It's a full pound heaver, a third of an inch thicker, an inch and a quarter wider, and an inch and a half deeper.
In the laptop market, the price of the machine isn't just proportional to the specifications, but to the size, weight, and build materials. Smaller machines cost more to build, and they sell for more. The E1505 is bigger, heavier, and (from direct experience), more cheaply built. No surprise that its cheaper. Indeed, its no surprise that its cheaper than Dell's own Latitude, which is more expensive than the E1505 precisely because its smaller and better-built.
The MacBook's closest competitors, from the point of view of specifications and form-factor, are the Vaio C series, ThinkPad T 14.1", the Latitude D620, and Asus's 13.3" model. Relative to the Vaio, the MacBook has more features for the same price and similar build quality. Relative to the ThinkPad, it is heavier and a bit less sturdy, but with a better screen and more features at a slightly lower price. Relative to the D620 its better built and has a better screen for a slightly higher price. And its almost identical to the Asus model at the same price.
When I bought my MacBook, I did some comparison shopping. In its size/weight category, its really hard to find a better notebook at the price. You can get bigger features by going to a bigger form-factor, but lugging around a 15" laptop is a PITA. You can also save money by going with less performance (in particular, dropping the dual core or going to an AMD chip will save you a lot of money). However, if you want a fast dual-core machine in a mid-sized form-factor, the MB is a great choice.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The consumer market is 40-50 percent of the total PC market.
You think that Apple is mostly selling to consumers? You're wrong.
"Apple's Macs are primarily targeted at three core markets: consumer segment (25% of Apple's PC business), education (33%), and SMB with a strong focus on creative professionals." (Deutsche Bank report citing IDC figures)
Apple is selling hundred thousands of Macs in the education sector, in this earnings call transcript Tim Cook mentions two large contracts totaling 50,000 units and this is not an uncommon occurrence.
"Ten percent of the Company's net sales in 2006 were through its U.S. education channel, including sales to elementary and secondary schools, higher education institutions, and individual customers." (Annual annual report 2006)
Apple is also doing well outside of the U.S., last year a Gartner analyst told Macworld: "For the first time, Apple is number one in the EMEA education market with 11.6 per cent of the market in Q3/2006 against 9.6 per cent in Q3/2005."
Apple is gaining market share in the consumer segment, in Q2 2005 Apple's share increased to 5.5 percent in the U.S. and 3.1 percent worldwide (Deutsche Bank report citing IDC figures). It must be higher by now, but nowhere near 33 percent!
> Where is the option to set the default web browser? Why, it's in the Safari control panel!
... everything executable gets onto the iPhone through iTunes, same as iPod
... rather than "installing software" with iPod accessories you just hook them on and they work because the software part is already in the iPod like a driver ... imagine if hardware makers gave their drivers to Microsoft and you the user just plugged stuff in and it works ... that's how Apple does it
Similarly, the option to set Firefox as the default Web browser is in Firefox.
If you don't like Safari, follow these steps:
1) drag the Safari icon to the Trash
2) optionally, empty the Trash
3) no step 3
Compare to "uninstalling IE" on Windows.
> Just like similar options -- email client, HTML editor, etc -- are on the "Internet Options" control panel on Windows
> -- but that is actually in Control Panel, not just in IE.
On the Mac, this is decentralized. Rather than tell the system what is your default editor for files that end in ".html", you tell the actual files. So if you want to always open ".html" files with Dreamweaver, then select an ".html" file and choose File > Get Info and in the inspector that appears, under Open With you can choose Dreamweaver and then click the button right next to that: "use this application to open all documents like this".
When you open a document on the Mac, the document tells the system what app to use. This enables you to have the freedom to set different HTML files to open in different applications. For example you could have the files on your Web server all set to open in BBEdit for editing, but the files that are floating around your Desktop could be set to Firefox for viewing.
> And look at how they are handling the iPhone. NO third-party apps, the end
You are wrong in a number of ways:
1) third-party apps will be available for purchase through iTunes just like iPod games, Steve said this himself the day of the announcement, the main point regarding third-party apps is that the user will not be able to download-and-install on the iPhone itself as a security measure
2) iPhone has a standard Web browser in it with HTML 4, CSS 2.1, JavaScript 1.5 therefore it runs every application on the Web right out of the box with no installing, e.g. you have Flickr and eBay ready to go instead of being able to install Tic Tac Toe
3) most of the third-party apps for current smart phones are either built into the iPhone (e.g. audio/video player) or the iPhone doesn't need them (e.g. memory optimizers that help you get more out of your 128 MB)
4) iPhone has an iPod dock connector, therefore it runs over 3000 iPod accessories and more to come
So the iPhone is not going to be empty at all. You are going to have Web applications, you are going to have all kinds of stuff coming over from your iTunes (your audio/video, iPhone apps, Contacts, etc.) and you are going to have iPod accessories. And with 8 GB of storage it is going to make the "freedom" of other smart phones look ludicrous.
> Apple controls the hardware, and prevents anyone from making other hardware on which to run Mac OS X.
No, they don't. Mac OS X itself requires Apple hardware because that is what it was designed for. Apple is not under any obligation to imitate Microsoft's business practices or licensing customs. Now that HP has destroyed its own OS projects it does not have a right to Apple's OS on the same terms it made with Microsoft.
You seem to think the worlds IT problems can be fixed by putting everything onto web servers providing anywhere access. All well and good, but what that doesn't address is the thousands of desktops in an organisation that have to be installed, patched and tailored to the configuration the user of that PC needs, i.e. fat clients. The big problem with this model is that it requires a huge investment in manpower and time to make it work. Plus in many cases it ties people to just one PC/workstation, or a small group of PCs/workstations with the same config. There's no flexibility and it's an expensive management headache.
Project Athena fixed this by having the workstation do an extremely fast network boot that loaded a root f/s and a skinny OS, with the usr and var filesystems remotely mounted on centrally controlled servers. Data and applications (if I remember right) were provided using AFS (the Andrews Filesystem) and bundled into containers. The whole thing was centrally managed and at its height there were 20,000 campus workstations supported by just 6 members of staff. Any student could use any one of the 20,000 workstations and guarantee their environment would be the same. This should have been a smash hit, but it was the 15K to 5K price difference between RISC workstations
HP's VDI solves the same problem. The thin desktop clients are cheap and dumb. They connect to generic Windows instances running under VMware and the user environment is layered on top at login time. The thin desktop clients can be deployed en-mass as throw away items, which means you don't need a small army of support staff in your remote offices to manage them. It solves a very real management problem in the Enterprise today, one that's not solved by just converting all your apps to web based apps.
Do Apple have anything like this today? No. Do I wish they did? Yes. But Apple are not targeting the Enterprise (yet) and you should know that in your position. You don't do Apple any favors by pretending otherwise.