I mean MACs don't have spyware and viruses NOT because they are better, but because the creators "don't bother" Like buying a HUGO, car jacker don't bother.
That argument never made sense to me. Apple already gets one-third of every dollar spent on computers in the US, and for machines that are over $1000 they gets over two-thirds of every dollar. Car jackers steal an expensive car because they can get more money out of the one, surely software doesn?t work the same but you are saying that their is no market for a thief to steal from the most affluent PC buying consumers. That doesn?t make sense.
The argument is that they do steal from the most expensive system, which are servers, but Linux and Unix users are rampant on the internet with about half, I think, of the web servers being Linux running Apache and holding the CC numbers of millions upon million of customers along with other valuable data, yet they seem to only attack Windows PC, by your reckoning.
That doesn?t add up. BTW, people do steal cheap cars all the time. Stealing is mostly about opportunity, the marketshare does add to that but it?s not the only factor, and Mac and Linux marketshare is more than sufficient for thieves? if only it was easier to do.
PS: Apple had viruses prior to Mac OS X when their marketshare was considerably lower than it is now.
PPS: Using a car analogy will not help an argument.
Apple is an industry leader. Market share in terms of premium products is always lower, but Apple owns the market share at the Premium end - well over 70% of it. And the overall share at the Premium end is a lot smaller. It's a pyramid and we're looking at the the top or near the top. So people with enough disposable income or otherwise enogh to spend comfortably on a Mac of some sort (and the ability to actually deliver on their own tastes) are choosing Macs. This of course makes MS/PC-ware not only look cheaper, but consigns their image to bargain-bin status. Not good. And the MS ads are doing a wonderful job of reinforcing this message. I'm not sure who would want to associate themselves with it, apart from those who simply have no choice. Lauren, Giampaolo, and all those examples of consumers WANT Macs. They simply aren't in a position to afford them. It seems MS inadvertently delivers this message along with the "we're cheaper" message. Perhaps there's really no divorcing one from the other, anyway. You decide.
MS can only dream of owning the most coveted portion of the market - the high-margin, higher-income end. This end of the market not only presents less pressure in terms of production, but it also tends to esatblish product image and exclusivity - something to be coveted. And it helps keep you honest in terms of quality and fit-and-finish. Nothing but the best for this end of the market. This tip of the market pyramid can singlehandedly push your product into "must-have" status.
MS is to varying degrees locked out of this end.
Apple is the most significant tech player of our time. With the market share they have (kept exclusive and "Premium-oriented"), Apple now has more cash on hand than Microsoft. With a fraction of the production. Apple doesn't do high volume Macs and OS X. They don't want to, nor should they. That will only dilute product image and eventually, quality. MS only wishes it could pull off the kind of margins Apple can. But the average peson looks at an MS/PC product and the last thing they think of is tasteful, functional beauty.
MS' recent ads are simply meant to increase sales at any cost - mostly of PC's which come with Windows installed anyway. All this really does in the long run is just slag on MS and the other PC manufacturers. It effectively kills any chance they have of pushing further into the Premium end. But this is what happens when you scrape from the bottom.
And where do you get these numbers from? Like an Apple fan you think INSIDE THE BOX, so let me help you out of the box. MOST COMPANIES have buildings upon buildings full of WINDOWS OS RUNNING PC's. Everyone is taking up for Apples high prices by saying they are targeting a different audience, people with disposable incomes. I in a sense agree cause they are targeting a certain audience, people who ONLY surf the net and check e-mail, and DJ's, and those who don't know better. Look I have a PC and I can CHOOSE which monitor I want. How is MAC delivering on my taste when I can't even get a black monitor.
Now you say apple own's 70% of the premium end, I find that odd considering the number of gamers that use WINDOWS gaming rigs starting at around $2500, ever heard of Alienware? Also Dell has a workstation called a Precision which is on NUMERIOUS trade floors, doctors offices, realestate offices, etc. running for Power Users or just as small servers, or for people who just want a super powerful PC, those things cost around $3500+, fact of the matter is you do not find too many MACs in businesses, not to say they are not there cause they are but they are still WAYYYY outnumbered by PC's running Windows no matter what price range. In fact most companies that use MAC's also use PC's, you cannot say that about companies that use PCs.
