I Swear to god I hope I never have to go to your hospital. Frankly you proberbly tell me Im a mac user and I cant be admitted. MAJOR APPS DO RUN ON MAC ever heard of the UNIX base to MAC OSX? You are misinformed. I run a very large Ad agency ( Im a partner. ) We are a total mac oufit. thats 600 macs on 2 continents. And not all of them are for the creatives. One of our focus business unit also develops high end databases YEP ON MACS. Try collating 3 million mail samples on a PC effectively. As for your Insinuation that photoshop is not used in the real world you obviously have NEVER stepped into a creative business. LOTS of very large companies do more than emailing and word. Sure macs are not for every purpose macs are the primary choice for creative business. Apple problem is that users like you want them to be all things to you. Macs belong to the creative and when all the fuss over macs being cool has died there will be always the installed user base the creatives developers and creative businesses. Apple may only have 5% Mkt share but its the most lucrative around. YOU WOULDNT HAVE MOST OF THE INNOVATIONS YOU ENJOY ON PCS WITHOUT APPLE. THANK GOD THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO WINDOWS.
Oh my the way:
CITRIX - on a mac
MAJOR MOVIES - ( finding nemo ) MAC
All major DVD mastering ( DVD STUDIO PRO ) MAC
Music - (ITMS) Hey guess what a mac ...
oh and of course you cant do anything scientific on a mac. ( NOTE MY SCARCASM) but dont tell that to Noah Johnson?s
OR Dr. Srinidhi Varadarajan of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He ONLY built the world 3rd fastest supercomputer from macs at a TENTH OF THE PRICE.
He got you there TrailMater308
Do I hear people doubting their Macs capabilities?
He wasnt doubting the mac's capabilities, but if you want to role out a Mac deployment in many business it means dealing with domain specific applications ( Apple has good creative domain applications ). When you look at any established business there are often custom apps ( typically written in VB and/or Access ) that are tailored to the operating procedures of the business.
Mac's have no leverage into these markets, without the client replacing all of their software. The cost of the hardware pales into comparison with the cost of rewriting all your software to run on a new platform.
Apples biggest problem is not being able to run VB and Access software off the shelf. I think this will change fast. With Darwine we may well see VB runtime with emulation become a reality, and be fast enough.
Are you for real? Do people on this board actually believe that you can go into an organization and replace PC's with Mac's? For real, do ya'll believe this? Okay lets say I want to replace all the pc's in my organization. I had my buddy who is on the Network Team run a Hiena report on the # of PC's we have (876 to be exact local on this campus, not counting offsite Community Health clinics). Okay now lets say I replace all those with Mac's. Exactly what in the he!! am I gonna put on those? I work in a hospital. Tell me what Apps are gonna run the millions of dollars of inventory tracking? How are we gonna pay our employees? What apps are gonna link our lab results to our nurse order entry and results viewer? What about our Med Rec apps? What about our time entry? What about our ER system? What about our Radiology system?
Well, I think you haven't taken the time to go around and learn a little have you? Anyways the point is that your Radiology system should work perfectly on the Mac. My brother has a PowerBook Titanium G4 and it runs his radiology files perfectly! I don't see the point. And for all your other software that can be easily handled. And here is an important point: Do you really think Apple manages all its company with PCs? I don't think so. If Apple can handle it then I don't see why your hospital couldn't benefit from a good tasty Apple.
Apple's machine at the low end are very competitive. Not because of their hardware make up, which is not up to par with the PC world - yet - but because of their ease of use. I know a number of people who have opted for Macs at home when they had PCs at work (they were all new to the mac universe) because they thought it would do what they needed to do at home well, and without the support staff they know they cannot live without when using their PC.
With the advent of the G5/G6 and IBM chips, the point is going to be moot in no time. IBM charges less for a low end G5 than Motorola for a high-end G4, so the only thing holding up the G5 from the low end is marketing, not economics. I would venture to say that within a year, we will see G5s in the low end and G6s (or whatever they are named, I am talking of the Power 5 derived chips with simultaneous multithreading and enhanced Altivec unit) in the high end. Given where Intel and AMD are going, Apple will have more than made up the slack.
