Apple's Leopard Strategy to Kill Microsoft and Dell? 661
RX8 writes "A Digital Trends article suggests that Apple's Leopard agenda is to get Windows users to use Apple hardware then convert them to the Apple camp and that Apple will also be directly targeting Dell by offering a better experience when it comes to media and related tasks. Lastly, they suggest that Steve Jobs held back on showing more Leopard features so people would not get too excited and stop buying in 2006. 'If you get too excited about what is supposed to be an incredibly amazing product you simply won't buy a new Apple this year.'"
This is a pretty stupid article... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has made forrays into the cheaper market (the mini) and Dell takes a poke at the top end (thier quad graphics solutions/purchase of Alienware), but they both have primarily differnt markets.
People shouldn't assume that Apple want's to be the dominant controller, just because other companies think that way, there is much profit to be made by being select too (I would imagine Apples profit per unit sold is much greater then Dells, much like Nintendos standard "make a profit not control the market" stance grants them)
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is competitive on price-- the low-end just doesn't go as low. So Dell sells a $300 desktop, and Apple doesn't compete in that market. But you can't compete with Dell in that market, either, because they sell high-quality cheap crap in massive quantities, and they get as good prices as anyone. The only way to get a computer out the door for less than Dell is to sell low-quality cheap crap, and you'll probably still need to take some losses. The profit margins on those $250 Dells are just miniscule, and you can't under-cut that very much. So if you're waiting for a $100 Mac mini, you'll be waiting for a while.
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is slightly cheaper or equivalent to Dell on same spec machines. the only difference is that Dell also sells cheap shit that Apple wouldn't dignify with their logo.
Re:Why Apple will never kill Dell (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not even in the same market: Apple isn't competing with Dell's primary market to begin with.
Exactly. Every time new Apple hardware comes out, there's always someone griping about how they can get a Dell for much cheaper. That's like comparing a Toyota Corolla and an Acura TL on price alone. When you compare actual specifications, the two cars are not in the same league. A more fair assessment woule be a Lexus ES vs an Acura TL or a Honda Civic vs a Toyota Coroll"
Imagine how silly this sounds:
"Bah, XP Pro is $199? I can get XP Home for $99. XP Pro is way too pricey compared to XP Home."
Why would I want to... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember - This is Not Apple Speaking! (Score:5, Insightful)
Like a lot of these types of articles, it's all supposition and theorising. Nothing concrete, just ideas. These are the same people who confidently predict the iPhone is coming soon, or for years predicted the imminent demise of Apple (any day now!) so they've got little to no credibility in my eyes.
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now just deliver them for a price I want.
There's a paradox at work here
History has shown that the best product doesn't always capture the greatest marketshare. BetaMax was far better quality then VHS, but look which survived. The original Mac beat Windows 3.1 hands down, but again look who has 95% of the desktop market? I think you really can get what you pay for, the paradox is people too often expect awesome for cheap, then buy cheap and expect awesome. If you want it, buy it.
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Missed the Memo (Score:4, Insightful)
Be so kind as to explain this to me. Apple offers a very, very competitively configured and priced machine in the Mac Pro. The only thing that literally isn't the best on the Mac Pro is the hard disk (configurable, self manageable to save some bucks), and the video card (again, configurable, and self manageable if you want to save a few dollars and install yourself).
The software is top notch (and runs Windows if you just don't care for Mac OS X), the platform is incredibly feature rich using the newest processors, RAM, not a sign of old PCI (unlike most boards), Firewire 400 and 800, hell, Apple put so much attention into the design they spaced the video card port out on the motherboard as to not block a PCI-Express port if you need a dual-lane video card.
Another detractor could be said to be 16x PCI-Express SLI/Crossfire, but arguably the cards can't make use of that much bandwidth, and arguably it's not worth the price to who Apple configured the machines for: Professionals. Then again, either Intel will have to put out a 32x capable chipset, or Apple will have to go fishing for a new one (and there will be plenty to choose from).
