The Mac vs. PC Debate Was Never Clearer 101 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
By MG Siegler
“Our goal is not to build the most computers. It’s to build the best.”
That was Apple COO Tim Cook two days ago during Apple’s (AAPL) quarterly earnings call. Sure, it may sound like spin from an executive who doesn’t have a better answer as to why Apple isn’t competing in the low-end of the market, and thus, gaining market share. But it’s not.
You need look no further than numbers released Thursday by NPD to understand Apple’s strategy. Its revenue share of the “premium” price market — that is, computers over $1,000 — is a staggering 91%. This means that 9 out of every 10 retail dollars that is spent on PCs in that price range, goes to Apple, as Betanews’ Joe Wilcox points out. That, for lack of a better word, is insane.
Analysts and journalists are often quick to point out Apple’s relatively low overall market share (less than 10%). But that completely misses the point of Apple’s Mac business. If Apple wanted to make a range of low-end computers, it absolutely could. And such machines would sell like crazy, boosting Apple’s market share. But there would have to be some trade-off in quality, and perhaps more importantly to Apple, to its high margins. And as it has proven time and time again, it has no desire to give up either.
Instead, Apple is content to keep churning out its high-quality, high-margin machines, and watch the profits roll in. If it happens to gain market share as a byproduct of that, that’s great — you can’t be so naive to think that Apple doesn’t care about that at all, of course it does, but it’s clearly a secondary goal, which most people don’t seem to understand.
It’s a metaphor that’s often used, but a way to think about it is if Windows-based PCs as a whole are thought of as a top selling car like the Toyota Camry, Apple’s Mac computers would be more like a luxury car, like a Porsche. Porsche sales are just a fraction of Camry sales because it does not sell any models in the low-end price range. But at the same time, Porsche makes more money on each car sold and maintains a premium branding. If Porsche started selling cheap cars, it would move a lot more units, but it would no longer be the Porsche brand that we know.
That’s not to say the Camry sucks or that the Porsche is perfect. They’re just two different cars that cater to different markets. And they represent the two different goals that most Windows-based PCs have (market share) versus Apple’s Mac computers (high-end revenue share).
And that’s why Microsoft’s (MSFT) recent Laptop Hunter commercials really never made a lot of sense. Sure, from a marketing perspective, I understand the idea: It’s a down economy, let's play up the fact that our computers are cheaper. But in many of the spots, the shopper’s stated desired computer was simply not something that Apple even made. In the famous first commercial, Lauren wants a laptop with a 17-inch screen for under $1,000. Okay, Apple doesn’t make that product. So of course she’s not going to buy a Mac.
The real point is that people who are shopping for computers where price is the key factor, were never going to buy Macs anyway. They never have. There is a reason Apple still has less than 10% market share. Did Microsoft need to spend millions of dollars on commercials to tell us that?
Instead, those commercials set up a narrative around the bifurcation of the computer-buying public. And today’s NPD numbers are the perfect ending to that story. If you’re a consumer looking for a bargain computer, you’re happy to save money buying a PC. If you’re looking for a premium computer, you’re happy to spend more money buying a Mac.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 101 comments:
The only point I would add is that you don't see Porsche owners running around like elitist bores brow beating Camry owners for owning a less expensive car. As someone who has owned both Apple and PC products, I am always amazed at the rudeness of most Apple owners who make fun of PC owners.
While I'm sure most Camry owners would trade their wheels in for a Porsche in a minute, such an analogy misses the point: Most Camry owners don't have the money to do so, and more importantly they don't really need the performance of a Porsche to commute to work or take the kids to soccer practice.
The same is true with Apple's Mac computers - for what I use my PC for, I really don't need to spend 3 or 4 times as much for a Mac. My hunch is 95% of computer users are in the same boat, which is why Mac share always floats around 5%.
Thanks again for shedding light on a tired subject. Perhaps after this, Mac owners will show a bit more restraint and perhaps some manners before belittling someone's economic status.
Talking about the "rudeness of most Mac owners" and saying they are elitist is nothing more than name calling. And while there are lots of Mac owners who will post about their machines being better, I see about the same numbers of PC owners doing the same thing. That in itself isn't the problem.
There's nothing wrong with having a considered opinion about your technology or your car.
But with Gamechanger, we are getting into name calling, and that crosses the line. The same is true with the media types who imply that Mac users are somehow cultish.
I think we need to be a bit more respectful in our responses. If someone is into a particular box, that's fine. No big deal. If the other guy has different priorities, that's cool too. But lets stop the name calling.
apple does not have anthing remotely like 90% of the market for machines over $1000.
Why not just cut out all machines apart from apple and then pub a number?
On Jul 23 04:35 PM User 459557 wrote:
> This is a horrible piece written by an Apple fanboy. You are completely
> missing the point of the commercials. The point is that you can get
> often times a much more powerful computer for WAY cheaper than a
> Mac. Just because Macs are way more expensive, doesn't mean they
> are 'premium' computers. You sir, are an idiot.
If you are buying apple you have a much more limited set of choices. They've pretty much pre-configured their systems to meet their vision of an apple buyer, and if you don't happen to fit that particular image, you are SOL. If you are lucky you just have to pay a lot more for stuff you don't need. and if you're not lucky you can't find any mac that will meet your exact needs.
For example, maybe you have eyesight issues so you want a big 17" screen, but you don't really need a powerful system beyond that because you're mostly doing email and a bit of websurfing etc. There's PC's out there that would work for that.
You can call it 'price' if you want, but from the perspective of the potential buyer I think 'value' is a better word.
Then again, if you are a potential 'premium' brand buyer, I don't suppose value is all that important to you, or you place a LOT more value on the apple brand and experience than the non apple customer would.
I guess we've gone from 'the computer for the rest of us' to 'the computer for people with more money than sense'
Personally, I started with Macs because I couldn't understand why computer (PC) owners all had to have little cardboard templates above the keys to know whether to punch F8 or whatever. I mean, is this a computer or not? Or is it a thing put together for people who use slide rules?
Still memory hungry and clunky.
Thank you - I have been saying this for years. You are right - it is the truth that many do not understand.
> Another BS figure throw about just to invite comment.
>
> apple does not have anthing remotely like 90% of the market for machines
> over $1000.
>
>
> Why not just cut out all machines apart from apple and then pub a
> number?
>
I do have to agree that I find the figure suspect. I expect that a lot of special rules and qualifications have to be made to limit the sales figures to 'consumer' level systems. Since most PC's above $1000 are 'workstation' or 'server' class systems, and including them would no doubt dilute apple's claimed 90%
I find this a bit like the 'best in class' designations I see all the time for cars, where if you really look into it, they've defined the class narrowly enough that most of the competition got excluded.