Oddly enough, I get $2250.43 for the same system. Of course, I included anti-virus software and the MS Office SBE since the Works package is only a trial edition. Even without those, the price comes to $2K.
But hey, what the heck, if price is all you're worried about, run on down to WalMart and pick up a $300.00 box.
The Works isn't trial...just office, just like office on a mac. And Works is pretty equal to Appleworks...except Appleworks has a presentation mode. So be sure to tack on office to both computers..and we are still looking at the same pricing.
I like OS X a lot..but with the current lineup I won't be getting an Apple desktop, or tel my Dad to replace his 4 year-old PC with one. They are too expensive at the low to mid range.
Really, Apple's biggest problem is people's outmoded perception of them as rarified high-dollar machines that simple "cost more." (I confine my comments to off-the-shelf computers, as we all know the DIY PCs can be built cheaply)
When you look at it more critically, the PCs out there cost less because they ship with less. Go to Dell's site and configure a 1.7 GHz laptop with all the goodies that come on the 15" Powerbook (Wireless, FW800-- oops can't even GET that-- etc.) and the Dell will cost MORE. The Dell towers might come out a few dollars cheaper than the G5's when configged with similar specs, but the difference is really not too ridiculous.
After the initial purchase price, you have to look at what else you get with Apple hardware-- all the cool iApps, and things that are semi-intangible, like an OS that takes less time to configure out of the box, and that stays out of your way better than Windows. Total Cost of Ownership has to be taken in context. Downtime, tech support, viruses, patches, upgrades, crashes, confilcts, etc. There are trouble-free Windows installs out there, (or so I've heard) but I've never seen one. If you save $500.00 on your desktop, but spend that again in hours of frustration (how much do you make by the hour?) and tech support, what's the point?
Apple's marketing department really needs to hammer these things home a little better, and do away with the outmoded perceptions people continue to have about their hardware, esp. now since OS X.
CV
Wow. What a post. I'm gonna have to document that one for next time my friends ask me why I bothered to pay more for a mac!
Sorry but that really doesn't look like an inferior machine to me...and before people start going on about how tou get the elegant all in one design of the imac and the superior gui of OS X. Bill Gates proved already that the vast majority of people will settle for good enough.
But Apple won't. And never will. They aren't trying to sell things that are 'good enough', and they aren't trying to sell them to an audience that wants 'good enough'.
Apple sells to a specific audience, and they will keep it that way. The rest of the world can have their 'good enough' as far as I'm concerned.
Original poster is right in that Apple has a big price/performance problem in 400-1200$ desktops.
I'm not sure if it's Apple's biggest problem, except by proxy (in the long term, OS X platform is probably a lot smaller because of it). In the short term, the biggest prob is probably just that Apple is not familiar enough, advertised enough.
Original poster is right in that Apple has a big price/performance problem in 400-1200$ desktops.
I'm not sure if it's Apple's biggest problem, except by proxy (in the long term, OS X platform is probably a lot smaller because of it). In the short term, the biggest prob is probably just that Apple is not familiar enough, advertised enough.
Apple is very familiar with the public, I think it is one of the most recognized brands, up there with Nike, Sony and Coke-a-Cola. I think that the problem with the general public, consumer, is that there is a perception of Macs as being expensive and eletist. Apple does nothing to combat this with their high priced ads that never mention price.
This is compounded by Apple's strict adherence to MSRP for their computers. I'm not sure how it is in other parts of the country, but here the only retail outlet that carries Apple computer's and puts our a color ad flier in the newspaper is CompUSA .For a lot of people this is their first step in pricing an appliance. Here, when CompUSA puts Apple products in their ads they ineviatably list the high end models, and lately it has only been the PM's, PowerBooks, and iPods that have made it into their ads. So a lot of people who may be familiar with Apple and Macs see this and turn away from them immediatly becouse they are not willing to spend $3,000 on a computer. If they would allow CompUSA and others to have sales then Macs might make it to the front page of these ads once and a while, maybe with as much as $100 off and or some of the other "gimics" added in like:
iMac Flat Pannel
$1199 Sale Price ( 1299 MSRP
- 300 12 months Comp-U-Serve
$ 899 Final price (savings of $400)
These are the tactics that are in the newspaper every weekend at Best Buy, CompUSA, Staples and others. They also hook a lot of people into these deals, my Step-Father bought into one against my advice, then droped Comp-U-Serve before the year was out becouse of poor service. My main point is that this would get people to look at Macs as an option instead of passing them by becouse they think they are out of their price range.
