Nope, no "magic box" theory here. Computers have been given a pass for far too long. We expect our cars to work without any knowledge of mechanics on the drivers' parts. We turn a tv on expecting to get our digital cable HD content, without having any idea of how that works. Humans have been soaking in RF over AM and FM bands for what, a hundred years or so, yet less than 5% of the population can even tell you how a radio works. It is time for the computer industry to be held to the same standard as everything else.
To be honest, your reply doesn't really persuade somebody like myself considering Linux. All you offer is one excuse after another, which is the exact thing Walt was pointing out that average users don't have time for. You are correct with many of your comparisons to Windows, in that a lot of stuff doesn't work on Windows well, or out-of-the-box, but Walt did mention he was comparing Ubuntu to the general ease of use of Windows AND Mac OS X. All the things you claim don't work right out-of-the-box or without having to download special drivers simply isn't true on the Mac. MOST people realize this, and this is probably the #1 reason for the iPod's success. The user doesn't do anything but put the thing in a cradle and buy/rip some songs to the computer. No hassles. No fuss. *Almost* works the same with Windows too.
Mac users have long been known for being a close-knit circle of help. I've often stated the Internet saved the Mac in the mid-90s; without which frustrated switchers would have had no way to figure out their new machines or find the appropriate plug-ins/add-ons. OS X trumps Linux in volume of support out there, just not in voracity.
As for your first point, what good is it to be in control of your computer if you have nothing that works for it? If it doesn't play videos or see an iPod, does it really matter that "you are in control"? I guess if you are a computer science expert, this is a good thing, but since he was reviewing it from the stand-point of a typical user, then I see no validity in your first point.
3-5% market share is OVERALL, counting the billions of computers in use in businesses world-wide. If you take those out, where Apple has less than 1% penetration, then the 3-5% has to come from a MUCH higher home computing use. You must have some pretty low-brow friends if you know more people running Win98 than Mac OS X. I haven't seen Win98 running in a home OR a business in the past 2 or 3 years. I just left a Ed Tech. position for the Department of Defense. If ANYONE is prone to hanging onto out dated OSes, Department of Defense School's would be the one, yet they dumped Win98 within a year of XP coming out.
Same thing here in San Antonio (and in Austin too). Everyday, all day long there arehundreds of people in there buying computers and iPods. Compare that to the 12 Best Buys in this city and you'll see one or two people browsing the computers but not buying. That's Apple's strategy...high volume in one place, instead of low volume in a LOT of places...it costs a lot more money to support sales in 1000 stores than it does in 128 stores.
Well I'm being disrespecful to them because they aren't doing their freakin' jobs. Instead, the are chasing phony MS certifications around so as to perpetuate their own existences instead of actually, I don't know, making my computers work for me, and the company, the way WE work, not the way IT dorks work.
Now if I actually met an IT person who LISTENED to the needs of the user and actually abided by the system requirements documentation INSTEAD of pushing for things he or she is familiar with....AND they were able to keep the system operating "24/7/forever", then I might actually respect them.
What are you talking about? I bring my laptop home so it isn't physically stolen. I'm a consultant and work onsite for companies I don't know the employees. I don't have a permanent desk or a locker or anything. It is up to ME to not get my computer stolen, even if it is my company's machine.
Well, again like many other people, you miss the point. Apple doesn't WANT to put out a fast product to steal marketshare. They want to make great products. Their customers want great products, not a product that comes out too fast just to try and capitalize on Microsoft's current problems.
I have been a PC user at work and a Mac user at home for the past, oh 20+ years, and I've never thought to myself (while sitting at home)...."Gee, I wish I had that crappy computer from work here at home too!" Now that my company gives me a PC laptop, I bring it home (so it doesn't get stolen from work) and it sits in its bag while I use my $1000 cheaper MacBook.
I'm not sure why you can't understand that a Mac at home does not suddenly limit your productivity at work. If anything, it only highlights how unproductive you work computer is. "hassle of having to learn two operating systems"? The only hassle I see would be having to learn how to learn to maintain and keep a PC running at 1/3rd the productivity of a Mac.
And I'm not sure you've read the article or the other posts, but it is fairly clear that Apple isn't trying "hard" to take over the business world. They aren't trying at all, and they and their users are perfectly fine with that. They aren't breaking into new markets either, just making existing markets better. If Mac OS X only does one thing for the business world, I would hope it would be the same thing their other products do: force the competition to improve their offerings. Everybody wins that way.