So the fact is, as a professional workstation, there is nothing that is competitive with the Mac Pro. They've delivered more than anyone for the lowest price possible, and actually made it configurable enough to make it fit anyone's budget, even on the high end. Call me back when Dell stops slapping Intel design recommendation boards with Dell logos in their machines.
Consider the source... (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole idea that Apple could 'kill' Microsoft or Dell is too far-fetched to even consider. The only way either company could die is by suicide.
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Missed the Memo (Score:2, Insightful)
The Windows PC is a more or less open plattform. We often blame Microsoft but have to keep in mind that real mess is created by ugly third party drivers. Apple does not aim to support the whole hardware universe. It is a interoperability hell from a competition perspective and a interoperability paradise from a plattform perspective. Happiness in proprietary slavery?
It is technically possible to port Mac OS X in order to be executable on general cheap Intel-Computers. But they do not want it. You know that GNUstep aimed at creating a runtime plattform for Linux, Windows and Mac. So it should not be a problem for Apple to provide software which makes OS X apps run on Windows but they just don't want it.
What are the advantages of Apple?
- a strong, often specialised, user community, esp. in media and design
- many commercial applications esp. Video, graphic and Microsoft Office. Earlier IE was an argument.
- a fame of good usability
- some well designed applications such as iTunes
- marketing
On the long run I do not think Apple's Operating Systems will survive. If the Open source community chose GNUstep instead of GNOME Apple would be history or liberated today.
Re:Doh! (Score:3, Insightful)
You can upgrade your mac to the next version of OSX, and the one beyond that, etc etc...
Granted it's definitely not free (Jaguar, Panther and Tiger were $129 each, 10.1 "Puma" was a free upgrade over 10.0 because the latter sucked ass so badly you could definitely not make people pay to finally have a working system), but you'll be able to upgrade without any problem (in fact, John Siracusa from Ars Technica tested OSX 10.0 to 10.3 on the same G3/400 machines that was originally running MacOS9, the system was only retired after 10.3, and he installed every OSX as updates in order to not have to reconfigure his system).
I think the people who purchase their Apple hardware right before the release of an OSX major version qualify for a "free" update version (you only have $20 of packaging costs to pay), but Leopard isn't scheduled for release before Q1 2007.
Re:Sounds good until... (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that is Microsoft's fault. After all they use a close format and even partially dropped support for WMV on a Mac. Personally, Quicktime and VLC work just fine for Divx and various other torrent media.
Besides, WMV and Mov wars on the web are loosing to Flash (Youtube and Google videos) so that is a moot point. If you want to watch video on webpages it will be all flash soon and everything else will run under VLC.
Don't think it will work (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow, he really is clueless (Score:5, Insightful)
Another of the primary reasons Apple isn't being forthcoming about Leopard is the fear that if people get too excited about a product coming early in 2007 they will stop buying in 2006"
Uh, yeah, that might apply when you're talking about an expensive product. Mac OS X costs $129, and Leopard will run on any Mac sold in 2006 (and probably several years previous). Anyone who is paying attention to what's coming out of WWDC knows that and can likely afford $129 to upgrade. Everyone else who's interested in a Mac now will happily buy a Tiger system and probably not even notice when Leopard ships.
Furthermore, Microsoft has been talking up Vista for five years. You didn't see Dell or HP go out of business for lack of sales because people are waiting for Vista, did you?
~Philly
Re:Why Apple will never kill Dell (Score:5, Insightful)
Silly to you, but it happens EVERY day, among the group of people who don't really use their computers for everything a computer can do.
Most people just want to download their AIM smileys and play the Sims. Why spend an extra hundred bucks for that? And why spend over $1000 for a machine that's cute, when it's just going to sit on the shitboard-n-glue Wal*Mart computadesk, get clogged with cat hair and peanut butter, when there are perfectly good smiley-downloading-Sims-playing computers with labels like Dell, Acer, or Daewoo for much less?
