Apple's market share was cut short when the boys at Apple didn't know what critical mass implied and opted to tell Mr. Gates and family to **** off when he wanted to port Apple's OS.
<hr></blockquote>
FTR, I'm not talking about the factors that initially started Apple's decline, but what is keeping them from reversing it. Obviously, the option to port the MacOS to Bill Gates has long since past...
[quote] PS: By "momentum of industry" you're talking about critical mass and by "platform familiarity" you're talking about marketing.
<hr></blockquote>
Yes to the former, no to the latter.
Platform familiarity has little to do with marketing, it's simply what you're used to using. Once people become set in their ways they are notoriously difficult to change them. Marketing by no means assures the success of a company.
[quote] Just to make my previous post clear, you are describing the conditions of a commodoties market here. Watches do the same thing--they tell time. What makes one watch better than the other one?
<hr></blockquote>
The computer industry works a little differently. The computer isn't just one item that is typically discarded wholesale when you want a new one. There are many ways in which you tied to a computer platform - peripherals, sofware investment, personal files. Unless you are starting from scratch you are likely to want to carry over some hardware and software. Other commodities can be bought and dropped ad infinitum with no repercussions for doing so.
While your suggestions are all well and good, this is nowhere near enough to fight the momentum in the industry in any real way. Oh they could see sales spikes with some of what you're suggesting but not enough to reverse the long-term trend.
If all Apple can do is go head to head in the game with a PC, they will lose. They have to create *a new and better game*. I believe they have to change, again at a _fundamental_ level, to reverse this trend.
Apple has reached a level of maturity (and in a sense - a critical mass of their own) in this industry that will allow them a boon of many years to come in order to come up with "the next Big Thing".
There is a core group of Mac users, I believe, that will be enough to help flatten out Apple's marketshare slide. It's what they do with this time that matters.
The only way linux (it doth not deserve a proper name, 'cos it be CRAP, in my heathen opinion) will get more than a few percentage points of the market is if it gets a usable GUI and starts INFRINGING on the patents of people like Apple, MS, Xerox, HP, IBM and others.
The commercial OS-makers MIGHT license the use of their patents to linux distros, but not for free and never under the GPL.
You do know that MS cannot put a menu bar at the top of the screen because Apple owns that patent, don't you?
Linux is a TOY. Why? Because you spend all your time playing with it to make it work.
And because the creator(s) are overgrown children.
<strong>FTR, I'm not talking about the factors that initially started Apple's decline, but what is keeping them from reversing it. Obviously, the option to port the MacOS to Bill Gates has long since past.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The opportunity is gone, but not the lesson. What is keeping Apple from reversing any form of dominance are proprietary systems. The only fan of proprietary design in the industry at this point regarding consumer machines is Steve Jobs. He's a one trick pony. Think "magnesium cube."
[quote]<strong>
Platform familiarity has little to do with marketing, it's simply what you're used to using. Once people become set in their ways they are notoriously difficult to change them. Marketing by no means assures the success of a company. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Familiarity and marketing go hand in hand. You're confusing familiarity with routine--one's set ways of doing things. Marketing, by all means, plays one of the most important roles in business "success", which I will assume you're talking about growth, as "success" means different things to different people.
[quote]Originally posted by Aesir:
<strong>The computer industry works a little differently. The computer isn't just one item that is typically discarded wholesale when you want a new one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course it is. Especially with Apple's AIO computers.
[quote]<strong>
There are many ways in which you tied to a computer platform - peripherals, sofware investment, personal files. Unless you are starting from scratch you are likely to want to carry over some hardware and software. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You're trying to say that peripherals and other add ons play an important role in product retainment. Of course they do. This doesn't mean the PC industry is not a commodoties market or people don't upgrade technology. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]<strong>
Other commodities can be bought and dropped ad infinitum with no repercussions for doing so.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This isn't true at all. There are many personal reasons for retaining products, all of which are linked to value retention. I'm not sure you have a firm grasp on what a commmodoties market is, as you're trying to say that somehow buying a PC is different than buying a Swatch. It's not, and that's the whole point. If one thinks it is, then the marketing department has done its job properly.
<strong> Apple has reached a level of maturity (and in a sense - a critical mass of their own) </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm just going to use this as an example because I see it posted all the time... that Apple (or other) has achieved a critical mass "of their own", etc.