I think you are correct thinking Apple is happy being where they are. I've been a Mac user for 20 years, and this niche is plenty big enough to handle 100% of my home computing needs and about 99% of my business needs. I for one am happy that Apple's first company goal is to produce the best product possible. Anything else would be selling out (which I believe they've saved for the iPod divisions..not that those are bad, but they seem to apply a more aggressive business model there).
The problem with EVERY market-share study is they are diluting the Mac presence by including their count in areas they have no interest in being. Whereas a PC is a cheap whore that will do anything for money, Macs tend to be made for personal/home use. If Apple wanted to get into the big businesses, I doubt they'd ship things not needed in big business, such as iTunes and GarageBand. To fix this misrepresenatation of Mac market share, why don't these consulting firms just look at a category called "personal computing" or "home computing". I'm sure Apple would be closer to the 20% range in the States, and closer to 50% in metropolitan areas.
I CAN use a Mac at work, but trying to get all the tightly controlled computer things to work on my Mac (even in Windows mode) isn't worth it. Not because the computer doesn't play along well, but because the tech idiots at work freak out and act like I'm some sort of anti-christ hooking up a MacBook Pro to a windows network. If they'd let me, I'd just do it myself, but these control freaks have to write a work order up for something as simple as hooking my laptop up to the LAN-drop if I move cubicles for the day.
In short, Apple doesn't want to dominate the corporate because it would diminish the quality of their home-user products, and the IT world doesn't like the threat of losing their power.
Yes, but then you are forced into archaic methods of actually PLAYING those songs on your cell phone...unless of course you like cycling through unorganized, random looking files like asdkj432232343.mp3, 102834ADDFL.mp3, and my personal favorite ASRINaDKDK333334343.mp3.
Or you can plug your iPhone/iPod into the dock, use third party tools and drag and drop stuff to your heart's desire (the hard way), or just use freakin' iTunes, the dock that comes with the phone, and your computer to manage all your songs, videos, emails, photos, calendars with the only user intervention being placing the thing on the dock (the easy way).
You talk as if you found a cool trick with a cell phone acting as a USB drive, when iPods have been BOOTABLE, external FIREWIRE drives (in the past) for the past, what, four years now?...so what? I will bet two months pay check that I can get my granny to put an iPod into disk mode faster than you can get your granny to get your phone into USB disk mode. And my granny is 90 years old.
I hate these freaking articles that tell ME, a hard-working, well-paid computer consumer that something is "too expensive". That is a relative term, and relative to most everyone else's income, maybe it ISN'T too expensive for me. A product is worth what somebody will pay for it, everyone else who isn't buying it can STFU and butt out. Just because YOU can't afford it, doesn't mean it is "too expensive" (whatever that means).
What is the first thing you want to do with a music player? Put some music on it. Well, there's no easy way to do this in iTunes.
Yeah, because "file--add to library" is so hard?
because dragging and dropping your files to iTunes is so hard?
because "file--import" is so hard?
because inserting a cd and clicking the songs you want ripped to you library when prompted is so hard?
because going to the iTunes store and clicking the "buy song" button is so hard?
Quit being so damned disingenious! What OTHER ways do you want to add songs to your iTunes library!!!???? If everything you claim is true, then you obviously have user induced handicaps when it comes to operating computers.
Also, it's not always a bad thing to be in a niche market, as long as the niche is big enough and margins are good.
Well stated. Just ask any auto manufacturer, since no single manufacturer enjoys larger than a 5% market share in the US. Seems then that all cars are a niche product. Seriously, I'm so sick of the lame argument that the Mac is a niche product....no shit sherlock...its niche is the home user, small-office/home-office and small creative companies. Just because it is a niche product doesn't mean you can (or should) dismiss the huge revenues generated by the 100million plus installed base that is growing at a 35% higher rate then the rest of the industry.
Hungry? I've got some words for you to eat in a few months.
Then, of coarse (sic), there is the new iPod Nano Video, with its tiny screen. This isn't Tokyo, impractically small electronics have never taken off in America, and the new Nano will be no exception.
but their recent misstep with the latest generation has left little doubt that they iPod will soon go the way of the Macintosh computer and go from a market leader to a niche item.
Wishful thinking but wrong on both accounts. The Mac has never been a market leader in anything other than desktop publishing, graphic design and photography. For the iPod to fall to the 5% market share enjoyed by OS X, SOME OTHER COMPANY WILL HAVE TO MAKE A DECENT PLAYER. You all overlook the fact that iPod dominance comes about because there are simply no other offerings that are even close (Sansa is ok). If no other device steps up, Apple only has to keep making what they are now.