Re:Missed the Memo (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, bullshit. I am so tired of this lame argument. Microsoft has been dictating to the hardware vendors for years. They have a very tight relationship with Intel, telling them exactly what features they want in the next round of chips.
And what the hell do you think WinHEC [microsoft.com] is for? The DDKs are there for anyone who wants them.
i think the hardware guys are doing the best with what they've got. And what they've got is Microsoft's buggy code to work with. After all, it's up to the OS to decide if a bad driver can bring down the whole system.
No, it shouldn't (Score:3, Insightful)
Read more about it. [slashdot.org]
~Philly
Re:Why would I want to... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why would I want to... (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple doesn't get it...it's not about the HW or OS (Score:3, Insightful)
You see, it has nothing to do with the 10-30% price difference in an Apple, or the fact that Apple (C)Won't compete in the entry level systems (my small office runs on a $200 dell server that's three years old an hasn't so much as sneezed in all that time). I can't use Apple (or Linux) because I can't afford to (a) relearn how to manage the OS, (b) relearn all new applications for my technical work, (c) force all my clients to figure out how to interact with my non-industry-standard applications. Most of that stuff is MS only. Oh, sure, I suppose I could spend a few months figuring out if every single one of my dedicated engineering apps works with Wine, or (um, shoot, can't remember the Apple one...
I'm stuck with MS at work because most of the vendors only write for MS. I use MS at home because I use MS at work. I can't afford to re-buy my apps for home. I use the same apps both places (mostly in conformance with the EULAs, by god damned fair use if not). When that changes, we'll re-evaluate.
Tell Steve he has more work to do.
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does that mean it's sensible for them to do?
Apple, like any business, sets their price point for maximum proffit. If they drop the price 10%, they will get maybe an 8% increase in sales, which will not quite make up for the drop in price, and their net proffit drops. If they raise the price 10%, they will get maybe a 12% drop in sales, which again cuts into proffit sufficiently to drop their bottom line below where it is now. I'm sure Apple spends a lot on market research to make sure they have selected the optimal price points for their products. Your decision as to whether or not to buy based on the current price affects the optimal price point, so a Macintosh's price is not actually set by Apple, it's set by me and you, the consumers.
You just want good hardware on the cheap. There's nothing really wrong with that until you start saying it would be to anyone's benefit besides your own.
In an ideal world, if you paid more for a product it would be better, higher quality. If you paid less for it, it would be a poorer quality. It doesn't always work this way, but that is still the general idea. Keep that in mind when you want to "have your cake and eat it too". Reminds me of the production manager's motto: "fast, good, cheap, pick two."
Re:Why would I want to... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, but the point is that in future, I can't take these 3rd party components, or a 3rd party computer, and have a new machine that runs MacOS and my Mac software.
Of course there's nothing wrong using a platform if you prefer it, but it is a problem depending on a product from a single company - years ago I was happy using the Amiga, but that only worked as long as Commodore were around, and were releasing the products that I wanted. Whether it's a platform, or something like a programming language, investing time and money into a closed solution from one company does have this disadvantage, that one should always bear in mind.
Wild attribution of genius (Score:3, Insightful)
The writer of that statement, in explaining why Apple must have dumbed-down their product announcements of late, attributes strategic genius to Steve beyond the pale. The suppositions behind such a statement is that
- Apple could never release a dud
- Steve is incapable of a less-than-stellar product introduction
Therefore, the thinking goes, it is master strategy to sell more this year so that people won't tank the stock (*ahem*) this year by not buying current inventory. Problem with this is that Apple has always led with its best foot forward: they announced the move to Intel before there was an Intel-based product offering, as a case in point.Attributing a master strategy as the reviewer in question has done is akin to Coca Cola aficionados who attribute New Coke as a masterful ploy to boost "Classic Coke" sales and loyalty over Pepsi Cola. Yeah, it turned out that CC pulled their butts out of a tight spot with the re-introduction of Coke Classic to appease the revolt, but calling it master strategy is revisionist history at best.
