Apple's marketshare does need to get bigger; but not too big. Around 20-25% would be the perfect spot between Windows, Linux + Others covering the rest of the market. You don't want dominant status anyway; you stagnate a lot.
Just look at Windows.
I've wondered about that myself.
I'm not sure that Apple could get to that number, but if they did, I think that momentum would carry them much further.
Something's just occured to me about the market share issue. The dual booters will be an overlapping market share. They will account for both sectors, and so an increasing Apple market share, will not necessarily affect Microsoft for the worse. It all depends on whether they decide to stay with one or the other. If Boot Camp is popular, then initially both Apple and Microsoft will win. But the users may start to favour one over the other and eventually just boot into one. This goes for the emulation software, and owners of both platforms on multiple computers.
Something's just occured to me about the market share issue. The dual booters will be an overlapping market share. They will account for both sectors, and so an increasing Apple market share, will not necessarily affect Microsoft for the worse. It all depends on whether they decide to stay with one or the other. If Boot Camp is popular, then initially both Apple and Microsoft will win. But the users may start to favour one over the other and eventually just boot into one. This goes for the emulation software, and owners of both platforms on multiple computers.
Yes. That's why MS is pubicly, at least. making happy noises.
One thing I find myself scratching my head about, is Mac users saying that Apple doesn't need a greater marketshare.
That's not what I said.
Quote:
They are pretty satisfied with the momentum of their user base and their current growth.
Is what I said, momentum and GROWTH being the optimum words.
At this point Apple's main avenue of advertisement is their avid user base. Because Apple does little more to advertise itself they must be satisfied with the current advertisement.
The number of people who have never bought Macs before are on the rise. Arguable that number could be more if Apple had a big marketing campaign, but they don't, so currently they much be satisfied with this level of growth.
Quote:
I think Apple is in the business of business. They would love any sales.
.
Of course but not all growth is necessarily good growth.
Quote:
Apple's marketshare does need to get bigger; but not too big. Around 20-25% would be the perfect spot
This is what I'm saying.
Quote:
If Boot Camp is popular, then initially both Apple and Microsoft will win. But the users may start to favour one over the other and eventually just boot into one.
Yes and Apple wants OS X favored. So they must be confident 10.5 is much better than Vista.
As far as market share numbers go, however, a Mac is a Mac is a Mac.
That is, every Mac sale counts towards Apple's market share figures, preferential Windows booting or no, which is a win for the platform (mindshare, stock price and developer enthusiasm wise).
At some point, if people buying Mac hardware to run Windows seem to account for a significant fraction of the total market I suppose those figures will have to be broken out, I reckon by the same process process that is used to determine Linux market share.
What I find unpersuasive, though, is the idea that people are going to be buying MacBook Pros, install XP and somehow be won over, or, even odder, that PC diehards will be buying Mac hardware in droves just for the fit and finish, thereby forever distorting what we consider to be Mac market share.
I think it plenty ironic that before Bootcamp the line was "OS X is a real nice operating system, too bad it's tethered to Apple's absurdly overpriced and difficult to upgrade hardware" and now I see the argument being made (not here so much, mostly over at Ars) that "Apple sure does make sweet hardware, thank god I can finally run something other than that stupid eye candy OS X on it".
I think it plenty ironic that before Bootcamp the line was "OS X is a real nice operating system, too bad it's tethered to Apple's absurdly overpriced and difficult to upgrade hardware" and now I see the argument being made (not here so much, mostly over at Ars) that "Apple sure does make sweet hardware, thank god I can finally run something other than that stupid eye candy OS X on it".
Well, we kind of realized once we saw Half-Life 2 and every other PC game running so flawlessly on the iMac that perhaps the hardware ain't too bad after all.
Well, we kind of realized once we saw Half-Life 2 and every other PC game running so flawlessly on the iMac that perhaps the hardware ain't too bad after all.
"According to the Asia Pacific marketing director of McAfee, Allan Bell, although security attacks on Mac OS/X systems would become more prevalent, many Macintosh users are not as vigilant as they should be. Lax security practices on Macintosh machines may enable Windows viruses to incubate on their Macintosh hosts and later infect Windows machines on a network"
You see there is always a reason to keep Macs off the network. This article is written for every IT manager that suddenly is faced with requests to buy new Macs because now they be used with that one piece of PC-only software that has to be available. How do you prevent the invasion of Macs? Call them 'Typhoid Marys' or Trojan horses that go around infecting the rest of the office while the dizzy headed Mac user is happily typing away under MacOS.
