as we've now purchased three Macs for our household this year: a 27" iMac, a new 13" Macbook Air and an 11" Macbook Air.
My daughter already had an older, white Macbook from college...
The deal for us, as I'm sure for many others is that around this time last year (2009), both my wife and I had PC notebooks that became plagued with malware, viruses and Trojans. It too many, many hours and days of effort to resolve and I swore-off Windows and decided to go with Mac OS X. I was simply TIRED of dealing with stuff that hampered my productivity, along with the fact that all of the fixes for these problems make Windows SLOW. My Macs are screaming FAST and I have NO VIRUS ISSUES!!!
STEVE BALMER, ARE YOU LISTENING? No, I thought not...
The kicker for us (and catalyst) was that Mac prices had finally dropped to levels that were affordable for our family. Even so, without freelance work, I couldn't have justified the move. Now looking back, I'm glad I did.
I'm typing this on a Dell M90 that is my workstation for corporate work. It's aging though, and will eventually be replaced by a Macbook Pro.
Steve Jobs & Co. have given me tools that I can use, that although it's somewhat cliche, JUST WORK. Not the fastest spec'd stuff, not the most features, but systems that enable us to get work done, without any downtime to speak of.
I think many people are like me: My first foray into Appledom was an iPod Touch (1st gen.) that I was issued as a tool to control web-based apps for displays at work. I got into the apps, it did what I needed and more and I got to thinking that if the iPod Touch worked so well, what about the Macs?
I'm certain that much of the increase is sales for Apple is driven by this same thing, people who's first introduction to Apple was through iPods and iPads and that given how positive their experieces were, decided to give Apple computers a try. How else can these numbers be explained, except through Windows converts? I know that there's no way I would have bought a Mac blindly. Other Apple products were my introduction to the Apple ecosystem, and I'll bet that experience is the same for many others.
No virus software to update every year - big saving.
My PC virus software cost me $0, and the yearly cost is $0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder
Apple machines have a longer life than PCs, and retain more of their resale value.
Doesn't that depend on how long you actually keep them, and if you actually resell them? I keep my PCs for just as long as my Macs and I don't sell them at the end. Plus since Apple went Intel the price of a Mac has dropped, so the resale value has dropped with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder
Less support needed, so cheaper for businesses, schools, etc.
The deal for us, as I'm sure for many others is that around this time last year (2009), both my wife and I had PC notebooks that became plagued with malware, viruses and Trojans. It too many, many hours and days of effort to resolve and I swore-off Windows and decided to go with Mac OS X. I was simply TIRED of dealing with stuff that hampered my productivity, along with the fact that all of the fixes for these problems make Windows SLOW. My Macs are screaming FAST and I have NO VIRUS ISSUES!!!
What are you doing to your PC to get a virus? I have two PCs at the moment, have owned one of them for around 6 years, they are used constantly, I have never had a virus or a single piece of malware on either of them. Just install a free piece of virus software and leave it. It isn't a difficult task.
What are you doing to your PC to get a virus? I have two PCs at the moment, have owned one of them for around 6 years, they are used constantly, I have never had a virus or a single piece of malware on either of them. Just install a free piece of virus software and leave it. It isn't a difficult task.
An average six year old windows machine can barely get out it's own way while running current AV software. The CPU is so bogged down monitoring the system that it is almost unusable as a computer. Boat anchor comes to mind. No wonder you can't sell them.
What are you doing to your PC to get a virus? I have two PCs at the moment, have owned one of them for around 6 years, they are used constantly, I have never had a virus or a single piece of malware on either of them. Just install a free piece of virus software and leave it. It isn't a difficult task.
No need to gloat. Anti-virus software was running on both machines, and regular anti-malware sweeps were made.
What are you doing to your PC to get a virus? I have two PCs at the moment, have owned one of them for around 6 years, they are used constantly, I have never had a virus or a single piece of malware on either of them. Just install a free piece of virus software and leave it. It isn't a difficult task.
Your anecdotal evidence is contrary to the average experience by Windows users. I have made a mint off of malware cleanups over the past decade, despite almost everyone having AV installed. The dirty secret is that Symantec and McAfee did not include anti-malware in their products for years. Hence the proliferation of software like MalwareBytes, Super AntiSpyware, Ad-Aware, ComboFix, SpyBot, Spyware Doctor, HijackThis, etc.