Please do not misuse the term critical mass. One of the better explanations I've seen around the net is this one (it's the first result returned from Google under "Metcalfe's Law")
[quote]Until a critical mass of users is reached, a change in technology only affects the technology. But once critical mass is attained, social, political, and economic systems change. This is what authors Downes and Mui call the Law of Disruption. It took about 10 years for radio to reach critical mass in the U.S.; television took longer. Each of these technologies transformed family, economic, and political structures once they reached critical mass. <hr></blockquote>
Aesir, BTW, I don't disagree with what you are saying, just how you are saying it. Basically you recognize Apple's need to create the "killer app" that's going to achieve critical mass, but that time for Apple is long gone. As far as "redefining" the industry, Apple doesn't have the R+D for that. I'm sorry, but it's a Windows world folks. You can thank your savior Steve Jobs for that.
Related keywords: critical mass, Metcalfe's Law, Law of Disruption, killer app
Can you please provide some specific examples of (name-brand) PCs that are (fairly equivalently configured) 100% to 200% more expensive than the Mac?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh please, could you atleast TRY to challenge me.
Round One: iMac Vs. The Cow
CRT Apple iMac $799
600mhz G3 with 15" Monitor and 128MB Memory
No CD-RW, 40GB Hard Drive.
Gateway 300S $399
Intel® Celeron® Processor 2.0GHz
128MB DDR SDRAM
40GB HD
20x min./48x max. CD-ROM drive
Kick in a 15" Samsung Monintor and you have a total $469 and for that you get a computer 3x faster than the iMac.
Round Two: Compaq by aclaimation
Power Macintosh G4, Dual 867mhz with 3 year warranty and Pro Speakers. $2007
Compaq D315, $698
AMD Athlon? XP Processor 2400+ (2.00GHz)
60GB Ultra ATA 100 (7200rpm)
256MB PC2100 (266MHz) DDR
nVidia GeForce2 graphics
48X/12X/48X CD-RW Drive Standard 3 Year (Parts, Labor and Next Business Day On-Site) Limited Warranty
$698.00
In this instance the G4 tower is 300% more expensive than a system that will grind it to a fine paste.
Want more?
I know I sure do, now lets goto the extreme high end shall we?
Round 3 1.25ghz G4 with 3 year warranty vs. Dell Xeon
From Apple for $3548 you get the following,
Summary
? Power Mac G4 Dual 1.25GHz w/167MHz system bus
? 512MB PC2700 DDR SDRAM - 1 DIMM
? 120GB Ultra ATA drive
? Optical 1 - Apple SuperDrive
? ATI Radeon 9000
From DELL for $3013 you get the following,
Dell Precision? Workstation 650:
- Dual 2.40Ghz Intel XEON Processors
- 512MB Of RDRAM Memory
- 120GB Ultra ATA Drive
- 4x DVD-R Drive
- ATI FireGL E1
- 3Yr Parts + Onsite Labor
For LESS money than the high end G4 that is absolutly brutalized by a single 2.4ghz Pentium 4 you can get a Dell workstation with DUAL Intel XEON processors that burtalize the Pentium 4 in addition to a professional graphics card.
There is absolutly zero basis for comparison between the 1.25ghz G4 and the Dell Xeon workstation, Apple is charging Porche price for a Kia.
If your a professional customer who can chose between an absolute monster of a workstation that will crush anything in it's path or a G4 tower that can't hold it's own against low end PC's, what would you chose?.
OR that you can buy 3 2.8 Gig Pentium boxes for one dual 1.25 (heahaha...heh...) Apple 'top of the line roadster' tower. Hmm. 3 Pentium 2.8 towers in yer room. Keep yer warm through winter, eh?
With all this evidence against Apple, it begs the question, "why are we still here"?
If we hard core Mac heads here know the score but continue to remain loyal, what does that say?
While I know that things may catch up against Apple if they don't pull up their socks, they seem to take a longer term approach in marketing. Like the Porsche analogy, they get you in the mindset that it's cool to own a Mac...or that it's a status thing...or why would you want to be caught in a KIA. And once you've "driven" a Mac, you won't go back. The problem is that recent ad campaigns (apart from the iPod commercial of the guy downloading in seconds) is that they don't show the user experience.
True, they'll never gain a greater marketshare this way, but they'll have their core users for life.
