Slashdot Mirror
Apple Climbs Into Third Place In U.S. PC Market
Tibor the Hun writes "According to Gartner and IDC, Apple now has between 7.8 and 8.5% of market share. While those numbers are not astonishing, they are not insignificant, and their growth does not seem to be slowing down. Will the pearly gates of acceptance open up for them once they reach the magic 10%, and will that have a positive effect on desktop Linux adoption? Hard to tell, but it's good to see that normal people (not just us geeks) are choosing to go with a different OS, rather than staying with the headache-inducing Windows."
when will a project similar to WINE come out for OSX? I have seen all sorts of apps that run on Mac and/or PC's but not linux. One would think it would almost be easier to "not emulate" the OSX software, as it is mostly unix based. If more software starts coming out for mac and PC, it might be easier to get the Mac software running under linux.
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Will the pearly gates of acceptance open up for them once they reach the magic 10%, and will that have a positive effect on desktop Linux adoption?
Wow, talk about a strange corollary. Linux desktop adoption has nothing at all to do with Mac market share. It would have been just as valid to write, "Will the pearly gates of acceptance open up for them once they reach the magic 10%, and will that lead a surge in kitten adoptions?"
Personally, though, adopt a cat anyway.
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
Why is 10% "magic"? This number is significant because that's how many fingers we have?
Because it has reached double digit
I argue that it's actually impossible to get Windows to run decently no matter how much of a geek you are because the software is written poorly and is designed to annoy the user.
Ah, counterexamples, the one useful function of anecdotal evidence. I run Vista beautifully. It doesn't get in my way, it runs the software I want it to, it just works. So yes, it is possible. Without much effort, either, I might add.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Geeks and enthusiasts wearing Wordpress t-shirts, using laptops covered in Data Portability, Microformats and RSS stickers lined up enthusiastically on Friday to purchase a device that is completely proprietary, controlled and wrapped in DRM. The irony was lost on some as they ran home, docked their new devices into a proprietary media player and downloaded closed source applications wrapped in DRM.
I am referring to the new iPhone - and the new Apple iPhone SDK that allows developers to build 'native' applications. The announcement was greeted with a web-wide standing ovation, especially from the developer community. The same community who demand all from Microsoft, feel gifted and special when Apple give them an inch of rope. When Microsoft introduced DRM into Media Player it was bad bad bad - and it wasn't even mandatory, it simply allowed content owners a way to distribute and sell content from anywhere.
Apple has wrapped the iPhone SDK in enough licensing, security controls and right management that it would make the Microsoft Active Desktop team blush. The phone and platform that is certain to soon take second spot behind Symbian in the smart phone market is also the most restricted and closed. Applications can only be installed from a single source, iTunes, and open source applications and distribution is near impossible. How do you install an iPhone application without iTunes? Where are the community advocates arguing for a standard interface, openess and free code?
What is more worrying is what the next move could be. Now that there is an AppStore with applications in iTunes, why wouldn't Apple move next to distribute all applications through iTunes - both desktop and mobile? There is no reason for them not to - the response to AppStore has been so enthusiastic that it is almost assured that you will start seeing desktop apps distributed in the same way. As soon as users are ground into looking at everything through iTunes, distribution of software in the traditional manner would be near impossible. Apple would become the gatekeeper, and both developers and users will enthusiastically pay the toll in exchange for pretty devices with pretty applications.
Apple has a very strong following in the open source community, and I can no longer understand it nor justify my own support (I am writing this on a Macbook). They built OS X on FreeBSD (a project I have enthusiastically supported, contributed to and been a user of for 10 years or more), they built Safari on KHTML, and are now using libraries such as SproutCore in MobileMe. They have taken open source and everything it built and leveraged it to get to market faster - yet they have now, with iTunes and the new SDK, built a layer on top of it that excludes others. For Apple, open source is great when it furthers their own goals, but not when using it with Apple software where it may further the goals of others.
The solution is simple. If you truly believe in open standards, open source and the good that it has created, then don't accept it. The spirit of open source was about building on the work of others in a transparent fashion, as the gains further the common good of all. Despite not taking over the desktop market, the philosophy and its resultants have destroyed the old enterprise market and many others. Open source and standards keep Microsoft and other big companies on their toes, the movement as a whole and the philosophy is very real. The solution isn't to adopt new licenses to try and prevent this, as it results in the mess that is GPL v 3.