Let's just leave it at this: Apple has broken its string of amazing announcements (amazing in the marketing buzz generation sense) with a slight dud; expect more goodness in the future as Apple redoubles its efforts to overwhelm us with goodness.
Re:I'm a proud SJ fanboy and eMac owner (Score:4, Insightful)
Either way though, I do not think you'll be buying a Mac anytime soon then, since every one of your demands is something that just isn't going to be happening any time soon (i.e. OS X for generic Intel hardware, 3-5 year warranty standard on all devices and hardware and 1 major free OS upgrade). When you set up an impossible standard (that is, a standard that no PC companies could live up to), you have set yourself up for something where you could never be satisfied.
Re:Why Apple will never kill Dell (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, for a very lax definition of "work".
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple positions itself as a high-end vendor, as do many other companies. Why does that concept confuse so many people only when it applies to computers?
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:2, Insightful)
Any hard-core gamer will tell you that a tricked out PC will cost much more than a Mac. So your argument doesn't float because of varibles like usage.
Software and peripherial vendors on the other hand do charge more for Mac products in most cases because they sell fewer, supply-demand.
Each has it's place, usually software requirements/preferences. But where most people compare computers they could easily replace each other - Internet.
Reliability and ease of use goes to Mac, which means less training, and less tech support. This with the constant threats from viruses, malware, etc and the cost to install and update these puts some PCs more costly than their Mac counterpart.
Some day start reading "impartial" magazines like infoworld.com - some of the best minds in the computer business are writers there, Bob Metcalfe, the inventor of ethernet and founder of 3Com was a writer for years... read something other than PC World or Macworld to see what products do in the real world.
Our Macs can easily mount a PC on the desktop. With Bonjour (what a name?) for Windows makes them real plug-n-play, a term Microsoft started using with Windows98 but didn't deliver for years until XP.
Personally I still use my old but reliable ThinkPad PIII Win2000Pro, and love the totally silent Mac mini at home (+ Compaq TFT5000LCD), which I replaced a Wintel with and 1 more Mini on the way to be our entertainment control center - streaming wireless music etc. (ipodisfun.com) When people visit my home office they ask where is the computer? They see the old Tower sitting on the floor and assume that's it, but when they see OS X on the screen they scratch their heads, a PC running OS X? The mini is placed sideways looking more like a bookend.
So for our company, we live in harmony. PC and Mac, they both work hard to make our company work better.
Why not buy a Mac npw, then upgrade the OS? (Score:3, Insightful)
What a strange comment. Are there features of Leopard that need special hardware support, features that prevent Leopard from showing it's true potential on all Macs except 2007 models? I seriously doubt it. So buy a Mac whenever you want, then upgrade the OS when the next version is available. Sure, it will cost you $129, but that's little compared to the cost of a new Mac notebook (plus AppleCare, which is a requirement these days).
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:5, Insightful)
You facts aren't made up, just misleading. The $1200 Mac is a Core Duo with Mac OS X, the $1200 Intel is a Pentium D with Windows MCE.
So you get a faster clock, but less performance -- and the Mac can be upgraded to new chips whereas the PC is using an end-of-life architecture and a retarded version of Windows.
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Missed the Memo (Score:2, Insightful)
They have to do more than appeal to the masses. They need to appeal to game makers as well. Gaming is a big business and arguably what has pushed ahead a lot of computer innovation. People aren't ready to give up on computer gaming and until they are, Mac has nothing.
WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
On the long run I do not think Apple's Operating Systems will survive. If the Open source community chose GNUstep instead of GNOME Apple would be history or liberated today.
You, sir, have just said that "Apple is beleaguered" and you are not the first person to do so. But I will remind you, and everyone else like you, that this is 2006 and Mac OS X (beta) debuted in 1999. Macintosh has been around since 1984.
Apple's Operating Systems will be around for a lot longer than you think.