If your a professional customer who can chose between an absolute monster of a workstation that will crush anything in it's path or a G4 tower that can't hold it's own against low end PC's, what would you chose?.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have seen 3d renders on PCs with the "killer" specs you quote choke on renders and never complete them, while the same files render to completion on the Mac.
Granted, not as quickly, but at least they finish. Can you say "memory management"?
<strong>you might like to back that one up, all the major film studios are using PC's just like the Dell I mentioned and seem to be doing just fine with them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How would you have me back that up?
Most of the studios use PC for workstations, true. All of them? No.
Most of the studios DO NOT use them for doing their rendering. Most are still using Unix solutions, but are, however starting to convert to Linux PC solutions.
I guess when I hear PC, I think about Windows solutions, and if I think about it more, it's not the hardware that I detest as much as it is the OS.
So, if you are talking about the hardware itself, then I would have to agree with you.
Didn't ILM buy a boot load of Dells/x86 computers for their renderfarm?
I'm sure 3 Pentium 2.8 giggers would certainly finish their renders much faster than the humble twin 1.25 G4.
I wish it were otherwise...
Because the G5 970 can help Apple increase its marketshare to some degree. Starting with an order at ILM? X-serve 970. Der-rool. 970 workstations. Quad and Octo processor. Dribble.
With all this evidence against Apple, it begs the question, "why are we still here"?
. . . True, they'll never gain a greater marketshare this way, but they'll have their core users for life.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why are we still here? For myself, I refuse to support a company with the business practices of the current market leader. OS X to me is the best alternative, and if the hardware were more competitive it would be the best choice period. When Apple finally gets the IBM 970, I'll upgrade from my current beige G3. I don't need that kind of performance, but it is going to be such a welcome change that I'll get it anyway.
Regarding users for life, Apple cannot count on that at all. As I said in another posting, 18 months ago, there were six of us using Macs, among my friends and relations. Today there are only three, because the others bought Windows PCs.
<strong>Lets face it the consumer is used to clock speed to distinguish which is the fastest processor, I don't know if this will ever change.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right, it won't change. Until consumers can be educated in a simple fashion about how to measure the performance of a CPU in regards to clock speeds, etc--there's too much burden of education for the consumer. This is one of the main reasons I'm calling for a level playing field.
The other consideration is that Apple has already been "burned" (pun intended) by Intel once. Consumers aren't going to jump on another chip no matter what IBM/Apple has to say about it. The x86 ISA has already been marketed by Intel. It would be more of an advantage for Apple to use piggyback positioning with Intel's mindshare if it wanted to gain marketshare.
You're right, it won't change. Until consumers can be educated in a simple fashion about how to measure the performance of a CPU in regards to clock speeds, etc--there's too much burden of education for the consumer. This is one of the main reasons I'm calling for a level playing field
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That doesn't change anything, because even if the consumer understood that clockspeed isn't everything, Apple is still light years behind,
Nothing Apple could ever say would make the dual 1.25ghz G4 as fast as the less expensive dual 2.40ghz Intel Xeon.
A few around here have used macs for some time (the faithful), but there are quite a few people converting to mac from pc. This is something I have not seen before. There are two factors that I have observed that are generating a "switch" to the mac: 1. iPhoto/iMovie, 2. Unix.
One of the converts has been an active mac basher until he saw OS X. He was the sys admin for our lan of wintel nightmares (he has since moved to software maintenance). He is purchasing a powerbook. For him, the MHZ is a factor, but the ability to have a stable unix underpinning is what really motivated him to get a mac. The problem is that the environment I work in is not necessarily representative of the consumer market at large - but it is certainly encouraging to see (FINALLY!) people switching from wintel to mac.
My humble opinion is that the Apple switch to unix will bring in:
- university CompSci departments
- a larger software base (i.e. ports of existing Unix/Linux applications)
- more interest from corporate America (those that have an installed base of unix apps)
The down side is that one of the most compelling reasons for using a mac, digital imaging, is going to be strongly challenged by the recent offerings from microsoft.
Apple will have to keep punching out new products that compel discussion and confidence in the company (something they have done fairly well since Jobs came back). Apple needs a product launch of some "new new thing" this spring or I fear sales will tail off and the mac faithful will have to hunker down again in the shadow of Redland.
