Apple's Device Model Beats the PC Way 445
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Walt Mossberg argues in the Wall Street Journal that Apple's model for PCs and devices is beating Microsoft's. In early battles for dominance of the PC market, Microsoft's component-based platform crushed Apple's end-to-end model, he says. But in today's post-PC era, where the focus is on music players, game consoles and cellphones, the end-to-end model is the early winner. From the column: 'Even the Mac isn't as closed as its critics charge. It's still designed to work with Apple's own operating system and software. But it can handle all the common files Windows uses, can network with Windows machines, and can use all of the common Windows printers, scanners, keyboards and mice. The Mac gives you the same access to the Internet as Windows. Heck, the newest Macs can even run Windows itself.'"
History Repeats Itself (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA: I'd have to disagree with the above, based on the following observation:
I believe we're seeing an evolution of PCs and electronic devices that closely parallels the evolution of the electric motor. When electric motors were first available to the public, it was in a general-purpose, component model. You could buy an electric motor, and it would normally come with different belts or chains allowing you to attach them to a wide variety of other devices. Nowadays, electric motors are much more within the end-to-end model, in which they are made for a specific task and embedded in the end product.
Computing devices seem to be following that same general curve...becoming more specialized, embedded, and specific-to-task (one example: console games vs. gaming PCs). Given this inexorable movement away from the general-purpose to the application-specific, I'd have to guess that the end-to-end model will be excercising progressively more dominance in the market as time passes.
Really ? (Score:1, Insightful)
I do not see that happening anytime soon, the whole post-PC thing sound
like an utter crap. The need for a generic computational device is there
and it is going to stay.
We do not see Apple dropping PCs (as in personal computers) from their
product line. Quite the opposite, they strive to beat PC vendors in that.
The reason - huge market and demand, that is not going anywhere.
Anyone who does not see that is welcome to surf web and do his taxes on
iPod.
When you are the minority player in the market... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:1, Insightful)
I remember back in the '80s someone making the same analogy in a debate about the future of computers. One guy was predicting that the mainframes and minicomputers would eventually become affordable that everyone would have one in their garage and send all computing-needs-tasks to it as batch files.
The other guy disagreed with the same analogy -- he said that when the electric motor was first gaining popularity, people predicted that you would have a large motor in your garage and pulley and chain and gear systems that would transfer the power to your sewing machine in your living room, etc.
Of course, as you observe, now electric motors are in whatever device that needs one; and computers are in almost every device that needs one.
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
He's not complaining or whining, he's refuting a claim that "everything works the same," and proving by counterexample that the claim is false. "Why" it's false or "whose fault it is" are irrelevant.
The computers are components (Score:3, Insightful)
The end product now is a system of interconnected devices.
Computer, phone, stereo, television, DVR, camera, video, IPod, game system, internet. These are the components of the new system. You would buy slightly different versions of each one to customize your complete system, but you don't worry about customizing each component. You only worry how the component will work with all of your other components.
Apple wins hands down on integrating into this newer interconnected system.
--Keith
Expense is more than cash at the register. (Score:5, Insightful)
You end up paying one way or another. How many of us have found/been given a part (a 28.8 modem in my case, when the 14.4 was king) and spend hours getting it to work? I suppose if you don't value your time at all, your argument makes sense. But more often than not, you can either 1) buy a quality component that Just Works but costs a lot, or 2) "shop around" and "minimize expense" (at the register) and spend a few days tweaking it to work, costing you time with your wife/girlfriend/kids/dog.
My roommate, for example, bought an MB/CPU combo from Fry's along with the rest of the components necessary for a working computer. By all accounts, the thing should be cranking away, but Windows won't get through setup. For the heck of it I tried installing an old version of RH I had lying around, no luck there either. Long story short, he's wasted TONS of his own time and countless hours of mine all in the name of saving a few bucks.
By the way, the 17" Powerbook that's on my desk -- picked it up about 5 months ago. Never crashes. Installed a bluetooth KB & mouse without having to reboot(!). Running an external monitor, and it remembers that if I have my second monitor hooked up, I want the LCD's rez to be lower, but if I don't have that second monitor hooked up, I want full rez on the LCD. Point being -- the stuff just works.
I don't know diddly about Apple...
Maybe if you spent less time shopping around you'd have time to relax and read about Apple or some other tech that interests you? (BTW plenty of good resources to answer your questions above on the web).
Macs can network; Windows boxes can't. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
he's refuting a claim that "everything works the same,"
Define: straw man
"a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted"
The actual claim was:
"The Mac gives you the same access to the Internet as Windows."
Think of it this way:
"The Yugo gives you the same access to the highway system as Porsche."
Pragmatically true. But nobody would claim that "everything works the same".