As much as I think Boot Camp is going to be great for the Mac intially, getting people who otherwise might not buy a Mac, maybe give one a try, etc.
But... what happens when developers start to say "Hey we don't need to develop a Mac version, people with Mac's, that want to use our program, can just boot into Windows."? There goes the need for the Mac platform... slowly at first, but... well, who knows. Maybe that's why MS is voicing support for Boot Camp.
As far as market share numbers go, however, a Mac is a Mac is a Mac.
That is, every Mac sale counts towards Apple's market share figures, preferential Windows booting or no, which is a win for the platform (mindshare, stock price and developer enthusiasm wise).
At some point, if people buying Mac hardware to run Windows seem to account for a significant fraction of the total market I suppose those figures will have to be broken out, I reckon by the same process process that is used to determine Linux market share.
What I find unpersuasive, though, is the idea that people are going to be buying MacBook Pros, install XP and somehow be won over, or, even odder, that PC diehards will be buying Mac hardware in droves just for the fit and finish, thereby forever distorting what we consider to be Mac market share.
I think it plenty ironic that before Bootcamp the line was "OS X is a real nice operating system, too bad it's tethered to Apple's absurdly overpriced and difficult to upgrade hardware" and now I see the argument being made (not here so much, mostly over at Ars) that "Apple sure does make sweet hardware, thank god I can finally run something other than that stupid eye candy OS X on it".
No one is saying that. Die hard users won't switch. People who want to try X, and are about to buy a new machine anyway, might be persuaded to buy a Mac instead of another PC, if they can also install Windows, as a backup, and if they find X to be not to their liking (it does happen).
Believe it or not, most PC users don't find Apple's hardware to be too expensive. It's the OS they have a problem with. That's understandable. But this gives them an out, if need be.
There are always going to be the PC weenies, just like there are the Mac fanatics, and (my own phrase) the Linux loonies.
It will be very difficult to persuade those to another platform. The excuses range from the software to the hardware.
"According to the Asia Pacific marketing director of McAfee, Allan Bell, although security attacks on Mac OS/X systems would become more prevalent, many Macintosh users are not as vigilant as they should be. Lax security practices on Macintosh machines may enable Windows viruses to incubate on their Macintosh hosts and later infect Windows machines on a network"
You see there is always a reason to keep Macs off the network. This article is written for every IT manager that suddenly is faced with requests to buy new Macs because now they be used with that one piece of PC-only software that has to be available. How do you prevent the invasion of Macs? Call them 'Typhoid Marys' or Trojan horses that go around infecting the rest of the office while the dizzy headed Mac user is happily typing away under MacOS.
As much as I hate to say it, he's right.
I've been using Norton's Anti-Virus ever the first version came out, many years ago.
The fact that there have been no real, virus's, and just a couple of half hearted trojan horses out for the Mac, doesn't mean we shouldn't use anti-virus software. There were virus's out for system 9 and earlier, and there will be again.
But, my software has caught a number of PC virus's over the years. It's not considered to be polite to pass virus's to your PC using friends and colleagues.
Over a business network, they should enforce virus collection at the front-end, in the firewall and associated software, but for safeties sake, all machines on the network should also have it installed. Just in case some dummy brings a disk in that has a virus on it.
As much as I think Boot Camp is going to be great for the Mac intially, getting people who otherwise might not buy a Mac, maybe give one a try, etc.
But... what happens when developers start to say "Hey we don't need to develop a Mac version, people with Mac's, that want to use our program, can just boot into Windows."? There goes the need for the Mac platform... slowly at first, but... well, who knows. Maybe that's why MS is voicing support for Boot Camp.
Just a thought.
I agree that there is some risk. Just posted my thoughts on this in another thread, but the bottom line is that I think the dual boot option provides enough of a penalty that MacOS specific software has a clear advantage. You can run a PC game by itself just fine, but most other projects that are work related require seemless software interaction under one OS, otherwise is can become a royal pain.
Since Adobe is going to require time to get Photoshop over to Macintel, i was wondering if this software was ment as a stopgap when Apple brings out the new PowerMacs -or what ever they will be called- and Photoshop still runs under emulation. Lets people work with Photoshop under the PC environment while they wait another year to get the Mac version.