Let's take this $1,000 laptop I just found on Bestbuy.com:
HP - HDX Laptop for $999
- 16" Widescreen display
- Centrino 2.26GHz Processor
- 4GB RAM
- 500GB Hard Drive
VS.
Apple MacBook for $999
- 13.3" display
- 2.13GHz processor
- 2GB RAM
- 160GB Hard Drive
That to me looks like a HUGE difference my friend. Why don't you pull your head out Steve's a$$ and get a clue!
On Jul 23 05:06 PM adbrad wrote:
> No, you sir, are the idiot. You will NOT find a PC that is much more
> powerful for far less than a Mac. What you WILL find for less money
> is a lesser machine with a less powerful processor, poorly made with
> a substandard, virus-laden operating system. And you will find that
> it includes nowhere near the number of great, valuable and free applications
> that are built into Mac OSX.
I appreciate your polite response to the article. Some of the anti-mac group can be so infantile in their responses. I would like to apologize for any Mac users who may have been rude to you. There are some fanatics on both sides.
I would, however, beg to differ with you on one point: " for what I use my PC for, I really don't need to spend 3 or 4 times as much for a Mac. "
Don't you think this is a little exaggerated? I do not think you can find a PC for 1/2 the price of a roughly equivalent Mac let alone the Mac 3 to 4 times more. The Mac mini starts at $600 - what can you get for a new computer for $200? And would it be even close in power? So please - let's not resort to silly hyperbole.
You, like many others, continue to think in terms of price and hardware specifications. You have been so brainwashed by Windows, the operating system is no longer a concern. That is fine for you and others who prefer to continue using Windows. I use Windows too for developing and testing a version of our product that runs on Windows. Nothing wrong with that. I won't use Windows at home due to its poorly integrated software applications that we use a lot.
Unlike you, many of us are not brainwashed by any operating system. We know there are choices out there (UNIX-flavored variations and Mac OS/X) and we are not afraid to learn about these operating systems and think critically to decide which best meets our needs. Many of us do prefer how easy it is to use Apple software such as iLife and iWork. We appreciate the tight integration of music, video, photos and these software suites. My young children can create catchy web pages and write beautifully produced papers for their classes. So we are willing to pay for a machine that can run such well designed and well integrated software.
You, and many like you, may argue that Windows also does the same and it is just as "easy" to use. Either you truly believe that after trying Apple's approach, then that is your preference; or you have never tried Apple's approach, you are just used to Windows' ways. In that case, you are just lapsing back to preferring the status quo. Staying with status quo, without ever finding out what is new and possibly better is a sensible behavior? Not in our books.
So deciding which machine to buy is NOT just about price NOR is it just about hardware specification. Let's say you are able to make a machine that has a 10-Ghz quad core CPU, 2-tera bytes of RAM and 16-tera-bytes hard drive and the Nvidia TopEnd Graphics card and it sports a reasonably large 21-inch screen and all that costs only $599.99 and it runs Windows 7. I will not pay the money for that machine because it does not run Mac OS/X and the Apple software suite. I may pay money for that machine if my company can use such a machine in our business environment.
Do you get it yet?
On Jul 23 05:19 PM Cernenus wrote:
> I don't think the main point of the current laptop hunter ads is
> price alone. Sure that's an element, but I think a lot more of it
> has to do with there being a wider variety of choices in the PC end
> of things... From a big powerful 17" 'desktop replacement' to a
> little tiny netbook, there's a full range of choices, and from many
> vendors you can (online) configure exactly the laptop you need.<br/>
>
> If you are buying apple you have a much more limited set of choices.
> They've pretty much pre-configured their systems to meet their vision
> of an apple buyer, and if you don't happen to fit that particular
> image, you are SOL. If you are lucky you just have to pay a lot
> more for stuff you don't need. and if you're not lucky you can't
> find any mac that will meet your exact needs.
>
> For example, maybe you have eyesight issues so you want a big 17"
> screen, but you don't really need a powerful system beyond that because
> you're mostly doing email and a bit of websurfing etc. There's PC's
> out there that would work for that.
>
> You can call it 'price' if you want, but from the perspective of
> the potential buyer I think 'value' is a better word.
>
> Then again, if you are a potential 'premium' brand buyer, I don't
> suppose value is all that important to you, or you place a LOT more
> value on the apple brand and experience than the non apple customer
> would.
>
> I guess we've gone from 'the computer for the rest of us' to 'the
> computer for people with more money than sense'
So, while you DO get a computer with more memory and bigger hard drive for about the same price. This is FAR from an equivalent machine. You will not get the same performance out of them. NOw - if your only interest is initial cost, then you can buy computers cheaper than Macs. But this just goes to prove the author's point.
On Jul 23 05:34 PM User 459557 wrote:
> adbrad - obviously you are a complete moron as well!
>
> Let's take this $1,000 laptop I just found on Bestbuy.com:
> HP - HDX Laptop for $999
> - 16" Widescreen display
> - Centrino 2.26GHz Processor
> - 4GB RAM
> - 500GB Hard Drive
>
> VS.
> Apple MacBook for $999
> - 13.3" display
> - 2.13GHz processor
> - 2GB RAM
> - 160GB Hard Drive
>
> That to me looks like a HUGE difference my friend. Why don't you
> pull your head out Steve's a$$ and get a clue!
>
> On Jul 23 05:06 PM adbrad wrote:
Again, hardware specification aside, why do I care if the Mac version is supposedly lesser in specification? My question, when I shop for a machine, either for my company or for my home use, is what can it run and how well does it run?
For my personal use and for my family, I prefer tightly integrated software suites that make our digital lifestyle efficient. For me, Apple's software suites beat what is available on Windows. If you disagree, then we have a disagreement. I am not interested in convincing you. You can keep using Windows PC, and I will use my Mac and the software I prefer.
This is just to point out that it is NOT just price and hardware specification. Much more important to people like me is how well a machine addresses my needs and that invariably and necessarily means looking at the ALL IMPORTANT SOFTWARE.
On Jul 23 05:34 PM User 459557 wrote:
> adbrad - obviously you are a complete moron as well!
>
> Let's take this $1,000 laptop I just found on Bestbuy.com:
> HP - HDX Laptop for $999
> - 16" Widescreen display
> - Centrino 2.26GHz Processor
> - 4GB RAM
> - 500GB Hard Drive
>
> VS.
> Apple MacBook for $999
> - 13.3" display
> - 2.13GHz processor
> - 2GB RAM
> - 160GB Hard Drive
>
> That to me looks like a HUGE difference my friend. Why don't you
> pull your head out Steve's a$$ and get a clue!
