An awful lot of Power Computing, UMax and Motorola Starmax Apple clones were sold in the past, and that didn't drive Apple out of business.
It damned near did!
I maintain that Apple has a unique place in the personal computer market. What makes them unique and special is...
1). The fact that they can deliver a highly polished end-to-end experience to a customer. Like firewire/imovie/idvd/superdrive all bought from one company, all working seamlessly all the time. Vertical integration (making the box, the OS and some key apps) enables you to do those kinds of things, and do them quicker and better than anyone else.
2. The fact that they can make a decision in a conference room "USB is the future of lightweight serial connectivity" which is immediately translated into action across all products, including hardware and software. Only a vertically integrated personal computer maker can do this. Note that USB, for example, didn't really start to take off until Apple decided to impliment it across it's product line. Even though Intel invented it. I guess it was too difficult to get thirty chipmakers, two dozen boxmakers, an OS maker and 3rd-party software/hardware manufacturers to all sit down and take the plunge.
These and other examples exemplify why Apple is what it is - a niche player, to be sure, but one with a good business, loyal customers, innovative trend-setting products, and a bright future in spite of harsh economic times.
Take away Apple's vertical integration - make them into an OS-and-a-couple-of-apps-maker - and you are left with Just Another Schmuck Company without the same means of distinguishing itself from what everyone else is doing.
Giving up the hardware to clonemakers or giving up the OS to an outside software company would be in essence giving up the crown jewels of the company.
Yes, the industry would suck if everyone had chosen to do business this way. No, it is not a criticism of Dell or Microsoft or IBM or anyone else. Yes, it does keep Apple prices at a premeium, due to high R&D costs and "fashion taxes." In this regard, it's certainly true that vertical integration is both the best and the worst thing about the company and the platform.
But I want them to stay integrated. I want them to keep innovating. I want them to keep the best (and worst) thing about their company intact. And so should you and everyone else because Apple benefits the entire personal computer industry whether you buy their products or not. They don't call it "R&D West" at Microsoft for nothing.
Re:I don't agree with the article
on
A Better Finder?
·
· Score: 1
Excellent points, every one. If I had mod points right now you'd know it.
they could just jack up the prices of licenses, which would be a lot cheaper than manufacturing the hardware themselves - they didn't even make this an option.
They were worried about this, yes, but I would guess they would be even more worried about losing control of the hardware. For reasons I have stated elsewhere in this thread.
Apple is the only vertically integrated player in the personal computer field. And regardless of what you say to the contrary, it is precisely that fact which sets them a unique position in the marketplace. They simply could not distinguish themselves on user experience, quality, UI, design,hardware/software integration, turing the platform on a dime like firewire/imovie, etc. if this was not the case. Giving this up means giving up everything that is good and important about the Macintosh platform.
Controlling everything in a large market isn't always a good thing - actually, in many ways it's a bad thing
Let me admit this clearly: Apple's almost total control of the Macintosh platform is both the best and the worst thing about the company and about the platform itself. It leads to higher prices and lack of choice in many instances. Yep. No argument.
It stifles innovation and change - look at Microsoft (software), Apple (hard/sofware)
I'm really not sure where you're going with this. In the case of Microsoft one of the things they can do is control hardware makers by using illegal tactics. That's bad. Apple can control....themselves? Good for them. A shocking number of people think there is some kind of equivalence there. Like "Apple has a monopoly on Mac hardware!" Sit and think this through for a minute. Ridiculous.
Besides, I don't think anyone who understands the personal computer industry is seriously going to claim that Apple isn't a major innovator.
I think you're almost deliberately missing the point. The fact is, digital video editing took off only after Apple popularized it. Which they did after they invented it. Sure, DV editing was around before iMovie, but for film students and professionals, not for mom and pop like it is now. Give credit where credit is due.
The thing which will "not work" isn't the firewire/imovie/idvd hardware/software functionality as such. Rather, it is the ability for Apple to engineer setups like this in the future. They controlled the hardware: invented firewire, implimented it across their computers. They controlled the OS: made damned sure it worked and worked right. They controlled the application: "what do you mean there isn't an easy-to-use DV editor? MAKE one, damnit!" And they controlled the box/hardware some more: add those fancy DVD-burners to the lineup so folks h ave somewhere fun to go with this edited stuff, while letting our demand drive down the price for the drives.