I don't believe Apple can increase market share until they get a competitive processor, like the IBM 970. With that, Apple could make a lower cost tower, by using just one processor. The rest should be duals so they can be very competitive in performance. Then sales will increase. There is likely a lot of demand for such a product, waiting for it to appear. The other model Apple needs is a low-cost, no-monitor Mac. A lot of the Mac users who are switching to PCs now might think otherwise if such a Mac were available.
Comments
Apple's market share was cut short when the boys at Apple didn't know what critical mass implied and opted to tell Mr. Gates and family to **** off when he wanted to port Apple's OS.
<hr></blockquote>
FTR, I'm not talking about the factors that initially started Apple's decline, but what is keeping them from reversing it. Obviously, the option to port the MacOS to Bill Gates has long since past...
[quote] PS: By "momentum of industry" you're talking about critical mass and by "platform familiarity" you're talking about marketing.
<hr></blockquote>
Yes to the former, no to the latter.
Platform familiarity has little to do with marketing, it's simply what you're used to using. Once people become set in their ways they are notoriously difficult to change them. Marketing by no means assures the success of a company.
[quote] Just to make my previous post clear, you are describing the conditions of a commodoties market here. Watches do the same thing--they tell time. What makes one watch better than the other one?
<hr></blockquote>
The computer industry works a little differently. The computer isn't just one item that is typically discarded wholesale when you want a new one. There are many ways in which you tied to a computer platform - peripherals, sofware investment, personal files. Unless you are starting from scratch you are likely to want to carry over some hardware and software. Other commodities can be bought and dropped ad infinitum with no repercussions for doing so.
- Aesir
While your suggestions are all well and good, this is nowhere near enough to fight the momentum in the industry in any real way. Oh they could see sales spikes with some of what you're suggesting but not enough to reverse the long-term trend.
If all Apple can do is go head to head in the game with a PC, they will lose. They have to create *a new and better game*. I believe they have to change, again at a _fundamental_ level, to reverse this trend.
Apple has reached a level of maturity (and in a sense - a critical mass of their own) in this industry that will allow them a boon of many years to come in order to come up with "the next Big Thing".
There is a core group of Mac users, I believe, that will be enough to help flatten out Apple's marketshare slide. It's what they do with this time that matters.
- Aesir.
The commercial OS-makers MIGHT license the use of their patents to linux distros, but not for free and never under the GPL.
You do know that MS cannot put a menu bar at the top of the screen because Apple owns that patent, don't you?
Linux is a TOY. Why? Because you spend all your time playing with it to make it work.
And because the creator(s) are overgrown children.
Flame ON!
<strong>FTR, I'm not talking about the factors that initially started Apple's decline, but what is keeping them from reversing it. Obviously, the option to port the MacOS to Bill Gates has long since past.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The opportunity is gone, but not the lesson. What is keeping Apple from reversing any form of dominance are proprietary systems. The only fan of proprietary design in the industry at this point regarding consumer machines is Steve Jobs. He's a one trick pony. Think "magnesium cube."
[quote]<strong>
Platform familiarity has little to do with marketing, it's simply what you're used to using. Once people become set in their ways they are notoriously difficult to change them. Marketing by no means assures the success of a company. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Familiarity and marketing go hand in hand. You're confusing familiarity with routine--one's set ways of doing things. Marketing, by all means, plays one of the most important roles in business "success", which I will assume you're talking about growth, as "success" means different things to different people.
[quote]Originally posted by Aesir:
<strong>The computer industry works a little differently. The computer isn't just one item that is typically discarded wholesale when you want a new one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course it is. Especially with Apple's AIO computers.
[quote]<strong>
There are many ways in which you tied to a computer platform - peripherals, sofware investment, personal files. Unless you are starting from scratch you are likely to want to carry over some hardware and software. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You're trying to say that peripherals and other add ons play an important role in product retainment. Of course they do. This doesn't mean the PC industry is not a commodoties market or people don't upgrade technology. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]<strong>
Other commodities can be bought and dropped ad infinitum with no repercussions for doing so.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This isn't true at all. There are many personal reasons for retaining products, all of which are linked to value retention. I'm not sure you have a firm grasp on what a commmodoties market is, as you're trying to say that somehow buying a PC is different than buying a Swatch. It's not, and that's the whole point. If one thinks it is, then the marketing department has done its job properly.