My point is, there are many Windows PC's selling that cost $3000+, more than the 30% you mention. And please don't get me started on the countless Windows Servers that EVEN THE COMPANY YOU WORK FOR has in a Server room with all that "business critical" data. Some of those servers cost $10,000+. But there are wayyyy more Workstation Windows PC's being sold for $3000+ than there are MAC's being sold for $2000. I guess that's why Apple will be lowering prices cause it owns the Premium end.
That argument never made sense to me. Apple already gets one-third of every dollar spent on computers in the US, and for machines that are over $1000 they gets over two-thirds of every dollar. Car jackers steal an expensive car because they can get more money out of the one, surely software doesn?t work the same but you are saying that their is no market for a thief to steal from the most affluent PC buying consumers. That doesn?t make sense.
The argument is that they do steal from the most expensive system, which are servers, but Linux and Unix users are rampant on the internet with about half, I think, of the web servers being Linux running Apache and holding the CC numbers of millions upon million of customers along with other valuable data, yet they seem to only attack Windows PC, by your reckoning.
That doesn?t add up. BTW, people do steal cheap cars all the time. Stealing is mostly about opportunity, the marketshare does add to that but it?s not the only factor, and Mac and Linux marketshare is more than sufficient for thieves? if only it was easier to do.
PS: Apple had viruses prior to Mac OS X when their marketshare was considerably lower than it is now.
PPS: Using a car analogy will not help an argument.
Tell that to all the other countless people on here using car analogys. But when I use it for PC's you try to VOID it. The point was IT COMES WITH THE TERRITORY. They say don't buy a PC cause of the virus risk or it crashes so MAC is better. No that depends on what you use a computer for.
So if you buy a benz you have more risk, does that mean a HUGO is better "NO" That was my point, sorry it flew over you. Like I said think outside the box. WOW you alook like the first in this forum to admit that APPLE's get viruses, cause others explain it like they NEVER do, just read above.
I'm glad you are able to break down why people steal cars now I know. But in real life people steal cars for various reasons. Just like no car is car jack proof, Apple is not virus or crash proof. Look I made my point again.
My point is, there are many Windows PC's selling that cost $3000+, more than the 30% you mention. And please don't get me started on the countless Windows Servers that EVEN THE COMPANY YOU WORK FOR has in a Server room with all that "business critical" data. Some of those servers cost $10,000+. But there are wayyyy more Workstation Windows PC's being sold for $3000+ than there are MAC's being sold for $2000. I guess that's why Apple will be lowering prices cause it owns the Premium end.
PS: Don?t confuse a consumer desktop with a business workstation and server. There are reasons why data is collected from different groups and this one is from consumers.
I'm glad you are able to break down why people steal cars now I know. But in real life people steal cars for various reasons. Just like no car is car jack proof, Apple is not virus or crash proof. Look I made my point again.
You did make the same point again while using the same car analogy again. Could you at least change up the models being stolen? And I have asked people to not use the analogy, often it fits well but jsut as often it does not and it?s so over used that no one cares anymore. Like Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian, so over used that no one cares anymore.
No one here who knows any computing history will deny that Macs have had viruses, but it was prior to the switch of Mac OS X. Apple dropped their previous OS because it was antiquated. Got that?! They had a crappy system that required them to clean house, buy NeXT to get the Mac platform back on track.
Also, no one said that Macs aren?t hackable, crushable, or infallible. They are all of those things, but the likelihood of these happening are much less because of Apple?s business model, not in spite of it. When you decide to build the HW and SW. They have a limited product lineup and use a modular, modern OS that affords them certain benefits that MS can?t get. But MS? model affords them the ability to have a much higher marketshare. This is business, this is life, there are always tradeoffs.
Now with regard to market research, they would have found that 10s of thousands of audio users were furious the FireWire got dumped and it was not about size but more about a better gpu and not wanting pro users to buy the low end. They would have also found that all the new iLife trainees had FireWire camcorders so IMHO they did not do their research or rather, they did but they want the end user to pay up if they want these missing features.
Oooo-kay... So why is FW still in their *lowest* priced laptop?
PS: Don?t confuse a consumer desktop with a business workstation and server. There are reasons why data is collected from different groups and this one is from consumers.
Only problem there is, report is looking at brand names.