As much as I think Boot Camp is going to be great for the Mac intially, getting people who otherwise might not buy a Mac, maybe give one a try, etc.
But... what happens when developers start to say "Hey we don't need to develop a Mac version, people with Mac's, that want to use our program, can just boot into Windows."? There goes the need for the Mac platform... slowly at first, but... well, who knows. Maybe that's why MS is voicing support for Boot Camp.
Just a thought.
Have you been reading anything at all? Did you think that this is a unique thought?
This has been discussed so endlessly, that it's almost too tiring to continue with.
No one is saying that. Die hard users won't switch. People who want to try X, and are about to buy a new machine anyway, might be persuaded to buy a Mac instead of another PC, if they can also install Windows, as a backup, and if they find X to be not to their liking (it does happen).
Believe it or not, most PC users don't find Apple's hardware to be too expensive. It's the OS they have a problem with. That's understandable. But this gives them an out, if need be.
There are always going to be the PC weenies, just like there are the Mac fanatics, and (my own phrase) the Linux loonies.
It will be very difficult to persuade those to another platform. The excuses range from the software to the hardware.
I wouldn't worry about them.
Huh. I guess we inhabit different universes.
In my universe, the constant drumbeat of "Apple hardware is overpriced, I would consider running OS X if they let it run on commodity PC hardware" is practically foundational to the PC/Mac debate. I have literally never participated in a Mac/PC discussion that didn't quickly move to "I can get a Dell with more for less" etc.
I therefore find it amusing to hear the newfound respect for this very same "overpriced" kit now that it can run XP, and deeply ironic to hear (and yes, "some" are saying this) that Apple may have a problem if if They Come for the Hardware but Stay for the Windows.
In my universe, the constant drumbeat of "Apple hardware is overpriced, I would consider running OS X if they let it run on commodity PC hardware" is practically foundational to the PC/Mac debate. I have literally never participated in a Mac/PC discussion that didn't quickly move to "I can get a Dell with more for less" etc.
I therefore find it amusing to hear the newfound respect for this very same "overpriced" kit now that it can run XP, and deeply ironic to hear (and yes, "some" are saying this) that Apple may have a problem if if They Come for the Hardware but Stay for the Windows.
Where do I hear this? On some discussion groups where the anti mac contingent is out and howling.
There are always some. But the majority don't seem to ascribe to it. The view has been changing. I have also found that when in these groups, either on line, or in the flesh, that those most opposed do most of the talking. That can make it seem as though there are more of them than there are.
I find that ever since the Intel machines have come out, even some of those who vowed to never sully their desk with a Mac have suddenly started to consider it. The biggest proplem has been games. Now, not so much.
Ouch. Quake[4] and HalfLife[2] as "tripe" That's harsh. I like FPS because it's action, there's a plot, it doesn't require much thinking, and you get to kill lots of stuff and let all that rage out. Plus its nice to see how the developers are pushing 3d graphics to their limit. Plus other elements like physics, weapon design, character design, level design...
Well, I suppose it's better that you shoot things and let your rage out in the virtual world. Personally FPS shooters give me the creeps and make me wonder just what goes on in people's heads if they think going around shooting people's heads off with a BFG is anywhere approaching OK. Sure, it's 'not real' but I've no idea why people would want to do it in the pretend world. Are they all frustrated they can't do it in the real world? Perhaps they should go see a shrink.
Perhaps I'm missing the plot in these FPS games too but isn't it usually along the lines of installation/planet overrun by virus/aliens/monsters. You and your team of soldiers/commandos/military types have to go in and kill everything (that moves). Occasionally there will be some 'puzzle' element involving colour coded keys/pushing levers.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Just sooo lame compared to the ideas Molyneux came up with at Bullfrog/Lionhead or pretty much anything from Williams. But then I think games peaked at Defender, Gravitar and Tempest and its been downhill since with only a few blips of originality - Marble Madness, Populous, Archon, Elite, Lemmings, Worms.
Anyway, we're straying off the subject. It's a pity that 3D FPSs are such a force in gaming that any game developer coming up with a novel non-3D idea has such a time getting it to market. I was playing Enigmo2 a few days ago which has gone all 3D - Sorry, Enigmo1 was much better.
I'm not sure that Apple could get to that number, but if they did, I think that momentum would carry them much further.
To get to 25% market share they'd also have to be the largest computer manufacturer on the planet. I guess at some point though - 15%? they might be happy enough to licence to other manufacturers though.
