3. They still think they will be incompatible with Windows. (Which in turn tells you how little they know, and how misinformed they are.)
4. People still think they have to buy Apple hard drives, memory, etc.
5. Hell, people sometimes ask me if Macs play MP3's.
6. They think software for Macs is more expensive that for Win.
I could go on, but the point is, there are Macs starting at $799 that are very capable.
Not everybody upgrades their computers on their own. It is just a matter of educating people and that is why the Apple retail store initiative is there. Also they are usually in upscale places, because the people that go to those places are the ones that will eventually will need a computer for work. And Apple is hoping that little by little people start using and maybe starting more businesses based on Macs.
whoa, I'll stop now. Got to go work.
I think it's absurd to think that 90%+ of the computer buyers out there won't buy Macs simply because of the 6 preconceived notions you've listed. I would argue that I personally know, and strongly believe there are countless PC users out there that have tried and like Mac OS X and despise Windows, but can't rationalize spending so much more for hardware that is less capable, non-upgradable, and not comparable to PC hardware.
It all comes down to the price/performance value of the machine, and to most people, Mac OS X does not outweigh the much higher cost for getting a Mac. Sure Apple makes a $799 Mac that is capable, but it's definitely not comparable.
I think it's absurd to think that 90%+ of the computer buyers out there won't buy Macs simply because of the 6 preconceived notions you've listed. I would argue that I personally know, and strongly believe there are countless PC users out there that have tried and like Mac OS X and despise Windows, but can't rationalize spending so much more for hardware that is less capable, non-upgradable, and not comparable to PC hardware.
It all comes down to the price/performance value of the machine, and to most people, Mac OS X does not outweigh the much higher cost for getting a Mac. Sure Apple makes a $799 Mac that is capable, but it's definitely not comparable.
As a PC user, I give you a big hearty AMEN!! i could not agree more.
All Apple needs is a desktop that works with vga and dvi, with upgradable graphics (8x AGP) and a pci or pcix slot, a G5 proc, 1.6 ghz will due because it is the other advantages of the G5 that would kill the g4 here, 256 meg of ram (expandable to 2 gb) a 40 gig hdd and a combo drive for `$799
I think it's absurd to think that 90%+ of the computer buyers out there won't buy Macs simply because of the 6 preconceived notions you've listed. I would argue that I personally know, and strongly believe there are countless PC users out there that have tried and like Mac OS X and despise Windows, but can't rationalize spending so much more for hardware that is less capable, non-upgradable, and not comparable to PC hardware.
It all comes down to the price/performance value of the machine, and to most people, Mac OS X does not outweigh the much higher cost for getting a Mac. Sure Apple makes a $799 Mac that is capable, but it's definitely not comparable.
I think you *almost* have it right. It isn't the price vs. hardware performance, it's price vs. software application value. Here's what I mean:
Take the top 5 true "consumer" PC software apps. I'm guessing they'd be (not in any order): a Web browser (probably IE); an e-mail program (definitely Outlook if it's an office PC., otherwise Outlook Express); a word processor (Word or Wordpad); a spreadsheet (Excel); maybe a media player (e.g. WMP or QuickTime). Now, for someone who is a current "I'm Joe Consumer - computers are a commodity, like TV sets and microwave ovens, and I really don't care about them all that much which is why I have a no-name beige box under my desk" PC user, how much better would the experience of using these applications have to be on a Mac for them to abandon the hardware and software they have for an entirely new system?
To these people, a browser is a browser, a word processor is a word processor. None of these apps really challenges any modern PC or Mac's hardware. Even if Macs had absolute hardware performance and price parity with PCs, a lot of users wouldn't care enough to switch. It just isn't that big a deal if the box under the desk has great industrial design or not, or even if the o/s is better, when you use typical PC applications.
So, what to do? Apple needs to create -or drive the creation of- *software* that consumers will find relevant and compelling and that can't be duplicated easily on the PC platform. Remember, the Mac really took off as a product because of "desktop publishing": for years one just couldn't produce documents as easily on a PC as on a Mac with a bitmapped monitor and LaserWriter printer.
iLife and .Mac are toe-holds on the climb to some new software paradigm. Maybe the upcoming search capabilities will help enable a computer to convert information to insight, a la the old "Knowledge Navigator" concept at Apple. Maybe it will be real-time video chat that's reliable, full-screen, recordable, and integrated with e-mail and scheduling.
The point is, for the "mass market", there really isn't an application *so* exciting out there that a large percentage are willing to switch. Until that time, regardless of hardware parity, Apple's growth will come from its installed base, new computer users, and that small section of existing PC users who are having a computing experience so negative that they are willing to make the investment in switching.
Really... my experience has been just the opposite.
The latest OS:X on my G4 1.25 crawls in comparison to XP on my 1.5Ghz P4 - and even though the G4 has 4x the ram. Speed has always been, to my mind, one of the plusses on the XP side of the fence.
That's a very unfair comparison if the P4 isn't a laptop. My P4 laptop is slow compared to my G3 800 MHZ iBook (that's been used for lots of iMovie editing.)