Ultimately, Apple only needs a solid minority... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's stop making this a Apple v. Microsoft fight, because it hasn't realistically been one for a while.
USB != "Windows" device (Score:2, Insightful)
THAT MADE NO SENSE!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Even the Mac isn't as closed as its critics charge. It's still designed to work with Apple's own operating system and software. But it can handle all the common files Windows uses, can network with Windows machines, and can use all of the common Windows printers, scanners, keyboards and mice.
In order for the Mac stuff to be interoperable it must have the ability to be used on other systems, not vise-versa. Can any of Apple's OSX apps run on anything else besides a Mac. Can you use music you purchased from the iTunes music store on another MP3 player besides Apple branded ones? Can you play songs purchased at any of the other online stores on your iPod? How is Apple any better than Microsoft when it comes to interoperability? At least with Microsoft I can still build my own system if I wished to do so. I'd hate to see a world dominated by Apple, where that was no longer possible.
Re:Mossberg is "high class" infotainment. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mossberg is a technologist for the common (business) man. He writes about technology from the perspective of a normal person (what we might call 'user').
There is nothing overly provacative over this particular theory, except that it is probably wrong. In new fields, integrated, proprietary technology usually gets the headstart because it can innovate faster (not having to worry about standards and such). But eventually, as the new field matures, innovation slows and the advantages of standardization and commoditization catch up. Here [itconversations.com] is an excellent talk by Clayton Christensen at the 2004 Open Source Business Conference. It is really an excellent talk. Christensen may not be 100% right, but he is at least mostly right, and has some great insights and stories.
Apple is kicking butt right now because they developed an awesome family of music players that while proprietary, are not overly so, decent software for managing said devices (iTunes is great at some things, sucky at others, but overall is pretty decent), and the first sane online music store (and kudos to them for their successful negotiations with the record labels). It's excellence of execution more than a winning business model. Plus, the industry's perceived need for some sort of DRM, which will let Apple sustain it's closed system for awhile.
If we ever get past the DRM BS (hah!), we'd at some point be able to buy music from store A and play it on player B. At that point, Apple will lose margin in both markets (stores and players) due to increased competition (right now they are exploiting the oft-talked about but rarely observed concept of 'synergy').
WinXP on Apple HW has grass roots excitement (Score:2, Insightful)
You are. We live in a world where one sometimes needs or wants a Windows app. Emulation can be slow (PPC emulating x86), file compatibility can be spotty,
After decades of Mac zealotry ?!? Even MS's own employees have a thing called Mini Microsoft http://minimsft.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
No. Pick a site that has a World of Warcraft dual boot showdown, WoW on OSX/GL vs WoW on XP/D3D. XP/D3D kicks butt (for now), no more having to normalize the two computers, one computer running both OSs, a far fairer comparison. Comparisons like this generate a lot of organic grass roots excitement. Comparisons like this and being able to coneniently run formerly troublesome software is something worth getting excited about.
The Apple world is quite Orwellian. Yesterday's "enemy" is today's partner, get used to it. IBM, Microsoft, Intel, they've all flipped sides at least once. If you are going to be associated with Apple, get used to this and learn to go with it.
Re:The article submitter... (Score:4, Insightful)
This for an article published on the WSJ web site.
I think that about says it all.
What exactly does it say? It says that someone working at the Wall Street Journal was one of the first people to know that article was live and knew it would be interesting to Slashdot. (If it wasn't interesting it wouldn't have gotten posted, right? If there was posting-payola involved they wouldn't have made it so obviously submitted by the newspaper, would they?)
That someone from the WSJ would submit their articles isn't surprising is it? Slashdot has been around for quite a few years now and its original mainstream claim to fame was its large audience(Slashdot effect). There might be a hint of impropriety if the submitter had hidden their identity, but as it is, what's the problem?
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But what about the Games!? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have been a PC gamer for years and it has been the primary reason that a Mac usually sits to the side of my windows machine, and not in front of it. As I have gotten older and my free time is more and more sparse, I tend to enjoy less and less video games and more and more console games as I can jump on and off and enjoy.
The only game I have played on a computer in the last year is World of Warcraft, which now plays nicely on my MacBook Pro.
The rest of my entertainment from video games consists of an occasional round of Fight Night 3 on my xbox 360 or some hack'n'slash with Oblivion (again on the 360) or Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter (again on the 360).
My gaming career was on the PC, never gave the consoles much credit as I could build a PC to do much better graphics and seemed to have more fun online playing games.
But , other than my occasional WoW binges, who wants to be cramped in a corner of the house huddled behind a PC when you can spend that time hanging with your kids playing fun games behind a 65" high-def TV with graphics that match what I am seeing on my PC, without any compromise of playing online with other people (via. xbox live for example).