If your experience were the norm, the above programs would not have been downloaded millions upon millions of times. Like you, I have successfully avoided malware/viruses on my various Windows boxes, but we're both in a significant minority of Windows users.
Hummm... So with still a low market share, yet making more money than any other company in the computer business, and billions of dollars in the bank, don't you think it is long past time for Apple to lower their computer prices?
Nothing ticks me off more than remarks like this. Guess what, Apple is a business. Businesses' duty is to make money, simple as that.
I have yet to hear of a company that says, "We're making too much money. I think it's time we cut our prices." Have you ever heard a company say that?
Your anecdotal evidence is contrary to the average experience by Windows users. I have made a mint off of malware cleanups over the past decade, despite almost everyone having AV installed. The dirty secret is that Symantec and McAfee did not include anti-malware in their products for years. Hence the proliferation of software like MalwareBytes, Super AntiSpyware, Ad-Aware, ComboFix, SpyBot, Spyware Doctor, HijackThis, etc.
If your experience were the norm, the above programs would not have been downloaded millions upon millions of times. Like you, I have successfully avoided malware/viruses on my various Windows boxes, but we're both in a significant minority of Windows users.
Used all of the noted apps and your profiting off the propensity of Windows to collect code written by delinquents means nothing.
Surely in the late 70s, when the Apple II was king, Apple would have had the lions share of the "home computer" market. No-one bought a Commodore PET for their home after all.
My GF works in Education K-12 and just hates the dominance of PC's. She said it is so frustrating going through Windows programs with kids and teachers and every few minutes she has to answer a cryptic question on a pop-up screen...or the program worked yesterday, but now it is doing something completely different.
I think it is idiot administrators buying PC's based solely on price...and in doing so are holding our kids back....when the "Kids" get older and can make a choice for themselves, they choose Apple....just look at the use of Apple in Universities!
She loves our Macs at home!
LOL
I couldn't agree more.
My son hates all the PCs at his school.
Loves his Mac, my daughter's school only has
PCs, a large portion of them are off line, so
are useless. When will the authorities understand
that they have a responsibility to our children,we do pay their salaries after all. Macs are much cheaper in the long run, are hardly down, easy and great to use, especially for their targeted audience.
Sometimes I just want to scream at the school principals!
No virus software to update every year - big saving.
Apple machines have a longer life than PCs, and retain more of their resale value.
Less support needed, so cheaper for businesses, schools, etc.
The overall cost of owning a Mac has often been shown to be less than that of a PC.
All true, unfortunately IT purchase decisions usually are determined by a company's IT department, which usually reports to someone with no computer expertise at all. In most cases they're also working with a specified budget, which they help develop. So, why buy 100 Macs when you can buy 120 or more PCs. The fact that a PC will be outdated much sooner won't matter when next year's budget is proposed. Furthermore, each PC will require so many IT man-hours of support, which is also paid from the same budget. Macs won't need as much support, so you won't need as many IT employees, but no IT department is going to willingly give itself less work to do. Showing an increasing number trouble tickets each day is job security.
As Mac users we already know they require less support but without reliable data supporting such a claim, large corporations are unlikely to accept it.
This idiocy will not change until upper management becomes knowledgeable enough with how their company uses IT and specifies Macs over the objections of their IT department. Until then they'll be stuck with the same old, familiar, predictably trouble-prone but well-supported disposable junk.
The good news is that one in every five computers sold today is a Mac. This market penetration is phenomenal. Company acceptance of iPhones and iPads hasn't been driven by IT, it's been driven from the bottom up - forced upon IT, usually over their objections. For example, they'll only support Blackberry, yet everyone has an iPhone. IT offers NO support for iPhones - they simply work.
It's just a matter of time before corporations wake up to the Mac's overall lower cost of deployment and support. When that happens, the floodgates will open.
Used all of the noted apps and your profiting off the propensity of Windows to collect code written by delinquents means nothing.
LOL "propensity of Windows to collect code written by delinquents" - that's an interesting way to define "exploits" as if Windows was a museum curator.
Why do people care about market share?? As long as the platform attracts developers it big enough. After that profit maximization is the goal. To do that you have to provide value. The market has spoken and Apple's dollar share show they've satisfied the market, well.