I know only one person having reasonably expensive branded PC - one of Dell XPS boxes - and comparably huge number of them having even more expensive custom built boxes. Of course, it is hard to get real numbers on $1000+ custom boxes out there so reports like one you've mentioned will simply ignore them, but that makes such reports without real value.
Additionally, report is - I presume - based on US numbers, right? We all know that US is Apple's stronghold. Dilute those numbers with the rest of the world, add custom built boxes strong with home users/enthusiasts, and number will be quite a bit different.
There is currently no way to remotely infect OS X. There are still no documented viruses in the wild for OS X. Haven't been for nearly 9 years. No virus or malware has ever, ever, brought an OS X install to its knees. Not once. The best that anyone's done from early 2001 to now is a couple of trojans that aren't able to do any damage.
And the rarity of crashes is the exception that proves the rule.
OS X, for all intents and purposes, is virus-proof and crash-proof. As it has always been.
I would hardly call tying Mac OS X to Apple hardware as a disadvantage of owning a Mac. If you own a Mac you will able to run Mac OS X and if you wanted to Windows or Linux on the same Apple box. What I think you are trying to say is that Mac OS X is disadvantaged by not being able run on any old PC hardware.
The point is that the Mac platform is more than just the software, the hardware is designed to work with the software and vs versa. This is why the Mac offers a better user experience to users. If you just take the bits you want you will end up with a compromised solution. Also how on earth could you expect Apple to certify it's OS capable of running on Joe Bloggs computer. Microsoft tries to do this and the user experience is not pleasant. Many PCs are sold with inferior hardware which is substandard and prone to failure. You can blatantly see this in the poor viewing viewing angles and washed out colours on your supermarket laptop display.
I wouldn't agree that Mac hardware is designed for OSX. Mac hardware works fine with Windows and Linux as well, which means it is pretty much general hardware compatibility wise. Mac hardware does have drivers designed for OSX, but so do any other hardware used for other platforms.
Apple does have advantage that comes from it's disadvantage - limited number of hardware devices supported is so small it makes it so much easier to test both hardware and drivers before hitting market... but even then, new Macs quite often have an issue or two with their 1st revisions, much as I have observed.
Other things - experience, integration etc. - I can't really comment, to be honest; still haven't got Mac, or iPhone, or iPod, or (you name it). Obviously Apple is making extra effort on integration/experience front with included applications and other gear they are offering, but is it enough to compensate for (what I personally observe as) disadvantages - I don't know.
Absolutes are never good thing, so how about... "The market for a mid-range headless Mac solution is not large enough and, by extension, not profitable enough for Apple to care about at this time"
Or is it because Apple thinks it would cut deeply into other Mac sales..?
Are you saying that Apple is so insignificant that MS would consider them a mosquito? In OS marketshare sure, but in value as a company, and surely the other PC vendors (where Apple actually competes head to head) they take most of the profitable market.
Portion of interview transcript, Bob Garfield from AdAge interviewing Bill Gates during the Corbis Creativity 2.0 panel in Manhattan:
GARFIELD: I want to ask you one more thing: Those Mac ads — how do you feel about the John Hodgman character?
GATES: I can’t comment on someone else’s ad.
GARFIELD: OK … but he’s you.
GATES: Yeah, I’m not gonna comment on someone else’s ad.
GARFIELD: OK, well, Bill Gates, thank you so much for joining us.
(Silence)
GARFIELD: Can I just have a clean goodbye?
(Silence)
GARFIELD: OK, can you just say goodbye? Thank you or goodbye or something like that?
GATES: Goodbye.
--------------------
Gates does sound pissed of, to my opinion. Must say I never thought that way, but PC and Mac guy can easily translate into Gates and Jobs, thus ads can be taken very personal.
True it is business, but Apple has pushed some limits in this case - and by a margin. While there is as strong competition between PC brands, I can't recall seeing any of them constantly having fun on other's behalf - and for years. I can't recall anything like that in any other market.
Quote:
My aunt just called me up yesterday. She is having BSOD on her notebook periodically. Her machine also takes 10 minutes to boot up with Kaspersey running and it's dog slow. This was not the case when she first got it.
I'm really sad to hear that. On the other hand, for our only client with some Macs, small publishing house, I recently had to recover from backup couple of files corrupted while being saved from Macs to a server share.