To get to the point of my rant, that's the biggest reason my Mac is now a viable computer for me.. not the interoperability, but more the fact I don't really game on my PC any longer.
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:4, Insightful)
In contrast, x86 machines were built from modular components. If you wanted to, you could order different components from vendors and assemble the machine yourself. More common, though, you would pay someone else to assemble the components for you. Gateway, Dell, HP, whoever you picked, they could get the same components as every other manufacturer, and put them together, then ship it to you. You got a fully functional system, but since it wasn't proprietary you could easily swap out parts, and the competition in who was providing these pieces meant lower prices and (sometimes) better performance.
Now move to the software analogy. With Windows, Microsoft builds a bunch of pieces that they assemble into an operating system. They sell it in several different styles, and you can pick which one you want; but the pieces they use to make those systems are not available to anybody else. Another company cannot just come in, buy the parts, and assemble a version of Windows to sell to you. It's a closed market.
Linux, on the other hand, is nearly identical to the x86 market. The system is composed of a bunch of pieces that fit together in standardized ways. Many different people or groups have taken a stab at building versions of these components, though. You can take kernels patched and tweaked in any of thousands of different ways, different device systems, different GUIs, etc, and assemble them into a functional system. Individuals can do this themselves, but more often they will get a full package from some company that has taken these widely available pieces and assembled them.
The situations are parallel to a striking degree. And the results are nearly the same as well. Apple makes computers in which all the parts work together. You don't have to worry about the CPU overheating and frying the motherboard. All the parts are quality controlled, and while they may not be the very best on the market, you know the system is going to Just Work (tm). Windows is the same. You can't swap out the chron manager or the system logger if you want different functionality, but you also know that one piece of the OS isn't going to eat the rest of it. With Linux, you have a huge range of choice in which components you assemble, but that comes with the added risk that some available components are much lower quality than others, and some may be incompatible with each other; exactly the same way with assembling x86 components yourself.
In the end, who won? Well, it's not a perfect parallel, but it seems that in the long run, interchangeable parts and systems with more options won out. It took companies who would hide that abstraction from the user to do it, but Linux is getting there. Fedora, Suse, Linspire, etc are all catching on more and more, and as people start to realize that "computer" is not synonymous with "Windows", they'll continue to do so.
It's not an end-to-end model. (Score:4, Insightful)
Now let's apply this. I have a PowerBook that is very reliable. I also have a desktop that's very reliable (in fact, 3). However, these desktops are component-based machines; they run Linux. How is it that these component-based macchines are as reliable as my end-to-end model PowerBook? I bought components which aren't garbage. AMD CPUs, Kingston lifetime warranty RAM, Enermax power supplies, etc. It's more expensive than what most people probably buy, but I've never had a peap of trouble. I know what components to buy because I take the time to look into it, and because I only buy components that the Linux kernel supports (which, for some reason, happen to me more reliable than random Taiwanese garbage).
With Apple's model, we skip this step. Apple themselves takes the time to try and get quality components that work reliable with OS X. Since they vend the machine and the hardware, they can't hide behind the "Windows sucks" excuse the way cheaper component suppliers can. However, and this is important to note, they're still interested in shrinking costs as much as possible to maintain their fat margins, and they still like to charge a high markup. Plus, they're not immune from mistakes (note the GOBS of heatsink goo on the heatpipes of the 15" MacBook Pros). This means they don't always do as good a job as someone who knows what I do.
Really, it's just moving the burden of choosing chocolates from shit from the consumer up the chain a bit, but even then it's not perfect. If you want thinks done right, do it yourself -- learn about PC construction, or pay someone you trust (be it Apple or your friend). If you just go buy the cheapest thing you can, you're on a roller-coaster ride to the bottom in terms of quality and consistency -- that's why Wal-mart's stuff is different (they have different product badged the same to cut costs), and also why Wal-mart is not always the best place to shop.
Adam Smith's invisible hand requires you to do research!
Re:Software is the reverse (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the last point not withstanding, Apple has a history of building applications for very focused tasks. You browse and open files with the Finder. You browse the internet with Safari. You send e-mail with Mail. You organize your life with iCal. You manage contacts with Address Book. Etc. Etc. They have--annoyingly, in my opinion--taken a more MS approach on certain applications, as of late. Previewing in the Finder, for instance. Or the grouping of music and movies under the "media" umbrella in iTunes. But on the whole, their applications stay in their own little sandboxes.
Microsoft tends to take the opposite approach. Outlook does contacts, calendar and mail. Explorer does...everything?
Sure, Apple makes their applications play well through system services. But interoperability is just good practice and doesn't fundamentally change the "one application per task model." Why wouldn't you want your contacts easily accessible from an e-mail composition window, for example. But that is as far as Apple takes it; if you want to manage your contacts, move on to the next app.