On the developer side the re-entry of Autodesk on the platform show they can attract developers as well.
Market share far less important to a business than profits. Its only really important when the former impacts the latter. Not an issue for Apple at the moment.
Mac users will switch back and forth depending on whether they are talking about Mac market share, App Store market share, or prices of Monster cables.
"Market share doesn't matter"
"App Store has 300,000 apps"
"Macs cost more because people are willing to pay more"
Mac users will switch back and forth depending on whether they are talking about Mac market share, App Store market share, or prices of Monster cables.
"Market share doesn't matter"
"App Store has 300,000 apps"
"Macs cost more because people are willing to pay more"
"Monster cable is so overpriced"
300,000 apps on the App Store has nothing to do with market share. I'm not sure what the price of Monster cables has to do with...well.....anything.
Mac users will switch back and forth depending on whether they are talking about Mac market share, App Store market share, or prices of Monster cables.
"Market share doesn't matter"
"App Store has 300,000 apps"
"Macs cost more because people are willing to pay more"
"Monster cable is so overpriced"
Context matters.
Marketshare doesn't matter as long as you have sufficient developer support and having 300,000 apps is an indicator of sufficient developer support (although the quality of the apps matters even more). Those two statements are not in conflict with each other.
Macs do cost more because people are willing to pay more because they see an added value in them (better materials and construction, attention to detail, superior OS, etc.). Monster cable often costs 10x what it should, (macs come nowhere near that kind of mark up) and numerous tests have shown that they do not provide any additional value over a cable from monoprice. It's not hypocritical at all to be willing to pay for a mac, but not monster cable.
You can take arguments out of context as much as you want, but that doesn't mean you have a point. Although I will grant you that there will be some shifts in opinion based on brand loyalty, but that applies equally to windows/android fans and apple haters in general as well. Most Mac users aren't walking hypocrites like you seem to suggest.
Comments
My daughter already had an older, white Macbook from college...
The deal for us, as I'm sure for many others is that around this time last year (2009), both my wife and I had PC notebooks that became plagued with malware, viruses and Trojans. It too many, many hours and days of effort to resolve and I swore-off Windows and decided to go with Mac OS X. I was simply TIRED of dealing with stuff that hampered my productivity, along with the fact that all of the fixes for these problems make Windows SLOW. My Macs are screaming FAST and I have NO VIRUS ISSUES!!!
STEVE BALMER, ARE YOU LISTENING? No, I thought not...
The kicker for us (and catalyst) was that Mac prices had finally dropped to levels that were affordable for our family. Even so, without freelance work, I couldn't have justified the move. Now looking back, I'm glad I did.
I'm typing this on a Dell M90 that is my workstation for corporate work. It's aging though, and will eventually be replaced by a Macbook Pro.
Steve Jobs & Co. have given me tools that I can use, that although it's somewhat cliche, JUST WORK. Not the fastest spec'd stuff, not the most features, but systems that enable us to get work done, without any downtime to speak of.
I think many people are like me: My first foray into Appledom was an iPod Touch (1st gen.) that I was issued as a tool to control web-based apps for displays at work. I got into the apps, it did what I needed and more and I got to thinking that if the iPod Touch worked so well, what about the Macs?
I'm certain that much of the increase is sales for Apple is driven by this same thing, people who's first introduction to Apple was through iPods and iPads and that given how positive their experieces were, decided to give Apple computers a try. How else can these numbers be explained, except through Windows converts? I know that there's no way I would have bought a Mac blindly. Other Apple products were my introduction to the Apple ecosystem, and I'll bet that experience is the same for many others.
Tony
Is it more expensive in the long run?
No virus software to update every year - big saving.
My PC virus software cost me $0, and the yearly cost is $0
Apple machines have a longer life than PCs, and retain more of their resale value.
Doesn't that depend on how long you actually keep them, and if you actually resell them? I keep my PCs for just as long as my Macs and I don't sell them at the end. Plus since Apple went Intel the price of a Mac has dropped, so the resale value has dropped with it.
Less support needed, so cheaper for businesses, schools, etc.
Is there really?