>
> On Jul 23 05:06 PM adbrad wrote:
Actually jmmx, you don't know enough about computers. This best buy laptop has the Centrino 2 with interrelated Intel Core 2 duo processor. It also has built in wifi with 802.11 a/b/g/n capabilities. It ALSO has Nvidia graphics with 1024MB of dedicated video memory with the capacity of 2815MB of memory. It also comes with a webcam, 5-in-1 media reader, fingerprint reader and more.
Anything else you'd like to try and compare? Or is that enough failing for you in one day?
On Jul 23 05:48 PM jmmx wrote:
> You obviously know very little about computers. A Centrino processor
> is not even close in performance to the "2.13GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
> processor with 3MB on-chip shared L2 cache running 1:1 with processor
> speed." I will also bet that your Bestbuy laptop does not have a
> Nvidia graphics processor. Is there a built in cam? Wifi have 802.11n?
> I bet not.
>
> So, while you DO get a computer with more memory and bigger hard
> drive for about the same price. This is FAR from an equivalent machine.
> You will not get the same performance out of them. NOw - if your
> only interest is initial cost, then you can buy computers cheaper
> than Macs. But this just goes to prove the author's point.
It's always a better life plan to spend less, than to figure out how to earn more.
OSX is ten years ahead of XP.
Bottom Line... Bill Gates was 10 times the business man as Steve Jobs, but only a tenth of the innovator. Why people want to continue to sleep in the bed he made I have no Idea.
As for Google OS, it will be as big as Linux, i.e. not very big at all relative to even #2 -- Mac OS X.
On Jul 23 05:06 PM User 459573 wrote:
> I see MANY holes in this article...
>
> People forget what a small competitor Apple is to Microsoft
> in the Big Picture. Articles like this make it seem like Apple is
> the only thing Microsoft is worried about, but somehow I think the
> Google OS is going to be a larger weight on Balmers shoulders than
> Apple ever has been.
As for Google OS, it will be as big as Linux, i.e. not very big at all relative to even #2 -- Mac OS X.
On Jul 23 05:06 PM User 459573 wrote:
> I see MANY holes in this article...
>
> People forget what a small competitor Apple is to Microsoft
> in the Big Picture. Articles like this make it seem like Apple is
> the only thing Microsoft is worried about, but somehow I think the
> Google OS is going to be a larger weight on Balmers shoulders than
> Apple ever has been.
On Jul 23 06:28 PM adbrad wrote:
> You are stupid beyond belief, a$$wipe. Your asinine statement was
> that you could find "a much more powerful computer for WAY cheaper
> than a Mac". Then you proceed to make a comparison of two machines
> for the exact same price point of $999! The Macbook you quote can
> be upgraded to a 500GB drive for $200 more and RAM is dirt cheap.
> Hardly what I would call a big difference. Especially since you're
> then stuck with the whip Vista operating system. You, jerk, have
> your head up your own a$$.
> No, you sir, are the idiot. You will NOT find a PC that is much more
> powerful for far less than a Mac. What you WILL find for less money
> is a lesser machine with a less powerful processor, poorly made with...
Really? OK lets look at Premium stuff then (not just the normal consumer stuff, but something with a premium on the looks and the 'band name' cache')
17" macbook pro, 2.8g core 2 duo, 4gram, 500g 54Krpm drive nVidiaM9400 + 9600m video STARTS at $2500
DELL Alienware M17, configured to similar specs except it's a 7200 rpm drive and the 9400m video+a dedicated GTX260M (a substantially better video card) $2225
If we drop down to a slightly more pedestrian Dell 'studio' model with ever so slightly slower 2.66g core 2duo, but still same display rez (1920x1200), same hard disk and memory as the mac, and an ATI video card (which is probably pretty comperable to the onboard nvidia) we're at $1625
So no, sorry, if you configure them the same the PC is cheaper, even if I go for the 'ferrari of pc's' brand like Alienware
> a substandard, virus-laden operating system.
substandard by who's standards? eh whatever, if you want to run a *nix OS on your pc hardware knock-yourself out, there's lots of choices. Personally vista works fine for me, and I've never once seen a lockup, bluescreen, or other issu on the vista system I've been using for over a yer.
As to 'Virus-laden' and such, Sorry, I tried but I can't get them to ship it with a pre-installed viruses. The only people to recently ship actual 'virus laden' hardware would be uh oh yeah apple. www.securityfocus.com/...
but thanks for trotting out this big lie.. Apple does a good job with their tactic of 'deny any vulnerability while simultaniously working on and releasing a patch', but those of us who've been around a while (first virus I personally encountered in the wild was on a mac) know that buying apple hardware is no proof against security vulnerabilities (as iphone users are discovering the hard way www.engadgetmobile.com.../)
> And you will find that
> it includes nowhere near the number of great, valuable and free applications
> that are built into Mac OSX.
oh you mean the same sort of things that other companies sue to prevent MS from including in their OS, like say oh a browser or media-player, because it would be 'unfair'. Yes in this instance apple, not being judged a 'monopoly' does have an advantage, they can put this stuff in without fear of some 2% of the market segment twit suing them over unfair competition.
OTOH being a much larger userbase, if you are looking for free software or shareware etc, I think you'll find a lot more of it for the PC os than for Mac.
any other 'big lies' you'd care to trot out there fanboi?
> Oh. I forgot. PCs discovered the silly mouse-thing, and all, from
> the MAC.
>
Nope, they stole it, and the whole 'windowed' GUI user interface from xerox PARC, same as Apple did.
>I will not pay the money for that
> machine because it does not run Mac OS/X and the Apple software suite.
> I may pay money for that machine if my company can use such a machine
> in our business environment.
>
> Do you get it yet?
I certianly get that for some folks it's all about the software. But that being said, the original article didn't 'get that' either.. since it was talking about mostly the selling of the computers and apple posititioning it's systems as a 'premium' hardware.
I get that you like apple's software. For me, it's never been as easy to use as others say.. maybe my brain is damaged by years of teletypes and punchtape and command line interface..
The sad thing is, that if you want apple software, you have no choice but to buy their overpriced hardware as well, because they use it to subsidize the software development., since there is no way they'll ever pay back what they invested developing all the 'free' software and $99 OS (that only runs on their hardware) at the prices they charge for it.
I'm likely never to run apple software myself because I happen to LIKE building my own systems.. so I get exactly what I want, and if something happens to fail, I can fix it myself. so that means I'll never run apple software on my systems.
But one thing folks like yourself who like their software so much do prove is that apple's strategy here works well for them. Their decision to invest in developing good software that only runs on their hardware allows them to sell a bunch of hardware to folks like you who want to run that software. All in all that's making them a bundle of money. You plainly take that 'value' to you into account and it's a large if not the largest part of your decision to buy apple hardware.
