Leopard Vs. Vista 420
Rockgod writes to point us to an ongoing series of articles, "Leopard vs. Vista," by Daniel Eran. The latest is part 4, Naked Sales, and it's a meditation on hardware without Windows, Apple's strategy of hardware-software integration, and the dissatisfactions that arise from the creative tension between Microsoft and hardware manufacturers. (The earlier articles in the series are linked form this one.) From the article: "The vast majority of PCs come with Windows pre-installed, and actually can't be sold without it. Leading PC hardware makers can't freely advertise PCs sold without Windows, or with an alternative OS such as Linux, without having to pay Microsoft significantly more for every other OEM license they ship. That's why all name brand PCs prominently repeat their own version of the cult-like phrase 'Dell recommends Windows XP Professional,' as if there were a choice in the matter and they thought it would be helpful to provide some guidance... Apple's current Get a Mac advertising campaign doesn't compare Mac OS X to Windows, it compares the complete experience of a Mac with that of a PC. After all, Windows is only half of what's wrong with the PC as a product."
Why can't they still sell PCs without OS? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm surprised that Dell, Gateway and HP would still be taking it up the rear. Ubuntu is a good enough system for a lot of homes that only need to do email, web, and type grade and high school papers.
Why would they still be subject to such ridiculous terms, especially after MS has been convicted of abusing their monopoly status?
Hardware and software... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, but hardware is at least half of why I haven't gotten a Mac.
I don't *LIKE* the touchpad, I have both the touchpad and the
clitmouse on my laptop and I finally disabled the touchpad because
it got in my way more than I used it. I also have a built-in
fingerprint reader, and am quite fond of using it for 2-factor
authentication. For anything but play, I wouldn't go back to a
machine without it. Sure, I could carry a mouse and fingerprint
reader, but I don't *LIKE* mice, and really don't need more crap
to carry.
Combine that with a friend with a Power Book complaining about how
the pretty from part of the palm rest is too "sharp" and bothers
his wrists, where mine has a nice 30 degree on-ramp, and the
nifty metal cases on the Power Books significantly cuts down
on WiFi range...
I know that Apple wants to both simplify their software support
requirements, and continue to get revenue from hardware sales.
However, they're cutting themselves off from software revenues
by requiring it to be used on their hardware. I'd have bought
and tried on a spare laptop already if I had the option.
It boils down to this: If Apple's hardware is so fantastic,
why do they feel that the only way they can compete is by
forcing people to use it? What are they afraid of?
Sean
the silent mac minority (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:subject (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Integration has always been Apple's differentia (Score:5, Interesting)
But that's not really a wise way to "measure" it. Apple is a hardware and software company. Where would Apple be without their OS and software? It's integral to their strategy. The original Mac was revolutionary because of the software design in the OS, not the hardware (although there were hardware innovations as well.)
Same with iLife, iWork, etc... all of the consumer level offerings are not serialized.
But Apple sells a lot more than just consumer-level software. Final Cut Pro, etc. Logic Pro is not just serialized, you need a hardware dongle to run it.
They are a hardware company. They sell Macs and iPods (soon to be phones). People buy Macs because of the software, not the other way around.
If people buy Macs because of their software not the hardware, then isn't that an argument that they are a more software-driven company than hardware-driven?
Re:"Macs aren't more expensive..[shipped] with an (Score:3, Interesting)
I did a comparison between a Dell D620 and a MacBook. Guess what? The price was almost exactly the same. And depending on how you configured each to get a close match between the two, either one could be more expensive.
Bottom line, there is no appreciable difference in price when it comes to base features, warranty, ect.
Re:the silent mac minority (Score:5, Interesting)
Our research group uses lots of USB keys, partially because we have lots of people in our group, but also because some of us *cough, cough* tend to lose theirs. Of three major brands of USB keys, they all work initially with XP, with OSX, and with linux (KDE, XFCE, command-line, whatever). About eight of the ten or so keys, though, have eventually failed on the OSX machines around here, though still work just fine for XP and linux. I don't know which OS/filesystem causes it, or if the OSX machines just don't push out the voltage necessary to operate these USB devices properly after a while, or what.
Also, plugging in my dad's digital cameras and my girlfriend's into OSX has never failed to bring up easy dialogues to transfer pictures, etc. But they've never failed on XP (without installing drivers) nor on linux (again, drivers are already in the system, and there are no problems).
Nothing lasts forever. (Score:3, Interesting)
E-nuff already - just buy what you like!
Hmmm, how about a nice Dell Power PC, preloaded with Debian? What, I can't buy such a nice hardware and software combination from the world's bigest PC maker? What gives? Oh yeah, the M$ monopoly I had almost forgoten about.
The market is not free to provide people what works best or even what they want. The Mac people, like everyone, puts up with the higher costs and intentional waste of M$'s dirty little tricks. It's worth documenting, but it won't last forever. The price is so high that people are looking for alternatives. M$ won't last much longer.
Re:Why can't they still sell PCs without OS? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Because there is no enforcement. (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:Integration has always been Apple's differentia (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Macs aren't more expensive..[shipped] with an (Score:2, Interesting)
At the time we were (and still are) building our own pcs for desktops and servers and installing Windows XP Pro on the desktops and Windows Server 2003 on the servers.