There was a reason why that happened twice in a single week and never again, and there is a reason why your aunt have her issues. There is also a solution to pretty much any problem in IT. If you are implying that your aunt is condemned to such things because she has PC, it simply isn't true.
It gets repetitive after a while, but this is an Apple fansite. All fansites/entusiast sites are like this, whether it's about Macs, Harleys, or whatever brand of TV.
Mac people repeating their stuff, Pc people repeating their stuff - all good fun!
Apple is an industry leader. Market share in terms of premium products is always lower, but Apple owns the market share at the Premium end - well over 70% of it.
I've already posted on this topic, but I'll indulge in repeating.
All market studies I have seen are considering only branded boxes. However, in high-end home market - enthusiast market - number of custom built boxes is much higher then in low end (relative to market share).
In short, there is a big number of very expensive custom built PCs that no one is taking into account. And most if not all of them are running on Windows.
Just look at numbers of expensive motherboards from Gigabyte, Asus, MSI, DFI, Foxcon, E EVGA and others - some of them getting close to US$500. Look at the choice of premium cases, cooling solutions, power supplies, high end graphics, mods; they exist because there is demand for them. Enthusiast market is more than big enough to make difference in those premium segment stats, if you take custom built boxes into account.
Possibly, but I'm still not convinced of the wisdom of Microsoft's approach. Look how long Apple has been running their "I'm a Mac" campaign. It's got legs because it builds the image of the product and the company in the minds of consumers. You see this in a lot of ad campaigns. I think probably the best of them don't try to be momentary and forgettable. Microsoft has tried the opposite approach -- the advertising equivalent to negative political campaigning. Driving up the other guy's negatives is the kind of approach you take when you're behind. You hope it hurts them more than it hurts you.
Wouldn't know - Mac ads are not aired here in NZ, I can only see them on the net.
I think that MS advertising people are still searching for the right formula, so these notebook hunters are just a phase; they are cheap to make, don't have celebrities (Justin Long must cost something nowadays!) and are expendable. I do have a feeling we'll see more of a variety once Windows 7 is out - I wouldn't be surprised to learn that MS marketing people are, at this point, already spending much more time and money on W7 ads than they are doing on presently aired ads.
Mac ads wise, they were novelty when they started, but today they are more like "me, too". Old news. Another take on the same topic. Definitely not fresh any more. I think Apple should make an effort to re-invent their advertising as well. There is only that much you can tell with one uniformed form of advertising...
Oooo-kay... So why is FW still in their *lowest* priced laptop?
I font want to teach this lesson again but will give short version. A while back on board gma benchmarked at 171% opengl but you could not play games but could run pro apps. Apple realizing this crippled it and thevlast black and white MacBook had gma x3100 (can't recall model) and the opengl dropped from 171% down to 70%. No more pro apps
Then came newerbmodels with much better gpu so you can run pro apps, problem is, no firewire means no camera connection nor high end FireWire audio cards/devices.
In a nutshell, dedicated gpu allows pro apps with a gitcga if no FireWire thaye why and the white mb may have FireWire but very weak gpu so no pro apps. Thats why.
I font want to teach this lesson again but will give short version. A while back on board gma benchmarked at 171% opengl but you could not play games but could run pro apps. Apple realizing this crippled it and thevlast black and white MacBook had gma x3100 (can't recall model) and the opengl dropped from 171% down to 70%. No more pro apps
Then came newerbmodels with much better gpu so you can run pro apps, problem is, no firewire means no camera connection nor high end FireWire audio cards/devices.
In a nutshell, dedicated gpu allows pro apps with a gitcga if no FireWire thaye why and the white mb may have FireWire but very weak gpu so no pro apps. Thats why.
Peace.
Their cheapest model now has NVIDIA 9400 *and* firewire. Except for the DDR2 vs DDR3 it's the machine you need for low end and video and pro apps and games and audio... So the evidence still points to FW being a space issue on the MacBook 13 ALU.
Comments
I mean MACs don't have spyware and viruses NOT because they are better, but because the creators "don't bother" Like buying a HUGO, car jacker don't bother.