I do on the other hand have a gripe with anyone that think's apple's OS only costs $99 and that all the other stuff is 'free'.. ain't no such thing as a free lunch. It's not free, it's tied to the hardware, for which you pay a price premium compared to the something that's 99% equivalent on a hardware level (aside from apple propriatary ROM stuff) from another vendor.
That and the fact that the entire Windows operating system is stolen from Apple among countless other innovations. That's what Mac users are so loyal. We appreciate originality, elegance and the "cool factor" - all alien concepts to PC heads. You're all a bunch of utilitarian, pencil-neck goobs perfectly personified in the Mac vs. PC commercials.
I've picked up viruses a couple of times on the Toshiba and had to wipe the hard drive once, but this is more because hackers attack Microsoft and tend to leave Apple alone (or it's because Mac's are harder to attack, I don't know).
My point is that, first, not all PCs are created equal. I paid a lot of money for the Toshiba in 2001 but I'm not unhappy about it. It's every bit as good a computer as my Mac (my 4th Mac, by the way, if you include the old LC and the 2 iMacs I bought for my kids) and better in some ways. PC's main downfall is unstable Windows operating systems that are prone to hacking. They are also harder to set up if you don't speak "geek". But I much prefer Windows Millennium file system over Apple's and I find Media Player much more straightforward to use than iTunes; and I still use Word for Mac rather than Apple's word processor. So in my experience there is no clear winner in the computer wars.
I really don't care about a few hundred dollar premium for an Apple. It works like it should, so I can do the same.
It's finally started to cut notebook prices, and the result has been a surge of sales. It's looking as though there is more demand/price elasticity than Apple thought. If it had cut its Mac prices 10% two years ago, when Microsoft was most vulnerable, its margins would have been a bit less, but its profits a bit more. More important, it would have created a larger backlog of future upgrade-buyers, and increased the attractiveness of its platform to software developers and peripheral manufacturers.
It should matter as an investor what product you think is personally better for you, but which company has the ability to turn growth into stock appreciation. So, it is clear that Apple stock is better, and lucky you who didn't own it, it will be going down tomorrow with the rest of tech and you'll have your entrance point. They are in better position to monetize the internet movement than microsoft or google. They don't need to enter the low-end computer market they have tomorrow's low-end computer - the iPhone. And many more.
They are better position than google or microsoft. However I would say that I may like google after this run down happens. They didn't participate as much in the tech run up, but have turned into a company that won't deliver amazing revenue, but they will give you constant growth - as long as the economy turns up. And the so it remains to be seen when google will turn to the upside, but it has a chance.
The windows operating system is such a quirk-job of workarounds and patches, the structure is utterly cofounding and it shows up not merely in customising programming levels but always at the end user point... just use XP or Vista for awhile...attempt to write down the amount of time you waste due to dropouts, delays, freezes, lengthy download waits, and all of the many applications program latencies. The OSX provides users with no unnecessary waiting and no need to be concerned with viruses / trojans /worms, potential problems one must constantly face on the internet or in file sharing with PC's, even with the best security software.
Anyone with a Windows PC can compare the two.browsers as well.. The Apple Safari Browser is 6 times faster than the latest Microsoft IE-8 browser. Test that one yourself on any PC. Apple has made a free version available for PC users at apple.com/safari.
I am writing this on a halfway decent PC, spec wise, yet I can not quickly navigate ordinary my.yahoo stock tables to get quick access to more than a handful of graphs I have entered at one time. So when I need details of an individual stock - working without Apple's Safari in this case often with up to 250 stocks (yahoo's max per table) on this PC is an utter frustration.
There are many other reasons that Mac users benefit... but dont have time to list.
Hardware is not the point. The operating system is the point.
If someone offered a cheap computer that could run the Mac OS, I would buy it tomorrow. I don't need expensive hardware; but I insist on a seamless OS. And I bet that of those 91% of "high end" Mac customers, at least 80% are there for the OS, not the superior hardware.
So the Porsche/Camry analogy is misleading. More like spending $100 on a ticket to the Metropolitan Opera instead of $10 on your local community theatre. It's not for the upholstery, it's for the performance.
But at least you didn't start up the Linux lawnmower and disturb my nap.
On Jul 23 04:11 PM Gamechanger wrote:
> Thanks for such a well written and insightful comparison. The Camry/Porsche
> analogy is spot on.
>
> The only point I would add is that you don't see Porsche owners running
> around like elitist bores brow beating Camry owners for owning a
> less expensive car. As someone who has owned both Apple and PC products,
> I am always amazed at the rudeness of most Apple owners who make
> fun of PC owners.
>
> While I'm sure most Camry owners would trade their wheels in for
> a Porsche in a minute, such an analogy misses the point: Most Camry
> owners don't have the money to do so, and more importantly they don't
> really need the performance of a Porsche to commute to work or take
> the kids to soccer practice.
>
> The same is true with Apple's Mac computers - for what I use my PC
> for, I really don't need to spend 3 or 4 times as much for a Mac.
> My hunch is 95% of computer users are in the same boat, which is
> why Mac share always floats around 5%.
>
> Thanks again for shedding light on a tired subject. Perhaps after
> this, Mac owners will show a bit more restraint and perhaps some
> manners before belittling someone's economic status.
This is a nonargument is my estimation.
We are now back to the beginning of this debate.
Good article though.
Thanks.
By Johnathan Vrozos
johnathanvrozos.com
johnathanvrozos.ca
"Actually jmmx, you don't know enough about computers. This best buy laptop has the Centrino 2 with interrelated Intel Core 2 duo processor. It also has built in wifi with 802.11 a/b/g/n capabilities. It ALSO has Nvidia graphics with 1024MB of dedicated video memory with the capacity of 2815MB of memory. It also comes with a webcam, 5-in-1 media reader, fingerprint reader and more.
Anything else you'd like to try and compare? Or is that enough failing for you in one day?"
when visiting duke power headquarters in N.C. some yrs ago i was pleased to see their whole corporate system was macs networked together. there are a few other corps doing likewise.
typically the federal government agencies are all ibm compatibles (required to be purchased through the gsa approved list) and they force their contractors to use pc's also.
one problem mac users have always had is that the software writers tend to write only pc versions "since 96% of the market is pc". fortunately the virus & worm writers tend to not write versions to infest my mac. i miss my wordperfect text processor which was available for OS9.1 but they don't have one for OSX. wordperfect is much less clunky & has more features than bill gates' product.
> jack
It does not hurt that even now, people stop to admire my MacBook Air when I take it out in public!
For those who worry about browsers, FireFox is my choice. Chrome is good, along with Safari. Corporate America seems to be using IE6 for the most part.
Apple is the cool kid on the block and will always pick off the upper end of the market....the only place it wants to be. The rest will have to be satisfied with Mr. Softie and its automaton's mass market products, at least for now.