Really... my experience has been just the opposite.
The latest OS:X on my G4 1.25 crawls in comparison to XP on my 1.5Ghz P4 - and even though the G4 has 4x the ram. Speed has always been, to my mind, one of the plusses on the XP side of the fence.
Just my 2 bits,
C.
everything crawls on a G4, come on its a 5 year old design based on a G3. G4 = G3 plus altivec. thats why its time has gone. You can just look at G5 Powermac and see its a real machine. open a Dell next to one and there is no comparison. One is a professional computer and the other is a cheap mess made for Joe consumer who hasnt done enough research to know better. Joe just see's the commercials and thinks he is getting something. poor Joe
You can just look at G5 Powermac and see its a real machine. open a Dell next to one and there is no comparison. One is a professional computer and the other is a cheap mess made for Joe consumer who hasnt done enough research to know better.
That's a very unfair comparison if the P4 isn't a laptop. My P4 laptop is slow compared to my G3 800 MHZ iBook (that's been used for lots of iMovie editing.)
Strange... if that's the case then I -suspect- there is something going on your P4. It should be quite a bit faster than your iBook.
Quote:
Originally posted by Aurora:
everything crawls on a G4, come on its a 5 year old design based on a G3. G4 = G3 plus altivec. thats why its time has gone.
Under 9, I found the G4 performed adequetely but under X I definitely notice it's slower (especially over our mixed network) and fact that the Pro Apps are still maturing (or just downright buggy - Quark 6 and Suitcase X1 anyone...) have been giving our shop some growing pains. We'll eventually move over to G5s but it will be a slow transition as X has some maturing to do yet.
I've had my Ti powerbook for over a year and a half now.
I've had my Dell MiniTower for 3 years.
The Dell has XP Home and it sucks! I have norton antivirus in it and every few days I check it out and I have to update the virus defs in it.
On the Powerbook i've got NO virus software and it's been running exactly the same since I bought it.
Running any software on the Dell is slow and painful b/c it usually craps out. There are times though when the machine does run smoothly. But in comparison to the Ti, hands down, it's no contest...
Of course I spent way more for hte Ti than for the Dell...
BUT...in the end, or should i say so far?...the investment on the Ti is waaay worth it...why??...less headaches having to maintain it...period...
Comments
Originally posted by MacAficionado
The reason why people do not buy Macs is because:
1. They don't know any better.
2. They are afraid of learning something new.
3. They still think they will be incompatible with Windows. (Which in turn tells you how little they know, and how misinformed they are.)
4. People still think they have to buy Apple hard drives, memory, etc.
5. Hell, people sometimes ask me if Macs play MP3's.
6. They think software for Macs is more expensive that for Win.
I could go on, but the point is, there are Macs starting at $799 that are very capable.
Not everybody upgrades their computers on their own. It is just a matter of educating people and that is why the Apple retail store initiative is there. Also they are usually in upscale places, because the people that go to those places are the ones that will eventually will need a computer for work. And Apple is hoping that little by little people start using and maybe starting more businesses based on Macs.
whoa, I'll stop now. Got to go work.
I think it's absurd to think that 90%+ of the computer buyers out there won't buy Macs simply because of the 6 preconceived notions you've listed. I would argue that I personally know, and strongly believe there are countless PC users out there that have tried and like Mac OS X and despise Windows, but can't rationalize spending so much more for hardware that is less capable, non-upgradable, and not comparable to PC hardware.
It all comes down to the price/performance value of the machine, and to most people, Mac OS X does not outweigh the much higher cost for getting a Mac. Sure Apple makes a $799 Mac that is capable, but it's definitely not comparable.
Originally posted by bborofka
I think it's absurd to think that 90%+ of the computer buyers out there won't buy Macs simply because of the 6 preconceived notions you've listed. I would argue that I personally know, and strongly believe there are countless PC users out there that have tried and like Mac OS X and despise Windows, but can't rationalize spending so much more for hardware that is less capable, non-upgradable, and not comparable to PC hardware.
It all comes down to the price/performance value of the machine, and to most people, Mac OS X does not outweigh the much higher cost for getting a Mac. Sure Apple makes a $799 Mac that is capable, but it's definitely not comparable.
As a PC user, I give you a big hearty AMEN!! i could not agree more.
All Apple needs is a desktop that works with vga and dvi, with upgradable graphics (8x AGP) and a pci or pcix slot, a G5 proc, 1.6 ghz will due because it is the other advantages of the G5 that would kill the g4 here, 256 meg of ram (expandable to 2 gb) a 40 gig hdd and a combo drive for `$799
Originally posted by bborofka
I think it's absurd to think that 90%+ of the computer buyers out there won't buy Macs simply because of the 6 preconceived notions you've listed. I would argue that I personally know, and strongly believe there are countless PC users out there that have tried and like Mac OS X and despise Windows, but can't rationalize spending so much more for hardware that is less capable, non-upgradable, and not comparable to PC hardware.
