The Mac finally gains some ground on the Big Three

[thatcrazycajun]

BusinessWeek Online reports here that Apple Computer Inc. has posted record sales figures for the quarter just ended...driven this time, not by the ever-more-ubiquitous iPod, but, wonder of wonders, by their flagship product—the now-Intel-chip-based Macintosh computer. For the first time in its history (and despite internal scandal involving backdated stock options and external crisis involving a Windows virus accidentally shipped by their Asian contractor with some iPods), Apple finally has a real shot to catch up in market share with the world's top three computer makers: Gateway, the now-under-investigation Hewlett-Packard and Dell.

According to BW, fully half of people in Apple's retail stores who bought Macs described themselves as "new to the Mac," i.e., either first-time computer buyers or Windows-box switchers. It was a long, long time coming, but those of us who stuck by the Mac through the decades of trash-talking by industry press, Windows users and Wall Street are at last being vindicated. Excellence, at least once in a while, does win out.

Comments

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Too bad. If their prices were competitive, and they weren't monopolistic, and weren't moving toward, rather than away from, open-source and open-format models, I'd consider giving Apple my cash. Until then, any plans I have for a next purchase are for a white-box Intel system with the intention of loading Ubuntu. (Under no circumstances am I moving to Vista. As bad a monopoly as Apple is, Microsoft is still leagues worse.)

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry to hear you feel that way; however, none of your arguments hold water anymore. Apple's Mac prices are much more competitive these days with (and note this emphasis well) comparably equipped systems from Dell et al. Often what looks like Apple charging more is actually the other guys leaving you to add as extra-cost options stuff that Apple includes as standard equipment, as you'll see in this Macworld.com article:

http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/features/macproprice/index.php

As for open source, Darwin, the base for Mac OS X, has been open source for quite awhile now. And third-party software is available that lets you run either single applications or entire systems for Windows, Linux etc. on the same Mac, either dual-boot or concurrently. And did I mention all the third-party peripherals that are made for Mac? Thousands of 'em. I think you're still operating from anti-Mac bias based on obsolete experience.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

The problem with the "comparably equipped" argument is twofold: first, Apple's configurations are not as flexible as I'd want -- they make some things standard that I simply wouldn't place into a PC I'd custom-ordered or built; second; while you note correctly that there are lots of third-party peripherals made for Mac, they're not available as options on OEM purchases. Which means I'm still stuck paying Apple's prices for equipment I want, and sometimes for equipment I don't want.

There are questions, as well, about Apple's embrasure of open-source, and equally serious ones about its move from open standards to proprietary ones. Apple may have come a long way, but they still have a long way to go before I'd consider spending money in their Q'aabah.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

I read a good ways down the page on those links you posted, and the disses against Apple seem to boil down to two points: (a) "I don't want Apple restricting my right to use my data any way I damned well please," and (b) "I don't want Apple locking me into one file format/hardware platform."

In the first place, unless you yourself are the documentable sole creator of the data in question, someone somewhere is going to have some legal right and legitimate interest in restricting your usage of it. The "Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" legal precept applies to software and digital content as well as it does other areas.

In the second, (1) no platform is going to be totally without proprietary content of some kind. (That Intel box you want to run Ubuntu on? The chip is copyrighted. So's the rest of the box.) And (2) Apple is more supportive of a wide array of file formats, including open source, than it has ever been at any prior point in its history. Allowing for their legitimate business interests, you can have as much or as little control of your system as you are willing to do the work toward. Long-term viability of your data is way more subject to the advance of technology, the march of time and your level of responsibility in backup/maintenance than to the idiosyncrasies of any one file format or OS.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Actually, "shouting 'fire' etc." has to do with public safety, and its restrictions stem from that. That distinction aside, however, sure, some uses are restricted. Of course, the restrictions that are imposed technologically are even stricter, in many cases, than the ones in the law -- the doctrine of fair use is being whittled away, such that tech companies (playing lapdog to content conduits, and in some cases (iTMS) being both) are doing their damndest to make me have to pay for the same music in every new format. Not okay.

Your second argument is also specious. Sure, Intel's chips are proprietary. But there's a viable competitor in AMD. Moreover, their proprietary nature doesn't prevent me from using whatever video card, sound board, and/or hard drive I want with them, except as compatibility dictates (and for the most part, manufacturers work hard to be widely compatible so as not to lose sales). Apple's hardware is ONLY manufactured by Apple, and its prices aren't market-influenced, they're set by the sole source at what I consider artificially and unacceptably high levels.