Similarly, putting code to accomplish common tasks in shared libraries is just common sense. For example WebKit which allows Mail and Dashboard tools to render HTML. Notice neither of these apps browse the web. Html is a file format and allowing applications to understand this format is very different than them becoming web browsers in and of themselves.
Now the ability to remove any of these applications from your system is another matter entirely. With the exception of IE, I largely agree that removing the Apple components is roughly as difficult as removing the Windows components. That is an area I personally would like Apple to change their ways. Even if they only allowed it to be done from the command line, allowing the "system level" services like the Finder to be replaced would be a nice feature of the OS.
Taft
The market has changed (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is, you're not going to be upgrading your economy PC from Dell or HP anyway. If something faster comes out, you just buy a new PC because they're $500. Apple is now in this price sphere though, and the Mac mini looks sexy and small compared to a $500 Dell in a mid-tower case. Home PCs are commodity hardware, and this fits Apple's business model a whole lot better. Who cares if it's expandable if you're just going to replace it anyway?
The Mac mini is Apple's $500 box, and when you compare it spec wise to a comparably priced Dell or HP, it stands up. Of course, a $500 Dell comes bundled with Google Desktop and MusicMatch Jukebox, and the Mac comes with the whole iApp suite, which is more powerful and easier to use for a home user than anything even available on Windows.
Which would you choose? The $500 Dell or the $550 Mac Mini?
Re:But what about the Games!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Says who? Please cite some references.
Re:Can Network With Windows Machines (Score:3, Insightful)
Yea because getting Active Directory and a Mac is so easy to do...
This is my only complaint about macs in a PC dominated world. It's a struggle to get AD working properly. Once this is a simple point and click wizard I'll be thrilled!
Well, as other have pointed out AD is a properiety technology. On the other hand if the network admins knows what they are doing, then Macs can easily be supported. Truth is LDAP is actually supported by the AD Server, but a number of admins never bother to activate it. Similarly Exchange supports SMTP and POP, but it needs to be activated. The issue here is not so much the Macs, but the system admins making it possible.
It's really about adaptive (Score:2, Insightful)
Busted (Score:4, Insightful)
Accusing someone of corruption is a pretty easy path to take when you lack the intellect to come up with real counterarguments.
How is that closed? (Score:4, Insightful)
From The Blues Brothers: "We have both kinds o' music here—country and western!"
Re:Missing the change... (Score:1, Insightful)
That Dell for $400-600 comes with a mouse, KB, speakers, minimum 1 year warrenty, 6months of internet access, and at least a 17in flat panal or probably a 19in flat panal. Did you intentional leave that part out because it might not prove your point? You can continue to ignore that facts and but you look really stupid when you tell people your absurd price theory.
Last week Dell had this online:
$349 with free shipping
* Intel Celeron D Processor 325 (2.53 GHz, 533 FSB)
* Genuine Windows XP Home Edition
* 256MB DDR SDRAM at 400MHz
* Dell USB Keyboard and Dell Optical USB Mouse
* Free Upgrade!! 19 inch E196FP Analog Flat Panel
* Integrated Intel® Extreme Graphics 2
* 160GB Ultra ATA/100 7200RPM Hard Drive
* 56K PCI Data Fax Modem
* Single Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability
* Integrated 2.0 Channel Audio
* 1Yr Ltd Warranty, 1Yr At-Home Service, and 1Yr HW Warranty Support
Not the fastest thing in the world but that was just an example. Don't even bother to waste your time picking apart my example, it is exactly that, an example. I can actually go to thier web site and look around and post much better deal or may have to wait maybe a day or two when they rotate the specials again. They have many other faster options under $600 and they have different specials every week. A quick stop already shows quite a few dual cores for around $500 with a 19in LCD right there now and a "loaded one" for $699 and no rebates.
So in summary.. Don't let a little thing like some facts get in the way of your opinion and keep spreading your incorrect information. I'm sure the others that blindly agree with you will moderate accordingly instead of actually looking to see for themselves.
Re:Actual Email sent to Walt Mossberg (Score:3, Insightful)
That must be it. Of course, there's absolutely no other reason he'd stop reading or responsding to your emails; I mean since you're the only guy who writes to the Mailbag and you're not annoying or combative. I guess that's why nobody hires international news correspondents to write software or run networks. Comments like this are probably why nobody hires software engineers or network admins to write international news columns.
Your critiques are valid, but are poorly written, difficult to address and smack of simple name-calling.
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not about replacing OS X, so much as it is supplementing your Mac-using experience by letting you have easy access to your old Windows stuff. And for long-time Mac users, it's about getting access to the (very few) Windows applications that don't have a Mac version or equivalent.