[ 12-28-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
<strong> Apple has reached a level of maturity (and in a sense - a critical mass of their own) </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm just going to use this as an example because I see it posted all the time... that Apple (or other) has achieved a critical mass "of their own", etc.
Please do not misuse the term critical mass. One of the better explanations I've seen around the net is this one (it's the first result returned from Google under "Metcalfe's Law")
[quote]Until a critical mass of users is reached, a change in technology only affects the technology. But once critical mass is attained, social, political, and economic systems change. This is what authors Downes and Mui call the Law of Disruption. It took about 10 years for radio to reach critical mass in the U.S.; television took longer. Each of these technologies transformed family, economic, and political structures once they reached critical mass. <hr></blockquote>
Aesir, BTW, I don't disagree with what you are saying, just how you are saying it. Basically you recognize Apple's need to create the "killer app" that's going to achieve critical mass, but that time for Apple is long gone. As far as "redefining" the industry, Apple doesn't have the R+D for that. I'm sorry, but it's a Windows world folks. You can thank your savior Steve Jobs for that.
Related keywords: critical mass, Metcalfe's Law, Law of Disruption, killer app
[ 12-28-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
<strong>
Can you please provide some specific examples of (name-brand) PCs that are (fairly equivalently configured) 100% to 200% more expensive than the Mac?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh please, could you atleast TRY to challenge me.
Round One: iMac Vs. The Cow
CRT Apple iMac $799
600mhz G3 with 15" Monitor and 128MB Memory
No CD-RW, 40GB Hard Drive.
Gateway 300S $399
Intel® Celeron® Processor 2.0GHz
128MB DDR SDRAM
40GB HD
20x min./48x max. CD-ROM drive
Kick in a 15" Samsung Monintor and you have a total $469 and for that you get a computer 3x faster than the iMac.
Round Two: Compaq by aclaimation
Power Macintosh G4, Dual 867mhz with 3 year warranty and Pro Speakers. $2007
Compaq D315, $698
AMD Athlon? XP Processor 2400+ (2.00GHz)
60GB Ultra ATA 100 (7200rpm)
256MB PC2100 (266MHz) DDR
nVidia GeForce2 graphics
48X/12X/48X CD-RW Drive Standard 3 Year (Parts, Labor and Next Business Day On-Site) Limited Warranty
$698.00
In this instance the G4 tower is 300% more expensive than a system that will grind it to a fine paste.
Want more?
I know I sure do, now lets goto the extreme high end shall we?
Round 3 1.25ghz G4 with 3 year warranty vs. Dell Xeon
From Apple for $3548 you get the following,
Summary
? Power Mac G4 Dual 1.25GHz w/167MHz system bus
? 512MB PC2700 DDR SDRAM - 1 DIMM
? 120GB Ultra ATA drive
? Optical 1 - Apple SuperDrive
? ATI Radeon 9000
From DELL for $3013 you get the following,
Dell Precision? Workstation 650:
- Dual 2.40Ghz Intel XEON Processors
- 512MB Of RDRAM Memory
- 120GB Ultra ATA Drive
- 4x DVD-R Drive
- ATI FireGL E1
- 3Yr Parts + Onsite Labor
For LESS money than the high end G4 that is absolutly brutalized by a single 2.4ghz Pentium 4 you can get a Dell workstation with DUAL Intel XEON processors that burtalize the Pentium 4 in addition to a professional graphics card.
There is absolutly zero basis for comparison between the 1.25ghz G4 and the Dell Xeon workstation, Apple is charging Porche price for a Kia.
If your a professional customer who can chose between an absolute monster of a workstation that will crush anything in it's path or a G4 tower that can't hold it's own against low end PC's, what would you chose?.
Pu-OH!
KNockout blow!
Remind me not to argue with Steve 'the Stag'.
Golly Lois.
OR that you can buy 3 2.8 Gig Pentium boxes for one dual 1.25 (heahaha...heh...) Apple 'top of the line roadster' tower. Hmm. 3 Pentium 2.8 towers in yer room. Keep yer warm through winter, eh?
Lemon Bon Bon
If we hard core Mac heads here know the score but continue to remain loyal, what does that say?
While I know that things may catch up against Apple if they don't pull up their socks, they seem to take a longer term approach in marketing. Like the Porsche analogy, they get you in the mindset that it's cool to own a Mac...or that it's a status thing...or why would you want to be caught in a KIA. And once you've "driven" a Mac, you won't go back. The problem is that recent ad campaigns (apart from the iPod commercial of the guy downloading in seconds) is that they don't show the user experience.