But Apple won't. And never will. They aren't trying to sell things that are 'good enough', and they aren't trying to sell them to an audience that wants 'good enough'.
Apple sells to a specific audience, and they will keep it that way. The rest of the world can have their 'good enough' as far as I'm concerned.
Jimzip
And that is why apple needs to educate customers on why good enough isn't enough...because Looking at HP ads, you would think taking a picture, sticking it on your computer and printing it out is very easy and painless.............
But I'm not sure if that is something you think about with a Mac.
I mean Honda and Toyota have succeeded in getting people to buy their more reliable cars..over the cheap american automobiles (I won't get an american car) and paying a premium...becaue eveyone who has the extra cash knows it is worth it to buy japanese.
(Maybe because they started as the price leaders for a while..but these days everyone knows to buy japanese if you want reliable)
Do most computer useres think:
Buying Apple means no viruses
Reliable computers
long lasting
easy to use
high quality digital lifestyle application
plug and play
standard apps are availible
talks to windows
and so on...nope.....
All they know is iPods, colorful imacs, slow, expensive and going out of business.
Apple is very familiar with the public, I think it is one of the most recognized brands, up there with Nike, Sony and Coke-a-Cola. I think that the problem with the general public, consumer, is that there is a perception of Macs as being expensive and eletist. Apple does nothing to combat this with their high priced ads that never mention price.
Here in Finland, I have yet to see one Apple ad placed by Apple, *ever*. Some retailers have advertised in computer magazines, but also this is very rare outside Apple specific magazines.
An iPod outside of store - never seen one.
Education discounts? Never seen one.
All this translates to a minuscule amount of population that knows about or can afford Apple.
But Apple won't. And never will. They aren't trying to sell things that are 'good enough', and they aren't trying to sell them to an audience that wants 'good enough'.
Apple sells to a specific audience, and they will keep it that way. The rest of the world can have their 'good enough' as far as I'm concerned.
Jimzip
What? If the specs on the imac and emac dont scream "just good enough" then nothing ever has.
What? If the specs on the imac and emac dont scream "just good enough" then nothing ever has.
Yes.. The eMac.. My fatal mistake.. You're right there.
Well, that's Apple's way of trying to reach another market. People that can't afford the expensive power machines. As a company they have to cater for all audiences I guess. It's not exactly the best way of going about it...
Still, the eMac isn't exactly a horrible machine.. It's still got most of the bells and whistles of the big-boys, but it's crippled to make it cheaper... So it's like getting a PC! lol
(edit: I might add that I actually like the eMac. I'm not bagging it. I'm just comparing it's power to a PC.. Muhahaha.. )
I Swear to god I hope I never have to go to your hospital. Frankly you proberbly tell me Im a mac user and I cant be admitted. MAJOR APPS DO RUN ON MAC ever heard of the UNIX base to MAC OSX? You are misinformed. I run a very large Ad agency ( Im a partner. ) We are a total mac oufit. thats 600 macs on 2 continents. And not all of them are for the creatives. One of our focus business unit also develops high end databases YEP ON MACS. Try collating 3 million mail samples on a PC effectively. As for your Insinuation that photoshop is not used in the real world you obviously have NEVER stepped into a creative business. LOTS of very large companies do more than emailing and word. Sure macs are not for every purpose macs are the primary choice for creative business. Apple problem is that users like you want them to be all things to you. Macs belong to the creative and when all the fuss over macs being cool has died there will be always the installed user base the creatives developers and creative businesses. Apple may only have 5% Mkt share but its the most lucrative around. YOU WOULDNT HAVE MOST OF THE INNOVATIONS YOU ENJOY ON PCS WITHOUT APPLE. THANK GOD THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO WINDOWS.