There's an old joke:
Q. What's the difference between a porcupine and a Porsche?
A. The porcupine has the pricks on the outside.
On Jul 23 04:11 PM Gamechanger wrote:
> The only point I would add is that you don't see Porsche owners running
> around like elitist bores brow beating Camry owners for owning a
> less expensive car.
porsches are little toys for little boys with an identity problem in need of a label. the toyota is an excellent safe reliable mode of transportation.
apples are reliable, and now that they have the software OS, they are actually useful in the business world.
most shoppers wanted more seats & more room to carry stuff.
an enthusiast's car.
still see quite a few of them running in vintage races.
in 1956 you could buy a 356 speedster for 2995, plus they charged extra for the heater which was built into the car, you couldn't get one without it.
them were the days.
> jack
Clearly, Apple has the inside track, since it is delivering what shareholders like to see most. An innovative company that delivers an outstanding performance with stunning margins in a slumping economy is in my book the clear winner. Nothing more nothing less.
Case closed.
The mistake that Apple has made in focusing on a small high-quality market is that computer users don't always just want ONLY a well-working machine. Most high-end users have specific uses, and if the software on the market that does the job will not run on a Mac, they won't buy one. I fall into that category. I have no prejudice against Apple, they just don't have the support of software companies that I need to get the job done. Since most of the software I use costs much more than the computer, the cost of the computer is trivial (and yes, everyone in my industry who is under the age of 30 uses a PC).
The risk that Apple is still running is that they will gradually lose the small part of the business market that they have now as software designers cease to support their platform, due to Apple's small market. It becomes a visious circle. The risk is not the consumer demand, but the software tools that support the use of the product gradually fading from the market. Unless a software company can make money on the small number of Apple users available, they won't even bother creating the software. That's already happened for me.
If you are a manufacturer, you can always get higher margins from a niche market (eg Mercedes 5%, or Apple's 8% or whatever.)
It's a nonsense discussion because Microsoft aren't a manufacturer. They are software - with large development costs to get the product to market - and then a 95% plus gross margin on ever copy sold.
It's not about hardware - since Apple went to intel the set of possible components is almost the same whether it's Mac or PC.
The difference is operating system.
Apple's OS is the best - because they control both the OS and the hardware it runs on, it's easier to build a great OS.
Also Apple have not always provided full backwards compatibility - which means that it's easier for them to avoid some of the bloat of Windows products.
In the company I am IT manager for, we have PCs, Apples and Linux machines.
The Number of Apples is very few; why ?
1. Price. We can get the same processing power cheaper in a PC, so only a few managers have macs.
2. Some of the programs we run are windows only.
For home - sure I wouldn't mind an apple - if I could be bothered.
If someone wants to donate me a nice new Mac I'll happily trash my PC - but it's hardly going to change my life !!
On Jul 23 04:34 PM Tim9999 wrote:
> Gamechanger seems to be doing just what he dislikes about Mac owners
> -- being offensive to someone just because they choose a different
> buying choice.
> Talking about the "rudeness of most Mac owners" and saying they are
> elitist is nothing more than name calling. And while there are lots
> of Mac owners who will post about their machines being better, I
> see about the same numbers of PC owners doing the same thing. That
> in itself isn't the problem.
> There's nothing wrong with having a considered opinion about your
> technology or your car.
> But with Gamechanger, we are getting into name calling, and that
> crosses the line. The same is true with the media types who imply
> that Mac users are somehow cultish.
> I think we need to be a bit more respectful in our responses. If
> someone is into a particular box, that's fine. No big deal. If the
> other guy has different priorities, that's cool too. But lets stop
> the name calling.
Buy a Dell with Ubuntu!
Get great hardware specs and a rock solid OS for around half the price of the Mac.
I've got no problem with those who want to pay more to get a Mac although I think a nice percentage of Mac owners get extra defensive because deep down they think they may have spent too much especially when they start to have problems (Mac's are nice, not perfect).
There was one point that was not covered. Life Cycle Cost or Total Life Cost of the products.
In the PC world, you buy a cheap PC and within 2-4 years the computer is no longer relevant. So you go out and buy another cheap PC.
MACs are different, you buy a medium-to-high end MAC and it will serve your needs for 2x that of a PC.
I bought a high end iMac back in 2001, paid an arm and leg. But it had stuff that was years ahead of the PC and has served all my needs well into 2009. I'll be trading up for another MAC in 2010.
When you run the Life Cycle Cost of the computer, it might be cheaper buying a MAC. Maybe PC'rs are groups of people that only look at initial cost?
The analogy with cars is ridiculous. Most analogies tend to be ridiculous but this one particularly so.
Only in the minds of the Mac fanatics/faithful is the Mac a "Porsche" or "Mercedes Benz" in comparison to HP, Dell, Alienware, Sony or what have you. It's a laughable comparison. The difference between a Porsche and a Camry is staggering. The difference between a bloated overly expensive Mac Pro desktop and a high end PC is generally case design and the use of the Xeon processor and a slower video card.
Even in this comment stream, Mac fans are screaming that you can't get a "faster PC for cheaper". You can't have it both ways. Either Macs are an amazing high end bargain, or the are the Mercedes Benz/Porsche.
And that brings me to the real point of why people who know nothing about technology or the tech industry (most journalists) but are just enamored with their Mac (most journalists) shouldnt write tech articles....
The fact is that Apple makes both Camrys and Porsches (is this author completely unaware of the Mac mini or the low end Macbook?) and the PC industry ALSO makes both Camrys and Porsches.
The icing on the cake is of course that everyone slices "statistics" to represent what they want. So now Apple has "91% of the high end market". They also have "100% of the iPod market" and "100% of the iPhone market". They have "100% of the market for brushed aluminum computers that sell for a base price of $2499.99 and have a Xeon processor"
Also in, Apple has "100% of the market for computers with a fruit based logo"
The fact that articles need to be written endlessly to rationalize and justify Apples market position speaks volumes both about the protestors and about Apples position.
If the hypothesis that Apple is an elite and incredible high end luxury brand along the lines of Bentley or Rolls Royce is to be accepted, then the Mac Mini should have been a STAGGERING success rather than a pretty dismal failure. Same for the Macbook basic.
I'm sorry to say, but this is more Apple brainwashing. I mean if you enjoy your choice of Apple as a product, good for you! But please, lets stay rooted in reality.
There is nothing in any Mac that is "years ahead". Ever. POSSIBLY that case could have been made in the early 90s. Those days are LONG over for Apple.
Apple uses:
Intel processors
Nvidia or ATI video cards
Standard RAM matched to the Intel processors
A standard EFI BIOS
Basically standard Intel chipsets
This is the reason you can run Windows Vista on your Mac. You can also run OSX x86 on a PC.