It should be very possible to attach a simple BSD license to code, and if a large company utilizes the effort from others in a way that is unacceptable - the market should be able to sort that out, we simply wont buy it. The community needs to do more than just wear their support for openess and standards on their sleeves (and on their laptops). The problem with Apple is that the blind demand is driven by a distorted reality, so those same developers who poured thousands of hours into the BSD kernel now turn around and purchase an iPhone running that code, but it is now tied up in DRM, licenses and restrictions placed there by others.
Hard to tell, but it's good to see that normal people (not just us geeks) are choosing to go with a different OS
Most of the Mac owners I know are normal people. Either students that got an imac laptop from their school, older people who wanted an easy to use computer, or an artist (musician, photographer, graphic designer, etc.) who wanted a powerful machine that wouldn't get infected with a ton of spyware and viruses in a week.
None of the Mac owners I know (besides myself) are very tech savvy, they just know that their iPod works great, their PC is always infected with "viruses" (usually some spyware they installed cause it promised free smileys), and their friend's Mac never has any problems. Personally I didn't buy a Mac just for a different OS. If I want to toy around in something other than Windows, I just go install Linux on whatever old computers are lying around the house. I bought the Mac specifically for Aperture, and Final Cut Pro since I do a lot of photography and video work. I know there exists open source software or expensive Windows software to do that stuff, it's just none of it is as powerful or easy to use as the Mac versions. I don't need Mac OS to have a stable computer, I just like the software that exists for the Mac.
I use linux/*nix all day long at work, and I have a mac at home, yet there's very few things that I use on OSX that are *nix related. Maybe running 'top' is about it, and that's a rarity. I picked OSX because of the applications and how they are all integrated in with each other, pure and simple. My laptop at work is a company provided XP system and while not having the polish/eye candy that OSX has, it gets the job done.
When linux distros have the same ease of use, smooth upgrades and most importantly application integration (with each other AND the OS), then I can see people like myself thinking about saving a few bucks and going with Linux instead.
I assume that when I buy a dishwasher, the interface is intuitive and it just works, why should we treat computers any differently?
So what are you doing wrong? XP works beautifully for me and everyone i know. Worked really well for the 100+ users and 150+ machines for which i was sys admin.
Also, learn the difference between facts and opinions.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
I think you have to be a little insane to use some Apple hardware. Does anyone remember the puck mice? The ultra-flat desktop keyboards they're selling now are almost as bad. The earbuds that come with iPods are all universally crappy, both in build and sound quality. It's bizarre that, with Jobs exerting such obsessive compulsive control over Apple's output, crap products like these somehow slip through the cracks. It's almost like Jobs is schizoid.
Then again, if Apple just isn't good at designing certain things, what are they supposed to do? Start selling updated IBM Model-M keyboards with their high-end desktops? Grado's with the iPods? Paint microsoft mice white!!? It's almost unimaginable, and I see that as a problem.
This is my main beef with Apple. They're too image conscious. Admittedly, some of their user-base just wants to be fashionable, but is being fashionable really a long-term plan for success? Given how much of an asshole he is, sooner or later Jobs is going to become "uncool". Increased market share and, hence, lessened uniqueness isn't going to help. Normal people will use uncool hardware if it's *good*. This is a lesson I feel Apple needs to learn.
...and at this juncture some of the best Windows computers are Macs. You heard me right. They also make some of the best Linux computers. Now that MacIntel is the standard architecture for Macintosh, some people are actually running Windows or Linux on them. The reason why they do it? It's because quality control at the major PC manufacturers is down in the dumpster. If you want something that's built as good on the PC side, you have to go with boutique manufacturers like VoodooPC or Alienware, and even those are questionable because VoodooPC is now owned by HP and Alienware is owned by Dell. Since Lenovo took over the ThinkPad and ThinkCentre lines from IBM, quality has gone down the crapper quicker than you can say "ni hao."
Of course, part of the experience of Macs includes Mac OS X. And the folks who buy Macs only to put Windows or Linux on them are kind of unclear on the concept, in my not so humble opinion. Mac OS X is right now the best Unix or Unix-like operating system on the desktop. Now that Leopard is at 10.5.4 it is just plain awesome and just plain works. 10.5.2 was good for me too and so was 10.5.3, but I had no occasion to use 802.11n connectivity and I know that broke with 10.5.2. With 10.5.4 even those with 802.11n wireless access points are happy.
Still, if it means more people with Macs regardless of what OS they run, that's fine by me. More Macs sold equals more visibility for Mac. Everyone assumes that Macs run Mac OS X so the bigger the market share the more likely people will consider Mac users as more than fringies.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.