So it's not that existing functionality wouldn't work, it's that, lacking the platform control allowed by being vertically integrated, they would no longer have the ability to execute plans like that. At the very least not as quickly. They would lose their innovative edge.
If all of Apple, IBM, Digital and the other early players kept their hardware systems closed instead of just one system becoming open their would be many fewer computers and they would be much more expensive.
Thank goodness most decided to go the route of openess othewise computers would be more expensive and would't be as ubiquitous as they are now. My contention, however, is that Apple chose the other route and the industry owes them a debt of gratitude also - they're essentially the R&D division of every boxmaker and OS-maker on the planet. They also set the standard for user experience.
So who the heck is saying otherwise? How's that for "insightful"? I never said OS X won't work on this guy's box. I'm saying if he's sucessful and a clone market springs up it'll put Apple out of business or at least kill the most desireable thing about the Platform.
I wouldn't rule out Apple going to a 64-bit AMD processor in the future, but I doubt it. And I surely don't think they have to. But we'll see.
Besides, using a PC-style processor doesn't mean clones can and will spring up like weeds. There are other ways to control this with licensing and proprietary ROMs and stuff. You can bet they would never migrate off the PPC architecture without having figured this out in advance. They, unlike a lot of/. readers, understand their business depends on the vertical integrated control over the platform they currently have. THey would never jeapordize this.
No, it just sucks! Heh. C'mon you asked for that one.:)
Seriously, though. Apple will no longer control the platform from hardware to OS to some key applications. The fact that they DO have this control gives them the ability to provide a super slick experience to users. It also allows them to do things like firewire/imovie/idvd. Suddenly they took a previously high-end arcane technology (digital video editing) and put it on the shelf all friendly and prettified for anyone with ~$1200. Even less now!
Clones will kill that ability. And, make no mistake, it IS that ability that is keeping Apple in business after all these years. Those who don't understand this don't understand Apple's business.
A clone market would either a) drive Apple out of business, or b) take away the one unique factor which sets them apart in the industry: vertical integration. Either way, the platform and the entire industry loses big.
Re:I don't agree with the article
on
A Better Finder?
·
· Score: 1
I think you're overstating the "outrageous" nature of a Macintosh's value. But in principle I agree with you. As I said elsewhere above, however, I also add:
I buy that totally. I do wish, however, that the steady stream of criticism from sources like Ars would clearly indicate that this is where it's coming from, rather than letting the reader suppose that it is meant as a comparative criticism against Windows' and/or Linux's UI.
Re:I don't agree with the article
on
A Better Finder?
·
· Score: 1
I concur with just about eveything you say. I would also add that Apple's "value proposition" is a tad wider than simply "better UI." I think it's got a lot to do with the integrated experience they are always pimping. You know, like end-to-end stuff like iPhoto. Insert digicam here, get database archives, editing, prints, books, etc, out the other end. No worries about somene else's software being required, either. They sell, to use a vendors term, "solutions." Solutions to problems like "I have a digital camera but.." Or "I have a digital video camera, now how to I get this stuff I shot onto on grandma's TV?"
Bah, you know what I mean. But it's a lot more than just "we put interface buttons in sensible places."
I buy that totally. I do wish, however, that the steady stream of criticism from sources like Ars would clearly indicate that this is where it's coming from, rather than letting the reader suppose that it is meant as a comparative criticism against Windows' and/or Linux's UI.
Re:I don't agree with the article
on
A Better Finder?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Yeah I remember lifestreams and I agree it's a fantastic idea. I'd love to see it developed further!
I also appreciate (sincerely!) the criticisms of OS X one finds at Ars. They are consistently thorough and honest. Still, sometimes it seems like OS X is held to a far higher standard with regard to UI than other products. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Linux (any flavor) or Windows (any flavor) has recieved nearly the same amount of scrutiny and criticism with regard to UI. Why is that? Is it simply because Apple brags about it so much? Is it a recognition that Apple does it best (usually) and therefore it is fair that they should be evaluated based on that claim? I suspect that this is the reason.
I fear, however, that it gives the casual Windows or Linux-using reader the wrong impression - the impression that OS X UI stinks. It doesn't. It's a relatively new UI and needs refinement, but as I said, I believe the level of criticism leveled at it is mostly due to the recognized fact that Apple does it better than most others.