Support for many formats? See these specific issues in the Mark Pilgrim link as examples:

• iChat? No thanks, AdiumX talks to everyone, not just your business partners.


• QuickTime? No thanks, VLC plays everything, and in full-screen.

Still not convinced. Macs may be pretty, but they're still part of an Evil Empire that isn't interested in serving my interests, and not worth my bucks.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

I would be a lot more comfortable with your insistence on choosing non-Mac hardware and software if you didn't insist on portraying Apple itself as "an Evil Empire." Apple is not looking to take over your life or your computer, at least not to the extent you fear, any more than most businesses you deal with are (and a lot less so than Micro$oft is, by my lights). Apple faces the same challenge as its peers do of balancing user needs/wants, its own legitimate business interests and those of its partners, and the philosophy of its executives. Seems to me they may not be perfect, but they do better at it than most. Remember Hanlon's Razor, too: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by simple stupidity." (Or in this case, possibly corporate inertia/bureaucracy and inexperience in certain areas.)

So what's wrong with the video and sound cards that come with the hardware? Far as I know, they're reasonably current tech. Are you so bleeding-edge-minded you need to have the absolute top of the market, or is it just the principle of the thing that you want to have the option of changing it? And why must everything you want in the system be OEM? Are you that pressed for space? And who says you have to use iChat or QuickTime? Your own link points out alternatives, and there are others more Mac-centric such as Colloquy.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

It's the principle of having a choice. Apple's hardware is probably okay -- in some cases, better, even -- but I don't like being locked into it. (When I say OEM, in this case, I mean that Apple doesn't ship with anything but Apple. If I want to change something, I get to do it on my own ADDITIONAL dime after purchase.)

I don't have to use iChat or QuickTime; the idea here is that, like Internet Exploder, it's the installed default, and while I may know enough to change it, lots of folks won't. That's exactly the same behavior as M$, and one of the reasons I persist in saying Evil Empire. They may not be malicious (though I think that I attribute lots less accidental behavior to Apple than to Microsoft), but their choices aren't what I want in a company that's supposed to be customer-oriented.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

>>Apple's hardware is ONLY manufactured by Apple...<<

Again, not true. Apple has made conscious moves toward using more and more industry-standard parts in its machines, and subcontracts their manufacture in many cases to other companies who make similar parts for non-Mac computer companies.

[(Anonymous)]

> I don't have to use iChat or QuickTime; the idea here is that, like Internet Exploder, it's the installed default, and while I may know enough to change it, lots of folks won't. That's exactly the same behavior as M$, and one of the reasons I persist in saying Evil Empire.

The problem with IE is that Microsoft does not always adhere to web standards. IE is a "de-facto standard" (used by 90 percent of the online population) and interoperability is threatened.

But there has to be an "installed default", Konqueror is KDE's web browser (and file-manager), I think Epiphany is the default web browser for GNOME. Is it wrong? And does it restrict choice? No. Same for Safari.

A lot of Mac folks are using MSN Messenger to chat instead of the default app, savvy people will install Adium, play their DivX with VLC, MPlayer, browse with Firefox, etc.

>See these specific issues in the Mark Pilgrim link as examples

I think this is way overblown, unless you're a hardcore Free Software advocate like Mark Pilgrim. It makes sense for him, not me. As a Mac user I'm not worried about my data. I'm not buying at the iTunes store, I'm a happy eMusic customer. For the rest it's OK.

>Apple's hardware is ONLY manufactured by Apple...

True. Apple is the only company selling computers with OS X and the choice is restricted to what is available at Apple at the moment. Apple can't substitute for the entire PC industry, they can't offer every single form-factor, etc.

What can you do if you want a subnotebook instead of the 13" MacBook, or a Conroe tower instead of the dual Woodcrest Mac Pro, or a 3U server instead of the 1U Xserve, or a shuttle with some kind of expansion capability instead of the Mac mini? If you really want to run OS X you will begrudgingly buy the Mac, because you have no other choice.

I think Apple has its place and the Mac can be a good choice for some people. But it's not the be all end all of personal computers.

>its prices aren't market-influenced

I think the prices are market-influenced. If the Mac is way out of reach, nobody will buy one, even Apple's supporters. Apple won't cover every price point, though. There is a $1,000 Mac consumer notebook, a $2,000 high-end notebook, but nothing at $599. If you need a basic notebook, you won't be able to justify the price difference and you will shop elsewhere.