Well, I suppose it's better that you shoot things and let your rage out in the virtual world. Personally FPS shooters give me the creeps and make me wonder just what goes on in people's heads if they think going around shooting people's heads off with a BFG is anywhere approaching OK. Sure, it's 'not real' but I've no idea why people would want to do it in the pretend world. Are they all frustrated they can't do it in the real world? Perhaps they should go see a shrink.
Perhaps I'm missing the plot in these FPS games too but isn't it usually along the lines of installation/planet overrun by virus/aliens/monsters. You and your team of soldiers/commandos/military types have to go in and kill everything (that moves). Occasionally there will be some 'puzzle' element involving colour coded keys/pushing levers.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Just sooo lame compared to the ideas Molyneux came up with at Bullfrog/Lionhead or pretty much anything from Williams. But then I think games peaked at Defender, Gravitar and Tempest and its been downhill since with only a few blips of originality - Marble Madness, Populous, Archon, Elite, Lemmings, Worms.
Anyway, we're straying off the subject. It's a pity that 3D FPSs are such a force in gaming that any game developer coming up with a novel non-3D idea has such a time getting it to market. I was playing Enigmo2 a few days ago which has gone all 3D - Sorry, Enigmo1 was much better.
To get to 25% market share they'd also have to be the largest computer manufacturer on the planet. I guess at some point though - 15%? they might be happy enough to licence to other manufacturers though.
Now that they have come out with Boot Camp, my theories are in array.
My thought was that with sales in other divisions rising fast, the hardware sales would become a smaller part of the total. If Apple had done what I had hoped they would do, which was to buy the programs Corel let go, and possibly bought MacroMedia, when they put themselves up for sale, they would bias themselves towards software, multimedia distribution, and consumer devices.
After a couple of years, the computer hardware division might comprise less than 25% of the total. with high profit software sales, and large volume CES devices, they could then think about Licensing the OS to other companies, such as Dell, which has expressed an interest.
This way, even if Apple lost 50% of their hardware sales it would be made up in the much increased royalties from other manufacturers, and the sales of OS upgrades, as well as the increased Mac software that would go with the increased sales of "Mac's". As that loss would be perhaps 10% of total sales, it wouldn't be a problem. The increased sales from everything else that would result would far more than offset it. This would certainly lead to an great uptake in X. Even if some piracy resulted.
The situation today is vastly different that it was when Apple allowed clones, back in the dreary, gloomy days of the early '90's.
Comments
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Apple's marketshare does need to get bigger; but not too big. Around 20-25% would be the perfect spot between Windows, Linux + Others covering the rest of the market. You don't want dominant status anyway; you stagnate a lot.
Just look at Windows.
I've wondered about that myself.
I'm not sure that Apple could get to that number, but if they did, I think that momentum would carry them much further.
Originally posted by Mobius
Something's just occured to me about the market share issue. The dual booters will be an overlapping market share. They will account for both sectors, and so an increasing Apple market share, will not necessarily affect Microsoft for the worse. It all depends on whether they decide to stay with one or the other. If Boot Camp is popular, then initially both Apple and Microsoft will win. But the users may start to favour one over the other and eventually just boot into one. This goes for the emulation software, and owners of both platforms on multiple computers.
Yes. That's why MS is pubicly, at least. making happy noises.
One thing I find myself scratching my head about, is Mac users saying that Apple doesn't need a greater marketshare.
That's not what I said.
They are pretty satisfied with the momentum of their user base and their current growth.
Is what I said, momentum and GROWTH being the optimum words.
At this point Apple's main avenue of advertisement is their avid user base. Because Apple does little more to advertise itself they must be satisfied with the current advertisement.
The number of people who have never bought Macs before are on the rise. Arguable that number could be more if Apple had a big marketing campaign, but they don't, so currently they much be satisfied with this level of growth.
I think Apple is in the business of business. They would love any sales.
.
Of course but not all growth is necessarily good growth.
Apple's marketshare does need to get bigger; but not too big. Around 20-25% would be the perfect spot
This is what I'm saying.
If Boot Camp is popular, then initially both Apple and Microsoft will win. But the users may start to favour one over the other and eventually just boot into one.
Yes and Apple wants OS X favored. So they must be confident 10.5 is much better than Vista.
That is, every Mac sale counts towards Apple's market share figures, preferential Windows booting or no, which is a win for the platform (mindshare, stock price and developer enthusiasm wise).