I agree. I do get tired of this kind of thing. Slashdot itself is one of the worst examples of it, however. Consider how/. stories have a smart-assed commentary that is almost always anti-Microsoft, pro-Linux and Mac-snickering (to coin a term). I guess it goes over big with the intended audience - both for Pogue and for the editors of/.
I think Pogue is great. I and a colleague have been providing training/orientation for the university we work at since OS X appeared. As soon as Pogue's book hit the scene we grabbed it and began recommending it to our beginning and intermediate OS X session attendees. IN fact, we've now modeled our training sessions loosely around his first three chapters.
Why is it that there is always a few vocal whiners ready to spout off every time Apple wants to sell an OS upgrade? What is it that's so hard to understand about the idea that they sell software?
Apple's OS development cycle involves one paid rev per year and one or more incrimental upgrades that are free. It's really not that hard to get. And nobody is forcing you to buy it, either.
Jesus, there's plenty of legitimate reasons to knock a wierd company like Apple. Try to bring up one of them next time you take a swipe at them.
you say that all PC-motherboard makers are ignoring the market needs
No, I'm saying that their business heavily relies upon being as backward compatible as possible so that corporate types buy truckloads of their desktops. That means not doing anything radical like omitting ISA (heh) and making damned sure to have every other port created since time began. Apple doesn't do things this way. Their business relies heavily on innovation and most importantly, in providing a total software-hardware experience. THey can do things like omit the PCI slots that virtually no home user takes advantage of in order to experiment wildly with the form factor. The iMac sold very well. Therefore I think my remarks match very well with reality. Home users aren't buying Dells because they have PCI slots. They're buying them because they can get a deal on last years model and because their brother-in-law has one. Period. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's definetly not because they have PCI slots. That is reality.
it's only Apple's greed preventing PPC-CPUs and motherboards from appearing in stores at reasonable prices.
I really don't think you understand their business. If CPUs and motherboards were available in stores for consumers to buy then people would build their own Macintoshes. THis would instantly drive prices down and everyone would rejoice. In fact, Mac whitebox makers would spring up in every city and you'd be able to have one custom built for you out of off-the-shelf parts for half what Apple charges for a computer. And it would also be the end of Apple itself. Even if they survived the transition to essentially a software-only company, they would lose the very things that makes them attractive - innovation and vertical integration.
Apple would no longer be in a position to control the entire software-hardware continuum of the platform. That means cheaper prices, yes, but it also means "iffy" compatibility and the loss of the "one company designed this experience" feel. Scoff if you must, but this is the heart of the platforms appeal. That and software-hardware innovation like the firewire/imovie deal. Someone in Apple decided it was a good idea to bring digital video editing to consumers. The port didn't exist. The applications didn't exist. Now they do. Hard to do that when you have to convince seventy other companies to get onboard, each with their own idea on how to do it.
In short, the "make the whole widget" vertical integration Apple has in the Mac platform is both the worst and the best thing about them. It keeps prices high and marketshare low, but without it they'd dissapear in a sea of other boxmakers and software makers, with no means of distinguishing themselves.
Where do you have these numbers from? Did you did a survey?
Yeah I did a 5-year informal survey of all the clients I've dealt with as a computer support technician.:)
it would be better for Apple if they would offer a low-cost model with PCI slots, too.
I've heard this argument among Mac techies for years and I just don't buy it. It would make the machines ever so much more appealing to them, but they wildly overestimate their own status in the marketplace. They believe that if only Apple would please them with the new iMac then it would result in a million more sales per year. This is, of course, nonsense. It would hardly register a blip in the sales chart. And in the meantime by including the slots (which take room inside the case and have to terminate somewhere on the surface) you have forgone the form-factor that does sell a significant amount of computers.
Again, don't get me wrong - I myself would likely buy one if they made a low-cost, highly upgradable machine. I just don't think, from a marketing standpoint, making one is the no-brainer that some make it out to be.
I would never for a moment deny that it's at least partly about Steve's Macworld keynotes. And I don't think that's wrong for him to do. Those are the two times a year his company gets a billion eyeballs on them. He wants it to have maximium impact. He doesn't want his competitors to know what he's got planned. He wants media to write about it. He wants Mac users to go "wow." These are legitimate things.