Pray tell about these missteps of the latest generation...you know, the ones that have been out for what, a week now? I'm sure these latest doo-dads are so awful, everyone will STOP buying them. Or as the sane person sees it, more offerings, more features, bigger capacity, same prices = improved lineup. My only lament is that, as a jogger, I don't need video on my nano, and the shuffle doesn't support nike +, so for now, I'm stuck (oh darn) with my 4GB iPod nano 2nd ed.
If you're a freelancer, your client isn't going to hire you depending on the CPU brand
Well, I'm inherently distrustful of creative firms that are PC only. First, what creative type prefers Windows? Second, how do I, as a creative type, hold a sane conversation with another creative type who doesn't speak the lingo (Mac OS X). Third, I don't want my money going to waste on firms that will spend 1/2 of my fees on mucking about with their hardware and software, instead of producing content. I've worked in bands that have turned down studios because they used PC rigs. I've spent more time waiting for the tech guy to fix something in shops like that, only to get dubious recordings. As a musician, you mostly see Macbooks running live sequences, not because it is better audio quality, because having tech issues in the middle of a live performance is non-negotiable.
Well said, but you'll never convince those people who just don't get it. There's no arguing taste, and in their case, there's no arguing bad taste. Except, of course, those with bad taste don't realize they have bad taste, and those with a good taste can't understand why that clueless bastard over there is wearing high-water pants, has a greasy comb-over and has masking tape holding his glasses together. It's like the old argument, do stupid people know they are stupid? Do those idiots on American Idol really think they can sing? Well, in this case, do tasteless people realize they have no taste? Of course not! Their insecurities burn them up so they project and induce other social defense mechanisms, like buying a Creative Zen to NOT be iPod users, and then spend all day spamming slashdot trying to justify how the open format and non-lock in is somehow remotely interesting to the consumer who just wants a nice device.
Well if you actually READ the dialog boxes, you would notice that about two years ago, they reworded it to be perfectly clear that you have the option of, a) putting the songs from your iPod onto that computer, or b) replacing the songs on your iPod with the songs in the iTunes library.
Apple would love NOT to have this limitation, but I doubt that they would have a single record label in their iTunes library if swapping files was as easy as taking my iPod to my friend's house, giving him all my songs, then taking all his songs. That's what third party apps are for.
I never understood why the iPod became so immensely popular compared to other personal players in the first place.
Oh boy, here we go again...
It locks you down to using iTunes
The MAJORITY of the users out there not only find iTunes acceptable, they love it, and it's free
makes it difficult to use multiple machines or move music around
Oh really? Three Macs, two PCs, 5 iPods and two users that are all simultaneously using all of our music in my household tend to disagree. Senuti. It's free. As are about 1,000 other freeware apps. Try ilounge.com for starters.
doesn't have particularly high sound quality
But it IS particularly higher sound quality than the vast majority of other portable music players out there, as supported by numerous tech and audiophile publications.
, and doesn't support a lot of music formats.
Yeah, it only supports.mp3 and.aac, or in otherwords, it only supports 99% of the digital music out there. For that last 1% (ogg, flac, whatever) there are abundant and free converters.
Neither. Apple is trying to make the best user experience with tight integration of iTunes/iPod and OS X, with a bit of appeasement to the 95% Windows crowd. Making a LInux version doesn't make the iPod/iTunes a better experience, nor does it tap into the dominant market share, so it will be up to the Linux crowd to figure out if it is worth their time or not. I have the sneaky suspicion that the open source-obsessed Linux crowd probably aren't the biggest iTunes supporters in the first place.
That is why you use the MANUAL function of adding songs to iTunes. Uncheck your settings that automatically put music in folders inside of iTunes folder. Keep your music wherever you like then type command + O to add the songs you want in there (or drag and drop them into the window). As long as you have the box unchecked to let iTunes manage your files for you, they don't go anywhere.
If you are on a Mac, however, it is pretty logical to let iTunes handle your music, because you have one click access to the iTunes directory from any finder window. I have my iTunes files for music that is worthy of staying on my computer, and I have a desktop "hold" folder for music I'm trying but don't want cluttering up my iTunes library if I decide I don't want to keep them on my computer. In THIS scenario, I have never seen a better/easier interface for managing music libraries.