That argument never made sense to me. Apple already gets one-third of every dollar spent on computers in the US, and for machines that are over $1000 they gets over two-thirds of every dollar. Car jackers steal an expensive car because they can get more money out of the one, surely software doesn?t work the same but you are saying that their is no market for a thief to steal from the most affluent PC buying consumers. That doesn?t make sense.
The argument is that they do steal from the most expensive system, which are servers, but Linux and Unix users are rampant on the internet with about half, I think, of the web servers being Linux running Apache and holding the CC numbers of millions upon million of customers along with other valuable data, yet they seem to only attack Windows PC, by your reckoning.
That doesn?t add up. BTW, people do steal cheap cars all the time. Stealing is mostly about opportunity, the marketshare does add to that but it?s not the only factor, and Mac and Linux marketshare is more than sufficient for thieves? if only it was easier to do.
PS: Apple had viruses prior to Mac OS X when their marketshare was considerably lower than it is now.
PPS: Using a car analogy will not help an argument.
Correct.
Apple is an industry leader. Market share in terms of premium products is always lower, but Apple owns the market share at the Premium end - well over 70% of it. And the overall share at the Premium end is a lot smaller. It's a pyramid and we're looking at the the top or near the top. So people with enough disposable income or otherwise enogh to spend comfortably on a Mac of some sort (and the ability to actually deliver on their own tastes) are choosing Macs. This of course makes MS/PC-ware not only look cheaper, but consigns their image to bargain-bin status. Not good. And the MS ads are doing a wonderful job of reinforcing this message. I'm not sure who would want to associate themselves with it, apart from those who simply have no choice. Lauren, Giampaolo, and all those examples of consumers WANT Macs. They simply aren't in a position to afford them. It seems MS inadvertently delivers this message along with the "we're cheaper" message. Perhaps there's really no divorcing one from the other, anyway. You decide.
MS can only dream of owning the most coveted portion of the market - the high-margin, higher-income end. This end of the market not only presents less pressure in terms of production, but it also tends to esatblish product image and exclusivity - something to be coveted. And it helps keep you honest in terms of quality and fit-and-finish. Nothing but the best for this end of the market. This tip of the market pyramid can singlehandedly push your product into "must-have" status.
MS is to varying degrees locked out of this end.
Apple is the most significant tech player of our time. With the market share they have (kept exclusive and "Premium-oriented"), Apple now has more cash on hand than Microsoft. With a fraction of the production. Apple doesn't do high volume Macs and OS X. They don't want to, nor should they. That will only dilute product image and eventually, quality. MS only wishes it could pull off the kind of margins Apple can. But the average peson looks at an MS/PC product and the last thing they think of is tasteful, functional beauty.
MS' recent ads are simply meant to increase sales at any cost - mostly of PC's which come with Windows installed anyway. All this really does in the long run is just slag on MS and the other PC manufacturers. It effectively kills any chance they have of pushing further into the Premium end. But this is what happens when you scrape from the bottom.
And where do you get these numbers from? Like an Apple fan you think INSIDE THE BOX, so let me help you out of the box. MOST COMPANIES have buildings upon buildings full of WINDOWS OS RUNNING PC's. Everyone is taking up for Apples high prices by saying they are targeting a different audience, people with disposable incomes. I in a sense agree cause they are targeting a certain audience, people who ONLY surf the net and check e-mail, and DJ's, and those who don't know better. Look I have a PC and I can CHOOSE which monitor I want. How is MAC delivering on my taste when I can't even get a black monitor.
Now you say apple own's 70% of the premium end, I find that odd considering the number of gamers that use WINDOWS gaming rigs starting at around $2500, ever heard of Alienware? Also Dell has a workstation called a Precision which is on NUMERIOUS trade floors, doctors offices, realestate offices, etc. running for Power Users or just as small servers, or for people who just want a super powerful PC, those things cost around $3500+, fact of the matter is you do not find too many MACs in businesses, not to say they are not there cause they are but they are still WAYYYY outnumbered by PC's running Windows no matter what price range. In fact most companies that use MAC's also use PC's, you cannot say that about companies that use PCs.
My point is, there are many Windows PC's selling that cost $3000+, more than the 30% you mention. And please don't get me started on the countless Windows Servers that EVEN THE COMPANY YOU WORK FOR has in a Server room with all that "business critical" data. Some of those servers cost $10,000+. But there are wayyyy more Workstation Windows PC's being sold for $3000+ than there are MAC's being sold for $2000. I guess that's why Apple will be lowering prices cause it owns the Premium end.