Your point about PCI slots is an interesting one to me. I have always said that most 95% of people who buy computers don't know what a PCI slot is, and 95% of the people who do know never use the ones they have anyway. Therefore, religiously including them in every computer you make and having it limit you in terms of cost and form is ridiculous.
Yes, my computer has PCI slots and yes I've used them. So have you. Not my point.
These kinds of misunderstandings get blurted out here on slashdot time and time again. Listen, it's just wrong! Apple isn't just "using" open source code while breaking the oss licensing. They're doing everything just the way they're fucking supposed to. Christ, the way the OSS crowd badgers one of the highest profile companies to embrace large parts of it's philosophy you'd think they were fucking Microsoft. Jesus. Give a little credit already.
Hey and think about this. Apple sells software. They have to take some kind of reasonable action when they see their unreleased development code go flying across the internet. Even if in that particular case it doesn't matter (as could be argued with safari). Because next it'll happen with say, Keynote, and then in court the defense will say "well you never bothered to prosecute/stop anyone from doing this in the past, so why now?" and the judge goes "hmm" the prosecution goes "damn" and Apple loses the case.
It's like when your employer has a policy. If that policy is widely disregarded they damned well better not ever fire you for violating it, because if they do all you have to do to prove that there effectively IS no policy is show that they enforced it in a spotty way.
After having spent top-dollar on a 400 Mhz G3 B&W desktop way back when, I'd have to agree with you. Although I am still running the machine daily at home, I can't get around the fact that I replaced the HD twice and finally went with a 3rd party IDE controller to bypass the nasty one built onto the motherboard.
Still, there are known issues with the existing 15" powerbook. Wireless range, for example. It's just not up to par with either the iBook, new PowerBooks or with 3rd party cards.
Yeah I know. Jesus, if I had a dollar for every time I myself have told a user that... But knowing that I'd be living with sub-standard wireless range, no bluetooth, no firewire 800...not just today but for the next 3-4 years...somehow that makes me want to wait. I mean I know damned well that the current 15" models will be replaced between now and July. It's just a question of when.
Slashdot Mirror
An awful lot of Power Computing, UMax and Motorola Starmax Apple clones were sold in the past, and that didn't drive Apple out of business.
It damned near did!
I maintain that Apple has a unique place in the personal computer market. What makes them unique and special is...
1). The fact that they can deliver a highly polished end-to-end experience to a customer. Like firewire/imovie/idvd/superdrive all bought from one company, all working seamlessly all the time. Vertical integration (making the box, the OS and some key apps) enables you to do those kinds of things, and do them quicker and better than anyone else.
2. The fact that they can make a decision in a conference room "USB is the future of lightweight serial connectivity" which is immediately translated into action across all products, including hardware and software. Only a vertically integrated personal computer maker can do this. Note that USB, for example, didn't really start to take off until Apple decided to impliment it across it's product line. Even though Intel invented it. I guess it was too difficult to get thirty chipmakers, two dozen boxmakers, an OS maker and 3rd-party software/hardware manufacturers to all sit down and take the plunge.
These and other examples exemplify why Apple is what it is - a niche player, to be sure, but one with a good business, loyal customers, innovative trend-setting products, and a bright future in spite of harsh economic times.
Take away Apple's vertical integration - make them into an OS-and-a-couple-of-apps-maker - and you are left with Just Another Schmuck Company without the same means of distinguishing itself from what everyone else is doing.
Giving up the hardware to clonemakers or giving up the OS to an outside software company would be in essence giving up the crown jewels of the company.
Yes, the industry would suck if everyone had chosen to do business this way. No, it is not a criticism of Dell or Microsoft or IBM or anyone else. Yes, it does keep Apple prices at a premeium, due to high R&D costs and "fashion taxes." In this regard, it's certainly true that vertical integration is both the best and the worst thing about the company and the platform.
But I want them to stay integrated. I want them to keep innovating. I want them to keep the best (and worst) thing about their company intact. And so should you and everyone else because Apple benefits the entire personal computer industry whether you buy their products or not. They don't call it "R&D West" at Microsoft for nothing.
