Apples 2 Apples? or Apples vs PC

Jim

Emboldened text? THIS IS SHOUTING. Well, that's always been the understood way to shout on a BB anyway.

Oops, I misquoted a figure by a fraction. Hardly a distortion. The fact remains that out of a hundred people who go to buy a personal computer only 5 or 6 of them will buy a Mac - and it's up from 4 to 5 in every hundred. A 26% rise for Apple looks good - but really it's only a 1% gain of market share.

I don't have any Mac animosity. This is a discussion. If somebody disagrees with a particular viewpoint why does that translate to animosity?

This discussion is not exclusively about the Mac OS. The video that started this thread pointed out that Apple's advertising for the Mac constantly makes fun of the Windows environment. Would you like to guess why PC makers don't advertise this way?

My guess is that they don't have to - because Macs are not a threat to the PC.

Why not? Well, I guess that was answered in the video too.

Deane

Lies,damned lies and statistics.
19% increase from very little is still very little.
Don't go by numbers alone have you seen how many weeks the same act is No 1?

BigH

So I guess that if Naim was to increase it's production by 26% (actually greater probably given the market expansion for PC's in that timeframe) then it would be irrelevent as an increase from very little is still very little?

I bet that Paul Stephenson would be pretty happy with a 26% volume increase though.....

BTW, these aren't damned lies unless you choose to interpret them that way....this real growth that has contributed to a staggering rise in Apple's shareholder value so feel free to pee on it.

Cheers

Jim

Deane

quote:

Would you like to guess why PC makers don't advertise this way?

Eh....because only works in a beautifully integrated fashion with apps that users can use very simply and the other doesn't always?

Cheers

Jim

The trouble for apple was they did not license the Os back in the day.

That is pretty much a agreed fact.

The idea that Windows is bigger in the market because its inherently better than OSx or that pcs are bigger in the market place because the hardware is better, is wrong.

Its bigger in the market place because an OS (dos/windows what ever) was licensed and manufacturers could produce PCs with something to run it, business took it up because they could get deals, today its just the way it is.

PCs are cheaper than macs, this is why the stats are what they are.

Sony is cheaper than Naim.
Ford is cheaper than porshe

etc etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Nothing to do with the fact that the Mac can finally run a mainstream OS, is it? Hell, there's now commercial software for the Mac that allows it to do this, isn't there?

Ever since Mac OS X - the Macintosh has been able to run the mainstream commercial operating system: UNIX. After the return of Jobs and OS 9, it was the next step.

.... and bring back HyperCard

ATB Rotf

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

quote:

Originally posted by Jay:
market performance is much more than just about market share of a specific category.

Ok. Tell me about how the Mac's market performance compares to the PC (without mentioning its share of the market).

Yeah sorry, the guys beat me to it.

I can understand your annoyance Deane - just reading between the lines so apologies if that isn't the case - with the latest round of Mac comparative ads.

I think what they do well is very simply put Mac "advantages" (views differ) across to those that just really couldn't care less. At the end of the day they are designed to make folks "consider" a Mac in a very black and white, feature based way. I believe that traditionally it's very hard to engage the "couldn't care less how many gigawatts it has" market, I just want it to work. The default with the risk averse is obviously the PC because that's what they bought last time.

Personally I think they are irritating but they're not targeted at the likes of me, you or the rest of the folks interested enough to read this thread.

Apple is doing very well. It doesn't necessarily need to buy market share at low cost. Sure, it still needs to be a volume player but it's margins are better than average PC manu's so there 's a bit of fat there for R&D, clever marketing and pretty well thought through products.

If I had a choice I would use a Mac but I don't begrudge using my PC at work. I also used to play a lot of games but am not so interested now so maybe that's a why I'm not as PC oriented as I used to be.

A computer is just a tool so you chose what best suits you, you're the one paying the moola.

Jay

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Nothing to do with the fact that the Mac can finally run a mainstream OS, is it? Hell, there's now commercial software for the Mac that allows it to do this, isn't there?

I think you're right on this one. It's a big benefit being able to run XP material. It allows folks to switch with lower cost. ie. not have to replace every damn program they ever bought or stole!

quote:

Originally posted by Exiled Highlander:
BigH

So I guess that if Naim was to increase it's production by 26% (actually greater probably given the market expansion for PC's in that timeframe) then it would be irrelevent as an increase from very little is still very little?

I bet that Paul Stephenson would be pretty happy with a 26% volume increase though.....

BTW, these aren't damned lies unless you choose to interpret them that way....this real growth that has contributed to a staggering rise in Apple's shareholder value so feel free to pee on it.

Yep, the way you explain it, Apple is doing extremely well. And if I was looking for shares it would be stupid not to study Apple's performance.

But if I was in the market for a personal computer, it would be stupid to ignore the price, the ubiquity, the high compatibility the enourmous range of applications, the upgradeability, and the support available for the Windows based PC.