It all comes down to the price/performance value of the machine, and to most people, Mac OS X does not outweigh the much higher cost for getting a Mac. Sure Apple makes a $799 Mac that is capable, but it's definitely not comparable.
I think you *almost* have it right. It isn't the price vs. hardware performance, it's price vs. software application value. Here's what I mean:
Take the top 5 true "consumer" PC software apps. I'm guessing they'd be (not in any order): a Web browser (probably IE); an e-mail program (definitely Outlook if it's an office PC., otherwise Outlook Express); a word processor (Word or Wordpad); a spreadsheet (Excel); maybe a media player (e.g. WMP or QuickTime). Now, for someone who is a current "I'm Joe Consumer - computers are a commodity, like TV sets and microwave ovens, and I really don't care about them all that much which is why I have a no-name beige box under my desk" PC user, how much better would the experience of using these applications have to be on a Mac for them to abandon the hardware and software they have for an entirely new system?
To these people, a browser is a browser, a word processor is a word processor. None of these apps really challenges any modern PC or Mac's hardware. Even if Macs had absolute hardware performance and price parity with PCs, a lot of users wouldn't care enough to switch. It just isn't that big a deal if the box under the desk has great industrial design or not, or even if the o/s is better, when you use typical PC applications.
So, what to do? Apple needs to create -or drive the creation of- *software* that consumers will find relevant and compelling and that can't be duplicated easily on the PC platform. Remember, the Mac really took off as a product because of "desktop publishing": for years one just couldn't produce documents as easily on a PC as on a Mac with a bitmapped monitor and LaserWriter printer.
iLife and .Mac are toe-holds on the climb to some new software paradigm. Maybe the upcoming search capabilities will help enable a computer to convert information to insight, a la the old "Knowledge Navigator" concept at Apple. Maybe it will be real-time video chat that's reliable, full-screen, recordable, and integrated with e-mail and scheduling.
The point is, for the "mass market", there really isn't an application *so* exciting out there that a large percentage are willing to switch. Until that time, regardless of hardware parity, Apple's growth will come from its installed base, new computer users, and that small section of existing PC users who are having a computing experience so negative that they are willing to make the investment in switching.
Originally posted by Concord
Really... my experience has been just the opposite.
The latest OS:X on my G4 1.25 crawls in comparison to XP on my 1.5Ghz P4 - and even though the G4 has 4x the ram. Speed has always been, to my mind, one of the plusses on the XP side of the fence.
That's a very unfair comparison if the P4 isn't a laptop. My P4 laptop is slow compared to my G3 800 MHZ iBook (that's been used for lots of iMovie editing.)
Originally posted by Concord
Really... my experience has been just the opposite.
The latest OS:X on my G4 1.25 crawls in comparison to XP on my 1.5Ghz P4 - and even though the G4 has 4x the ram. Speed has always been, to my mind, one of the plusses on the XP side of the fence.
Just my 2 bits,
C.
everything crawls on a G4, come on its a 5 year old design based on a G3. G4 = G3 plus altivec. thats why its time has gone. You can just look at G5 Powermac and see its a real machine. open a Dell next to one and there is no comparison. One is a professional computer and the other is a cheap mess made for Joe consumer who hasnt done enough research to know better. Joe just see's the commercials and thinks he is getting something. poor Joe
Originally posted by Aurora
You can just look at G5 Powermac and see its a real machine. open a Dell next to one and there is no comparison. One is a professional computer and the other is a cheap mess made for Joe consumer who hasnt done enough research to know better.
Can you be a little more specific?
Originally posted by Bunge:
That's a very unfair comparison if the P4 isn't a laptop. My P4 laptop is slow compared to my G3 800 MHZ iBook (that's been used for lots of iMovie editing.)
Strange... if that's the case then I -suspect- there is something going on your P4. It should be quite a bit faster than your iBook.
Originally posted by Aurora:
everything crawls on a G4, come on its a 5 year old design based on a G3. G4 = G3 plus altivec. thats why its time has gone.
Under 9, I found the G4 performed adequetely but under X I definitely notice it's slower (especially over our mixed network) and fact that the Pro Apps are still maturing (or just downright buggy - Quark 6 and Suitcase X1 anyone...) have been giving our shop some growing pains. We'll eventually move over to G5s but it will be a slow transition as X has some maturing to do yet.
Cheers,
C.
Originally posted by Concord
Strange... if that's the case then I -suspect- there is something going on your P4. It should be quite a bit faster than your iBook.
It's more than one IBM I use at work. Similar models, similar results. XP is a clunker.
I've had my Dell MiniTower for 3 years.
The Dell has XP Home and it sucks! I have norton antivirus in it and every few days I check it out and I have to update the virus defs in it.
On the Powerbook i've got NO virus software and it's been running exactly the same since I bought it.
Running any software on the Dell is slow and painful b/c it usually craps out. There are times though when the machine does run smoothly. But in comparison to the Ti, hands down, it's no contest...
Of course I spent way more for hte Ti than for the Dell...
BUT...in the end, or should i say so far?...the investment on the Ti is waaay worth it...why??...less headaches having to maintain it...period...