Oh my the way:
CITRIX - on a mac
MAJOR MOVIES - ( finding nemo ) MAC
All major DVD mastering ( DVD STUDIO PRO ) MAC
Music - (ITMS) Hey guess what a mac ...
oh and of course you cant do anything scientific on a mac. ( NOTE MY SCARCASM) but dont tell that to Noah Johnson?s
OR Dr. Srinidhi Varadarajan of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He ONLY built the world 3rd fastest supercomputer from macs at a TENTH OF THE PRICE.
Thats all great that you can run your organization on Mac's, but that doesn't help me. First, no I cannot port our DB's over. Currently they are running Oracle 8.1.6 on AIX via P690's, 4 to be exact. Not only will the vendor laugh at porting the backend over to mac but it would void our support, plus we have no problems whatsoever with it. AIX is bullet proof and there is no denying that. Secondly, our front-end apps are to large to do local installs and when we load updates I don't want to have to push these out to the workstations. So to solve that problem we use Metaframe XP, that way I only have to do updates to the servers and all the clients get them.
Also, you mention the Unix base to Mac OSX. I've been an AIX admin for the past 5yrs or so. I enjoy OSX, but it kills me when people see unix and assume that you can take any "unix" app and mount it/run it in OSX. This is not the case, so no I can't just port Unix based apps over. Heck I have the makefiles to the vmware console written for Redhat and can't get the dang thing to compile to X. The cost in trying to get apps moved over is too great to even think about.
I don't know why everyone always mentions citrix for mac. The only client available is the full blown ICA client. The majority of orgs are publishing apps in webpages, like we do. The footprint is so much smaller and you don't have to go through all the hassle of changing server names, god forbid, you have more than one server farm. Thats what is so wonderful about the web ica client. Guess what, no web ica client for mac. Just a way outdated ica client that was so 3 years ago. You do know that Metaframe is for only Wintel servers right?
Finding Nemo? How does they help me? Its a cute movie though.
Thats all great that you can run your organization on Mac's, but that doesn't help me. First, no I cannot port our DB's over. Currently they are running Oracle 8.1.6 on AIX via P690's, 4 to be exact. Not only will the vendor laugh at porting the backend over to mac but it would void our support, plus we have no problems whatsoever with it.
10g will be released for Mac OS X Server and Xserve G5 shortly.
Quote:
Originally posted by trailmaster308
So to solve that problem we use Metaframe XP, that way I only have to do updates to the servers and all the clients get them.
Which means that a Mac with a Citrix client can be used just as well as a Windows PC.
Quote:
Originally posted by trailmaster308
I don't know why everyone always mentions citrix for mac. The only client available is the full blown ICA client. The majority of orgs are publishing apps in webpages, like we do. The footprint is so much smaller and you don't have to go through all the hassle of changing server names, god forbid, you have more than one server farm. Thats what is so wonderful about the web ica client. Guess what, no web ica client for mac. Just a way outdated ica client that was so 3 years ago. You do know that Metaframe is for only Wintel servers right?
Uhm, I've tested CorelDRAW using the web ICA client on a Mac (Corel doesn't seem to offer demos that way anymore - but it works).
Furthermore XP lets you download a profile to use in the regular ICA client - changes on your servers won't affect users since they are downloading a new profile every time (works great for my girlfriend working at http://www.berendsen.com/ - she logs on to their server, clicks on the app she wants to use and it launches in the regular ICA client).
If you are using metaframe why would you buy a mac to run it? The computer is just operating as a thin client to a windows server. People tend to buy the cheapest thin client possible, and that means a basic Dell.
Touting things like metaframe as a solution will never help, that is a totally cost driven market. Cost of parts, cost of administration, cost of software, cost of support. Running a thin client cuts them all. How does running it on a Mac help you? You dont even make use of os x, you end up running windows on a server.