That would be compared to the high price, the poor compatibility with other computers in the real world, the fraction of a range of applications compared to Windows apps, the lack of backwards compatibility of successive Mac OSs, and the rarified support available for when your Mac craps out on you.

And all of these things are because of the tiny amount of Macs that are actually out there in the world - because their share of the market just ain't that big.

When I was a kid, there were a lot of Apple computers around. But the open standards of the PC architecture changed all that - Apple made some very poor choices there and have paid the price.

quote:

Originally posted by garyi:

The idea that Windows is bigger in the market because its inherently better than OSx or that pcs are bigger in the market place because the hardware is better, is wrong.

Hell, I don't think there is anything brilliant about PCs - or that the hardware is better. Some hardware is better than others - depends what you choose. But there's the rub - with PC components I actually get to choose.

I think Windows and its applications are lazily coded. Apple and Mac code is traditionally tighter than that written for the x86 instruction set - but then people coding for Apples and then Macs never had the headroom in system resources that programmers for PCs had.

Deane

Nope, not just the way I explain it, Apple is doing extremely well on the back of the orginal "halo effect" of the iPod, the subsequent and continued increase in market share of their PC line and now as a further consquence of the iPhone (at least in the short term until it;s longer term effects can be properly judged). Fact as proven through share price - not opinion.

On your other points we will need to disagree....it's late and I can't be bothered discussing anymore.

Slainte

Jim

Deane

quote:

but then people coding for Apples and then Macs never had the headroom in system resources that programmers for PCs had.

Lack off headroom in PC's you mean? I don't recall any Mac OS being held to 640K of RAM as the legacy windows and DOS apps were.

Cheers

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Exiled Highlander:

it's late and I can't be bothered discussing anymore.

Oh, it's a lovely sunny morning here. I don't know what you're complaining about...

To each their own. I use macs almost exclusively, but tonight I had to do some work on a PC. It took all of two minutes for me to become agitated. Pop-ups asking me about updating anti virus software, horrible bleeps and farts as I click around the screen, and then at the moment I actually get to fill in a form and press submit, Explorer crashes, meaning I have to do it all again. Twice.

I don't care what the anti mac brigade think about my computer, just as I don't care what folk think of my stereo. To me, both represent good value for money, and as much as I'd like to spend less time in front of my computer, I do enjoy using it for both work and play (which was not the case tonight on an Acer laptop running Vista).

I have not yet met a person who has used a Mac that said they found a PC more user friendly or intuitive. Have any of you guys?

Regards,

Mickey x

FWIW I reckon the fact on the new intel mac's you can bootcamp into either os is (and probably will be in my case) a rather good feature...am seriously looking at a mac pro...

Andy you can use Parallels to run multiple OSs at the same time - I've run Linux and Windoze alongside OS X to demo some software that ran across all three platforms.

You can cut and paste between them - it can be quite handy if there's an application that you need to use that's fixed to a particular OS.

I tend to think most people are concerned with applications rather than which OS it runs on.

There's no application I desperately need that won't run under OS X - there are a couple that won't run under Windoze though (e.g. Nessus)

ATB Rotf

Thanks for that rotf,

i have a lot to learn.

andy.

My wife just brought a new MacBook from HK.

Nice in some ways, but flaming obtuse in others. For example, how the heck do you cut-and-paste? Serious question. At least even Linux uses ctrl-C, ctrl-X and ctrl-V.

Dealing with .dmg's seem a pain in the butt to add to the Applications list.

Andrew

Use Apple Key + C and Apple key + V

DMGs are disk images

Command-C / Command-X / Command-V came first, in what was then the Apple OS, and they can be actuated using one hand–the Control keystrokes on Windows machines almost always make me reach for both keys with separate hands.

DMG are actually very handy, and very simple. Download them, they will become a 'disk image' which in essence makes them a mountable volume.

Drag the application to the application folder. Drag the DMG to the trash.

Well it seems simple to me.

For a list of all shortcuts goto apple prefs the mouse and keyboard. Its in there somewhere, you can change them to what you like.

One other thing, cut and paste is fine, but the apple OS is mostly happy with drag and drop, trust me its not nearly so consistent in XP.

for instance if you have a web page just drag it to the right hand side of the dock to save it, drag photos from iphoto to email. If you need some text saved select it and drag it to the desktop, etc etc.

Many thanks for the great tips, Gary and David and Derek.

It's a fascinating journey. The new MacBook is a very nice bit of kit. Quite speedy for a laptop - specs are similar to the current iMac (though that has a better graphics processor). Nice design touches here and there too.

Andrew

I purchased the base macbook on the weekend Andrew, just out of interest what did you pay in HK?

I did in fairness get £100 knocked off as someone had purchased it, took it home, realised it was not vista and bought it back

Its is very nippy, and the screens are nice and bright as well.

quote:

Originally posted by garyi:
I purchased the base macbook on the weekend ...
I did in fairness get £100 knocked off as someone had purchased it, took it home, realised it was not vista and bought it back ...

I wonder why they let him out - they probably forgot to lock the asylum door again.