At some point, if people buying Mac hardware to run Windows seem to account for a significant fraction of the total market I suppose those figures will have to be broken out, I reckon by the same process process that is used to determine Linux market share.
What I find unpersuasive, though, is the idea that people are going to be buying MacBook Pros, install XP and somehow be won over, or, even odder, that PC diehards will be buying Mac hardware in droves just for the fit and finish, thereby forever distorting what we consider to be Mac market share.
I think it plenty ironic that before Bootcamp the line was "OS X is a real nice operating system, too bad it's tethered to Apple's absurdly overpriced and difficult to upgrade hardware" and now I see the argument being made (not here so much, mostly over at Ars) that "Apple sure does make sweet hardware, thank god I can finally run something other than that stupid eye candy OS X on it".
Originally posted by addabox
I think it plenty ironic that before Bootcamp the line was "OS X is a real nice operating system, too bad it's tethered to Apple's absurdly overpriced and difficult to upgrade hardware" and now I see the argument being made (not here so much, mostly over at Ars) that "Apple sure does make sweet hardware, thank god I can finally run something other than that stupid eye candy OS X on it".
Forget ironic... figure out the logic in it....
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/3864/0/
"According to the Asia Pacific marketing director of McAfee, Allan Bell, although security attacks on Mac OS/X systems would become more prevalent, many Macintosh users are not as vigilant as they should be. Lax security practices on Macintosh machines may enable Windows viruses to incubate on their Macintosh hosts and later infect Windows machines on a network"
You see there is always a reason to keep Macs off the network. This article is written for every IT manager that suddenly is faced with requests to buy new Macs because now they be used with that one piece of PC-only software that has to be available. How do you prevent the invasion of Macs? Call them 'Typhoid Marys' or Trojan horses that go around infecting the rest of the office while the dizzy headed Mac user is happily typing away under MacOS.
As much as I think Boot Camp is going to be great for the Mac intially, getting people who otherwise might not buy a Mac, maybe give one a try, etc.
But... what happens when developers start to say "Hey we don't need to develop a Mac version, people with Mac's, that want to use our program, can just boot into Windows."? There goes the need for the Mac platform... slowly at first, but... well, who knows. Maybe that's why MS is voicing support for Boot Camp.
Just a thought.
Originally posted by addabox
As far as market share numbers go, however, a Mac is a Mac is a Mac.
That is, every Mac sale counts towards Apple's market share figures, preferential Windows booting or no, which is a win for the platform (mindshare, stock price and developer enthusiasm wise).
At some point, if people buying Mac hardware to run Windows seem to account for a significant fraction of the total market I suppose those figures will have to be broken out, I reckon by the same process process that is used to determine Linux market share.
What I find unpersuasive, though, is the idea that people are going to be buying MacBook Pros, install XP and somehow be won over, or, even odder, that PC diehards will be buying Mac hardware in droves just for the fit and finish, thereby forever distorting what we consider to be Mac market share.
I think it plenty ironic that before Bootcamp the line was "OS X is a real nice operating system, too bad it's tethered to Apple's absurdly overpriced and difficult to upgrade hardware" and now I see the argument being made (not here so much, mostly over at Ars) that "Apple sure does make sweet hardware, thank god I can finally run something other than that stupid eye candy OS X on it".
No one is saying that. Die hard users won't switch. People who want to try X, and are about to buy a new machine anyway, might be persuaded to buy a Mac instead of another PC, if they can also install Windows, as a backup, and if they find X to be not to their liking (it does happen).
Believe it or not, most PC users don't find Apple's hardware to be too expensive. It's the OS they have a problem with. That's understandable. But this gives them an out, if need be.
There are always going to be the PC weenies, just like there are the Mac fanatics, and (my own phrase) the Linux loonies.
It will be very difficult to persuade those to another platform. The excuses range from the software to the hardware.
I wouldn't worry about them.
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
Just saw this latest bit of scare mongering:
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/3864/0/
"According to the Asia Pacific marketing director of McAfee, Allan Bell, although security attacks on Mac OS/X systems would become more prevalent, many Macintosh users are not as vigilant as they should be. Lax security practices on Macintosh machines may enable Windows viruses to incubate on their Macintosh hosts and later infect Windows machines on a network"
You see there is always a reason to keep Macs off the network. This article is written for every IT manager that suddenly is faced with requests to buy new Macs because now they be used with that one piece of PC-only software that has to be available. How do you prevent the invasion of Macs? Call them 'Typhoid Marys' or Trojan horses that go around infecting the rest of the office while the dizzy headed Mac user is happily typing away under MacOS.