If you are using metaframe why would you buy a mac to run it? The computer is just operating as a thin client to a windows server. People tend to buy the cheapest thin client possible, and that means a basic Dell.
Touting things like metaframe as a solution will never help, that is a totally cost driven market. Cost of parts, cost of administration, cost of software, cost of support. Running a thin client cuts them all. How does running it on a Mac help you? You dont even make use of os x, you end up running windows on a server.
Which is why we don't run Macs. But you weren't asking me this question right?
Comments
hey Trailmix.
I Swear to god I hope I never have to go to your hospital. Frankly you proberbly tell me Im a mac user and I cant be admitted. MAJOR APPS DO RUN ON MAC ever heard of the UNIX base to MAC OSX? You are misinformed. I run a very large Ad agency ( Im a partner. ) We are a total mac oufit. thats 600 macs on 2 continents. And not all of them are for the creatives. One of our focus business unit also develops high end databases YEP ON MACS. Try collating 3 million mail samples on a PC effectively. As for your Insinuation that photoshop is not used in the real world you obviously have NEVER stepped into a creative business. LOTS of very large companies do more than emailing and word. Sure macs are not for every purpose macs are the primary choice for creative business. Apple problem is that users like you want them to be all things to you. Macs belong to the creative and when all the fuss over macs being cool has died there will be always the installed user base the creatives developers and creative businesses. Apple may only have 5% Mkt share but its the most lucrative around. YOU WOULDNT HAVE MOST OF THE INNOVATIONS YOU ENJOY ON PCS WITHOUT APPLE. THANK GOD THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO WINDOWS.
Oh my the way:
CITRIX - on a mac
MAJOR MOVIES - ( finding nemo ) MAC
All major DVD mastering ( DVD STUDIO PRO ) MAC
Music - (ITMS) Hey guess what a mac ...
oh and of course you cant do anything scientific on a mac. ( NOTE MY SCARCASM) but dont tell that to Noah Johnson?s
http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/proteinfolding/
OR Dr. Srinidhi Varadarajan of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He ONLY built the world 3rd fastest supercomputer from macs at a TENTH OF THE PRICE.
He got you there TrailMater308
Do I hear people doubting their Macs capabilities?
Mac's have no leverage into these markets, without the client replacing all of their software. The cost of the hardware pales into comparison with the cost of rewriting all your software to run on a new platform.
Apples biggest problem is not being able to run VB and Access software off the shelf. I think this will change fast. With Darwine we may well see VB runtime with emulation become a reality, and be fast enough.
Are you for real? Do people on this board actually believe that you can go into an organization and replace PC's with Mac's? For real, do ya'll believe this? Okay lets say I want to replace all the pc's in my organization. I had my buddy who is on the Network Team run a Hiena report on the # of PC's we have (876 to be exact local on this campus, not counting offsite Community Health clinics). Okay now lets say I replace all those with Mac's. Exactly what in the he!! am I gonna put on those? I work in a hospital. Tell me what Apps are gonna run the millions of dollars of inventory tracking? How are we gonna pay our employees? What apps are gonna link our lab results to our nurse order entry and results viewer? What about our Med Rec apps? What about our time entry? What about our ER system? What about our Radiology system?
Well, I think you haven't taken the time to go around and learn a little have you? Anyways the point is that your Radiology system should work perfectly on the Mac. My brother has a PowerBook Titanium G4 and it runs his radiology files perfectly! I don't see the point. And for all your other software that can be easily handled. And here is an important point: Do you really think Apple manages all its company with PCs?
With the advent of the G5/G6 and IBM chips, the point is going to be moot in no time. IBM charges less for a low end G5 than Motorola for a high-end G4, so the only thing holding up the G5 from the low end is marketing, not economics. I would venture to say that within a year, we will see G5s in the low end and G6s (or whatever they are named, I am talking of the Power 5 derived chips with simultaneous multithreading and enhanced Altivec unit) in the high end. Given where Intel and AMD are going, Apple will have more than made up the slack.
Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
Oddly enough, I get $2250.43 for the same system. Of course, I included anti-virus software and the MS Office SBE since the Works package is only a trial edition. Even without those, the price comes to $2K.
But hey, what the heck, if price is all you're worried about, run on down to WalMart and pick up a $300.00 box.
The Works isn't trial...just office, just like office on a mac. And Works is pretty equal to Appleworks...except Appleworks has a presentation mode. So be sure to tack on office to both computers..and we are still looking at the same pricing.
I like OS X a lot..but with the current lineup I won't be getting an Apple desktop, or tel my Dad to replace his 4 year-old PC with one. They are too expensive at the low to mid range.
Originally posted by chris v
Really, Apple's biggest problem is people's outmoded perception of them as rarified high-dollar machines that simple "cost more." (I confine my comments to off-the-shelf computers, as we all know the DIY PCs can be built cheaply)
When you look at it more critically, the PCs out there cost less because they ship with less. Go to Dell's site and configure a 1.7 GHz laptop with all the goodies that come on the 15" Powerbook (Wireless, FW800-- oops can't even GET that-- etc.) and the Dell will cost MORE. The Dell towers might come out a few dollars cheaper than the G5's when configged with similar specs, but the difference is really not too ridiculous.
After the initial purchase price, you have to look at what else you get with Apple hardware-- all the cool iApps, and things that are semi-intangible, like an OS that takes less time to configure out of the box, and that stays out of your way better than Windows. Total Cost of Ownership has to be taken in context. Downtime, tech support, viruses, patches, upgrades, crashes, confilcts, etc. There are trouble-free Windows installs out there, (or so I've heard) but I've never seen one. If you save $500.00 on your desktop, but spend that again in hours of frustration (how much do you make by the hour?) and tech support, what's the point?
Apple's marketing department really needs to hammer these things home a little better, and do away with the outmoded perceptions people continue to have about their hardware, esp. now since OS X.
CV
Wow. What a post. I'm gonna have to document that one for next time my friends ask me why I bothered to pay more for a mac!
I just have to say... Well written!
Jimzip
Jimzip
Originally posted by jade
Sorry but that really doesn't look like an inferior machine to me...and before people start going on about how tou get the elegant all in one design of the imac and the superior gui of OS X. Bill Gates proved already that the vast majority of people will settle for good enough.
But Apple won't. And never will. They aren't trying to sell things that are 'good enough', and they aren't trying to sell them to an audience that wants 'good enough'.
Apple sells to a specific audience, and they will keep it that way. The rest of the world can have their 'good enough' as far as I'm concerned.
Jimzip
I'm not sure if it's Apple's biggest problem, except by proxy (in the long term, OS X platform is probably a lot smaller because of it). In the short term, the biggest prob is probably just that Apple is not familiar enough, advertised enough.
Originally posted by Gon
Original poster is right in that Apple has a big price/performance problem in 400-1200$ desktops.
I'm not sure if it's Apple's biggest problem, except by proxy (in the long term, OS X platform is probably a lot smaller because of it). In the short term, the biggest prob is probably just that Apple is not familiar enough, advertised enough.
Apple is very familiar with the public, I think it is one of the most recognized brands, up there with Nike, Sony and Coke-a-Cola. I think that the problem with the general public, consumer, is that there is a perception of Macs as being expensive and eletist. Apple does nothing to combat this with their high priced ads that never mention price.
This is compounded by Apple's strict adherence to MSRP for their computers. I'm not sure how it is in other parts of the country, but here the only retail outlet that carries Apple computer's and puts our a color ad flier in the newspaper is CompUSA .For a lot of people this is their first step in pricing an appliance. Here, when CompUSA puts Apple products in their ads they ineviatably list the high end models, and lately it has only been the PM's, PowerBooks, and iPods that have made it into their ads. So a lot of people who may be familiar with Apple and Macs see this and turn away from them immediatly becouse they are not willing to spend $3,000 on a computer. If they would allow CompUSA and others to have sales then Macs might make it to the front page of these ads once and a while, maybe with as much as $100 off and or some of the other "gimics" added in like:
iMac Flat Pannel
$1199 Sale Price ( 1299 MSRP
- 300 12 months Comp-U-Serve
$ 899 Final price (savings of $400)
These are the tactics that are in the newspaper every weekend at Best Buy, CompUSA, Staples and others. They also hook a lot of people into these deals, my Step-Father bought into one against my advice, then droped Comp-U-Serve before the year was out becouse of poor service. My main point is that this would get people to look at Macs as an option instead of passing them by becouse they think they are out of their price range.