Excellent points, every one. If I had mod points right now you'd know it.
they could just jack up the prices of licenses, which would be a lot cheaper than manufacturing the hardware themselves - they didn't even make this an option.
They were worried about this, yes, but I would guess they would be even more worried about losing control of the hardware. For reasons I have stated elsewhere in this thread.
Apple is the only vertically integrated player in the personal computer field. And regardless of what you say to the contrary, it is precisely that fact which sets them a unique position in the marketplace. They simply could not distinguish themselves on user experience, quality, UI, design,hardware/software integration, turing the platform on a dime like firewire/imovie, etc. if this was not the case. Giving this up means giving up everything that is good and important about the Macintosh platform.
Controlling everything in a large market isn't always a good thing - actually, in many ways it's a bad thing
Let me admit this clearly: Apple's almost total control of the Macintosh platform is both the best and the worst thing about the company and about the platform itself. It leads to higher prices and lack of choice in many instances. Yep. No argument.
It stifles innovation and change - look at Microsoft (software), Apple (hard/sofware)
I'm really not sure where you're going with this. In the case of Microsoft one of the things they can do is control hardware makers by using illegal tactics. That's bad. Apple can control....themselves? Good for them. A shocking number of people think there is some kind of equivalence there. Like "Apple has a monopoly on Mac hardware!" Sit and think this through for a minute. Ridiculous.
Besides, I don't think anyone who understands the personal computer industry is seriously going to claim that Apple isn't a major innovator.
I think you're almost deliberately missing the point. The fact is, digital video editing took off only after Apple popularized it. Which they did after they invented it. Sure, DV editing was around before iMovie, but for film students and professionals, not for mom and pop like it is now. Give credit where credit is due.
Yep, you misunderstood. Let me clarify.
The thing which will "not work" isn't the firewire/imovie/idvd hardware/software functionality as such. Rather, it is the ability for Apple to engineer setups like this in the future. They controlled the hardware: invented firewire, implimented it across their computers. They controlled the OS: made damned sure it worked and worked right. They controlled the application: "what do you mean there isn't an easy-to-use DV editor? MAKE one, damnit!" And they controlled the box/hardware some more: add those fancy DVD-burners to the lineup so folks h ave somewhere fun to go with this edited stuff, while letting our demand drive down the price for the drives.
So it's not that existing functionality wouldn't work, it's that, lacking the platform control allowed by being vertically integrated, they would no longer have the ability to execute plans like that. At the very least not as quickly. They would lose their innovative edge.
If all of Apple, IBM, Digital and the other early players kept their hardware systems closed instead of just one system becoming open their would be many fewer computers and they would be much more expensive.
Thank goodness most decided to go the route of openess othewise computers would be more expensive and would't be as ubiquitous as they are now. My contention, however, is that Apple chose the other route and the industry owes them a debt of gratitude also - they're essentially the R&D division of every boxmaker and OS-maker on the planet. They also set the standard for user experience.
So who the heck is saying otherwise? How's that for "insightful"? I never said OS X won't work on this guy's box. I'm saying if he's sucessful and a clone market springs up it'll put Apple out of business or at least kill the most desireable thing about the Platform.
I wouldn't rule out Apple going to a 64-bit AMD processor in the future, but I doubt it. And I surely don't think they have to. But we'll see.
/. readers, understand their business depends on the vertical integrated control over the platform they currently have. THey would never jeapordize this.
Besides, using a PC-style processor doesn't mean clones can and will spring up like weeds. There are other ways to control this with licensing and proprietary ROMs and stuff. You can bet they would never migrate off the PPC architecture without having figured this out in advance. They, unlike a lot of
The entire PC market is non-existant!
:)
No, it just sucks! Heh. C'mon you asked for that one.
Seriously, though. Apple will no longer control the platform from hardware to OS to some key applications. The fact that they DO have this control gives them the ability to provide a super slick experience to users. It also allows them to do things like firewire/imovie/idvd. Suddenly they took a previously high-end arcane technology (digital video editing) and put it on the shelf all friendly and prettified for anyone with ~$1200. Even less now!
Clones will kill that ability. And, make no mistake, it IS that ability that is keeping Apple in business after all these years. Those who don't understand this don't understand Apple's business.
A clone market would either a) drive Apple out of business, or b) take away the one unique factor which sets them apart in the industry: vertical integration. Either way, the platform and the entire industry loses big.