As much as I hate to say it, he's right.
I've been using Norton's Anti-Virus ever the first version came out, many years ago.
The fact that there have been no real, virus's, and just a couple of half hearted trojan horses out for the Mac, doesn't mean we shouldn't use anti-virus software. There were virus's out for system 9 and earlier, and there will be again.
But, my software has caught a number of PC virus's over the years. It's not considered to be polite to pass virus's to your PC using friends and colleagues.
Over a business network, they should enforce virus collection at the front-end, in the firewall and associated software, but for safeties sake, all machines on the network should also have it installed. Just in case some dummy brings a disk in that has a virus on it.
And that does happen.
Originally posted by ikDigital
I see a potential problem here.
As much as I think Boot Camp is going to be great for the Mac intially, getting people who otherwise might not buy a Mac, maybe give one a try, etc.
But... what happens when developers start to say "Hey we don't need to develop a Mac version, people with Mac's, that want to use our program, can just boot into Windows."? There goes the need for the Mac platform... slowly at first, but... well, who knows. Maybe that's why MS is voicing support for Boot Camp.
Just a thought.
I agree that there is some risk. Just posted my thoughts on this in another thread, but the bottom line is that I think the dual boot option provides enough of a penalty that MacOS specific software has a clear advantage. You can run a PC game by itself just fine, but most other projects that are work related require seemless software interaction under one OS, otherwise is can become a royal pain.
Since Adobe is going to require time to get Photoshop over to Macintel, i was wondering if this software was ment as a stopgap when Apple brings out the new PowerMacs -or what ever they will be called- and Photoshop still runs under emulation. Lets people work with Photoshop under the PC environment while they wait another year to get the Mac version.
Originally posted by ikDigital
I see a potential problem here.
As much as I think Boot Camp is going to be great for the Mac intially, getting people who otherwise might not buy a Mac, maybe give one a try, etc.
But... what happens when developers start to say "Hey we don't need to develop a Mac version, people with Mac's, that want to use our program, can just boot into Windows."? There goes the need for the Mac platform... slowly at first, but... well, who knows. Maybe that's why MS is voicing support for Boot Camp.
Just a thought.
Have you been reading anything at all? Did you think that this is a unique thought?
This has been discussed so endlessly, that it's almost too tiring to continue with.
Originally posted by melgross
No one is saying that. Die hard users won't switch. People who want to try X, and are about to buy a new machine anyway, might be persuaded to buy a Mac instead of another PC, if they can also install Windows, as a backup, and if they find X to be not to their liking (it does happen).
Believe it or not, most PC users don't find Apple's hardware to be too expensive. It's the OS they have a problem with. That's understandable. But this gives them an out, if need be.
There are always going to be the PC weenies, just like there are the Mac fanatics, and (my own phrase) the Linux loonies.
It will be very difficult to persuade those to another platform. The excuses range from the software to the hardware.
I wouldn't worry about them.
Huh. I guess we inhabit different universes.
In my universe, the constant drumbeat of "Apple hardware is overpriced, I would consider running OS X if they let it run on commodity PC hardware" is practically foundational to the PC/Mac debate. I have literally never participated in a Mac/PC discussion that didn't quickly move to "I can get a Dell with more for less" etc.
I therefore find it amusing to hear the newfound respect for this very same "overpriced" kit now that it can run XP, and deeply ironic to hear (and yes, "some" are saying this) that Apple may have a problem if if They Come for the Hardware but Stay for the Windows.
Originally posted by addabox
Huh. I guess we inhabit different universes.
In my universe, the constant drumbeat of "Apple hardware is overpriced, I would consider running OS X if they let it run on commodity PC hardware" is practically foundational to the PC/Mac debate. I have literally never participated in a Mac/PC discussion that didn't quickly move to "I can get a Dell with more for less" etc.
I therefore find it amusing to hear the newfound respect for this very same "overpriced" kit now that it can run XP, and deeply ironic to hear (and yes, "some" are saying this) that Apple may have a problem if if They Come for the Hardware but Stay for the Windows.
Where do I hear this? On some discussion groups where the anti mac contingent is out and howling.