True, they'll never gain a greater marketshare this way, but they'll have their core users for life.
<strong>
If your a professional customer who can chose between an absolute monster of a workstation that will crush anything in it's path or a G4 tower that can't hold it's own against low end PC's, what would you chose?.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have seen 3d renders on PCs with the "killer" specs you quote choke on renders and never complete them, while the same files render to completion on the Mac.
Granted, not as quickly, but at least they finish. Can you say "memory management"?
<strong>you might like to back that one up, all the major film studios are using PC's just like the Dell I mentioned and seem to be doing just fine with them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How would you have me back that up?
Most of the studios use PC for workstations, true. All of them? No.
Most of the studios DO NOT use them for doing their rendering. Most are still using Unix solutions, but are, however starting to convert to Linux PC solutions.
I guess when I hear PC, I think about Windows solutions, and if I think about it more, it's not the hardware that I detest as much as it is the OS.
So, if you are talking about the hardware itself, then I would have to agree with you.
[ 12-29-2002: Message edited by: ryukyu ]</p>
I'm sure 3 Pentium 2.8 giggers would certainly finish their renders much faster than the humble twin 1.25 G4.
I wish it were otherwise...
Because the G5 970 can help Apple increase its marketshare to some degree. Starting with an order at ILM? X-serve 970. Der-rool. 970 workstations. Quad and Octo processor. Dribble.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
With all this evidence against Apple, it begs the question, "why are we still here"?
. . . True, they'll never gain a greater marketshare this way, but they'll have their core users for life.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why are we still here? For myself, I refuse to support a company with the business practices of the current market leader. OS X to me is the best alternative, and if the hardware were more competitive it would be the best choice period. When Apple finally gets the IBM 970, I'll upgrade from my current beige G3. I don't need that kind of performance, but it is going to be such a welcome change that I'll get it anyway.
Regarding users for life, Apple cannot count on that at all. As I said in another posting, 18 months ago, there were six of us using Macs, among my friends and relations. Today there are only three, because the others bought Windows PCs.
Amen.
Lemon Bon Bon
Who's protecting you from the big bad wolf? Big brother?
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>Lets face it the consumer is used to clock speed to distinguish which is the fastest processor, I don't know if this will ever change.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're right, it won't change. Until consumers can be educated in a simple fashion about how to measure the performance of a CPU in regards to clock speeds, etc--there's too much burden of education for the consumer. This is one of the main reasons I'm calling for a level playing field.
The other consideration is that Apple has already been "burned" (pun intended) by Intel once. Consumers aren't going to jump on another chip no matter what IBM/Apple has to say about it. The x86 ISA has already been marketed by Intel. It would be more of an advantage for Apple to use piggyback positioning with Intel's mindshare if it wanted to gain marketshare.
<strong>
You're right, it won't change. Until consumers can be educated in a simple fashion about how to measure the performance of a CPU in regards to clock speeds, etc--there's too much burden of education for the consumer. This is one of the main reasons I'm calling for a level playing field
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That doesn't change anything, because even if the consumer understood that clockspeed isn't everything, Apple is still light years behind,
Nothing Apple could ever say would make the dual 1.25ghz G4 as fast as the less expensive dual 2.40ghz Intel Xeon.
One of the converts has been an active mac basher until he saw OS X. He was the sys admin for our lan of wintel nightmares (he has since moved to software maintenance). He is purchasing a powerbook. For him, the MHZ is a factor, but the ability to have a stable unix underpinning is what really motivated him to get a mac. The problem is that the environment I work in is not necessarily representative of the consumer market at large - but it is certainly encouraging to see (FINALLY!) people switching from wintel to mac.
My humble opinion is that the Apple switch to unix will bring in:
- university CompSci departments
- a larger software base (i.e. ports of existing Unix/Linux applications)
- more interest from corporate America (those that have an installed base of unix apps)
The down side is that one of the most compelling reasons for using a mac, digital imaging, is going to be strongly challenged by the recent offerings from microsoft.
Apple will have to keep punching out new products that compel discussion and confidence in the company (something they have done fairly well since Jobs came back). Apple needs a product launch of some "new new thing" this spring or I fear sales will tail off and the mac faithful will have to hunker down again in the shadow of Redland.