I seriously doubt Apple cares one iota about losing sales to Linux because the two OSes couldn't be any more divergent. They both work really well, but approach it in very different ways. Tweakers hate OSX and "get-it-done" can't stand having to tweak one thing. Hell, I get pissed if I have to do anything more than just hit the OK button when it comes to installing a software package, so I could only imagine my horror of trying to configure a Linux box in my house. Not that Linux is bad, it just isn't my cup-o-tea. Besides, if I wanted to use an OS where I spend 1/4th of my time looking for converters and alternative software packages....oh wait...I already do that as a Mac user.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, no "magic box" theory here. Computers have been given a pass for far too long. We expect our cars to work without any knowledge of mechanics on the drivers' parts. We turn a tv on expecting to get our digital cable HD content, without having any idea of how that works. Humans have been soaking in RF over AM and FM bands for what, a hundred years or so, yet less than 5% of the population can even tell you how a radio works. It is time for the computer industry to be held to the same standard as everything else.
To the average user, it matters not if it is the OS's fault or the hardware's fault. All they care is that something doesn't work for some reason.
To be honest, your reply doesn't really persuade somebody like myself considering Linux. All you offer is one excuse after another, which is the exact thing Walt was pointing out that average users don't have time for. You are correct with many of your comparisons to Windows, in that a lot of stuff doesn't work on Windows well, or out-of-the-box, but Walt did mention he was comparing Ubuntu to the general ease of use of Windows AND Mac OS X. All the things you claim don't work right out-of-the-box or without having to download special drivers simply isn't true on the Mac. MOST people realize this, and this is probably the #1 reason for the iPod's success. The user doesn't do anything but put the thing in a cradle and buy/rip some songs to the computer. No hassles. No fuss. *Almost* works the same with Windows too.
As for your first point, what good is it to be in control of your computer if you have nothing that works for it? If it doesn't play videos or see an iPod, does it really matter that "you are in control"? I guess if you are a computer science expert, this is a good thing, but since he was reviewing it from the stand-point of a typical user, then I see no validity in your first point.
3-5% market share is OVERALL, counting the billions of computers in use in businesses world-wide. If you take those out, where Apple has less than 1% penetration, then the 3-5% has to come from a MUCH higher home computing use. You must have some pretty low-brow friends if you know more people running Win98 than Mac OS X. I haven't seen Win98 running in a home OR a business in the past 2 or 3 years. I just left a Ed Tech. position for the Department of Defense. If ANYONE is prone to hanging onto out dated OSes, Department of Defense School's would be the one, yet they dumped Win98 within a year of XP coming out.
Same thing here in San Antonio (and in Austin too). Everyday, all day long there arehundreds of people in there buying computers and iPods. Compare that to the 12 Best Buys in this city and you'll see one or two people browsing the computers but not buying. That's Apple's strategy...high volume in one place, instead of low volume in a LOT of places...it costs a lot more money to support sales in 1000 stores than it does in 128 stores.
Now if I actually met an IT person who LISTENED to the needs of the user and actually abided by the system requirements documentation INSTEAD of pushing for things he or she is familiar with....AND they were able to keep the system operating "24/7/forever", then I might actually respect them.
What are you talking about? I bring my laptop home so it isn't physically stolen. I'm a consultant and work onsite for companies I don't know the employees. I don't have a permanent desk or a locker or anything. It is up to ME to not get my computer stolen, even if it is my company's machine.
Well, again like many other people, you miss the point. Apple doesn't WANT to put out a fast product to steal marketshare. They want to make great products. Their customers want great products, not a product that comes out too fast just to try and capitalize on Microsoft's current problems.
I have been a PC user at work and a Mac user at home for the past, oh 20+ years, and I've never thought to myself (while sitting at home)...."Gee, I wish I had that crappy computer from work here at home too!" Now that my company gives me a PC laptop, I bring it home (so it doesn't get stolen from work) and it sits in its bag while I use my $1000 cheaper MacBook.
I'm not sure why you can't understand that a Mac at home does not suddenly limit your productivity at work. If anything, it only highlights how unproductive you work computer is. "hassle of having to learn two operating systems"? The only hassle I see would be having to learn how to learn to maintain and keep a PC running at 1/3rd the productivity of a Mac.
And I'm not sure you've read the article or the other posts, but it is fairly clear that Apple isn't trying "hard" to take over the business world. They aren't trying at all, and they and their users are perfectly fine with that. They aren't breaking into new markets either, just making existing markets better. If Mac OS X only does one thing for the business world, I would hope it would be the same thing their other products do: force the competition to improve their offerings. Everybody wins that way.
The problem with EVERY market-share study is they are diluting the Mac presence by including their count in areas they have no interest in being. Whereas a PC is a cheap whore that will do anything for money, Macs tend to be made for personal/home use. If Apple wanted to get into the big businesses, I doubt they'd ship things not needed in big business, such as iTunes and GarageBand. To fix this misrepresenatation of Mac market share, why don't these consulting firms just look at a category called "personal computing" or "home computing". I'm sure Apple would be closer to the 20% range in the States, and closer to 50% in metropolitan areas.