10. those ipods are cool
9. what happened to the colorful computers, I don't like white
8. there is no software for macs
7. they are really expensive
6. my peripherals won't work if i get an Apple
5. The mouse only has one button
4. My friend/brother/cousin is a graphic designer/artist/movie maker and he uses a mac.
3. 1 ghz? My PC from two years ago has 2ghz. These things are slow.
2. Those computers are pretty.
1. Aren't they going out of business?
So basically Apple computers aren't even on the radar for people....but everyone knows about Apple.
Originally posted by Jimzip
But Apple won't. And never will. They aren't trying to sell things that are 'good enough', and they aren't trying to sell them to an audience that wants 'good enough'.
Apple sells to a specific audience, and they will keep it that way. The rest of the world can have their 'good enough' as far as I'm concerned.
Jimzip
And that is why apple needs to educate customers on why good enough isn't enough...because Looking at HP ads, you would think taking a picture, sticking it on your computer and printing it out is very easy and painless.............
But I'm not sure if that is something you think about with a Mac.
I mean Honda and Toyota have succeeded in getting people to buy their more reliable cars..over the cheap american automobiles (I won't get an american car) and paying a premium...becaue eveyone who has the extra cash knows it is worth it to buy japanese.
(Maybe because they started as the price leaders for a while..but these days everyone knows to buy japanese if you want reliable)
Do most computer useres think:
Buying Apple means no viruses
Reliable computers
long lasting
easy to use
high quality digital lifestyle application
plug and play
standard apps are availible
talks to windows
and so on...nope.....
All they know is iPods, colorful imacs, slow, expensive and going out of business.
Originally posted by JCG
Apple is very familiar with the public, I think it is one of the most recognized brands, up there with Nike, Sony and Coke-a-Cola. I think that the problem with the general public, consumer, is that there is a perception of Macs as being expensive and eletist. Apple does nothing to combat this with their high priced ads that never mention price.
Here in Finland, I have yet to see one Apple ad placed by Apple, *ever*. Some retailers have advertised in computer magazines, but also this is very rare outside Apple specific magazines.
An iPod outside of store - never seen one.
Education discounts? Never seen one.
All this translates to a minuscule amount of population that knows about or can afford Apple.
Originally posted by Jimzip
But Apple won't. And never will. They aren't trying to sell things that are 'good enough', and they aren't trying to sell them to an audience that wants 'good enough'.
Apple sells to a specific audience, and they will keep it that way. The rest of the world can have their 'good enough' as far as I'm concerned.
Jimzip
What? If the specs on the imac and emac dont scream "just good enough" then nothing ever has.
Originally posted by cuneglasus
What? If the specs on the imac and emac dont scream "just good enough" then nothing ever has.
Yes.. The eMac.. My fatal mistake.. You're right there.
Well, that's Apple's way of trying to reach another market. People that can't afford the expensive power machines. As a company they have to cater for all audiences I guess. It's not exactly the best way of going about it...
Still, the eMac isn't exactly a horrible machine.. It's still got most of the bells and whistles of the big-boys, but it's crippled to make it cheaper... So it's like getting a PC!
(edit: I might add that I actually like the eMac. I'm not bagging it. I'm just comparing it's power to a PC.. Muhahaha..
Jimzip
Originally posted by Celco
hey Trailmix.
I Swear to god I hope I never have to go to your hospital. Frankly you proberbly tell me Im a mac user and I cant be admitted.