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Mac OS X should be sold for PCs (Score:3, Insightful)
It is far from that simple. Getting the average person to install a new OS on his or her existing machine, wiping out existing software in the process, is asking a lot. Most people just use what came on their machine and stay with that. Microsoft knows this well, as the biggest competitor for Vista by far will be Windows XP, and in that case people wouldn't even lose software compatibility when upgrading. Or think of it this way. Firefox is a free download, and there are a lot of reasons to use it over Internet Explorer. Yet, what is the browser share of Firefox? About 10%.
So I doubt that there is any immediate gain in unleasing OS X for sale to any random combination of PC components out there. Support costs would be very high, and those who install the Mac OS on their Dell are not going to get help from Dell, now are they? It is far better for Apple to just sell them a new machine with known, tested components.
Re:Missed the Memo (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting. When I go to the 'customise' page on Dell's website, the default card is a 128 MB Quadro, without even a DVI socket on it (it's dual VGA). Doesn't sound too "professional" to me. Pricewatch puts that at $115. Apple's 256MB 7300GT is $90 on pricewatch. Not that much difference, really, and it at least can drive a DVI display...
No argument that Apple's support is extra, but IMHO it's also a *lot* better - certainly in my experience anyway. I guess we'll agree to differ on this one. I have a dell server on support (since it's in a different country to me), and the quality of the support makes me shudder
And yet you can't buy more than 4G of RAM from them. At least Apple *sell* you RAM. Try it on the page - the 667MHz ram isn't yet available, and you can only get 4G of it! The damn stuff is so expensive that purchasing 64G will cost a small fortune anyway!
Bottom line: Apple is a lot cheaper than Dell (see my previous post [slashdot.org]) and it certainly does compete with the 690.
Simon.
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:2, Insightful)
You've apparently swallowed the Apple Kool-Aid on that one.
I saw Apple's slide of that part of their presentation. On the face, they looked like comparably equipped systems... until you spent the time to look a little closer. Among other differences, the Dell had a Quadro graphics card vs. the Apple's GeForce, and the Dell had a warranty 3 times as long as Apple's.
In other words, Apple basically configured a Dell system with the same hard drive, memory and CPU, then loaded up the Dell with a bunch of high-priced add-ons that the Mac Pro didn't have and called them "comparably configured" to make their price look better.
When MS uses these kinds of marketing tactics, they get slammed to the wall here. When Apple does it, people quote their marketing as if it's gospel without even checking whether or not it's true.
Re:Windows vs. Apple: Price (Score:3, Insightful)
In case this didn't occur to you, you are not exactly a good customer. Apple doesn't give a crap if you stick with Windows.
Oh, and be careful. That place called the grocery store? They want you to pay too. I know, f*** them!
Re:Missed the Memo (Score:2, Insightful)
You just cited a definitive example of a closed platform, and didn't even wince while doing it.
Re:Missed the Memo (Score:4, Insightful)
I have an Alienware laptop P4 3GH, around a year and a half old. It is still a nice machine and it runs most games ok. I then went out and purchase some new WWII game to play at a local lan party... Well 50% of the people there spent over an hour installing the freaking game and all the patches. Then the ATI people had to dork with their video drivers... another 30 min.... then after all that the game freaking killed my machine... I was able to uninstall it but for me this was a waist of 4 hours. Now the machine does one purpose and that is play EQII. My Windows/PC friends suggested getting a new machines and or reloading my OS from scratch. At this point I looked at a new video card for a PC and found that they still range around $300-$600. So to "play games" on a PC is going to set me back more than the cost of a PS3.
This is when the wheels started turning... I could get a PS3 (my PS2 has never caused me 4 hours of frustration just to game) and I could get a Macintosh for my work. So for me, a small gamer, I can say that I am very happy to be dumping the whole PC "gaming" experience and I will actually be saving money. I figure that the Macintosh will last me for around 4 years and the PS3 will be a viable gaming console for 5. "If" I was to do a new Alienware/Dell, I would need to buy one every two years to keep up OR I could get use to waisting time reloading my OS and downloading new crappy drivers every so often.