I CAN use a Mac at work, but trying to get all the tightly controlled computer things to work on my Mac (even in Windows mode) isn't worth it. Not because the computer doesn't play along well, but because the tech idiots at work freak out and act like I'm some sort of anti-christ hooking up a MacBook Pro to a windows network. If they'd let me, I'd just do it myself, but these control freaks have to write a work order up for something as simple as hooking my laptop up to the LAN-drop if I move cubicles for the day.
In short, Apple doesn't want to dominate the corporate because it would diminish the quality of their home-user products, and the IT world doesn't like the threat of losing their power.
You talk as if you found a cool trick with a cell phone acting as a USB drive, when iPods have been BOOTABLE, external FIREWIRE drives (in the past) for the past, what, four years now?...so what? I will bet two months pay check that I can get my granny to put an iPod into disk mode faster than you can get your granny to get your phone into USB disk mode. And my granny is 90 years old.
I hate these freaking articles that tell ME, a hard-working, well-paid computer consumer that something is "too expensive". That is a relative term, and relative to most everyone else's income, maybe it ISN'T too expensive for me. A product is worth what somebody will pay for it, everyone else who isn't buying it can STFU and butt out. Just because YOU can't afford it, doesn't mean it is "too expensive" (whatever that means).
because dragging and dropping your files to iTunes is so hard?
because "file--import" is so hard?
because inserting a cd and clicking the songs you want ripped to you library when prompted is so hard?
because going to the iTunes store and clicking the "buy song" button is so hard? Quit being so damned disingenious! What OTHER ways do you want to add songs to your iTunes library!!!???? If everything you claim is true, then you obviously have user induced handicaps when it comes to operating computers.
Pray tell about these missteps of the latest generation...you know, the ones that have been out for what, a week now? I'm sure these latest doo-dads are so awful, everyone will STOP buying them. Or as the sane person sees it, more offerings, more features, bigger capacity, same prices = improved lineup. My only lament is that, as a jogger, I don't need video on my nano, and the shuffle doesn't support nike +, so for now, I'm stuck (oh darn) with my 4GB iPod nano 2nd ed.
Well said, but you'll never convince those people who just don't get it. There's no arguing taste, and in their case, there's no arguing bad taste. Except, of course, those with bad taste don't realize they have bad taste, and those with a good taste can't understand why that clueless bastard over there is wearing high-water pants, has a greasy comb-over and has masking tape holding his glasses together. It's like the old argument, do stupid people know they are stupid? Do those idiots on American Idol really think they can sing? Well, in this case, do tasteless people realize they have no taste? Of course not! Their insecurities burn them up so they project and induce other social defense mechanisms, like buying a Creative Zen to NOT be iPod users, and then spend all day spamming slashdot trying to justify how the open format and non-lock in is somehow remotely interesting to the consumer who just wants a nice device.
Apple would love NOT to have this limitation, but I doubt that they would have a single record label in their iTunes library if swapping files was as easy as taking my iPod to my friend's house, giving him all my songs, then taking all his songs. That's what third party apps are for.
Neither. Apple is trying to make the best user experience with tight integration of iTunes/iPod and OS X, with a bit of appeasement to the 95% Windows crowd. Making a LInux version doesn't make the iPod/iTunes a better experience, nor does it tap into the dominant market share, so it will be up to the Linux crowd to figure out if it is worth their time or not. I have the sneaky suspicion that the open source-obsessed Linux crowd probably aren't the biggest iTunes supporters in the first place.
If you are on a Mac, however, it is pretty logical to let iTunes handle your music, because you have one click access to the iTunes directory from any finder window. I have my iTunes files for music that is worthy of staying on my computer, and I have a desktop "hold" folder for music I'm trying but don't want cluttering up my iTunes library if I decide I don't want to keep them on my computer. In THIS scenario, I have never seen a better/easier interface for managing music libraries.
I seriously doubt Apple cares one iota about losing sales to Linux because the two OSes couldn't be any more divergent. They both work really well, but approach it in very different ways. Tweakers hate OSX and "get-it-done" can't stand having to tweak one thing. Hell, I get pissed if I have to do anything more than just hit the OK button when it comes to installing a software package, so I could only imagine my horror of trying to configure a Linux box in my house. Not that Linux is bad, it just isn't my cup-o-tea. Besides, if I wanted to use an OS where I spend 1/4th of my time looking for converters and alternative software packages....oh wait...I already do that as a Mac user.