Does this not seem curious AT ALL to Mac fans? How can you still accept this "but there's magic sauce!!!" Argument when you can run WINDOWS *on* your Mac? Is it that the average Mac fan understands so little about computers that they dont understand the implications of that?
Any PC you buy today (Windows based, Linux based, or Apple manufactured) will last you YEARS if you want it to.
I have PC's sitting here that were bought at the exact same time as my Mac G5 and they are every bit as useful.
People upgrade PCs because the PCs are cheaper and they CAN upgrade them. People *choose* to hold onto the Mac *because* it is so expensive to upgrade. There is NO "TCO" argument to be had here.
And I have never had any issue with a virus, or spyware, or a trojan or any malware at all going right back to the rise of the internet. And I have never spent a *dime* on security software - free versions have always been available.
On the other hand, I *have* had Mac users who have brought their system to me because it was "acting funny" and they had a rootkit on it.
So all of this BS about there being such huge differentiators is FUD. These systems are far more similar than different and any leanings are personal preference. Mac fans just argue more vocally because for them it is a social statement to buy a Mac. For the PC user its a tool.
Centrino is just a great processor! LOL!!!
Porche drivers don't berate Camry drivers? Good one! LOL!!! Well, no, they don't do it publicly, but the windows user is more like the Pinto driver, but he just doesn't know it. Watch for a crash from behind, little guy.
Apple stole ideas form Parc. Geez, buy a clue, Apple took what parc did, and with their permission, ran with it. MSFT stole Apple's source code on numerous occasions, and was caught red-handed doing it on one occasion. Parc didn't even have overlapping windows. Microsoft copied the Apple model right down to the keystrokes for cut copy and paste. They left out scores of features standard on the Mac, it took eons for Microsoft to even support dual screens, but then, they have to wait until their very slow users are ready before they can 'upgrade' their stuff, so I don't totally blame MSFT.
Laptop hunters was a brilliant move on MSFT's part to equate them with K-Mart.
"Tell him, Raymond." Raymond: "K-mart sucks."
"My Ford truck is way better than your Chevy!"
"My Harley is way better than that Honda copy!"
"My Honda Insight is way better than your Prius!"
JUST SHUT UP AND DRIVE.
Google doesn't make hardware yet.
Microsoft only makes a Zune and XBOX360, they don't sell PC's.
Apple is an elitist brand, like BMW, Jaguar, Honda. People feel good about themselves for owning the brand, regardless of it's merit.
Macs work.
PC's work.
Macs running Windows work.
PC's running Linux work.
PC's running Mac OS X work.
Paper and pencils and crayons and typewriters and rotary phones work; they just don't require 12 billion jigawatts of coal fired electricity to work. Oh wait - we have "progressed" into a "green" era - I keep forgetting...
On Jul 24 02:36 AM Trent Hauck wrote:
> Hardware is actually at the heart of this. Apple as opposed to all
> the other tech giants microsoft and google sell there hardware with
> the OS and all the other appliecations. When you buy and apple you
> go with both the hardware and the software, microsoft may have a
> winner with window 7, but they charge exorbitant prices to upgrade
> OS while once you have a mac comp you can get the newest OS for relatively
> cheap.
>
> This is a nonargument is my estimation.
If the computer is a tool and you approach the purchase in the most rational fashion, you buy a PC. But then, you have to go back and use the Windows 98 operating system. I use a VMC simulation on a MacBook Pro and have tried the various Windows operating systems. As far as I can tell, '98 is the best of the lot.
G
Both are valid options. I do not believe $$ are really the issue. If you want to save $$ and have the Mac experience, buy a Mini for $599.00.
On Jul 23 04:11 PM Gamechanger wrote:
> Thanks for such a well written and insightful comparison. The Camry/Porsche
> analogy is spot on.
>
> The only point I would add is that you don't see Porsche owners running
> around like elitist bores brow beating Camry owners for owning a
> less expensive car. As someone who has owned both Apple and PC products,
> I am always amazed at the rudeness of most Apple owners who make
> fun of PC owners.
>
> While I'm sure most Camry owners would trade their wheels in for
> a Porsche in a minute, such an analogy misses the point: Most Camry
> owners don't have the money to do so, and more importantly they don't
> really need the performance of a Porsche to commute to work or take
> the kids to soccer practice.
>
> The same is true with Apple's Mac computers - for what I use my PC
> for, I really don't need to spend 3 or 4 times as much for a Mac.
> My hunch is 95% of computer users are in the same boat, which is
> why Mac share always floats around 5%.
>
> Thanks again for shedding light on a tired subject. Perhaps after
> this, Mac owners will show a bit more restraint and perhaps some
> manners before belittling someone's economic status.
But I'm also turned off by a company that makes an OS as lousy as Vista, then tells us it will be October 2009 before we will be able to buy a high value PC with non-glitchy guts.
For me, "high value" is good quality at a reasonable price. The non-Apple PC market is where I'll shop after/iff I get good reports on Win7.
Dave
Intel® Centrino® processor technology components
Processors Intel® Core™2 Duo processor
Chipsets Mobile Intel® GS45 Express Chipset Family with Intel® Graphics
Wireless technologies Intel® Next-Gen Wireless-N (Intel® WiFI Link 5000 series)
Intel® 82567LM Gigabit Network Connection
On Jul 24 12:03 PM brewer wrote:
>
> Centrino is just a great processor! LOL!!!
As opposed to motherboard manufacturers melding Intel processors with Intel chipsets and graphic chips, or third party chipsets, combined with other third party chips.
Intel makes and excellent motherboard, and when they design it from the ground up with their processors and chipsets it works very well.
Apple uses intel components in many if not all of their computers.
On Jul 24 12:58 PM GLMontyWV wrote:
> What exactly is the problem with Centrino? From Intel's web site
>
>
> Intel® Centrino® processor technology components
>
> Processors Intel® Core™2 Duo processor
> Chipsets Mobile Intel® GS45 Express Chipset Family with Intel® Graphics
>
> Wireless technologies Intel® Next-Gen Wireless-N (Intel® WiFI Link
> 5000 series)
> Intel® 82567LM Gigabit Network Connection
>
> On Jul 24 12:03 PM brewer wrote:
Let's be honest here and say that the reason is margins. Apple machines are of no higher quality than any other computer. See: <www.appledefects.com/>;. And after all, no matter the brand they're ALL made by the same people in China at the same factory complexes. Apple can't compete on low margin products, period. That's why they don't do the low end of the market.
They can't sell into the low margin end and they can't sell into the enterprise because they don't know how to do either. Hence they stay out of both markets for the most part. It's just that simple. Nothing to do with "quality".