Please understand I am not knocking you PC gamers out there. I was someone who dropped $350-$500 for a new video card every year or so and upgraded my system every year or so, but I am tired of doing that now and I see a viable escape and lastly, please please please don't tell me "All my games load" If that is the case then good for you, it wasn't the case and NEVER has been with any LAN party I have been to.
Deet Dee-dee (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would any one wait to buy hardware for an OS update? Its not coming for atleast 6 months.
Re:Software or hardware (Score:4, Insightful)
It's funny, because the Mac fanbois at least hate Windows because it sucks and they can give reasons. Apple haters just seem to hate Apple and the logic is missing.
Re:Steve, you want my business? (Score:1, Insightful)
I view Apple just as I do Bose. They market and attempt to price there components just above the average to give the impression of something above the norm in quality. Both also have very strict pricing guidlines and inventory control at the retail level and you never see Bose on sale or 10% off and non sold stock is returned to the parent company, not sold at a discount by the retailer. I can not pinpoint Apples marketting staegy but Bose always pushed the direct reflecting (which imho sucks) and size. Ever sit in on a Bose demo? There is no competeing brands and they wow you with how much sound such a small speaker can produce. BFD, put a pair of Infinity full size speakers in there for half the price and compare the two. Your hearing characteristics and quality of sound has NOTHING to do with the size of speakers but yet people think it sounds awesome only because it is so small and our amazed. Apple kind of does the same exact thing with the size and colors but the computing experience is not anything great for many of the models. Look at the mini, for its size, it is great. Yeah but that enemic video card? Come on. Don;t be mislead by the size and automatically assume, awesome!! If you want something small, go for it. If you want to compare power, speed, flexibility, price, then compare those and make an informed decision.
Pity you're not using a Mac (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes the small things are what make the difference.
Simon.
Re:Missed the Memo (Score:3, Insightful)
We somewhat agree. I will use a PS3 and not EVER have to dork with any ATI driver crap issue again. Yes I will be limited to 1900X1080 resolution but that will be good enough for me. Where we will disagree is the amount of effort Windows gaming takes.
The facts speak for themselves 50% of well educated I.T. people couldn't play a freaking game on their systems given 4 hours to dork with it. I'm calling BS on this one but either way I have a very poor view on "I.T people" in general. I can give you stories about ITT grads who specialize in databases that didn't even know what a fucking "object" was or "educated" ITT's that can't troubleshoot for crap. Heck the GeekSquad guys call themselves IT's and we all know just how good they really are. The fact that they couldn't figure out their problem after 4hrs is pretty sad.
Your opinion, but then you were not there and you seem to want to generalize about I.T. people. The fact is this. You don't have a freaking clue on what the problems were and yet you feel completely comfortable saying the people there are idiots. Well one of the many issues was the latest patch had serious problems. So bad in fact that they had to relase yet another patch within a day, ahhh but that is life with PC games... release early and then relase patch after patch. EQII, Blizzard et all.
I and a ton of other people are sick and tired of this type of attitude with Windows fanboys. The "it works for me, so you all must be idiots". Well that is great for you!
Heck it took over an hour to install the freaking patches. Patches are game software issues, usually fixing minor bugs they new about but shipped anyway to meet a deadline. Thats common practice now. You'll have to download patches despite running Windows, Linux, or OSX. Not too mention that this is already starting to happen with console games. Expect it to become more commonplace down the line. Drivers? Are you kidding me? The only driver you really need to run a LAN party is a vid driver and those you should have downloaded at home on your own ages ago. They dont change that often.
Some patches are one thing, but to force guys to download around 600MB is insane. That is for the first freaking patch, then you have to apply yet another patch... Ah but wait there is more... You need to appy the first patch, launch the game then apply the second one. But wait there is more fun... skip that step and you get to reload the entire game again. Have you loaded a bare bones version of Battlefield 2 lately?