The deal for us, as I'm sure for many others is that around this time last year (2009), both my wife and I had PC notebooks that became plagued with malware, viruses and Trojans. It too many, many hours and days of effort to resolve and I swore-off Windows and decided to go with Mac OS X. I was simply TIRED of dealing with stuff that hampered my productivity, along with the fact that all of the fixes for these problems make Windows SLOW. My Macs are screaming FAST and I have NO VIRUS ISSUES!!!
What are you doing to your PC to get a virus? I have two PCs at the moment, have owned one of them for around 6 years, they are used constantly, I have never had a virus or a single piece of malware on either of them. Just install a free piece of virus software and leave it. It isn't a difficult task.
BTW I think the "canary in the coalmine," is wearing a MS tee shirt and is flat on its back.
I have it on good authority that MS actually uses turkeys not canaries.
What are you doing to your PC to get a virus? I have two PCs at the moment, have owned one of them for around 6 years, they are used constantly, I have never had a virus or a single piece of malware on either of them. Just install a free piece of virus software and leave it. It isn't a difficult task.
An average six year old windows machine can barely get out it's own way while running current AV software. The CPU is so bogged down monitoring the system that it is almost unusable as a computer. Boat anchor comes to mind. No wonder you can't sell them.
What are you doing to your PC to get a virus? I have two PCs at the moment, have owned one of them for around 6 years, they are used constantly, I have never had a virus or a single piece of malware on either of them. Just install a free piece of virus software and leave it. It isn't a difficult task.
No need to gloat. Anti-virus software was running on both machines, and regular anti-malware sweeps were made.
So, is this a new Steve-J/Bill-G alias?
Yes. Also "appl" ... in French!
What are you doing to your PC to get a virus? I have two PCs at the moment, have owned one of them for around 6 years, they are used constantly, I have never had a virus or a single piece of malware on either of them. Just install a free piece of virus software and leave it. It isn't a difficult task.
Your anecdotal evidence is contrary to the average experience by Windows users. I have made a mint off of malware cleanups over the past decade, despite almost everyone having AV installed. The dirty secret is that Symantec and McAfee did not include anti-malware in their products for years. Hence the proliferation of software like MalwareBytes, Super AntiSpyware, Ad-Aware, ComboFix, SpyBot, Spyware Doctor, HijackThis, etc.
If your experience were the norm, the above programs would not have been downloaded millions upon millions of times. Like you, I have successfully avoided malware/viruses on my various Windows boxes, but we're both in a significant minority of Windows users.
Yes. Also "appl" ... in French!
Don't forget the Newtron Bum . . .
I have it on good authority that MS actually uses turkeys not canaries.
You are mistaken. This is the MSFT canary:
Hummm... So with still a low market share, yet making more money than any other company in the computer business, and billions of dollars in the bank, don't you think it is long past time for Apple to lower their computer prices?
Nothing ticks me off more than remarks like this. Guess what, Apple is a business. Businesses' duty is to make money, simple as that.
I have yet to hear of a company that says, "We're making too much money. I think it's time we cut our prices." Have you ever heard a company say that?
Nothing ticks me off more than remarks like this. Guess what, Apple is a business. Businesses' duty is to make money, simple as that.
I have yet to hear of a company that says, "We're making too much money. I think it's time we cut our prices." Have you ever heard a company say that?
Not any that has investors, that's for sure.
Your anecdotal evidence is contrary to the average experience by Windows users. I have made a mint off of malware cleanups over the past decade, despite almost everyone having AV installed. The dirty secret is that Symantec and McAfee did not include anti-malware in their products for years. Hence the proliferation of software like MalwareBytes, Super AntiSpyware, Ad-Aware, ComboFix, SpyBot, Spyware Doctor, HijackThis, etc.
If your experience were the norm, the above programs would not have been downloaded millions upon millions of times. Like you, I have successfully avoided malware/viruses on my various Windows boxes, but we're both in a significant minority of Windows users.
Used all of the noted apps and your profiting off the propensity of Windows to collect code written by delinquents means nothing.
My GF works in Education K-12 and just hates the dominance of PC's. She said it is so frustrating going through Windows programs with kids and teachers and every few minutes she has to answer a cryptic question on a pop-up screen...or the program worked yesterday, but now it is doing something completely different.
I think it is idiot administrators buying PC's based solely on price...and in doing so are holding our kids back....when the "Kids" get older and can make a choice for themselves, they choose Apple....just look at the use of Apple in Universities!
She loves our Macs at home!