> Apple uses the same hardware PC makers use. Same motherboards, processors,
> ram, video chips, etc.
Sorry but you're just plain wrong on this. Apple designs their own motherboards from scratch for every single computer they make. They are the only computer manufacturer who does NOT use Intel's designs. And they frequently custom design many of the other hardware components inside their machines.
The chips they use may be the same but all of the design is theirs. This is frequently necessary because they need custom form factor everything in their products which is necessitated by the overarching control that Jony Ive and the other industrial designers have over the products.
If Apple used Intel designs for motherboards and such they could easily build a sub $500 machine but it would never fit into one of their ridiculously pretty but expensive enclosures.
The problem with this article's central premise (and with most of hte anti-Mac commenters) is its failure to distinguish value from cost. We all know that the average Mac costs more than the average PC on the day you make the purchase. But it is also a fact that that Macs generally represent the greater value across the life a computer than PCs (not least because Macs tend to have a much longer useful life). Despite the initially higher buy-in, Macs win hands down on value when you compare them to Windows PCs with similar hardware specifications, and consider the software suites included with or available at low cost on the Mac (iLife, iWork), and such vital factors as ease of use, ease and cost of OS upgrades, ease and cost of back-up solutions, cost of virus/malware protection, ease of connectivity and networking, stability and reliability, customer service, ability of older hardware to run the latest OS, and resale value. An objective comparison of each of these areas favors Macs, in most cases to a very wide degree.
Short version: You get what you pay for. Always will.
I have found that many biz apps don't run well on a Mac, as well as some industry specific websites. So, for me, there's not much utility.
Maybe for others, there is.
Apple has done a great job marketing and portraying the PC as a nerdy guy vs a younger, cool guy. I guess this approach is working for some people.
The OP and the author of the study make the fundemental flaw in the analysis of this fact. High-end PC buyers don't shop at best buy. They don't.
High end pc buyers shop for components, and build the systems themselves. A few will buy from alienware (dell) or a few highend models from HP or others, but for the most part, sales of high end PC's just are not storefront driven
I can build an exactly comparable pc system for under $1300 that Apple sells for $2499. That's all markup for nothing more than marketing. Great for APPLE, bad for the consumer that buys that MAC.
So when you trumpet that MAC is great because of the brand image, be aware that that is all it is. The machine itself is nothing special.
Regards
As to the stocks, I believe we are starting to see a long term problem with Microsoft as the future will look very different for technology and they still seem to be looking backwards.
Apple has 91% of the market for computers that cost over $1000. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
On Jul 23 04:35 PM User 459557 wrote:
> This is a horrible piece written by an Apple fanboy. You are completely
> missing the point of the commercials. The point is that you can get
> often times a much more powerful computer for WAY cheaper than a
> Mac. Just because Macs are way more expensive, doesn't mean they
> are 'premium' computers. You sir, are an idiot.
On Jul 24 03:02 PM levin70 wrote:
> The study on the 91% compares sales at US retail storefronts.
>
> The OP and the author of the study make the fundemental flaw in the
> analysis of this fact. High-end PC buyers don't shop at best buy.
> They don't.
>
> High end pc buyers shop for components, and build the systems themselves.
> A few will buy from alienware (dell) or a few highend models from
> HP or others, but for the most part, sales of high end PC's just
> are not storefront driven
>
> I can build an exactly comparable pc system for under $1300 that
> Apple sells for $2499. That's all markup for nothing more than marketing.
> Great for APPLE, bad for the consumer that buys that MAC.
>
> So when you trumpet that MAC is great because of the brand image,
> be aware that that is all it is. The machine itself is nothing special.
>
>
> Regards
MS should keep laying off workers and keep spending millions on those pointless commercials.
Can't wait to walk into a future Microsoft Store to look at the cellophane covered boxes of Windows and MS Office. Fun!
On Jul 24 12:53 PM xmichaelx wrote:
> By suggesting that MS's recent ads are pointless, the author shows
> a misunderstanding of the computer-buying public: the vast majority
> of them know NOTHING about computers, including any difference at
> all between a Mac and a PC. To these people (80+% of computer buyers)
> "Macs cost more for the same thing" is a powerful message -- that's
> why these ads have shown success.
> So when you trumpet that MAC is great because of the
> brand image, be aware that that is all it is. The machine
> itself is nothing special.
Only someone who uses Windows exclusively and despise Apple based on principle rather than experience would emphasize the hardware in this debate. Mac users and converts understand that the real distinction, and the only one that matters, is the software.
I moved from XP to OS X six years ago, and it wasn't because of the hardware. There is absolutely no question that the Mac OS is superior to Windows. The switch for me was a night and day experience.
Of course, the fact that Apple controls its hardware allows it to greatly improve the reliability and stability of its OS. Windows has no such control, and it shows.
On a related point, the Mac hardware arguments in this thread are also misguided. Contrary to the views expressed above, most desktop Macs are in fact very and easily upgradable by the user, except for the all-in-one iMac. My first Macs were used towers -- a G4 and a dual G5, which were just as user-upgradeable as any Windows box, from video cards to CPUs. In fact, because of the supeior case designs of these towers, the upgrading was usually easier (and having upgraded and built my own Windows PCs, I know the difference). Through the wonders of eBay, Mac upgrading can be done dirt cheap. I suggest you doubters try it. Leopard will run very nicely on a 2002-2003 stock Mac tower, which can be had quite inexpensively (can you say that about Vista and a PC of that era?).
Now I use a Mac Mini and, guess what, I self-upgraded a low-end Intel Core Solo Mini that I got dirt cheap -- hard drive, optical drive, CPU and RAM. Took me a 1/2 hour and no special tools or skills.
Most people, however, with Macs or PCs, are not going to crack their computers open to upgrade even the RAM. They want to buy a computer that just works, out of the box. And this, too, is where Apple shines and Windows... not so much.
On Jul 23 04:14 PM GS (not a PHD, so no need to stroke my beard) wrote:
> I don't know,....the article sounds more like Apple bigot cheerleading
> than objective analysis. I guess both camps are poorly represented.
On Jul 24 11:49 AM mlambert890 wrote:
> Apple uses:
>
> Intel processors
> Nvidia or ATI video cards
> Standard RAM matched to the Intel processors
> A standard EFI BIOS
> Basically standard Intel chipsets
>
> This is the reason you can run Windows Vista on your Mac. You can
> also run OSX x86 on a PC.
>
Right on !!!
That Apple "magic sauce" argument doesn't wash with anyone who really knows about computers. Some of the Apple supporters here are just nuts.
The difference is operating system. I'm a PC user (after being mainly Apple in the mid to late 1980's) but I'm happy to admit the Mac OS is better than any of Microsoft's ones.