So how is Windows LOCKED OUT again????
That argument never made sense to me. Apple already gets one-third of every dollar spent on computers in the US, and for machines that are over $1000 they gets over two-thirds of every dollar. Car jackers steal an expensive car because they can get more money out of the one, surely software doesn?t work the same but you are saying that their is no market for a thief to steal from the most affluent PC buying consumers. That doesn?t make sense.
The argument is that they do steal from the most expensive system, which are servers, but Linux and Unix users are rampant on the internet with about half, I think, of the web servers being Linux running Apache and holding the CC numbers of millions upon million of customers along with other valuable data, yet they seem to only attack Windows PC, by your reckoning.
That doesn?t add up. BTW, people do steal cheap cars all the time. Stealing is mostly about opportunity, the marketshare does add to that but it?s not the only factor, and Mac and Linux marketshare is more than sufficient for thieves? if only it was easier to do.
PS: Apple had viruses prior to Mac OS X when their marketshare was considerably lower than it is now.
PPS: Using a car analogy will not help an argument.
Tell that to all the other countless people on here using car analogys. But when I use it for PC's you try to VOID it. The point was IT COMES WITH THE TERRITORY. They say don't buy a PC cause of the virus risk or it crashes so MAC is better. No that depends on what you use a computer for.
So if you buy a benz you have more risk, does that mean a HUGO is better "NO" That was my point, sorry it flew over you. Like I said think outside the box. WOW you alook like the first in this forum to admit that APPLE's get viruses, cause others explain it like they NEVER do, just read above.
I'm glad you are able to break down why people steal cars now I know. But in real life people steal cars for various reasons. Just like no car is car jack proof, Apple is not virus or crash proof. Look I made my point again.
My point is, there are many Windows PC's selling that cost $3000+, more than the 30% you mention. And please don't get me started on the countless Windows Servers that EVEN THE COMPANY YOU WORK FOR has in a Server room with all that "business critical" data. Some of those servers cost $10,000+. But there are wayyyy more Workstation Windows PC's being sold for $3000+ than there are MAC's being sold for $2000. I guess that's why Apple will be lowering prices cause it owns the Premium end.
Here is one CNN Money article about NPD data...PS: Don?t confuse a consumer desktop with a business workstation and server. There are reasons why data is collected from different groups and this one is from consumers.
I'm glad you are able to break down why people steal cars now I know. But in real life people steal cars for various reasons. Just like no car is car jack proof, Apple is not virus or crash proof. Look I made my point again.
You did make the same point again while using the same car analogy again. Could you at least change up the models being stolen? And I have asked people to not use the analogy, often it fits well but jsut as often it does not and it?s so over used that no one cares anymore. Like Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian, so over used that no one cares anymore.
No one here who knows any computing history will deny that Macs have had viruses, but it was prior to the switch of Mac OS X. Apple dropped their previous OS because it was antiquated. Got that?! They had a crappy system that required them to clean house, buy NeXT to get the Mac platform back on track.
Also, no one said that Macs aren?t hackable, crushable, or infallible. They are all of those things, but the likelihood of these happening are much less because of Apple?s business model, not in spite of it. When you decide to build the HW and SW. They have a limited product lineup and use a modular, modern OS that affords them certain benefits that MS can?t get. But MS? model affords them the ability to have a much higher marketshare. This is business, this is life, there are always tradeoffs.
How is MAC delivering on my taste when I can't even get a black monitor.
Best line of the day.
I use my computer for more than just email and internet, and I'm not a DJ.
Best line of the day.
Now with regard to market research, they would have found that 10s of thousands of audio users were furious the FireWire got dumped and it was not about size but more about a better gpu and not wanting pro users to buy the low end. They would have also found that all the new iLife trainees had FireWire camcorders so IMHO they did not do their research or rather, they did but they want the end user to pay up if they want these missing features.
Oooo-kay... So why is FW still in their *lowest* priced laptop?
Here is one CNN Money article about NPD data...PS: Don?t confuse a consumer desktop with a business workstation and server. There are reasons why data is collected from different groups and this one is from consumers.