No more blue screens of death, no more adware, no more spyware, no more weird crap running on my system. Dear god man what are you doing to your machine?! Do you have a firewall or even an anti-virus running? Are you clicking every single
Typical windows fanboy... Ok I am freaking glad you don't have problems, but you are a fool to believe that Windows isn't plagued by this. You can hide you head in the sand as much as you want to and say yet again "It works for me" but trust me a vast majority of people out there it doesn't "just work". Yet the Macintosh pretty much does, and it is my belief that the PS3 will as well (much like the PS2 does now).
I am not trying to persuade you in to purchasing a Macintosh and PS3, but I can say without a doubt that my productivity will definately increase by just having a dedicated computer for work and a PS3 for gaming. My fun will definately go up not having to spend time patching my PS3 every time I want to play a game. Again I am glad it "works for you" and you ne
Re:People on Slashdot are sorely mislead. (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple on the other hand has increasing marketshare, increasing margins, increasing market share, R&D that provides tangible benefits to buying Apple products, and has the attention of the industry and the press. When was the last time anybody wrote about a product Dell introduced? I think that was its iPod killer... I haven't heard Jack all about its new Precision workstation. Dell has lost a lot of its tarnish as its stock has been pummeled. It has commoditized itself into a corner. All it had available was able to make boxes for less than the other guy. There comes a point where that won't take you any further. Dell is there now with no way out. Apple on the other hand has the iPod, its iLife suite, MacOS X, iWork, Final Cut, iconic designs (whether you like them or not) and Steeve's RDF.
Apple has that "je ne sais quoi" about it. And as much as people say it is hype for koolaid drinking Macbois, they are wrong. People become attached to their Macs in ways they don't with their PCs.
I've had 2 people at work and 3 friends switch over the past year. Most of them were kinda anti Mac and the others ambivalent. One changed because of his experience with the iPod and the others because they were tired of Windows and were willing to try something else in the hopes of finding something that just worked and didn't require them to fight with their computer all the time. None of them ever want to go back now. They are all doing far more with their computers now than they did before because of how easy it is. They never worry about trying something new, and hope that it doesn't hose their computer. And you know what? All of them are University educated, most of them engineers/computer programmers. They are not computer illiterate nor barely functional. Now they are trying to convince their family members to switch. That is what Apple's advantage is, and it seems that it is only growing.
Apple was upto 11% of the laptop market in the last quarter. Look at Amazon's top selling laptops, 3 of the top 4 are always MacBooks. The city I live in is continually sold out of them. When Apple introduces a Conroe based mini-tower just you wait to see the desktop number take off to suit.
The big thing keeping people from switching was the fear of not being able to run required PC apps. When Apple announced they were going to Intel everybody said it would kill them off in no time flat. Now Apple is gaining market share hand over fist. Growth of market share will now come in the household, where Apple has centrally positioned itself. The office marketplace is stagnant. How much faster do you need for that spreadsheet or database? None in most cases. Where I work we don't have any PC's on the net. Why? We're a small firm with one guy who does the IT in his spare time. We don't have the resources to deal with spyware and viruses. Only our Macs go on the net, and we have never had a single problem. With the new intel Macs and a solution like Parallels we will switch all our machines over to Macs as the PCs die off (or AutoCAD requirements become too high for our existing machines).
Anyway, back to your original point. Apple cannot simply be bought out by its competitors and will likely go back to 10-15% market share it once enjoyed. They've gotten MS to agree to release Office for the next 5 years, and are lining up more great feature for their hardware (Mac & iPod) and software. Not only is it VERY logical to expect Apple to grow significantly from here, it would be a mistake to look to the computer industry of 5 years ago and base your assumptions on that. The playing field has changed and is continuing to change. And Apple is the smaller nimble company adapting the quickest. The "much larger" companies have to fight inertia and aren't as quick to respond.