I think you're overstating the "outrageous" nature of a Macintosh's value. But in principle I agree with you. As I said elsewhere above, however, I also add:
I buy that totally. I do wish, however, that the steady stream of criticism from sources like Ars would clearly indicate that this is where it's coming from, rather than letting the reader suppose that it is meant as a comparative criticism against Windows' and/or Linux's UI.
I concur with just about eveything you say. I would also add that Apple's "value proposition" is a tad wider than simply "better UI." I think it's got a lot to do with the integrated experience they are always pimping. You know, like end-to-end stuff like iPhoto. Insert digicam here, get database archives, editing, prints, books, etc, out the other end. No worries about somene else's software being required, either. They sell, to use a vendors term, "solutions." Solutions to problems like "I have a digital camera but.." Or "I have a digital video camera, now how to I get this stuff I shot onto on grandma's TV?"
Bah, you know what I mean. But it's a lot more than just "we put interface buttons in sensible places."
I buy that totally. I do wish, however, that the steady stream of criticism from sources like Ars would clearly indicate that this is where it's coming from, rather than letting the reader suppose that it is meant as a comparative criticism against Windows' and/or Linux's UI.
Yeah I remember lifestreams and I agree it's a fantastic idea. I'd love to see it developed further!
I also appreciate (sincerely!) the criticisms of OS X one finds at Ars. They are consistently thorough and honest. Still, sometimes it seems like OS X is held to a far higher standard with regard to UI than other products. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Linux (any flavor) or Windows (any flavor) has recieved nearly the same amount of scrutiny and criticism with regard to UI. Why is that? Is it simply because Apple brags about it so much? Is it a recognition that Apple does it best (usually) and therefore it is fair that they should be evaluated based on that claim? I suspect that this is the reason.
I fear, however, that it gives the casual Windows or Linux-using reader the wrong impression - the impression that OS X UI stinks. It doesn't. It's a relatively new UI and needs refinement, but as I said, I believe the level of criticism leveled at it is mostly due to the recognized fact that Apple does it better than most others.
And you can rise above your name, get an account and stand by your words.
I believe this site should adhere to it's "news for nerds" tagline site rather than being strictly a "news for Linx-zealots" site.
I agree. I do get tired of this kind of thing. Slashdot itself is one of the worst examples of it, however. Consider how /. stories have a smart-assed commentary that is almost always anti-Microsoft, pro-Linux and Mac-snickering (to coin a term). I guess it goes over big with the intended audience - both for Pogue and for the editors of /.
I think Pogue is great. I and a colleague have been providing training/orientation for the university we work at since OS X appeared. As soon as Pogue's book hit the scene we grabbed it and began recommending it to our beginning and intermediate OS X session attendees. IN fact, we've now modeled our training sessions loosely around his first three chapters.
Why is it that there is always a few vocal whiners ready to spout off every time Apple wants to sell an OS upgrade? What is it that's so hard to understand about the idea that they sell software?
Apple's OS development cycle involves one paid rev per year and one or more incrimental upgrades that are free. It's really not that hard to get. And nobody is forcing you to buy it, either.
Jesus, there's plenty of legitimate reasons to knock a wierd company like Apple. Try to bring up one of them next time you take a swipe at them.
you say that all PC-motherboard makers are ignoring the market needs
No, I'm saying that their business heavily relies upon being as backward compatible as possible so that corporate types buy truckloads of their desktops. That means not doing anything radical like omitting ISA (heh) and making damned sure to have every other port created since time began. Apple doesn't do things this way. Their business relies heavily on innovation and most importantly, in providing a total software-hardware experience. THey can do things like omit the PCI slots that virtually no home user takes advantage of in order to experiment wildly with the form factor. The iMac sold very well. Therefore I think my remarks match very well with reality. Home users aren't buying Dells because they have PCI slots. They're buying them because they can get a deal on last years model and because their brother-in-law has one. Period. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's definetly not because they have PCI slots. That is reality.
it's only Apple's greed preventing PPC-CPUs and motherboards from appearing in stores at reasonable prices.