As far as hardware went, buying Macs were considerably more expensive than our build-it-ourselves machines.
Software though was almost the same between the two and either platform would serve our needs just fine.
Where the difference came in was when we added in the cost of additional software required for Windows like anti-virus, anti-spyware, etc. and the cost in downtime/manhours spent rebooting Windows, reinstalling to get the network working again, etc. i.e., the day to day maintenance of a Windows machine in a business environment.
Our final decision was that at least for our purposes, Windows vs Mac was Leasing vs Buying. Windows + our home brew machines gave us a much lower initial cost than buying Macs. However, the cost in downtime and maintenance over the life of the computer was much higher than that of our Macs. Total cost was about the same whether we went OS X or Windows. OS X would just keep us more stable over the life of the computer which is a very good thing when it comes to servers.
But not long after deciding that we were going to start moving to an all Mac house, he died from liver cancer. I'm just the system admin and his partner detests Macs. So we're still running Windows for everything.
Funny though, he gets bent because his computers are constantly getting infected, run slow, etc. while my two computers never have any problems. Of course my two machines run OS X and Linux and he seems to spend a lot of time on pr0n sites (even though he denies it.
So as far as I'm concerned, neither is more expensive than the other. When I can, I use whatever will do the job the best. When it comes to servers, I tend to use Linux and build-it-yourself server hardware. At home, we're almost completely OX X now.
laptops, clitmouse, touchpad, andmouse (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, but hardware is at least half of why I haven't gotten a Mac. I don't *LIKE* the touchpad, I have both the touchpad and the clitmouse on my laptop and I finally disabled the touchpad because it got in my way more than I used it. I also have a built-in fingerprint reader, and am quite fond of using it for 2-factor authentication. For anything but play, I wouldn't go back to a machine without it. Sure, I could carry a mouse and fingerprint reader, but I don't *LIKE* mice, and really don't need more crap to carry.
I prefer mice to touchpads but as for clitmouse, I don't recall ever hearing of them. Years ago when I had a working laptop, now that Apple has released the Macbook Pro with Core 2 cpus I'll get one, I had a second mouse I kept in the laptop case to use when away from home. Sometimes I even carried a keyboard. Now, when Apple is actually shipping MacBook Pros, I may get a graphics tablet with it. Of course if so I'll run into the problem of being able to carry it all in one case.
I know that Apple wants to both simplify their software support requirements, and continue to get revenue from hardware sales. However, they're cutting themselves off from software revenues by requiring it to be used on their hardware. I'd have bought and tried on a spare laptop already if I had the option.
Apple isn't just a hardware or a software company, as someone noted earlier in this thread Apple is a systems company. If Apple were to release OSX for generic PCs, to tell the truth I'd like to see that, then they woud run into more than one problem. First Apple would have to support more than just one hardware system or a multitude pieces of hardware. Then if for whatever reason, a computer system or hardware didn't work, Apple would get blamed, it wouldn't "just work". Two, Apple would see a decline in hardware sales. And conceivably the biggest mistake is that they would run smack dab right into MS's territory, the commodity desktop OS.
It boils down to this: If Apple's hardware is so fantastic, why do they feel that the only way they can compete is by forcing people to use it? What are they afraid of?
Apple doesn't force anyone to use thir hardware, I'm using an HP PC so Apple didn't force me to use a Mac. Yes, if you want to use OSX you have to use Mac hardware but that's a choice, you don't have to use OSX. Simply if you use OSX on a Mac then you know it's going to work, Apple couldn't guarranty that if they allowed OSX to run on any old computer, on top of which as stated above Apple would see a decline in hardware sales.
FalconRe:Because there is no enforcement. (Score:3, Interesting)
A company could offer a cheap Windows and a more expensive Linux option, but I doubt many people would pay for Linux if they could just buy the cheaper machine, nuke the install, and replace it with a free OS (or just keep using Windows).
Re:Because there is no enforcement. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Because there is no enforcement. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Nothing lasts forever. (Score:2, Interesting)
More because the number of people wanting Power PCs with Debian would be so small as to be inconsequential, and to make the whole affair commercially unviable.
Yeah, and no one wants AMD either [slashdot.org], right? Are you telling me that there is no better combination for all users than Windoze on Intel? What you are saying makes no sense
If the market were free it would have as much competition and variety as produce. Big computer makers would offer "exotic" combinations to suit perverts such as Windows users like you and more practical combinations to everyone else. That the situation is reversed is the result of market coercion. It's not natural and it won't survive the downfall of non free software.
Mac users like shiny things... and you're a troll (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not so much that OS X is shiny as it is polished and doesn't get in my way when I want to get work done. Of course, a properly configured Linux box does this as well, when you compare it to a Windows machine. But you miss out on the great integration that the Mac offers, not only between the apps that Apple makes, but also how third-party apps integrate into the desktop.
Re:Can someone explain this to me? (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, does Apple advertise, "This is waaaay better than you could ever do it!" No. Again, nothing is stopping you from posting your 1337 r0x0r new system (d00d, with picz!) on the intarweb. I don't see what that has to do with Apple, or to the other guy's post.