Re:it's software that matters (Score 1)

I'm not talking about technology per se, or which system is better. I'm talking about Apple's general failure as a profitable company for the past decade. You may recall that the general topic is Apple possibly going out of business. It put forth the premise that Apple's business model is severely flawed, which you never really addressed, either in your vulgar initial response, and only vaguely in your most recent response (in the future, please refrain from ad hominem attacks; their improper in this forum and don't bolster your point).

And what helped save Apple from bankruptcy was a $500 million investment from Microsoft. Look at the stock performance for Apple since the release of iMac. It's a steep decline.

Market share matters because it reflects demand. If the demand for Apple was higher, it would be reflected in the market share. Additionally, XServe, which is aimed at corporate environments, is going to be governed by the same bottom line as other competitors in the market. I ask you to define "better" For business purposes, it is whichever platform offers the most capability at the lowest price. For this reason, although the XServe may, or may not, be technically superior to Itanium, Sun, or any other server, if it costs too much to implement, it will not succeed.

Additionally, your average corporate user does not need G4 processors in its workstations. Moreover, the better the workstations, the higher potential for employee theft. There is a certain wisdom in using last year's models in the workplace. Furthermore, any corporate IT manager worth his/her salt does not rush out and buy the newest machine, but rather keeps the current ones for at least 5 years to take advantage of depreciation for tax purposes. Most companies require only word-processing, spreadsheet, presentation, and internet/email capability, further supporting the idea of using moderately outdated machines.

Given that many companies already have networks firmly in place, many will be unwilling to switch, and unable to justify switching. The iMac strategy works only works on a consumer level, where the user only risks losing time and some non-critical user data. Apple is getting into the network game too late and with too little money too be able to gamble.

As to my sources, my information comes from Wired, WSJ, and PC Magazine.