But with a Mac I pay a bit more, have a bit less flexibility with hardware, have fewer software options, and less upgrade options.
If none of the above limitations will affect you, and the better OS is worth the extra to you, go with the Mac.
When buying MAC, think about it comes with an expensive and better OS.
In 2001, my iMac had a superdrive to read/write CD and DVDs. All my PC friends came to my house to use my computer to burn CDs & DVDs. Within 1-2 years, the CD fanatics stopped coming because all their new PCs had CD-R drives. Another year or so, all those wanting DVD-R stopping coming.
The features on my computer was about 2-3 years ahead of PCs. Is it the same today? Don't know and won't worry about it for another year when I replace my 9 year old Mac. BTW, how old is your PC?
Macs tend to be ahead of the curve. Overpriced? Maybe, but what the f__, we can afford it.
You want value for your money in HP for cars... you buy a Mustang. You want HP but with bells & whistles, you buy a Rolls Royce.
Both do their job in getting you to your destination. But between you and me, I'll take the Rolls any day.
1) brand
2) image
3) design
4) simplicity of use
5) aesthetics
6) trendyness
Apple was never about hardcore gaming, compatibility, opensourceness, raw power, tweakability, price/performance, etc.
So I'd recomend Apple for my rich grandmother who never used a computer before, or for my trendy clothing store to use at the cashier.. and a non-apple computers for everyone else
My mouse has 11 buttons and I use all of them. My mother's iMac has a one-button mouse. If I wanna play any of my games at her PC i'd have to download a patch or stuff like that.
Easy choice
On Jul 25 01:44 AM Albert Ling wrote:
> Apple charges for:
> 1) brand
> 2) image
> 3) design
> 4) simplicity of use
> 5) aesthetics
> 6) trendyness
>
> Apple was never about hardcore gaming, compatibility, opensourceness,
> raw power, tweakability, price/performance, etc.
>
> So I'd recomend Apple for my rich grandmother who never used a computer
> before, or for my trendy clothing store to use at the cashier.. and
> a non-apple computers for everyone else
>
> My mouse has 11 buttons and I use all of them. My mother's iMac has
> a one-button mouse. If I wanna play any of my games at her PC i'd
> have to download a patch or stuff like that.
>
> Easy choice
>And while there are lots
> of Mac owners who will post about their machines being better, I
> see about the same numbers of PC owners doing the same thing
Ok, let's call this number of rude people - N. You basically say Nmac=Npc=N. However Mac market portion is less than 10%, say 5%.
Thus the real portion of rude people in both groups would be N/95 for pc versus N/5 for mac. I.e. amount of rude mac users is 19 times higher than that of pc users.
Simple math. I don't care personally who is rude or not. But the contradiction of your words was somewhat funny.
This is the difference between PC and MAC users. MAC users are stupid and lazy while high end PC users are the kids making billions on new internet and technology startups
On Jul 24 05:52 PM enkidu21 wrote:
> Here's a common and misguided theme emanating from the Apple haters:
>
The G3 for instance: forums.macosxhints.com...
Dell $290 million
Apple $1.23 billion
Which company would you rather own.
Throw in Rimm which made $643 million
If Apple counted the iphone sales like Rimm did then Apple earnings would be 1.94 billion in one quarter
Hp only made 1.7 billion
anyone with a little forethought will see that we are (or should be) moving toward OS agnostic devices that use VMs to accomodate applications that require specific operating systems.
this debate will probably rage on, however, as it is clear, "my blackberry can kick you iphone's butt." and "my WM phone can beat up your android!"
They are losing millions of their brethren to the Apple.
With Microsoft losing market share and Apple gaining exponentially in certain markets, things will be very different in a couple short years.
Then in 3-5 years what are you going to do with your computer? If this is such an important investment then spend a little time comparing the price of a 4 year old PC with an equivalent Mac to see what the re-sale value is like. (a recent 4-year old Mac mini sold on ebay tinyurl.com/mhaz2w for $330, original price $599)
One day two years ago I decided to buy a Mac Mini to see what all the fuss was about. I went to the Apple store and asked the salesman if there were empty RAM slots on the motherboard so I could upgrade the RAM. He had to go to the "genius bar" to find out, and when he returned he said "there are no free slots, and besides we recommend you have us do the upgrade since you void your warranty if you open the box yourself". "Of course you do" I replied with a smile. Anyhow, I bought the Mac and when I got it home I learned that I needed a special tool just to open the case ... so, something tells me you are not being very truthful in describing your upgrade experience as it doesn't match mine.
Well, I've had the Mini for almost 2 years now. At first I used it quite a bit, even downloading their development tools to see how difficult it was to write applications for Macs (I am a Windows developer). I found the machine unremarkable, and the OS quite similar to XP. Like Windows, it had some annoying foibles. For instance, when navigating to my NAS media archive, the Mac would crash every time I opened the movies folder. I learned to avoid that folder. Then one day I turned it on and it just wouldn't boot - it just showed the gray Apple logo for hours. I ended up restoring it from the rescue media, thereby wiping out most of what I had done on the machine (I did have a "time machine" backup, but it wasn't recent). Since the system restore episode I have very rarely even turned the Mac on. I failed to see what all the fuss was about, but I'm glad I took the plunge so I could see firsthand.
On Jul 24 05:52 PM enkidu21 wrote:
>
> Now I use a Mac Mini and, guess what, I self-upgraded a low-end Intel
> Core Solo Mini that I got dirt cheap -- hard drive, optical drive,
> CPU and RAM. Took me a 1/2 hour and no special tools or skills.
>
>
> Most people, however, with Macs or PCs, are not going to crack their
> computers open to upgrade even the RAM. They want to buy a computer
> that just works, out of the box. And this, too, is where Apple shines
> and Windows... not so much.
On Jul 24 03:50 PM Dave Shafer wrote:
> The responses here are great. Talk about bias! Anyway, 3 1/2 years
> ago I got laid off and bought myself a cheap [$500] Dell notebook.
> Six months later my wife got a refurbished I Book for $900. Since
> then I have had my computer in the shop twice and spent $225 on fixing
> it. She hasn't had a problem with hers. Now we both need new batteries.
> She will get hers. I will not pay $135+ and live with having to plug
> it in. Why, my Dell is starting to have problems and I figure I have
> no more than 1 year left. Meanwhile her computer keeps plugging along.
> And yes hers is faster than mine for the basic things we do. I am
> not a computer guy, nor do I want to be. Got better things to do
> with my life. Now I have no problem with my purchase, figuring I
> got my money's worth. But, my next computer will most probably be
> an Apple.
> As to the stocks, I believe we are starting to see a long term problem
> with Microsoft as the future will look very different for technology
> and they still seem to be looking backwards.