LOL
I couldn't agree more.
My son hates all the PCs at his school.
Loves his Mac, my daughter's school only has
PCs, a large portion of them are off line, so
are useless. When will the authorities understand
that they have a responsibility to our children,we do pay their salaries after all. Macs are much cheaper in the long run, are hardly down, easy and great to use, especially for their targeted audience.
Sometimes I just want to scream at the school principals!
Is it more expensive in the long run?
No virus software to update every year - big saving.
Apple machines have a longer life than PCs, and retain more of their resale value.
Less support needed, so cheaper for businesses, schools, etc.
The overall cost of owning a Mac has often been shown to be less than that of a PC.
All true, unfortunately IT purchase decisions usually are determined by a company's IT department, which usually reports to someone with no computer expertise at all. In most cases they're also working with a specified budget, which they help develop. So, why buy 100 Macs when you can buy 120 or more PCs. The fact that a PC will be outdated much sooner won't matter when next year's budget is proposed. Furthermore, each PC will require so many IT man-hours of support, which is also paid from the same budget. Macs won't need as much support, so you won't need as many IT employees, but no IT department is going to willingly give itself less work to do. Showing an increasing number trouble tickets each day is job security.
As Mac users we already know they require less support but without reliable data supporting such a claim, large corporations are unlikely to accept it.
This idiocy will not change until upper management becomes knowledgeable enough with how their company uses IT and specifies Macs over the objections of their IT department. Until then they'll be stuck with the same old, familiar, predictably trouble-prone but well-supported disposable junk.
The good news is that one in every five computers sold today is a Mac. This market penetration is phenomenal. Company acceptance of iPhones and iPads hasn't been driven by IT, it's been driven from the bottom up - forced upon IT, usually over their objections. For example, they'll only support Blackberry, yet everyone has an iPhone. IT offers NO support for iPhones - they simply work.
It's just a matter of time before corporations wake up to the Mac's overall lower cost of deployment and support. When that happens, the floodgates will open.
Used all of the noted apps and your profiting off the propensity of Windows to collect code written by delinquents means nothing.
LOL "propensity of Windows to collect code written by delinquents" - that's an interesting way to define "exploits" as if Windows was a museum curator.
Why do people care about market share?? As long as the platform attracts developers it big enough. After that profit maximization is the goal. To do that you have to provide value. The market has spoken and Apple's dollar share show they've satisfied the market, well.
On the developer side the re-entry of Autodesk on the platform show they can attract developers as well.
Market share far less important to a business than profits. Its only really important when the former impacts the latter. Not an issue for Apple at the moment.
Mac users will switch back and forth depending on whether they are talking about Mac market share, App Store market share, or prices of Monster cables.
"Market share doesn't matter"
"App Store has 300,000 apps"
"Macs cost more because people are willing to pay more"
"Monster cable is so overpriced"
Mac users will switch back and forth depending on whether they are talking about Mac market share, App Store market share, or prices of Monster cables.
"Market share doesn't matter"
"App Store has 300,000 apps"
"Macs cost more because people are willing to pay more"
"Monster cable is so overpriced"
300,000 apps on the App Store has nothing to do with market share. I'm not sure what the price of Monster cables has to do with...well.....anything.
Mac users will switch back and forth depending on whether they are talking about Mac market share, App Store market share, or prices of Monster cables.
"Market share doesn't matter"
"App Store has 300,000 apps"
"Macs cost more because people are willing to pay more"
"Monster cable is so overpriced"
Context matters.
Marketshare doesn't matter as long as you have sufficient developer support and having 300,000 apps is an indicator of sufficient developer support (although the quality of the apps matters even more). Those two statements are not in conflict with each other.
Macs do cost more because people are willing to pay more because they see an added value in them (better materials and construction, attention to detail, superior OS, etc.). Monster cable often costs 10x what it should, (macs come nowhere near that kind of mark up) and numerous tests have shown that they do not provide any additional value over a cable from monoprice. It's not hypocritical at all to be willing to pay for a mac, but not monster cable.
You can take arguments out of context as much as you want, but that doesn't mean you have a point. Although I will grant you that there will be some shifts in opinion based on brand loyalty, but that applies equally to windows/android fans and apple haters in general as well. Most Mac users aren't walking hypocrites like you seem to suggest.