There are always some. But the majority don't seem to ascribe to it. The view has been changing. I have also found that when in these groups, either on line, or in the flesh, that those most opposed do most of the talking. That can make it seem as though there are more of them than there are.
I find that ever since the Intel machines have come out, even some of those who vowed to never sully their desk with a Mac have suddenly started to consider it. The biggest proplem has been games. Now, not so much.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Ouch. Quake[4] and HalfLife[2] as "tripe"
Well, I suppose it's better that you shoot things and let your rage out in the virtual world. Personally FPS shooters give me the creeps and make me wonder just what goes on in people's heads if they think going around shooting people's heads off with a BFG is anywhere approaching OK. Sure, it's 'not real' but I've no idea why people would want to do it in the pretend world. Are they all frustrated they can't do it in the real world? Perhaps they should go see a shrink.
Perhaps I'm missing the plot in these FPS games too but isn't it usually along the lines of installation/planet overrun by virus/aliens/monsters. You and your team of soldiers/commandos/military types have to go in and kill everything (that moves). Occasionally there will be some 'puzzle' element involving colour coded keys/pushing levers.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Just sooo lame compared to the ideas Molyneux came up with at Bullfrog/Lionhead or pretty much anything from Williams. But then I think games peaked at Defender, Gravitar and Tempest and its been downhill since with only a few blips of originality - Marble Madness, Populous, Archon, Elite, Lemmings, Worms.
Anyway, we're straying off the subject. It's a pity that 3D FPSs are such a force in gaming that any game developer coming up with a novel non-3D idea has such a time getting it to market. I was playing Enigmo2 a few days ago which has gone all 3D - Sorry, Enigmo1 was much better.
Originally posted by melgross
I've wondered about that myself.
I'm not sure that Apple could get to that number, but if they did, I think that momentum would carry them much further.
To get to 25% market share they'd also have to be the largest computer manufacturer on the planet. I guess at some point though - 15%? they might be happy enough to licence to other manufacturers though.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Well, I suppose it's better that you shoot things and let your rage out in the virtual world. Personally FPS shooters give me the creeps and make me wonder just what goes on in people's heads if they think going around shooting people's heads off with a BFG is anywhere approaching OK. Sure, it's 'not real' but I've no idea why people would want to do it in the pretend world. Are they all frustrated they can't do it in the real world? Perhaps they should go see a shrink.
Perhaps I'm missing the plot in these FPS games too but isn't it usually along the lines of installation/planet overrun by virus/aliens/monsters. You and your team of soldiers/commandos/military types have to go in and kill everything (that moves). Occasionally there will be some 'puzzle' element involving colour coded keys/pushing levers.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Just sooo lame compared to the ideas Molyneux came up with at Bullfrog/Lionhead or pretty much anything from Williams. But then I think games peaked at Defender, Gravitar and Tempest and its been downhill since with only a few blips of originality - Marble Madness, Populous, Archon, Elite, Lemmings, Worms.
Anyway, we're straying off the subject. It's a pity that 3D FPSs are such a force in gaming that any game developer coming up with a novel non-3D idea has such a time getting it to market. I was playing Enigmo2 a few days ago which has gone all 3D - Sorry, Enigmo1 was much better.
I have to agree with you 100% on this.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
To get to 25% market share they'd also have to be the largest computer manufacturer on the planet. I guess at some point though - 15%? they might be happy enough to licence to other manufacturers though.
Now that they have come out with Boot Camp, my theories are in array.
My thought was that with sales in other divisions rising fast, the hardware sales would become a smaller part of the total. If Apple had done what I had hoped they would do, which was to buy the programs Corel let go, and possibly bought MacroMedia, when they put themselves up for sale, they would bias themselves towards software, multimedia distribution, and consumer devices.
After a couple of years, the computer hardware division might comprise less than 25% of the total. with high profit software sales, and large volume CES devices, they could then think about Licensing the OS to other companies, such as Dell, which has expressed an interest.
This way, even if Apple lost 50% of their hardware sales it would be made up in the much increased royalties from other manufacturers, and the sales of OS upgrades, as well as the increased Mac software that would go with the increased sales of "Mac's". As that loss would be perhaps 10% of total sales, it wouldn't be a problem. The increased sales from everything else that would result would far more than offset it. This would certainly lead to an great uptake in X. Even if some piracy resulted.
The situation today is vastly different that it was when Apple allowed clones, back in the dreary, gloomy days of the early '90's.