Oh my the way:
CITRIX - on a mac
MAJOR MOVIES - ( finding nemo ) MAC
All major DVD mastering ( DVD STUDIO PRO ) MAC
Music - (ITMS) Hey guess what a mac ...
oh and of course you cant do anything scientific on a mac. ( NOTE MY SCARCASM) but dont tell that to Noah Johnson?s
http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/proteinfolding/
OR Dr. Srinidhi Varadarajan of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He ONLY built the world 3rd fastest supercomputer from macs at a TENTH OF THE PRICE.
Thats all great that you can run your organization on Mac's, but that doesn't help me. First, no I cannot port our DB's over. Currently they are running Oracle 8.1.6 on AIX via P690's, 4 to be exact. Not only will the vendor laugh at porting the backend over to mac but it would void our support, plus we have no problems whatsoever with it. AIX is bullet proof and there is no denying that. Secondly, our front-end apps are to large to do local installs and when we load updates I don't want to have to push these out to the workstations. So to solve that problem we use Metaframe XP, that way I only have to do updates to the servers and all the clients get them.
Also, you mention the Unix base to Mac OSX. I've been an AIX admin for the past 5yrs or so. I enjoy OSX, but it kills me when people see unix and assume that you can take any "unix" app and mount it/run it in OSX. This is not the case, so no I can't just port Unix based apps over. Heck I have the makefiles to the vmware console written for Redhat and can't get the dang thing to compile to X. The cost in trying to get apps moved over is too great to even think about.
I don't know why everyone always mentions citrix for mac. The only client available is the full blown ICA client. The majority of orgs are publishing apps in webpages, like we do. The footprint is so much smaller and you don't have to go through all the hassle of changing server names, god forbid, you have more than one server farm. Thats what is so wonderful about the web ica client. Guess what, no web ica client for mac. Just a way outdated ica client that was so 3 years ago. You do know that Metaframe is for only Wintel servers right?
Finding Nemo? How does they help me? Its a cute movie though.
Originally posted by trailmaster308
Thats all great that you can run your organization on Mac's, but that doesn't help me. First, no I cannot port our DB's over. Currently they are running Oracle 8.1.6 on AIX via P690's, 4 to be exact. Not only will the vendor laugh at porting the backend over to mac but it would void our support, plus we have no problems whatsoever with it.
10g will be released for Mac OS X Server and Xserve G5 shortly.
Originally posted by trailmaster308
So to solve that problem we use Metaframe XP, that way I only have to do updates to the servers and all the clients get them.
Which means that a Mac with a Citrix client can be used just as well as a Windows PC.
Originally posted by trailmaster308
I don't know why everyone always mentions citrix for mac. The only client available is the full blown ICA client. The majority of orgs are publishing apps in webpages, like we do. The footprint is so much smaller and you don't have to go through all the hassle of changing server names, god forbid, you have more than one server farm. Thats what is so wonderful about the web ica client. Guess what, no web ica client for mac. Just a way outdated ica client that was so 3 years ago. You do know that Metaframe is for only Wintel servers right?
Uhm, I've tested CorelDRAW using the web ICA client on a Mac (Corel doesn't seem to offer demos that way anymore - but it works).
Furthermore XP lets you download a profile to use in the regular ICA client - changes on your servers won't affect users since they are downloading a new profile every time (works great for my girlfriend working at http://www.berendsen.com/ - she logs on to their server, clicks on the app she wants to use and it launches in the regular ICA client).
Touting things like metaframe as a solution will never help, that is a totally cost driven market. Cost of parts, cost of administration, cost of software, cost of support. Running a thin client cuts them all. How does running it on a Mac help you? You dont even make use of os x, you end up running windows on a server.
Originally posted by mmmpie
If you are using metaframe why would you buy a mac to run it? The computer is just operating as a thin client to a windows server. People tend to buy the cheapest thin client possible, and that means a basic Dell.
Touting things like metaframe as a solution will never help, that is a totally cost driven market. Cost of parts, cost of administration, cost of software, cost of support. Running a thin client cuts them all. How does running it on a Mac help you? You dont even make use of os x, you end up running windows on a server.
Which is why we don't run Macs. But you weren't asking me this question right?