Only problem there is, report is looking at brand names.
I know only one person having reasonably expensive branded PC - one of Dell XPS boxes - and comparably huge number of them having even more expensive custom built boxes. Of course, it is hard to get real numbers on $1000+ custom boxes out there so reports like one you've mentioned will simply ignore them, but that makes such reports without real value.
Additionally, report is - I presume - based on US numbers, right? We all know that US is Apple's stronghold. Dilute those numbers with the rest of the world, add custom built boxes strong with home users/enthusiasts, and number will be quite a bit different.
Yes MAC OS boots faster, IT DOES LESS.
No, it doesn't. Where did you get this ridiculous idea??
Apple is not virus or crash proof.
There is currently no way to remotely infect OS X. There are still no documented viruses in the wild for OS X. Haven't been for nearly 9 years. No virus or malware has ever, ever, brought an OS X install to its knees. Not once. The best that anyone's done from early 2001 to now is a couple of trojans that aren't able to do any damage.
And the rarity of crashes is the exception that proves the rule.
OS X, for all intents and purposes, is virus-proof and crash-proof. As it has always been.
I would hardly call tying Mac OS X to Apple hardware as a disadvantage of owning a Mac. If you own a Mac you will able to run Mac OS X and if you wanted to Windows or Linux on the same Apple box. What I think you are trying to say is that Mac OS X is disadvantaged by not being able run on any old PC hardware.
The point is that the Mac platform is more than just the software, the hardware is designed to work with the software and vs versa. This is why the Mac offers a better user experience to users. If you just take the bits you want you will end up with a compromised solution. Also how on earth could you expect Apple to certify it's OS capable of running on Joe Bloggs computer. Microsoft tries to do this and the user experience is not pleasant. Many PCs are sold with inferior hardware which is substandard and prone to failure. You can blatantly see this in the poor viewing viewing angles and washed out colours on your supermarket laptop display.
I wouldn't agree that Mac hardware is designed for OSX. Mac hardware works fine with Windows and Linux as well, which means it is pretty much general hardware compatibility wise. Mac hardware does have drivers designed for OSX, but so do any other hardware used for other platforms.
Apple does have advantage that comes from it's disadvantage - limited number of hardware devices supported is so small it makes it so much easier to test both hardware and drivers before hitting market... but even then, new Macs quite often have an issue or two with their 1st revisions, much as I have observed.
Other things - experience, integration etc. - I can't really comment, to be honest; still haven't got Mac, or iPhone, or iPod, or (you name it). Obviously Apple is making extra effort on integration/experience front with included applications and other gear they are offering, but is it enough to compensate for (what I personally observe as) disadvantages - I don't know.
Absolutes are never good thing, so how about... "The market for a mid-range headless Mac solution is not large enough and, by extension, not profitable enough for Apple to care about at this time"
Or is it because Apple thinks it would cut deeply into other Mac sales..?
I wouldn't call it being pissed. It's business.
Are you saying that Apple is so insignificant that MS would consider them a mosquito? In OS marketshare sure, but in value as a company, and surely the other PC vendors (where Apple actually competes head to head) they take most of the profitable market.
Portion of interview transcript, Bob Garfield from AdAge interviewing Bill Gates during the Corbis Creativity 2.0 panel in Manhattan:
GARFIELD: I want to ask you one more thing: Those Mac ads — how do you feel about the John Hodgman character?
GATES: I can’t comment on someone else’s ad.
GARFIELD: OK … but he’s you.
GATES: Yeah, I’m not gonna comment on someone else’s ad.
GARFIELD: OK, well, Bill Gates, thank you so much for joining us.
(Silence)
GARFIELD: Can I just have a clean goodbye?
(Silence)
GARFIELD: OK, can you just say goodbye? Thank you or goodbye or something like that?
GATES: Goodbye.
--------------------
Gates does sound pissed of, to my opinion. Must say I never thought that way, but PC and Mac guy can easily translate into Gates and Jobs, thus ads can be taken very personal.
True it is business, but Apple has pushed some limits in this case - and by a margin. While there is as strong competition between PC brands, I can't recall seeing any of them constantly having fun on other's behalf - and for years. I can't recall anything like that in any other market.