I really don't think you understand their business. If CPUs and motherboards were available in stores for consumers to buy then people would build their own Macintoshes. THis would instantly drive prices down and everyone would rejoice. In fact, Mac whitebox makers would spring up in every city and you'd be able to have one custom built for you out of off-the-shelf parts for half what Apple charges for a computer. And it would also be the end of Apple itself. Even if they survived the transition to essentially a software-only company, they would lose the very things that makes them attractive - innovation and vertical integration.
Apple would no longer be in a position to control the entire software-hardware continuum of the platform. That means cheaper prices, yes, but it also means "iffy" compatibility and the loss of the "one company designed this experience" feel. Scoff if you must, but this is the heart of the platforms appeal. That and software-hardware innovation like the firewire/imovie deal. Someone in Apple decided it was a good idea to bring digital video editing to consumers. The port didn't exist. The applications didn't exist. Now they do. Hard to do that when you have to convince seventy other companies to get onboard, each with their own idea on how to do it.
In short, the "make the whole widget" vertical integration Apple has in the Mac platform is both the worst and the best thing about them. It keeps prices high and marketshare low, but without it they'd dissapear in a sea of other boxmakers and software makers, with no means of distinguishing themselves.
Where do you have these numbers from? Did you did a survey?
:)
Yeah I did a 5-year informal survey of all the clients I've dealt with as a computer support technician.
it would be better for Apple if they would offer a low-cost model with PCI slots, too.
I've heard this argument among Mac techies for years and I just don't buy it. It would make the machines ever so much more appealing to them, but they wildly overestimate their own status in the marketplace. They believe that if only Apple would please them with the new iMac then it would result in a million more sales per year. This is, of course, nonsense. It would hardly register a blip in the sales chart. And in the meantime by including the slots (which take room inside the case and have to terminate somewhere on the surface) you have forgone the form-factor that does sell a significant amount of computers.
Again, don't get me wrong - I myself would likely buy one if they made a low-cost, highly upgradable machine. I just don't think, from a marketing standpoint, making one is the no-brainer that some make it out to be.
I would never for a moment deny that it's at least partly about Steve's Macworld keynotes. And I don't think that's wrong for him to do. Those are the two times a year his company gets a billion eyeballs on them. He wants it to have maximium impact. He doesn't want his competitors to know what he's got planned. He wants media to write about it. He wants Mac users to go "wow." These are legitimate things.
Your point about PCI slots is an interesting one to me. I have always said that most 95% of people who buy computers don't know what a PCI slot is, and 95% of the people who do know never use the ones they have anyway. Therefore, religiously including them in every computer you make and having it limit you in terms of cost and form is ridiculous.
Yes, my computer has PCI slots and yes I've used them. So have you. Not my point.
These kinds of misunderstandings get blurted out here on slashdot time and time again. Listen, it's just wrong! Apple isn't just "using" open source code while breaking the oss licensing. They're doing everything just the way they're fucking supposed to. Christ, the way the OSS crowd badgers one of the highest profile companies to embrace large parts of it's philosophy you'd think they were fucking Microsoft. Jesus. Give a little credit already.
Hey and think about this. Apple sells software. They have to take some kind of reasonable action when they see their unreleased development code go flying across the internet. Even if in that particular case it doesn't matter (as could be argued with safari). Because next it'll happen with say, Keynote, and then in court the defense will say "well you never bothered to prosecute/stop anyone from doing this in the past, so why now?" and the judge goes "hmm" the prosecution goes "damn" and Apple loses the case.
It's like when your employer has a policy. If that policy is widely disregarded they damned well better not ever fire you for violating it, because if they do all you have to do to prove that there effectively IS no policy is show that they enforced it in a spotty way.
After having spent top-dollar on a 400 Mhz G3 B&W desktop way back when, I'd have to agree with you. Although I am still running the machine daily at home, I can't get around the fact that I replaced the HD twice and finally went with a 3rd party IDE controller to bypass the nasty one built onto the motherboard.
Still, there are known issues with the existing 15" powerbook. Wireless range, for example. It's just not up to par with either the iBook, new PowerBooks or with 3rd party cards.
Yeah I know. Jesus, if I had a dollar for every time I myself have told a user that... But knowing that I'd be living with sub-standard wireless range, no bluetooth, no firewire 800...not just today but for the next 3-4 years...somehow that makes me want to wait. I mean I know damned well that the current 15" models will be replaced between now and July. It's just a question of when.