My aunt just called me up yesterday. She is having BSOD on her notebook periodically. Her machine also takes 10 minutes to boot up with Kaspersey running and it's dog slow. This was not the case when she first got it.
I'm really sad to hear that. On the other hand, for our only client with some Macs, small publishing house, I recently had to recover from backup couple of files corrupted while being saved from Macs to a server share.
There was a reason why that happened twice in a single week and never again, and there is a reason why your aunt have her issues. There is also a solution to pretty much any problem in IT. If you are implying that your aunt is condemned to such things because she has PC, it simply isn't true.
It gets repetitive after a while, but this is an Apple fansite. All fansites/entusiast sites are like this, whether it's about Macs, Harleys, or whatever brand of TV.
Mac people repeating their stuff, Pc people repeating their stuff - all good fun!
Correct.
Apple is an industry leader. Market share in terms of premium products is always lower, but Apple owns the market share at the Premium end - well over 70% of it.
I've already posted on this topic, but I'll indulge in repeating.
All market studies I have seen are considering only branded boxes. However, in high-end home market - enthusiast market - number of custom built boxes is much higher then in low end (relative to market share).
In short, there is a big number of very expensive custom built PCs that no one is taking into account. And most if not all of them are running on Windows.
Just look at numbers of expensive motherboards from Gigabyte, Asus, MSI, DFI, Foxcon, E EVGA and others - some of them getting close to US$500. Look at the choice of premium cases, cooling solutions, power supplies, high end graphics, mods; they exist because there is demand for them. Enthusiast market is more than big enough to make difference in those premium segment stats, if you take custom built boxes into account.
Possibly, but I'm still not convinced of the wisdom of Microsoft's approach. Look how long Apple has been running their "I'm a Mac" campaign. It's got legs because it builds the image of the product and the company in the minds of consumers. You see this in a lot of ad campaigns. I think probably the best of them don't try to be momentary and forgettable. Microsoft has tried the opposite approach -- the advertising equivalent to negative political campaigning. Driving up the other guy's negatives is the kind of approach you take when you're behind. You hope it hurts them more than it hurts you.
Wouldn't know - Mac ads are not aired here in NZ, I can only see them on the net.
I think that MS advertising people are still searching for the right formula, so these notebook hunters are just a phase; they are cheap to make, don't have celebrities (Justin Long must cost something nowadays!) and are expendable. I do have a feeling we'll see more of a variety once Windows 7 is out - I wouldn't be surprised to learn that MS marketing people are, at this point, already spending much more time and money on W7 ads than they are doing on presently aired ads.
Mac ads wise, they were novelty when they started, but today they are more like "me, too". Old news. Another take on the same topic. Definitely not fresh any more. I think Apple should make an effort to re-invent their advertising as well. There is only that much you can tell with one uniformed form of advertising...
Oooo-kay... So why is FW still in their *lowest* priced laptop?
I font want to teach this lesson again but will give short version. A while back on board gma benchmarked at 171% opengl but you could not play games but could run pro apps. Apple realizing this crippled it and thevlast black and white MacBook had gma x3100 (can't recall model) and the opengl dropped from 171% down to 70%. No more pro apps
Then came newerbmodels with much better gpu so you can run pro apps, problem is, no firewire means no camera connection nor high end FireWire audio cards/devices.
In a nutshell, dedicated gpu allows pro apps with a gitcga if no FireWire thaye why and the white mb may have FireWire but very weak gpu so no pro apps. Thats why.
Peace.
I font want to teach this lesson again but will give short version. A while back on board gma benchmarked at 171% opengl but you could not play games but could run pro apps. Apple realizing this crippled it and thevlast black and white MacBook had gma x3100 (can't recall model) and the opengl dropped from 171% down to 70%. No more pro apps
Then came newerbmodels with much better gpu so you can run pro apps, problem is, no firewire means no camera connection nor high end FireWire audio cards/devices.
In a nutshell, dedicated gpu allows pro apps with a gitcga if no FireWire thaye why and the white mb may have FireWire but very weak gpu so no pro apps. Thats why.
Peace.
Their cheapest model now has NVIDIA 9400 *and* firewire. Except for the DDR2 vs DDR3 it's the machine you need for low end and video and pro apps and games and audio... So the evidence still points to FW being a space issue on the MacBook 13 ALU.